More lessons in crisis management and communication
The following is an analysis of the WHO’s communications of the 2020 novel Coronavirus.
The First Mistake: “It’s not our problem”
“Make no mistake,” he added. “This is an emergency in China, but it has not yet become a global health emergency. It may yet become one.”
Institutional trust is at an all time low, saying “this is a China only problem” when it’s already been confirmed in other countries further reduces your credibility, and makes the WHO look like clowns.
Further an international organization framing an exponentially growing virus as a “nation-state” problem undercuts the point of an international institution, and fuels nationalist sentiment of international bureaucratic incompetence.
Many within bureaucratic organizations will ask what are the “policies and procedures” of “reasonable measures” or what is the “proportional response” in this situation? Let us, however, take a look at the potential results before we make a decision.
What happens when a group like the WHO uses unreasonable force, when the situation is uncalled for after review?
Far less if anything compared to minimal force when the situation required far more. With situations that have grave moral consequences the authorities in charge are given far more latitudes post-crisis. Especially for acute problems, with global implications. The exception is if the measures are continually ongoing eg: Post 9/11 TSA/war involvement.
Under active responses mean when/if the situation goes critical (which it did) the organization now has to eat their own words. Which loses confidence in the organization, messaging, and leadership. Which further undermines their actions and decisions not only during the ongoing crisis, but in future crises as well.
If this does occur the remedy is decisive action and communication of the remedy. Apologies are hollow people want action and results.
This when boiled down becomes a game of Pascal’s Wager with a Twist. Being overactive has minimal if not zero consequences. This will feed into the second lesson.
Lesson: In Crisis better to be overactive than underactive.
The Second mistake: failure to control the narrative and address memetic contagion
Memetic Contagion:
In a crisis scenario memetic contagions (mass panics etc.) are just deadly as the disease. Crowds are irrational and especially during crises. The “wisdom of crowds” when they smell fear, is they’ll become individualists.
Crowds can easily cause grow violent or out of control. Looting, and mass buying and exodus are common actions.
The WHO has done nothing to quell public fears of the virus. There has been no press conference, on actions the public can take. If the WHO had been more active during the early days of the crisis this would have quelled some public fears because the WHO had taken action.
The majority of infographics about the virus are citizen made. The ones made by the WHO look like a 90’s highschooler with Microsoft word and clipart.
This does not inspire confidence. A “legitimate” organization is using clipart is appalling. It is more horrifying that the actions suggested do not match up with the public sentiment of actions. There will be a run on grocery stores for masks, gloves, water, and food. The WHO not addressing, or recognizing this may put more citizens in danger by not giving the proper information to those looking for safety.
Further the numbers the WHO give/gave are far different than the numbers the public heard on the news, from social media, or other sources. Sometimes in many orders of magnitude. Silence does not help quell fear, it advances it. Every time a video from China is posted showing the effects of the virus or someone talking about the virus silence from the WHO makes them look like the inattentive parental figure you know.
Silence does not help quell fear, it advances it.
This disconnect further decouples the public from trusting the institutions, which will result in them taking action and advice from themselves rather than the “experts”.
Lesson: Take control of the narrative whenever possible, and never let go.
Conclusion
The WHO’s constant blunders in messaging, and crisis management will cost many lives. New and bolder strategies not only need to be implemented, but also communicated. Here are some key takeaways:
Clear and constant communication through multiple channels.
Do not be silent, for others will not.
Address not only the current problems, but future or imagined ones as well.
Illegitimate, actions, lack of action or perceived lack of action damage reputation, and legitimacy.
Everyone can learn from the WHO’s blunders, that is if we survive theirs.