Secretive Communication Makes Things Worse
Steve Adubato
What WAS the FAA thinking when they decided to fly a presidential jumbo jet and an F-16 fighter into lower Manhattan, close to Ground Zero, last week while insisting that New Yorkers and New Jerseyans not be told anything about it? Beyond how offensive and insensitive it was to approve such a so-called "flyover," the FAA, together with key local government officials who knew about it, made some big time communication mistakes. Consider the FAA's logic in insisting that the general public be kept in the dark; "Due to the possibility of public concern regarding Department of Defense aircraft flying at low levels, coordination with federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies, emergency-operations centers and aviation units has been accomplished." Huh?
Beyond the jargon in this confidential e-mail sent by the FAA to selected New York City officials (not including those who really needed to know), think about the message being sent--communicating openly about the flyover and sharing this information with all who might be effected had the potential of causing fear and panic. But in reality, such a secretive communication approach actually produced more panic and fear than anyone could have imagined. When people in our area, particularly in lower Manhattan office buildings or on the Jersey side of the Hudson, saw these planes flying in the area, how could anyone not think that the immediate image that would come to mind would be September 11? How clueless could the chief communicators at the FAA and those local government officials be who opted not to tell the mayor of New York and the governor of New Jersey? What's so ironic here is by NOT sharing information, the FAA and everyone involved in this fiasco are going to be embarrassed on a much greater level than they would have been if their communication were simply up front. President Obama was not even aware of the flyover, and after the fact, acknowledged that it was a serious mistake and committed that "it will not happen again." The FAA flyover is a classic example of what happens when leaders decide that not disclosing potentially embarrassing information is the smartest and safest communication strategy. In fact, here is what should have happened. Before deciding on the flyover, a smart communication and PR strategy would simply be to ask this question; "What would the likely reaction be on the part of those in the area if they were to see two planes flying so close to Ground Zero?" It's called empathy, which is a basic communication skill. The answer should have been to abort the plan. However, if such a flyover HAD to take place (which apparently it didn't) then the leaders involved should have told not only selected officials, but also the most important stakeholders, including engaging the media so that people could have been warned as to what they were likely to see. If at that point the response was overwhelmingly negative and it became clear that such a public display would cause nothing good, then a decision should have been made as to whether to move forward or not.
The communication lesson here is not about flyovers or Ground Zero. Instead, it is about understanding that when it comes to "bad news," in the vast majority of cases it is better to fully disclose and share this information proactively, even if you are afraid of the outcome. However, when you choose such a secretive communication approach, it only guarantees that the fallout will be much worse than it would have been otherwise, since you are immediately put on the defensive. This is as true in government as it is in business or in any arena where public reaction is critical to maintaining your reputation in the marketplace.