3.2.2 Characteristics and Limitations of Spokespersons in Communicating Information about Risks
Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.
— Newspaper ad attributed to Sir Ernest Shackleton to solicit participants for his fateful 1914 Imperial Trans‐Antarctic Expedition.
A central question addressed by risk communication researchers is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information while others are not. The Antarctic expedition leader Sir Ernest Shackleton (quoted above) achieved much of his success and admiration through the high levels of trust he engendered in his expedition crews. He communicated, through both words and actions, essential trust‐building characteristics: listening, caring, empathy, conviction, honesty, and optimism. Shackleton’s risk management and communication skills were vividly demonstrated during the 1914 Imperial Trans‐Antarctic expedition, saving the lives of all 28 crew members after the ship was crushed by ice. Although Shackleton was personally concerned about the outcome, he concealed his anxiety to ensure that it did not spread. He communicated his conviction that the crew would survive and get home. It was a message he repeated frequently.
Unfortunately, many technical, engineering, and scientific professionals, together with government and industry authorities – among the most visible, prominent, and important sources of risk information – lack effective risk communication skills. Leaders, risk managers, and technical experts are frequently insensitive to, or unaware of, the information needs of interested and affected parties.
Numerous examples can be cited. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, at a news briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, famously said:
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 12 February 2002).
In another example, outrage swept through Canada in 2003 when it was revealed the beloved Tim Hortons fast‐food restaurant chain had been freezing its doughnuts rather than serving them fresh, undermining the company’s “Always fresh” marketing motto. A media spokeswoman for the company unwisely said: “Until I confirm or deny anything, it simply doesn’t exist.” Unfortunate statements such as this communicate a lack of caring and undermine trust, key building blocks of effective risk communication.
Despite the vulnerability of a nation’s food supply to terrorism as indicated by the thousands of foodborne illnesses that occur accidentally, Tommy Thompson, in his farewell address as US Secretary of Health and Human Services, shockingly said:
I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do. (Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, 3 Dec. 2004).
Unfortunately, risk communication spokespeople often make similar errors. Many of these errors occur because many risk communications are unplanned. One major result of the lack of communication skills among spokespeople is the loss of trust and credibility in experts and risk management authorities.
Many risk managers and spokespersons lack the skills needed to effectively communicate information about risk. A partial listing of these skills is shown in Tables 3.2–3.4. As one example, many use complex and difficult technical language and jargon in communicating information about risks to the media and the public. Technical language or jargon is not only difficult to comprehend but creates perceptions that the person is unresponsive, uncaring, or evasive.
Table 3.2 Risk communication skills, traps, and pitfalls.
| Category | Dos | Don'ts |
|---|---|---|
| Jargon, technical terms, and acronyms | Avoid using technical jargon. Define technical terms and acronyms; limit their use and explain those you do or must use. | Do not use undefined jargon, technical terms, or acronyms. |
| Absolutes | Avoid absolutes – never say never in high‐stress situation. | Do not offer guarantees; do not use the terms such as “every” or “all.” |
| Truthfulness | Tell the truth; be open and transparent. | Do not lie or present half‐truths. |
| Negatives | Use positive or neutral terms. | Do not use terms with strong negative associations; do not use highly charged analogies; do not repeat the words used in an allegation. |
| Defensiveness | Respond to issues, not personalities; stay calm and collected. | Do not let your temper interfere with your ability to communicate. |
| Clarity | Confirm understandings. | Do not assume understandings. |
| Visuals | Use graphics, examples, metaphors, and analogies to aid understanding. | Do not talk in abstractions. |
| Attack | Focus attacks on issues. | Do not make peripheral attacks against persons or organizations. |
| Promises | Promise only what you are certain will occur or what you can deliver. | Do not make promises you cannot back up or keep. |
| Speculation | Stick to the facts: state what you know, what you don’t know, and what is being done to answer the question. | Do not discuss extreme worst‐case scenarios. |
| Humor | The benefits of humor are seldom worth the risks in high‐stress situations. | Do not use, as the audience may be offended, may think you are not taking the issue seriously, or may think you don’t care, don’t have empathy, or don’t have compassion. |
| Blame | Accept your fair share of responsibility; focus on how problems can be solved and how challenges can be overcome. | Do not point your finger at others as a means of dodging responsibility. |
| Risk comparisons |
Use comparisons to gain perspective; cite trustworthy sources of data; compare the same risk at two different times or circumstances; compare with a
|