Canton on Emergency Management

Social media is not a substitute fax machine

For the past few years I've been blogging and writing on why government agencies are having problems adapting to social media. In a recent article on his blog, homeland security expert Chris Battle sums up the issues very eloquently. In speaking to his law enforcement colleagues, Battle reminds them in very direct language that social media is about a dialog and that government agencies can no longer control the message.

If we continue to look at social media as simply a means of getting our message out, we fail both to engage the public and to make full use of this new medium. As Battle points out, social media is not merely a news aggregator or a substitute fax machine. It's not simply about sending routine information. It's about a willingness to hold a conversation. It's about understanding that each form of social media requires different composition - you can't just tweet your press release. It's about understanding that each platform may connect with a different audience.

So stop thinking about social media as press tools. Think instead about building a constituency. If you want credibility during crisis, you need to have credibility before the crisis.

Inadequate preparedness has its price

"I should have prepared an adequate disaster manual and raised awareness among teachers about the level of danger."

These words were part of the apology issued by Kashiba Teruyuki, principal of a Japanese elementary school that suffered the deaths of 74 students and 10 teachers during last year's tsunami. Only 34 students survived. The apology came after the release of a study about the actions of teachers and officials in the tsunami. The study was intended to anwer questions posed by the families of the deceased about the adequacy of preparedness. Although Kashiba was not at the school during the tsunami, he accepted responsibility for inadequately preparing his school for the tsunami.

The lesson here is that while those in charge of organizations may consider preparedness a distraction from daily business and a low priority, your view will change after a disaster when your staff or clients seek answers to why your response was inadequate. How will you respond when the civil grand jury or court asks why you failed to prepare? More importantly, how will you feel knowing that your inaction led to unnecessary deaths?

Kashiba Teruyuki has an answer for you: "I know I am beyond forgiveness, no matter how much I apologize." 

Emergency Management Solutions January 2012 - Meeting Agendas: Four key questions for more effective meetings

Emergency Management Solutions January 2012

Meeting Agendas: Four key questions for more effective meetings

Download Agenda Jan 2012

Does anyone read the Constitution anymore?

A friend and I were discussing how the focus in schools on 18th and 19th century US history results in students knowing little or nothing about US history after World War II. Couple this with the lack of civics courses that provide a basic understanding of how government works and its no surprise that the average US citizen has no grasp of US foreign and domestic policy or the events that brought us to where we are today. More importantly, they have no idea how important the Constitution is to our civil liberties.

What's more amazing to me is that this phenomenon is not limited to the younger generations or to the average person. Based on our policies since September 11th, knowledge of the Constitution does not seem to be a requirement to serve in government. Witness the inability of the front runners in the 2008 Presidential election to answer a simple question on the powers of the office for which they were competing or the erosion of civil rights fostered by the "war on terrorism" over the past ten years. Read some of the comments of the current candidates on how they would limit the power of the Supreme Court, despite the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

Here's an even better example of the problem: three lawmakers in New Hampshire have introduced a bill requiring that all bills addressing individual rights or liberties include a direct quote from the Magna Carta. After introducing the bill, one legislator admitted he needed to "bone up" on the provisions of the document. Another said that there were issues that were not conceived of at the time the Magna Carta was written and it was a bit out of date. The third said it was intended to honor the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215 and that there would be no penalties for not following the law - it's just a "recommendation that would be nice to follow."

So of the three that introduced the bill, one hasn't really read it, one thinks it's irrelevant and the third is willing to enact a law that he doesn't expect anyone to follow. Talk about unclear on the concept!

Of course the Magna Carta is much shorter than the US Constitution and some of the copies have very striking illumination (i.e. pretty pictures). Maybe someone will actually read it.

Increase your credibility: Just say, "no"

When was the last time you said, "no" to a client or superior? It's not an easy thing to do but sometimes it's absolutely essential. We're often a victim of our own success and our clients and superiors think we can do it all. Sometimes we even encourage that attitude because it boosts our own ego. But in doing so, we're sowing the seeds of failure.

No matter how good you are, you can't do it all well all the time. Pretending otherwise raises the expectations of your client or superior that you do anything. When you fail, you can totally destroy your credibility.

I once found myself at a community meeting that was extremely upset with a local utility provider because of a recent release of hazardous materials. This particular  community formed the core of the my mayor's constituency and was politically very important. They demanded that the City provide certain services that I knew we could not do. I took a deep breath and told them, "no."

You could have heard a pin drop. No one had ever dared to refuse their demands.

Then I told them why we couldn't do it. They presented a second alternative which I also felt could not be done. I could feel the tension in the room and started mentally revising my resume. Fortunately, the third option they offered was something that I could do. I committed to it and gave them a date when it would be done. Believe me, I made sure it was done.

What was amazing to me was what happened afterwards. My credibility in the community soared and I was viewed as one of the few in government that would give them honest answers. I had no trouble engaging them in future projects.

While there's no doubt that there was a bit of luck on my side, the lesson from that meeting has served me in good stead over the years. I believe that managing expectations by being honest about your capacity is the only ethical thing to do. This is the reason I sometimes turn down projects - I am realistic about what I can and can't do.

So give it a try - it's scary the first few times but, in the long run, you actually increase your credibility.

Gas pipeline safety: rewarding the wrong thing?

As a consultant, one of the things I tend to look for when evaluating a client's program is something psychologist call "cognitive dissonance". Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding two conflicting cognitions (ideas, values, beliefs, etc.). In simpler terms, it's the internal conflict you feel when you're told to do one thing but are rewarded for doing something else.

Case in point is a recent article on the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's incentive program for gas surveys. These gas surveys are used to determine the overall safety of the gas pipeline system and to direct repair crews to potential problem areas. One would think that the company would have an incentive program that encourages finding and correcting problems. Instead, PG&E's program rewarded supervisors and crews who found fewer leaks and kept repair costs down. The conflict between being told that your job is to find leaks but rewarding you for not finding leaks creates cognitive dissonance.

The results are predictable - people will tend to perform the tasks for which they are rewarded and avoid those for which they are penalized. When internal whistle-blowers finally got the attention of senior management in April 2008, PG&E began an inspection of its gas system that by December 2008 had found more leaks than had been reported between 2004 and 2008.

Although the incentive program was discontinued in 2008, it takes a long time for an organization to change it's culture. During an emergency survey following the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010, PG&E found 38 major gas leaks, 4 serious enough to require reports to the Federal government. Survey crews had only reported six major leaks the previous year.

This is an extreme case of cognitive dissonance, to be sure, but it's not really all that unusual - I find examples of it all the time in government and business. So take the time to look at what results you're trying to achieve with your programs and compare them with the behaviours you're actually rewarding. You may find out why you're not achieving the results you want.

Crisis Communications: Read Before You Rant!

Last week I received an angry email from a colleague who objected to one of my recent articles and demanded to be removed from my email list. In honoring his request, I noted that he had never even read the article to which he was objecting. He had made an assumption about the content and then acted on it.

At about the same time, I was preparing a blog on the legislation authorizing the military detention of civilians that was included in the recent defense appropriations bill. You may have recalled that the legislation purported to allow the detention without trial of US citizens suspected of terrorism. Fortunately, I took the time to read the legislation and found that it specifically prohibited the detention of US citizens (see Section 1032, b-1). Now, I have my concerns about the legislation and its overall intent but my point is that every article I have read on the internet and on my social media sites includes the phrase, "including US citizens". Someone made an assumption, passed it off as fact, and others have continued to spread it without verification. I almost did it myself.

So the lesson here is clear: take the time to check your facts before passing on inflammatory information. You can't assume that everything you read on the internet is true (duh!). If you're the victim of such disinformation, you need to act quickly to counter it with solid facts. Once the horse has left the barn, it's difficult to catch!

Emergency Management Solutions December 2011 - Is the Occupy Movement Really Unique?

Emergency Management Solutions Dec 2011

Is the Occupy Movement Really Unique?

Download Is Occupy Unique Dec 2011