Rhonda BarnatRecently a reporter said, “This isn’t on deadline. This is now.”

That one statement crystallizes the pressures on the state of crisis management today.

If you’re a company in the midst of a crisis, the questions descend like an avalanche — “What happened? Why do you think it happened? What is going to happen next? Whose fault is it? How are you going to fix it? How much are you going to pay? Is anyone losing their job? Are you fighting back?”

For a company executive, these moments can be overwhelming. Not only is there an unexpected major issue, there’s also immediate demand for answers.

This demand has always been there.

But now it’s worse. With the onset of social media — with smart phone videos, with Twitter, with the entire range of digital information channels — the demand for answers “not on deadline, but now” has never been greater.

O'Dwyer's Jan. '15 PR Buyer's Guide/Crisis Communications MagazineMagazineThis article is featured in O'Dwyer's Jan. '15 PR Buyer's Guide & Crisis Communications Magazine

The typical public relations advice can run something like this: “We have to get something out there. Social media is already running wild — we have to get ahead of it.”

It gets worse.

Company colleagues, friends and family all weigh in. Advisers gather. Inevitably, everyone is reading what is being posted on social media. Other voices are heard, perhaps including board members.

“It says the company wasn’t available to comment.”

“There is a posting that wonders if this has anything to do with the crisis five years ago.”

“There is a YouTube video up already.”

“We have to do something.”

“We have to respond on Twitter.”

“We have to communicate.”

“This is getting away from us.”

That sounds reasonable. No company wants “others to tell its story.”

And no one wants to believe that others are taking shots while a company is silent, with silence suggesting guilt of some kind.

This sense of emergency — both from the company as well as from the outside world — can lead to a second disaster.

If a company speaks too soon, there is a real risk of misinformation. In our years of experience advising companies and non-profit institutions of all kinds in crisis, it is inevitable that what you think are the facts now will be different tomorrow or in a week.

However, in a crisis, there is zero tolerance for error. What you say first will set the tone for the entire issue. One mistake, even an honest error, and a company will find itself quickly labeled as untrustworthy.

We believe there is another way.

Just because — and even in spite of — a call and a clamor for answers, companies and their communications advisers must take a longer view.

Next time there is a crisis, do not listen to the demands for answers. Instead, gather the relevant people together, face-to-face if possible, and think. Just think.

Allow for silence in the middle of the crisis. We saw this in action recently when a top-flight adviser was speaking with a company. “What should we do? What should we do?” Board members were speaking over one another.

The stakes were very high. There was no answer. Only silence.

Within seconds, the company leadership demanded, “Are you there? Are you there?” There was a pause. “I am thinking,” said the adviser.

And with that, there was a new respect, a new and sober reflection on the best course of action. The silence may have delayed the group by minutes, but the final result was ironclad; it was truthful and it was meaningful.

We must, as practitioners, learn to respect the silence that comes with real thought in times of crisis. Rather than rush to feed the endless appetite that is Twitter and its like, we say simply wait. Think.

There will always be a few minutes to think, to consider, and to concentrate on what is most important. First becomes not what we say, but what we do.

And once we have determined the best actions to take — thinking first of those most affected and working outward from there — then and only then is it time to think about how best to communicate and what tool to use.

We are both blessed and cursed with technology.

Technology allows instantaneous communication. However, it is not necessarily a substitute for meaningful communication.

Wherever possible, we recommend that companies and institutions rely on the “verbal channel.” And we’ve experimented. Tell an important fact to a small group at a college campus and within minutes the word has spread to another side of the campus. In seconds, someone will use social media to rebroadcast an official statement.

To us, this means that whatever a company says must be thoughtful, true, deliberate, and in keeping with the culture and mission of the company.

It takes time. Time for quiet deliberation. Time for truth telling. Time for the development of messages that are authentic and move an agenda forward toward an end goal.

Company leadership need not be fearful of silence. Communications advisers need not fear a period of silence while the team determines the best course of action.

This is not to say that there are untold days and hours to be silent. But there is certainly a period of time, a treasured period of time when the crisis hits, for silence, even for reflection, and to think.

We are living in an age of “this is not on deadline, this is now.” We must impose upon that reality the best possible crisis management — including meaningful silence.

* * *

Rhonda Barnat is Managing Director at The Abernathy MacGregor Group.