What’s Left Out of Statements Issued In a Crisis Moment: Lost Opportunities Abound
Often, when institutions issue press releases or statements following a crisis, we should read them with a focus not just on what WAS said but what was OMITTED. And, we need to assess whether there were LOST opportunities — chances to write things that would have made a difference. We also need to look not just at the words used but the ORDER of the words and paragraphs. Ordering of words/paragraphs messages even if placements were unintentional.
Stated another way, institutional statements at times of crisis can suffer from the sins of omission and commission. Lying has that same dichotomy: lies can be what is said and/or what is not said and how what was said was said and where.
An Exemplar
Recently, the Danvers MA School Board, together with its Superintendent, issued a joint statement about the horrific events surrounding its boys high school hockey team. There were two streams of issues in the Danvers’ context: one involves the offensive, discriminatory (and I’d argue illegal) behavior of male students on the hockey team (and the absence of adult oversight or speaking out) and the other involves how the situation was handled by persons in positions of authority at the time and going forward, there being a gap in transparency and communication with respect to a myriad of constituencies.
It is in this context that the Board/Superintendent issued a joint statement. It appears in full in this article linked below, and it is this statement that I want to use to provide examples of omissions and gaps in opportunity in statements released in times of crisis.
My observations go along with the need to think about leadership differently in the midst of crises, the subject of blogs I have written and courses that I have taught — all grounded in theory and in my own experiences as a leader in good times and bad times.
My hope is that by dissecting this joint statement, we can see what can be accomplished if one puts on a “crisis leadership” lens.
The Statement
Let me begin with some positives. The statement, on the whole, was really well done. It was issued timely after an Executive Session of the Board. It reflected a sincere change in heart and a recognition of the role of two new Board members who, it was noted added perspective. It indicated, without using the word “apology,” that the school system had failed in terms of how it handled the situation involving the boys hockey team. The statement recognized the trauma of the events (both streams), and the price of the absence of trust and transparency. It indicated the need to take concrete steps (actions not just words) moving forward and it indicated that the system would be reaching out to get outside help in their efforts — a step that acknowledges the need for perspective.
Bravo/Brava.
So, what troubles me in the statement? And lest you think I am being picky or too critical, let me note that there is ONE opportunity to issue at statement like this following a contentious closed door meeting. One has a chance to optimize the messaging and the re-establishment of the right foot forward. And, when communication is at the root of previous failure, the first communication after a meeting on the failures and needed steps forward is important. And, that’s an understatement.
Here’s my list of “could haves,” and I hope other school systems and leaders take this opportunity to appreciate what more could and in my view should have been said/done. Call it an exercise in learning about crisis communication, whether in schools or in other contexts like businesses and healthcare and politics.
Point One: Ordering
I am troubled by the order of the paragraphs in the statement. What we put upfront matters. “Ordering” messages loudly. In this statement, the Board/Superintendent put their “defensive” position in Paragraph 2. It is there that they state that they could not release too much information given the privacy rights of students (graduates?) and employees (former?).
Now, as a preliminary point, I do differ as to where the system cut the line in terms of disclosure. I think more could and should and still might be disclosed without violating the law. I think there are ways to disclose “private” information without naming names or identifying specific individuals through other descriptions. For example, one could share that X number of students (and graduates) were disciplined; one could share the X number of employees were disciplined. Those numbers would be relevant to others seeing the depth of the action taken.
But, here’s the ordering point: why have the justification of what they did (whether it is satisfying or not) come as the first major point? Might the items have been reordered? There are 6 paragraphs. Paragraph 3 or 4 could have been ahead of Paragraph 2. And, the message would have read and felt different — without changing a single word. Lead with the positive next steps. Lead with the recognition of wrong.
Here’s an exercise: take the statement of the Board/Superintendent and number the paragraphs and then cut and put each paragraph into a separate strip. Then, try different orders of the paragraphs and read and consider the messaging in each context. This is an exercise well worth doing with any important message one is sending out in a crisis situation. It is a variant of the idea of looking at things from differing perspectives. In short: become multi-perspectival.
Point Two: Affected Students
In Paragraph 3, the statement singles out the one student who reported the offending behavior and lauds his courage in stepping forward. Excellent.
But, surely this was not the only student affected by the horrific acts of other members of the boys hockey team. And, then ask why the others did not and have not come forward (yet).
So, here’s the missed opportunity. The Statement could have added three or four sentences that read something to this effect:
“We recognize that other students were affected by the past acts of members of the boys hockey team and regret that these student-athletes did not feel there was a sufficiently hospitable environment within their school to report and share what happened to them. We would like to encourage any and all affected students to come forward now or in the future to share their experiences in confidence, knowing that we will listen and they will be heard and their voices valued. For students seeking to report the incidents they experienced, please email: ________________________. (This email needs to be confidential and read only by those identified as the best parties to listen and respond.)
And, since it is highly probable that when there is smoke there is fire, why NOT allow students to come forward, whether the offending behavior was related to the hockey team, other athletic teams or within the school system more generally? Now is the moment to recognize the depth of the problem and the number of affected students and the silencing.
The statement could have been a starter location to let affected students know there is a place for them to report and to be listened to and for their concerns to be taken seriously. It is the latter point that has enormous value. Those report abuse and harassment and indignities need to be taken seriously. Their voices need to be respected. They need safe space. This statement could have messaged just those points.
Lost opportunity.
Point Three: Typos
I get that typos exist. I make them all the time and for the most part it is because I do not see them. They are glossed over as I read what I think is on the page not what is actually there. I am sure there are typos in this post.
The typo ubiquity is why folks always need a proofreader for key documents — typos and grammatical errors have no place in crisis statements. They detract from the message, and they show a lack of attentiveness to the seriousness of what is being written. Sure, not all typos will be caught but in a 6 paragraph document, one would hope most of them would be caught.
In Paragraph 5, there are two typos that were not caught, and one is troubling and the other has another message embedded in it — both unintentional I am sure. Both are in this one sentence that I quote verbatim here:
“We have all learned that as a school district, we must redouble our efforts to do all that we can from an educational standpoint to establish a culture where our students and our staff know that acts of racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, bullying or conduct which in any way defines people other than by their character, simply has no place in our schools.”
See the word “acts” in bold and italics? It is a plural word. That is correct; there were many acts of horrific conduct in Danvers, not just one act. But, the accompanying verb in the sentence is in the singular — the word “has” is in bold and italics. The word should be “have” — — corrected, it would read: “….simply have no place in our schools.”
Here’s why this matters: the number of acts is a matter of concern.This was not a one — off event — which would have been horrific enough. What occurred (according to reports) were a series of acts, all horrific. Recognizing that the word “acts” is plural is key.
The word “antisemitism” or “Anti-Semitism” or anti-Semitism appears in the paragraph but in none of the acceptable forms. I wanted to share the brief linked observations of how the word should be used/spelled. As used in the Danvers statement, it is in none of the acceptable forms or at least not in a sensitive form, recognized and acknowledged by many. It is the dash that is bothersome and for me, the absence of a capital “S,” although the latter is debatable.
Point Four: Expansion Expansion Expansion
Also in Paragraph 5, note the last word of the quoted sentence: schools. True, homophobia, racism, sexism, ethnic discrimination, antisemitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in our schools. But, they also have no place in our communities. And, the word “communities” is missing. The singular word “community” is missing too although I favor the plural form of the word.
In Paragraph 6, there is a recognition of community but community interests matter and our schools are part of a larger community. And, the communities surrounding Danvers are having issues with horrific offensive behavior too.
So, why not add the words “and communities” after the word “schools.” It would message more broadly. It would reflect the reality of our world: we have too much discrimination and harassment and mistreatment in many settings of which the schools are but one.
Conclusion: Hope
The Danvers School Board/Superintendent statement gives me hope. Their words have power and their words are precursors to deeds as indicated. But, I want to use their statement (which I will use in classes) as an example of what more could have been done and what could have been done differently.
In the world of crisis management, details and words and messages all matter. They matter a lot. There’s a lesson to be learned here for those institutions which find themselves in situations requiring crisis statement.
We can always do better. That’s the message. And that’s a message to all and for all and in and for many situations.
