Are we the baddies?

The evidence given by former Director of Communications Mark Davies in the Post Office inquiry is a shocking reminder of how many get the role of PR in issue and crisis management wrong. ?

Davies was responsible for an aggressive push back as the crisis began to be exposed in the 2010s, promoting narratives that were categorically untrue and carrying out misleading briefings, including aggressively attempting to prevent (and succeeding in delaying) the broadcast of a Panorama investigation which included verified whistleblower testimony.?

He admitted to the inquiry that his messaging “looked ludicrous in hindsight” and claims to have acted in good faith at all times, but he did accept that he was too assertive externally and should have been more assertive internally. ?

It is the job of PR people to be the devil’s advocate. ?

I have always made it clear to the companies I have worked for that only half my role is representing them to the outside world: the other - equally important - half is to represent the external world back to them, and that half is every bit as vital to their future success and the core purpose of my job of protecting and enhancing their reputation.?

It can make PR a challenging role when you are constantly feeling like you are on the opposite side to those you are speaking to throughout a crisis: mornings spent challenging your internal stakeholders to try to get to the bottom of what has happened and why, pushing for more to be done to fix it, and for approval of messaging that is meaningful and genuine; afternoons spent challenging journalists and external stakeholders with corrections and positioning (although never Kelly Ann Conway-style “alternative facts”); evenings spent going back to stakeholders to play back the responses, preparing them for the tone of media coverage and pushing for more movement on the areas which are not holding; rinse and repeat. ?

But the PR person is probably the only and certainly the best person to play this role. Chief execs and leadership usually have too much of a short-term bottom line bias and often have their objectivity skewed by having their personal reputations and possibly even their jobs on the line; lawyers focus on defining the boundaries of what is legally permissible rather than morally, and will always err heavily on the side of caution when it comes to anything that even hints at accepting any kind of responsibility. PR is the only role which can balance the company’s interests and the external viewpoint and ask the vital questions.?

Asking the right questions

My starting point for any issue or crisis I have worked on has been, “Have the critics got a point? If so, let’s fix it, if not, let’s explain why.”?In other words, as counsel to the inquiry Julian Blake so perfectly put it to Mark Davies yesterday: “have you ever asked, might we be the baddies?”?

It’s crudely simplistic, but actually I can’t think of a single situation where these questions wouldn’t help clarify the position and set the PR approach on the right course for the situation: are you a victim or a perpetrator? Is this going to be about correcting the record or seeking forgiveness? ?

I always quickly follow this up with another PR golden rule: “Don’t spin the spinners”! ?

You need all the facts, including everything that is uncertain or unknown or contradictory to other sources. From there, you can piece together what the narrative is, including what is certain and what is not. It is not for the legal team, CEO or anybody else to decide what you do and don’t need to know or, worse, to attempt to shape the narrative themselves. ?

Mark Davies was a very senior and highly experienced Director of Communications. It is inconceivable that he did not have the seniority or ability to challenge the leadership of the Post Office. He’s also an ex-journalist so it is preposterous that he blindly believed everything he was being told. ?

He was a willing, conscious participant in the crisis. ?

Ethics in PR

Having started in PR right at the beginning of the millennium, I have traversed the shift from 20th century PR to 21st century PR. Possibly the biggest difference I’ve seen and the challenge I personally frequently faced when starting as a 21st century PR person working with a lot of 20th century leaders in 20th century cultures, is the modern elevation of ethics in PR. Of course there are still dark arts at play in some areas, but the old school, jobs for boys, symbiotic, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, don’t ask questions, approach is much, much less common in PR and media than it was. This feels reflective of a broader shift in organisational culture and the relationship between the public and business world – it’s much harder for organisations to get away with doing as they please now and there is, rightly a greater expectation of transparency and doing right, policed with significant scrutiny from all angles, including customers. ?

I can’t help but think that one of the reasons the Post Office crisis was able to escalate to the extent that it did is due to an element of this lingering old school mentality. ?

Hippocratic oaths

Mark Davies claims to have never lied, but not asking the right or enough questions is a roundabout way of ensuring that you don’t have to technically lie because you haven’t ascertained the facts. It was lying in all but name.?

There's something of an accepted Hippocratic oath for those of us of the modern generation in PR: do not lie. ?

By not asking the right questions, not challenging the answers you are given, not asking for facts and evidence before accepting responses as gospel, there is an omission that is akin to a doctor ignoring a suffering patient: your actions might not be causing the harm, but your inaction is perpetuating it.?

It's a decision you make as a PR person as to what your personal purpose and ethics framework is. I have worked for many companies going through intense, usually justified and self-inflicted, scrutiny. But I have always been clear: I am here to help make you better, not to facilitate you continuing to be bad. ?

I will not blindly follow you into battle.?

I will defend you to the hilt where you have been misrepresented; I will ensure facts are understood where there have been mistakes, unintended consequences or unforeseen contributing factors; I will help you draw a line and move on from previous wrongdoing when the time is right; I will look around corners to prepare for the worst, hope for the best and minimise the impact of bumps in the road; I will help you address issues, fix problems and get you praise where it is warranted.?

But it does no good for anyone, including the longer-term health and success of the company, if I aid and abet you getting away with intentional wrong-doing.?

Whatever your employment contract, each of us has a greater duty to wider society and trying to make the world a better place, and facilitating corporate malice is not it. ?