Clarity In A Crisis

Communicating in a crisis requires the following 3 things for people not only to trust you, but so that you can actually lead with clarity during crisis.

1. Facts: Neither people, corporations nor governments are assuaged by vague notions that "something went wrong."

Specific details, wherever known, pertinent and not detrimental, provide concrete description and direction.

(Note: Detrimental factors may include those covered by privacy and confidentiality, commercially or personally; that reveal sensitive information such as security vulnerabilities that could be further exploited; or that foster other copycat behaviour.)

Your facts should be incorporated into communications and announcements. They convey the sense that these are concrete occurrences which you are on top of.

2. Affirming Operating Principles: Relevant operating principles should be stated and supported with examples of how you are applying them.

This provides clear evidence that you have a sure hand at work, rather than flailing for "something that works" or just saying "Your security is our priority".

An example would be an operating principle that off-site resources are all applied to crisis response, e.g. "We have sent three technical teams from various sites to our headquarters to immediately stop data breaches, determine the extent and report the general scope of the breach within 48 hours, while resuming regular service within the day".

3. Commitment to Accountability:

"This is on us. We will do better." No one cares about your prepared, anodyne statement.

People need accountability - that you are prepared to work with others on the details and that, following that, there will be real responsibility taken.

One example of accountability may be the statement that "We are immediately requesting that the (related statutory authority) assist us in this crisis". The action says a lot more than vague affirmations.

Another commitment may be that people who acted inappropriately or unethically will be identified and removed from the positions concerned. People want to see real accountability and consequences.

OpenAi and the Australian Government Response

A recent example of poor crisis response and communication is OpenAI’s unauthorised access to Australia’s Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal—and the three-month delay before notifying the government via a generic email address.

The government then took a further 2 weeks to advise of the breach via the PM's press conference held in New York.

That delay raises serious questions about disclosure, escalation and accountability. How can people trust the crisis response when they are kept unaware of the incident for months? Especially in this age of hyper-investment and requests for hyper-trust in "AI" systems?

Despite the government's actions in sending a department to investigate, how will OpenAI be held accountable for allowing its software to invade Medicare systems? As the situation now stands, there is not a hint that either accountability or responsibility will be pursued. Framing their own actions through their software as "rogue" is merely a way to distance themselves from their responsibilities.

There is more to acting and leading in a crisis, but communicating facts, acting in accord with principles, practising accountability: without these 3 principles being put to work, you're just making noise that no one should trust.

Peter J. McLean

Strategy, Leadership, Behaviour