"Increasing Crisis Sensitivity"

A poorly managed crisis can cost a good reputation. To prevent this from happening, experienced and competent crisis managers such as Bettina Zimmermann are needed. She supports managers in making the right decisions and ensuring transparent communication. A crisis management competence centre she founded now offers practical seminars in the field of "Comprehensive crisis management for companies".

Ms Zimmermann, I claim that crisis management equals crisis communication. To what extent is this equation true?
Bettina Zimmermann: This equation is not right. Both parts are needed to manage a crisis. What is needed is management that makes the decisions and communication that communicates the decisions to the various stakeholders, e.g. employees, media, authorities, etc., in an appropriate manner. Both components are in a ratio of about 50 to 50. It is a big fallacy that a crisis can be managed with communication alone.

Time and again, the media report on accidents before they have been officially communicated. Relatives learn about the deaths of their loved ones from the media. What's going wrong?
The media coverage itself! The normal chain of command goes like this: There is an accident with serious injuries, the police are on the scene, deaths must be determined by a public health officer, then the identification takes place. It is the task of the police or the hospital to deliver the news of a death - in any case by an official. But now the problem arises that more and more often reader reporters take pictures, pass them on to the media and these then publish the news. This of course generates headlines and clicks. Unfortunately, it no longer works everywhere that the media hold back a message out of respect and wait for the official communication. Private communication via social media is also very fast today.

To what extent can this uncontrolled communication via social media be integrated into crisis communication at all?
It depends somewhat on the size of an organisation. A large organisation usually has its own communications department. This department also has the task of monitoring the social media. If necessary, it must refute blatant misinformation. The problem here, however, is that it requires an enormous amount of resources. If these are missing, the decision has to be made: Can something be done about it or should it be left to run its course? A management decision could then be to seek external support in order to define a communication strategy.

This should be the order of the day, especially in the case of so-called shitstorms?
Today, shitstorms are a risk, yes. In such a case, it is important to professionally observe where the biggest problem or the cause lies. This is not possible across the board, but requires an assessment of the situation. This is because we are confronted with the situation that virtually everyone is an "expert" in discussions via social media.

Misfortunes cannot be foreseen. How can companies/organisations nevertheless take precautions to avoid being completely "in the reeds"?
It is important that companies are aware that they are exposed to risks. These risks need to be put on the radar. Companies and their management must develop their own crisis sensory system. This prevents action being taken too late in the event of an incident, i.e. only after a great deal of damage has already been done. People must be appointed for crisis management, and these people must also be trained.

You have opened a new competence centre for crisis management precisely for this purpose. What can be learned there?
Our training courses are aimed specifically at C-level and board members. Crisis awareness and decision-making are trained - the latter is particularly difficult in crisis situations. We want to enable the participants to form a crisis organization adapted to their company. This should make sense and be feasible for the company.

And how can the aforementioned crisis sensibility be learned?
On the one hand: look, don't look away! And on the other hand: The willingness to admit that risks exist. And to know that the greatest risk is still the human factor.