Belief System Analysis · Updated on .
The end of the crisis must be defined by the evolution of the situation and commitments, not just by the drop in media mentions. It organizes the transition from exceptional response to sustainable monitoring: corrective measures, remaining questions, responsibilities and information of the public concerned.
The organization may be tempted to quickly return to its usual messages. This desire is understandable after a period of strong mobilization. It becomes fragile if those affected are still waiting for answers. The timetable for reputation is not necessarily the timetable for media coverage.
Distinguish between stabilization and resolution
A situation can be stabilized while its causes remain to be understood or its consequences continue. Public vocabulary must reflect this difference. Announcing a return to normal without specifying the scope may contradict the experience of certain interlocutors.
In the cyber domain, ANSSI integrates feedback and subsequent communication into its crisis preparation. More broadly, the communications department must ask which elements justify the closure of a system and which subjects will remain followed by the usual functions. [1]
Transform promises into followed-up commitments
Each announcement made during the crisis must be recorded: investigation, correction, support, publication of results or revision of a process. The register specifies the person responsible, the deadline, the progress and the available proof. It makes it possible to identify commitments made orally then forgotten in an emergency.
Tracking does not require publishing all internal information. It requires preparing an understandable response to legitimate questions. When the schedule changes, explain why and give the next step. A revised and justified deadline is better than silence which suggests that the commitment has disappeared.
Adapt the information to the people concerned
A general press release does not always meet the needs of customers, employees or partners directly affected. The system must provide contact points and information useful to their situation. Recognition of impact cannot be reduced to a formula for empathy.
The OECD Guide to Responsible Conduct provides a benchmark for considering the impacts of activities. In crisis exit communication, this leads to examining who is still waiting for action and how its result can be observed. The most important audience is not necessarily the one that expresses itself the most loudly. [1]
Scenario: service restored
A fictitious company restarts a service after an interruption. The technical incident is over, but some customers have taken steps which remain unanswered. Only announcing recovery can make people feel like their situation is being ignored.
A more precise way out of the crisis distinguishes the availability of the service and the treatment of the consequences. It indicates the requests still examined, the contact channels and the next assessment. Internal teams have the same level of information. The word becomes coherent because it describes the different temporalities instead of merging them into a closing statement.
Using feedback as a decision-making tool
The feedback examines the signals received, decisions, validations and coordination difficulties. It must be able to identify a process defect without turning into a search for the culprit. The resulting actions need a responsible person and verification of implementation.
Communication can then report on communicable changes, with proportionate evidence. Restoring trust cannot be decreed in a final message. It is built when the public can observe that the commitments are followed up and that the organization has learned something from the situation.