COP15: Fiddling while Rome burns?

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference has had the high drama that you don’t usually associate with complex scientific policy making.  My personal take on climate change is this: would you urinate in your only water source? Irrespective of whether it will raise the temperature of the water or turn it green, you know at some point it’s not going to do you much good.  So how can anyone defend putting crap into our only source of air?  Carbon dioxide is not the only thing being thrown into the atmosphere by human activity.

So why is it proving so difficult to do get something agreed?  I think there are three things which could make things start to happen:

Campaign groups and demonstrators: please go home. You have an incredible amount of drive, enthusiasm and knowledge that would be better applied to persuading your communities to back the policies that governments will have to put into action.  Having run-ins with the Danish police is not the best use of your talents and doesn’t really do great things for the argument.  You have more credibility and ability to communicate at grassroots level (where the real action is needed) than any politician or technocrat.  Politicians want the power that their constituents give them.  Their motivations may differ: they want to serve their communities, improve the lot of their constituents, and/or want the privilege that power brings, but it all amounts to the same thing.  If politicians think their constituents awill ccept the changes needed, then the politicians are more likely to adopt imaginative policy changes.

Don’t let the heads of government and their environment ministers out until it’s sorted.  This sort of happened yesterday, but by accident.  If you’ve ever been in a meeting of more than 10 people you know this is the only way to get any agreement.  So no hangers-on, just the boss and the advisor – all the briefing from the advisors’ advisors must have already happened.  This is now a political issue, not a scientific one. 

Tackle the climate change arguments as others see it: it is more than the facts. In technocratic societies there is a lot of talk about ‘evidence base’ which assumes that you put the ‘facts’ (if there ever is such a thing – a whole other discussion), and, hey presto, people will agree with the argument.  But this assumes that people are totally rational (and educated/interested enough to care).  Lots of ‘evidence’ suggests they are not.  Climate change has to some become a left-wing, anti-capitalist, intellectual hobby-horse (to some a conspiracy) removed from ‘the real world’.  And you can see why: it tends to be socialist types that have taken in on board (either because they believe in the idea of community, looking after the planet, or that it is capitalism’s come-uppance), and those who talk about it tend to use the jargon, ‘proving’ that they are credible but further alienating those who are not part of that elite group.  Just because someone’s perspective is different to yours does not make it invalid.  As in all communication you have to look at the issue from the other person’s point of view and address their arguments against.  I found myself agreeing with the ‘blond bombshell’ Boris, Lord Mayor of London (and hell must have frozen over – another sort of climate change) who reckoned that policy-makers needed to appeal to people’s self-interest. He has a point.  It’s how you make something so big and nebulous (like climate change) relevant to someone who has more immediate things to deal with, like putting food on the table.  The other thing he said was ‘cheer up’ and we can always do that.

Parity Democracy – to quota or not to quota?

What else to do on a sunny Saturday in Dublin but spend it at the Mansion House with 100+ other women from all over Ireland to talk politics ie life, the universe and everything? 

The Labour Women’s National Conference was an inspiring day! Some even used the f-word (yes – feminism).

The theme of the conference was Gender Parity, and the afternoon session was addressed by Senator Ivana Bacik, Joan Burton TD, and Susan McKay, of the NCWI - all incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable women.  We were also treated to the thoughts of the  also ‘formidable’ Kathleen Lynch TD, for whom I also have a lot of time. 

In an attempt to get women into the political process, the Labour Party has instigated a quota system for candidate selection.  A few years ago I would have been up in arms about this, believing that women should be selected on their own merits.  Admittedly by Saturday morning, for a variety of reasons,  I was open to persuasion.  By the end of Saturday afternoon, I was fully convinced of its merits!

Ivana summed up the obstacles to women’s participation as culture, childcare, cash, and confidence.   Personally, I think the core issue is confidence – everything else can be overcome if you believe in what you are doing.   I have been lucky to work with some inspiring women over the years.  One in particular has a habit of getting those positions that have been called ‘glass cliffs’ .  Unfortunately for the men around her, she has a habit of jumping off with gusto and flying!  And the thing that she has in common with all the other women that have held high flying corporate positions, run successful businesses, been senior positions on Boards and vociferously campaigned to give a voice to others in their community or internationally, is that they believe in themselves and their subject: an utter, passionate belief.  No-one can put them down, but they are self-aware enough to know their weaknesses (opportunities to grow) and do something about it.  Men, in the main (and I know I am guilty of generalising here in the way that men generalise about women) are taught to have self-confidence and belief, and are thought to be ‘ballsy’.  Women who have such belief are ‘bolshy’ or, even worse, ‘passionate’ (for which read ‘hysterical’).  But, sticks and stones, and all that….

I think the mentoring system that the Labour Party in Ireland have established, and are to develop is inspired, and one way to ensure that those who are selected at least have the level playing field of confidence.  If a quota system ensures that more, and a more diverse range of. women get the opportunity to put this confidence into practice they will be inspirational beacons for those that come after them.

But the last comment has to go to Sinead Ni Chulachain, outgoing Chair of Labour Women, who, to paraphrase, summed it up: people have been selected on a number of criteria, not all to do with their politics; have you ever seen a man turn down something because he thought a woman was better qualified?

Addition (20/10/09): Over back in Blighty, the issue of increasing diversity in Westminster was discussed today at a Speakers’ Conference with all three leaders of the main parties saying they are going to work to increase the diversity of selection and participation (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=4868).

Women shouldn’t have an ideology. Discuss.

An increasingly typical Sunday morning scene in a part of Dublin:  Me, in varying states of dress (either about to enter the shower or just getting out), shouting at the television.  Not pretty. Not pretty at all.

This Sunday the object of my wrath was a woman (I didn’t catch her name but I think it was Kathy Gynell) from the Centre for Policy Studies on Sky News (an interlude between Andrew Marr and the Politics Show). Chewing over the papers,  she said something along the lines of Samantha Cameron and Lorraine Kelly were examples of ‘nice young women without an ideology’, like this was a good thing.  Now, I fondly imagine that both Ms Cameron and Ms Kelly would have something to say about that. I may be wrong.

Now what this representative of the CPS was saying is that women should not have a ‘body of ideas that reflects the beliefs of a nation. political system, class, etc’: ie they shouldn’t think.

Think about the implications of such a statement for a minute.

Now, the CPS is a conservative and Conservative think tank.  And it has women ‘experts’. I would imagine that these women probably have what could be called a right-wing, conservative ideology.  On having quick scoot round their website, it would appear that all these women have benefited from a decent education; one is the Director.  They have just published a pamphlet on ‘What women want’, which perpetuates the myth that if we all went back to a ‘traditional’ family, this would ‘mend’ ‘Broken Britain’ (ie one that is not full of people like them).  The truth is that this golden age was only for the middle-classes; those with real money had nannies and sent children to boarding schools, so mothers spent little time either in the kitchen or with their children.  This is central to Conservative family policy. 

Of course what she probably meant was that they were not feminists, which is just one ‘ideology’.  But thanks to women who had such ideologies, and were willing to be outcasts of polite society at best and imprisoned and killed at worst, these women (and all those women who seek to take part in society this way) are able to have an education, to vote, to advise and take part in politics and political parties, to be taken seriously enough to put forward their ideas in the workplace and in the media, while they are waiting for their (in their eyes) ’self-actualisation’ through attracting a husband that is willing and able to provide for them and their children. 

To me this was shorthand for saying that women should not think for themselves or seek to exchange or air their views: in short to be seen and not heard.  Will the women of the CPS go back to their kitchens and stop thinking? To me, the thought of not thinking, not having an opinion, would be like not breathing. I think and hope most other women are the same.

British Peter Pan Politics

From the kind of jeering that happens in the Commons, to the Damien McBride incident; from the name calling that passes as soundbites, to notches on the bed post and the cheap questioning/comments we have seen in political interviews of late: British politics is full of boys who’ve never grown up.

This is hugely detrimental to political communication and engagement.  People do not want to see either ‘Tory Toffs’ or ‘Champagne Socialists’ using issues that have a direct impact on the electorate to point score or build their own careers/profiles/coffers.  The class system is alive and well and I’m not sure that it will ever go away, but we have to get beyond it.  But while those who represent us (and maybe we need to have a conversation about what members of parliament are for) or those who have access on our behalf (the media, bloggers) act like a load of ‘Billy Bunters’. One could argue with so little real, knowledgeable engagement with the political arena, do we have a democracy?

So who is in a position to facilitate this miraculous change? The politicians themselves could take responsibility for this – yes they are blogging, tweeting, and all sorts.  But the truism that ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ still stands.  The electorate still has to bother engaging with the tools – the politicians need to make people want to know what they’re up to (reading, eating, opening?).

So who else can help out?  I’m a cynical old bear, but I have detected the main political journalists jockying for the prime position of host of the forthcoming election debates. Hopefully this will have the effect of some decent questioning (not in Andrew Marr vein of late), concentrating on policy and the real issues.

Britain also has a huge amount of really good political departments in universities.  Could they work with their local communities and civil society to look at the issues, what the options are and their historical engagement?

These are just some options…of course I would also say that increasing the number of women, etc.  But one step at a time?

Communicating Swine Flu – expertise and irrationality

It has been really interesting to compare and contrast the coverage of swine flu in Ireland and Britain, and it emphasises that humans are, well, irrational.  In Ireland it has more or less dropped of the news agenda – we’re back to the recession and the banks here.  My own pet theory for this is that RTE need to get as much mileage as possible out of the downward pointing arrow graphic they’ve been using, well, for everything, it seems…it has become a logo for the recession.  So anything that includes things ‘going up’ will be ignored.

In Britain however it is still on every news bulletin – and the misuse of statistics has been appalling as has the assumption that humans are rational.  From the assertion that ‘the number of cases have doubled in the last week’ (the cases are of ‘those reporting flu-like symptoms’ – which are bound to increase when people are worried they have something related to a pandemic; also you would expect exponential growth of confirmed cases if it was defined as a pandemic); to government website info crashing (too many people who were ‘just curious’ according to Andy Burnham MP, and Secretary of State for Health).

I have just finished ‘Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting policy enquiry’ by Frank Fischer (OUP, 2009) and he makes two points (amongst others) that are relevant to communicating about Swine Flu: There is a difference in the way that ’experts’ and the rest of the population think about the world and secondly, there is a difference between experts’ and everyone else’s access to information.  Experts (and this refers to both policy makers and their advisors) are schooled in a particular way of thinking about their subject – cool, calm and collected – ‘evidence based’ and, they would argue, rational.  Consequently they believe that everyone else thinks in the same way, and if they don’t they just need to be ‘educated’.  Unfortunately for them (and the comms professionals that work with them) humans, generally, aren’t.  These experts also have a specialist education and access (from a comprehension point of view) to context that a non-specialist does not who is catching the latest press release via the BBC while doing what they do. 

I think the kernal of the British Government’s message about keeping sneezes to yourself and wash your hands (properly) is sensible – ie there is a risk, but you can do something about (therefore putting control back in the hands of the populace).  I personally hope that it will lead to a restoration of etiquette and the realisation that coughing over everyone in the vicinity is just not done. But the constant release of statistics (and yes I know we’re into the silly season as far is news is concerned) is counterproductive, obscuring the health promotion message.  News stories then generated because of a lack of resilience of resources (such as the website) will also damage trust in the core advice with consequent knock-on effects.  People will be curious if they are constantly being told they should be interested in something…humans are irrational like that.

Political reform vs. electorate reform

With Summer recess here, reform is still on the agenda both sides of the Irish Sea.  All the talk and proposed action has been very Westminster/Leinster House centred.  It is said the a people get the government they deserve.  So is there any point in making things ‘more transparent’ or electoral reform, if the electorate are not really interested?

There are two reasons why the electorate need to be ‘engaged’ with politics and democracy - there are plenty of people who understand their political systems sufficiently, and still don’t give a toss. Firstly, can you call it democracy when the biggest political decision, the election of a parliament, is left to around 40% of the voting public?  In the end it is the electorate to whom parliamentarians are responsible, the electorate are the ultimate watchdog.  Secondly, there has been complaints of a ‘political class’ in both Ireland and Britain – both possess family dynasties and are drawn from particular societal groupings.  If there was more political engagement, there would be more and a greater diversity of people knocking on the door of their parliaments – now – not in the future when schoolchildren who benefit from ‘citizenship’ classes come to it.

So what to do?  Both the Oireachtas and the the House of Parliament have outreach/education departments.  I would argue that working in conjunction with local political science departments of universities and colleges they could offer themselves to community groups and local NGOs for sessions on how the political system relates to that particular group as a starter.  This would tick a lot of boxes for universities in their ‘widening participation’ programmes, as well as providing some local resource to the outreach officers based in the smoke.  There are then all the quangos who could really use local knowledge in a process of joint decision making – rather than the ‘consultations’ that aren’t you see so much of the time. 

But of course this takes time, money and thought – and I suspect that with the summer over, a looming national election in the UK and the Lisbon referendum in Ireland, such fanciful ideas will be forgotten about until the next parliamentarian slip-up.

The environment, protest and political engagement

News that the Police in Britain have been trying to recruit informers within the environmental movement followed on the arrest of campaigners before they’d left their homes.  Such action could have a serious effect governments drive to engage the population with climate change, because without those who are willing to go all out for a cause, and bring issues to the public’s attention, there is no ‘movement’, however you want to understand it.  Without this movement in understanding or willingness to make changes in the way we live, governments will not make the policies needed to tackle climate change or even meet their own (inadequate?) targets for fear of upsetting their voters and losing power.

 

At one of the end of the engagement spectrum there are people who are willing to risk life and limb to protect the environment.  Recent high profile examples in the UK are the Plane Stupid campaigners and those protesting at Kingsnorth Power Station.  Given alleged police behaviour at the G20 protests, where climate change campaigners figured it appears those risks are not just from falling off high buildings.  In Mayo, Ireland, others are taking similar risks protesting against Shell’s Corrib Gas Field.

 

And yet, when I take my (separated) rubbish down to the communal dumpsters, I always find that there is recyclables in the non-recyclable bins and visa versa.  More perversely, if the first dumpster is full, people will dump their bags in front of it, rather than walk a further five feet to put it in the next, or the next.  I live in quite a genteel area too.  But I guess it gives the feral cats something to do.

 

Of course most people fall somewhere between these two extremes.  Research in the UK would suggest that although people feel they ‘do their bit’ they want the government ‘to do more’. But more people need to be further towards the campaigning end of the spectrum before they would accept the market-based initiatives (eco-taxes) and regulation needed to protect our environment and tackle climate change.   No government would introduce policies that may be seen as a threat to civil liberty for the sake of the environment, say, limiting families to one car, as they have tried to do in the name of anti-terror legislation.  Climate change is not seen (or promoted) as a ‘clear and present danger’  amongst many other reasons.  And then, there is, of course, the argument concerning regulation of business, which has extremely strong lobbies in both Ireland and the UK.  In the current economic climate, it is likely that any further regulation not concerned with banking would be put on the back burner.

 

The point about public protest is that it heightens awareness of issues and the personal action that can be taken in a way governments can’t/don’t/won’t.  If more moderate people who are moved to get involved and do something feel threatened by the State machinery, there will not be the greater movement to personal action and acceptance of government environmental policy-making that they need to meet their promises. 

 

In short, such police action shoots the government, and the environment, in the foot.

Crisis Communications: Five lessons from Irish Social Partnership in a recession

Communications in a crisis matters.  Why? Because how you communicate in a crisis has a significant impact on your reputation, your ‘licence to operate’, whether you are a business, non-governmental organisation, or a government.  All organisations are given such a licence, by their customers, suppliers, shareholders, the communities they serve. 

 

For instance: You’re a bank and rumours start that you are about to go under; you don’t act on these rumours (they are not true); your shareholders and customers lose confidence and withdraw their money (their ‘licence’ to you); you fold.

 

It’s all about confidence and the magnitude of the effect that a crisis will have on those around you.  Where there is potential for loss of life, say in an environmental disaster, or food scares, this magnifies the need for swift and effective communication.

 

In a recession, the Government is the guardian of confidence.  It is the figurehead of a country; its ambassador on the world stage.  The success of an economy depends on trust and confidence. 

 

So how can the way the Irish Government has dealt with the recession illustrate some lessons in crisis communication and retaining confidence in an economy?

 

Firstly, a bit of background.  Ireland is in recession after years of relative prosperity.  Ireland is a small economy, and is very open to the winds of global change.  But arguably, no more so that its nearest neighbour, Britain.  What’s different about Ireland is Social Partnership – and an unusual form of it.  This form of Social Partnership, which involves the representative bodies of business/employers, the unions, the farmers and community/voluntary organisations (25 bodies in all), to formulate economic policy, has been credited as the main driver of Ireland’s economic success, the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years.  The process of agreement is complex, and is orchestrated by a department of An Taoiseach’s (the Prime Minister) office.  For more information see the website of the Taoiseach Office. 

 

At the moment, the Government is thrashing out a plan with the Social Partners to deal with Ireland’s recession…what can we learn?

 

1        Have a plan and be seen to have one

The Irish Government (along with most others) don’t appear to have seen this coming: There have been accusations that they have squandered the good years and the Social Partners and the Dail (Parliament) have complained that they have not had enough time to consider the proposed framework.  Consistent Irish Social Partnership was born in the recession of the 1980s; this is not totally new territory.

 

The point here is that when the proverbial hits the fan, there is no time to consider all the possible solutions. 

 

So plan for it beforehand.  ‘Horizon scanning’ and risk management should be part of any communications function’s remit (part of being an organisational activist) in conjunction with all the other parts of an organisation.  And it needs to be an ongoing process, with agreed mitigation measures.

 

Keep the plan updated, and rehearse it regularly.

 

Had the Government had an agreed framework, with an agreed ‘crisis mode’ for the discussions, perhaps we would know, by now, how they mean to deal with the recession.  This is key for maintaining/restoring confidence; people (businesses, organisations, citizens) could make decisions based on a known policy environment.

 

2        Get consensus

Consensus means that everyone is singing from the same proverbial ‘hymn sheet’ and that everyone understands their role in the plan.  No-one goes off on a tangent; no-one doubles up or undermines others’ work.  Again this all takes time, and reinforces the need to think about things before they happen.

 

This is where the Social Partnership model, especially in Ireland, really has one up on the Britain’s pluralist policy-making.  Three of the Social Partner ‘Pillars’ have been consistently working together since 1987 – that’s 22 years of institutional working together.  The C&V Pillar joined relatively recently, but the fact that relationships (institutional and personal) have been forged in calmer times means that people can get down to business, and a consensual basis, more quickly – no ‘getting to know you’ time is needed. 

 

3        Tell it all and tell it quickly

I’ve referred to timing already.  Don’t skimp on fact checking, but make sure you get information out to who needs to know as quickly as possible – even if it’s bad news.  The truth will always out – so better you get it out than someone else.

 

There has been comment in the media in Ireland that the Government kept information back and ‘drip fed’ so that things didn’t seem as bad they were.  Whether or not this is the case it reinforces the fact that ‘perception is reality’ and that the Government is in a Catch 22 – can it admit that it didn’t know how bad it was going to get?  I think it could – in the end we are where we are and at least if they acknowledge that was the case it shows that they are getting a grasp on the situation.  If, of course, it did know, Ministers should have started dealing with it then…you see my point.

 

4        Be consistent – it’s a global economy and media

Things do change as a situation plays out – but there will always be a driver to which you can attribute such a change.  In your plan you will have agreed processes for communicating such changes and the results of decisions.  Keeping in mind the time issue stick to these processes to maintain consensus and keep everyone on board.  Consistency of approach in changing circumstances.

 

And bear in mind that you cannot say one thing to one person and something completely different to another unless there is a good reason for it.  Watchers of BBC news have seen Ireland go from a ‘thriving economy’ to having an economy that is going to contract by up to 10% over two years…in less than a week.  The assertion of Ireland’s ‘thriving economy’ came from An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, on BBC Newsnight in the midst of crisis talks with the Social Partners and the news of more job losses.  Perhaps he meant to say that Ireland had a resilient economy, or something along those lines.  Again this reinforces two points – the need for planning for what you will say and the need to tell it like it is.  No spin…ever.

 

5        Really learn the lessons for next time…there will be a next time

What happens when it’s all over?  Well, don’t wait until then if it is an ongoing ‘crisis’ as this recession promises to be, continually review what you’ve done, the operational environment, what’s working and what’s not.  Look for the next crunch points and prepare.

 

Really learn the lessons and implement them for all your crisis plans as appropriate.  Experience is the best teacher.

 

We’ve seen recessions before, perhaps not quite like this one, but the Irish Government, it could have been argued, was in a relatively positive position: it (and the country) had previous experience of deep recession followed by the exceptional ‘Celtic Tiger’ years that could have been used to plan for the future, regular meetings with representatives of all those that could influence and have a stake in the situation, a ‘horizon scanning’ mechanism (the Economic and Social Research Institute) which feeds directly into Social Partnership Process, and an understanding of the role of globalisation, of which it has benefited significantly.  It now needs to act quickly and decisively, with the backing of the Social Partners, to gain the confidence of Ireland and the rest of the world.  If the Government doesn’t it could find that it’s ‘licence to operate’ is withdrawn.

 

For some reading on the importance of issue management and crisis communications, ‘Strategic Reputational Risk Management’ by Judy Larkin is an accessible read.  For more of a ‘how to’ guide, ‘Risk Issues and Crisis Management’ by Judy Larkin and Michael Regester, published by the CIPR is a great handbook.

Do we need public relations people to be organisational activists?

In these days of change and taking responsibility for one’s own actions for the greater good I was thinking about professional communications as activism.

 

I first came across the idea of PR practitioners being organisational activists at the beginning of my PR studies.  The particular paper, by Derina Holtzhausen, is called. ‘Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as organisational activist’ (Journal of Public Relations Research, 14 (1), pp57-84).  The whole idea really appealed to me.

 

It helped to change my whole outlook on public relations.

 

Basically Professor Holtzhausen suggests that as PR practitioners work across the internal and external boundaries of an organisation, they are best placed within any organisation to make coherent decisions.  Her study also challenged the received wisdom that PR practitioners needed to be part of the dominant coalition to have any influence. She suggests that practitioners who realised their unique knowledge of an organisation and its environment gave them power to act influence.  She noted that many of the practitioners she interviewed had a tendency towards activism, but had never articulated it as such, for example in resisting the dominant power structures. 

 

So how does this compare with your experience of being a PR professional? 

 

In my experience this actually defines the difference between in-house and consultancy work.  If a client is paying big bucks they are usually expecting you to generate masses of media coverage with amazing stunts, even if it is not the most appropriate approach.  As an in-house person, you run the risk of having to do several management briefings and papers for sign-off, in blood, to change the font on the internal newsletter.  A bit extreme, but you get my point…

 

Holtzhausen suggests that PR practitioners take time to understand the power relationships within an organisation.  After all, communication is all about culture, whether its with internal or external publics.  Furthermore she suggests that forming ‘strategic alliances’ within organisations has helped the activists she interviewed.  You don’t need to be in politics to be a politician.

 

It is five years since I read that article.  I have spent most of my career in PR to date as an in-house practitioner.  I have used this approach many times, to the benefit of the organisations I worked with and my own professional practice. 

 

When times are hard, organisations tend to cut back on communications, and there is evidence that this is happening already.  As communicators we are in a unique position, and have a responsibility to be organisational activists.