The Lecture that Happily was NOT!

A conversation with Aggie graduate students.

This past week I gave my annual lecture to the graduating MPH and PhD candidates courtesy of Dr. Gastel.  As always it was a great exchange and conversation. The topic was crisis and risk communications in Public Health and Healthcare situations. Alas, it remains a timely topic. We talked about the strata of communications that anyone in leadership will need to anticipate. I spoke to a case study of a health event that I had to manage and how challenging it was. The principles, we all agreed, apply regardless of the crisis.

We talked about the informational component for the public, the political briefing for governmental or corporate leadership, and finally what you may or may not say to the press. As anyone who has had to manage a situation of magnitude knows, in all three cases it is a matter of understanding the equity of each group. We discussed the “esoteric trap” of trying to give comprehensive information to a concerned public. This is something I’ve seen too many times. In a crisis, no one wants a lengthy didactic presentation. They want to know what to do to protect themselves or avoid a hazard or get well. It has to be accurate, honest, and as simple as possible. That’s it.  The political/corporate question is generally more directed to what is “our” vulnerability and what is best course of action? I shared that in my experience, it is always good to give at least three options, with the consequences of each spelled out. Then let the whomever is the boss, be it a governor, CEO or department head make the decision. Mostly the equity in that situation is brand protection, whether candidacy and governance or stock prices. The press conversation was interesting. We talked about it with an honest consideration that any disaster, crisis, or state of alarm, will require three things. The first is the basic details of the event including a morbid compulsion for numbers whether casualties or those affected. The second piece is the desire for emotional rendering. That always bothers me as it generally is a kind of invasive thing for victims of catastrophes. Finally, there is always a need to identify and punish whoever is to blame.

We talked about how there is no point in getting upset about those kinds of often offensive elements, because in a way, they are necessary. They are very human. If you think about it, seeing another person’s suffering is a way to vicariously experience the event without also having the consequence. It triggers, in the best cases, empathy, but it is still intrusive. The blame element is also a very necessary human element. As a species, the idea of uncertainty of not “solving” the cause of something bad is terrifying. We can’t accept that something could have just happened. Because if we do, it means it could happen again and that we are not in control. We cannot go back to “normal.” So, we identify a scapegoat or demonize an entity or circumstance and state that what we are doing will assure that it “never happens again.”  It doesn’t matter if that guarantee is almost impossible. It is necessary. Understanding that makes the management of an event, or at least surviving it, possible.

The students were great. They were bright and engaged and they got it. The conversation was rich and happily not the lecture, that I think we all were dreading. We all also agreed that understanding this concept was a whole lot easier than doing it. I left the dialogue with a sense of optimism. The future is in some very good hands.