Navigating Communications Challenges: The Power of “Compared to What?”
As humans, we are innately programmed solution-based thinkers. Uncertainty – which often lingers once a problem arises – makes us uncomfortable, and finding answers provides a clear path forward and relief from that discomfort.
So, when the chips are down and plans go awry, our instincts tell us it’s time to pick up and rechart the path entirely. For instance, if a new policy faces unexpected backlash or hurdles, we may panic and try to address the criticism immediately and directly. Or, rather than tackle the challenge head-on, we may assume the policy is fundamentally flawed and divert our energy elsewhere.
Sometimes, our instincts are right, and a complete 180-degree pivot is the only way forward. But just as often, a sudden attack on the situation or change of plans only makes things worse.
Crises have a way of inflating themselves, appearing worse than they actually are. While in the thick of one, it can be difficult to see a way out. The actions taken in these moments are crucial—one hasty decision amid a heated pressure point can change a company or client’s future forever, so it’s best not to make one decision based on limited information or fear.
When things don’t go according to plan, strategists must carefully weigh every move they could make and consider how each decision could impact the organization’s current status quo. To guide this process for clients facing crises, Miller Ink CEO Nathan Miller uses a simple yet profound question: “Compared to what?”
Nathan explains how a simple analogy he learned in a public policy lecture has become embedded into his communications strategy, helping clients determine when it is–and more importantly when it isn’t–worth putting it all on the line. He says:
“I took a great course in public policy in college, and I vividly remember on the very first slide of our first lecture, the professor just posed a simple question: ‘Compared to what?’ That’s been a great metaphor in so much of our work at Miller Ink. You can always make a situation better, and you can always make a situation worse. You have to think, if we do X, Y and Z, how will it affect our current status quo? So often when people are in a crisis or when something is not working, they say, ‘Well we just have to do something,’ or ‘We just have to change things up.’ And that might be the case, but just as often it’s the case that it might actually make the situation worse.”
For example, releasing a public statement to address an internal controversy might inadvertently amplify the issue, drawing the attention of audiences that weren’t aware of those wrongdoings in the first place. In an attempt to right a wrong with a quick fix, more people are talking, reading, writing, and posting about it than before. In a world where bad press spreads like wildfire, we should avoid giving in to knee-jerk reactions.
As a communications strategist, knowing when to pump the brakes and reflect is critical. Ask yourself: If you make major decisions and they backfire, will your organization be worse off than if you had done nothing? Are you better off maintaining your organization’s current status? Is the crisis severe enough to justify the risk of action?
We often equate improvement with action and action with change. But action does not always mean making immediate or impulsive changes. Sometimes, a wiser decision is to not make any change but instead take the time to evaluate possible consequences.
There is never a more important time to pause and evaluate your options and their potential pitfalls than when something doesn’t go to plan. As a communications strategist, you must always find the patience to consider when the obvious decision may not be the right one.
So, next time you’re faced with a challenge or crisis, pause and ask yourself, “Compared to what?”
