Risky Communication
How to Effectively Communicate on Safety Issues
Have you noticed how major corporations and politicians are criticised more for what they say these days, than what they actually did?
Any imprudent word or unwise reaction after an incident from leaders is leaped upon by the affected workers, union, media, and special interest groups, who never forget or forgive the hapless person who thought blaming others for the problem would protect them from criticism.
Exon initially blamed it’s (allegedly drunk) ship captain when the Exxon Valdez disastrous oil spill occurred in Alaska in 1989, but the locals responded butthis is your oil on our beach destroying our environment and livelihood, you cannot avoid your responsibility.
This article summarises some of the common mistakes people make when arguments arise about risk, and provides tips from one of the world-renowned leaders of risk communication – Peter Sandman, Ph.D.
Who is holding the knife?
Sandman famously uses the concept of “who is holding the knife” which considers the feeling of a person holding a loaf of bread while someone else cuts the slices, and asking how close can you get while safely cutting the bread?
Invariably, the person with the knife believes they can cut closer to the other person’s hand without accident, and the person holding the loaf becomes increasingly nervous and uncomfortable.
Managers and the businesses are holding the knife, and the workers are at the sharp edge, holding the loaf
For example, if something goes wrong the workers suffer the immediate physical consequences. Corporate and local communications need to reflect this reality.
Some other concepts to remember include, workers and community are often cynical about company safety assurances.
Traditionally safety professionals have been used to the formula for risk as:
But Peter Sandman corrects this to:
Sandman emphasises the aspect often left out when a risk controversy arises, this being outrage. He also itemises the various components of outrage including in part:
Whether the risk is taken on voluntarily or with little or no choice,
Natural or industrial,
Dreaded chemicals or nuclear source or family risks, and
Whether you are considered trustworthy or not.
People’s response to risks doesn’t arise from technical judgements, so providing detailed technical information to support your case doesn’t help much.
The natural state for most people in relation to risk is apathy, and it is hard to get most people upset. However, some risks evoke greater concern and some people are hypersensitive to specific risks eg toxic chemicals, asbestos and nuclear radiation.
Secrets, un-acknowledged risks and coerced risks create suspicion and outrage.
Citizens are passionate but expect safety experts to be compassionate.
Reduction in risk is often more cost-effective and convenient for many workplace safety risks, but elimination speaks to outrage. Therefore, risk communication deployed as a substitute for risk reduction is doomed to fail.
Reducing Outrage
The job of risk communication when the hazard is assessed as low but the outrage is disproportionately high is not to persuade your audience their reaction is wrong, but to reduce their outrage.
Of course, we still have a moral and legal obligation to explain why certain hazards are low-risk, and continue to reduce risks as far reasonably practicable.
Note: Article based on the work and publications by Peter Sandman Ph.D., professor of environmental journalism at Rutgers University.
If interested in learning more about this interesting topic and mastering the tips and techniques to manage outrage and how to deliver effective risk communications, book your place in our half-day workshop on Risk Communication on Thursday 26th November
Early bird discount fee is $3,750 + GST normal workshop fee $4,650 + GST.
