The MJ’s series on avoiding organisational failure continues with a look at the common ‘get out of jail free’ communication approach when things go wrong, and offers a 10-point action plan to restore trust
Set-piece communication strategies following council failures could be helping to undermine trust in all authorities.
Typically this kind of communication strategy comprises three distinct parts. First, there is a ‘heartfelt’ apology. This usually comes from an officer (so as not to be electorally damaging) and is designed to convey contrition.
Those directly affected may be offered the same apology in person. But where there are no clear victims (other than perhaps all local people whose bills will rocket because of financial mismanagement) then this part is often skipped. One particular form of words even avoids culpability: ‘We are deeply sorry that you feel we have let you down.’
Part two is a proclamation that ‘lessons have been learned’. The statement is almost always made without any evidence of changes in practice, policy or personnel. It would be possible to publish the details on the council’s website but this never appears to happen.
And unless an external assessor is involved, there may be no public record of any changes that have come about, making it all but impossible for other authorities to learn from these errors (although there is scant evidence that any ever do even where such reports are widely shared).
Finally, there is usually a nod to mitigating factors. These come in many forms: bad apples (individuals who are to blame), financial pressures, the economy. You name it. It’s rarely incompetence as this would require the production of an individual whose career has been terminated.
There may well be ‘fall guys’ (for internal purposes) but their contribution to learning may be locked up by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) alongside a second NDA preventing any commentary on the initial NDA.
Timing is important in this communication strategy. When there is a clamour for comment then the council will ‘feed the beast’ in an effort to kill the story.
The more contrite the apology (sad faces help) the more convinced journalists will be and then they will move on. This haste to avoid scrutiny and challenge means that no real open and honest analysis is undertaken. Wait until you have something legitimate and verifiable to say before you say anything.
Importantly, the three part get-out-of-jail-free strategy avoids one key question: how on earth was this allowed to happen? The why is largely ignored. It’s only when external commissioners get involved that we get anywhere near the question. It matters.
It’s the why that points to people who push governance to its limits, who abuse systems, who bully those who would tell truth to power, to bend the rules, who obscure and obfuscate and who want to continue to do what they want to do no matter the consequences.
This use of communication teams is insidious. They will help to construct the evidence-free lessons have been learned message – pushing it out through lines to take, news releases, articles and media statements. Communication leaders brave enough to challenge these statements – carefully and privately – will be politely steered back into the box from whence they came.
But trust in public services is undermined by the presence of patently untrue or non-verifiable claims. Statements created to sound ‘truthy’ or key messages that blatantly ignore reality (public services are improving year on year, for example) will be contributing to the collapse of trust in politics in general.
The MORI Veracity Index says that whereas more than half of us will trust a stranger in the street to tell us the truth, fewer than one in five will trust a politician to do the same.
Here’s an outline 10-point action plan to help restore trust in all councils.
- Ensure that all statements made are independently verifiable. Publish evidence for all claims on the council website, with appropriate links to relevant reports and external organisations.
- Refrain from selective readings of external reports. Downplaying negative or damning comments is part of the problem. Own failures.
- Invite challenge and where shortcomings in public statements are identified, correct errors quickly and publicly.
- Publish damning reports early, widely and in full. Use the council website’s front page to challenge the council’s performance alongside a clear, time-bound and verifiable action plan to address issues.
- Explain why things have failed without misdirecting or inappropriately mitigating.
- Review reports from other failing authorities and publish action plans showing how your organisation has improved practice as a result.
- Do not use NDAs to lock up dissent. Do not vilify or demonise those who challenge poor performance.
- Do not label those who have legitimate grounds for challenge as trouble-makers or use nicknames to denigrate them.
- Publicly celebrate and thank whistleblowers and show how their concerns have led to improvements in practice.
- Put protecting and promoting the reputation of all councils above your own reputation (or that of key individuals).
How to avoid failure: The MJ Insider’s Guide will be published later this year, available to subscribers of The MJ. To subscribe now, go to https://subscribe.themj.co.uk/
