Crisiscommunicatie

Cultural trust – a basic talent against risks across borders ?

admin

Author: Manu Steens

In this contribution I give my own opinion, not that of any organization.

People often speak of ‘trust’. But what do they mean? What kind of trust exist? Can you create it? What are the risks of not paying attention to creating trust? What if you betray trust? Is speaking the same language important?

Can you score without speaking the language? Without knowledge of each other’s cultural baggage? Who has the advantage when? Pierce the stigmas! Without knowing each other, you can’t look ahead to collaboration with each other’s. Despite all the theories and history lessons, this is not possible without trust. Without trust you can’t know the other person, you only know their stigmas.

I consider for myself two types of trust: Self-confidence versus cultural trust, each of which is a function of other components:

Self-confidence = F(parental education; character) and

Cultural trust = G(growing up in close proximity; in contact with distant surroundings).

I want to talk about this ‘cultural trust’ here.

I will take Russians and Americans as an example, because they are opposites in terms of their experience of trust, but I might as well have taken the Dutch and the Chinese.

When you talk to people about Russians and Americans, the first impression often comes up as a judgment. Buts appearance deceives, are Americans really superficial and are Russians really that arrogant?

That’s what we see from them. However, it is better to consider cultural trust as a topic here, rather than profane vocabulary. In the book “The Culture Map” by Erin Meyer, there is a continuum from purely task-based cultural trust to pure relationship-based trust. Here the USA is on the side of almost purely task-based trust and is Russia very much on the side of relationship-based trust.

How is this defined?

Task-based: Trust is built through business-related activities. Working relationships are easily forged and dissolved again, depending on the practical situation. You consistently do a good job, so you are reliable. I enjoy working with you. I trust you.

Relationship-based: Trust is built by eating together, having a drink together in the evening and conversations at the coffee machine. Working relationships are slowly but surely being built. I got to know you in a personal way. I’ve spent private time with you. I am good friends with others who trust you. I trust you.

This means that in order to do business (of all kinds: financial-economic to political agreements) between Russians and Americans, both must be aware of each other’s cultural attitude of trust.

It used to be thought that the American way of doing business was the ‘way to go’. Americans talk very fluently about their very personal issues but never show their truly vulnerable side. This seems very confusing to a Russian: just when he thinks the American wants to make a close friendship, he says: “It was pleasant, goodbye”. The Russian doesn’t hear about him anymore. For an average Russian, this is an unreliable attitude, which in the long run creates distrust of which the American is unaware.

Conversely, an American who wants to do business with a Russian will have to do his best to get into privacy with the Russian. Storming in and trying to make a deal won’t get him there. Then he is dismissed. Not because the Russian is so arrogant, but precisely because knowing each other well personally is so important. If, in his opinion, not enough time is put into this, not much will come of doing business.

This means that in order to be able to work together successfully, it is best to have a mediator present. Someone or a small team of people who have cultural experience with both parties.

In my opinion, this is one of the cores of many misunderstandings in the world on a small, but also on a large scale. In the worst case, misunderstandings lead to things that no one wants, such as brother murder.

To this end, work must be done to really get to know each other, especially at times when people, when they are young, are still receptive to learn this.

Conclusion:

If we want to make the planet a better and safer place for future generations, schools should pay attention to:

  • types of communication
  • each other’s culture
  • learning to work on trust
  • empathy
  • really getting to know the other in their culture.

Discussing the tragedy of the war

admin

Author: Erik De Soir; photo by Karolien Coenen

For several weeks now, images of war have been a daily presence in our homes and we have been overwhelmed by the news of the fighting in Ukraine. It is not only war journalists and diplomats who are involved, but everyone is now a participant in the war that is taking place in Europe and threatening us all. Up to a few weeks ago, for most of us this was unthinkable! This war has generated a new influx of refugees and many of our fellow citizens are preparing to assist refugees and war victims once again and even take them into their homes. Many questions arise as to how to discuss the war with children.

Set out in the document below are ten practical tips on how to talk to people who have fled the war, left everything behind, and need to be accommodated in a foreign environment.

Pictogram

Discussing the tragedy of the war

1 bestand(en) 620.32 KB
Downloaden

On the occasion of the early spring… Corona and support for measures in Belgium – a case study

admin

Author: Manu Steens

In this article I write my own opinion, not that of any organization.

The last days the weather was nice, last weekend there was even (again) a surprise of the trains filled with day trippers who wanted to go to the sea, and afterwards all wanted to go home again . According to the press, it was a huge mass of people at the sea side. The press had interviewed a few people. That gave an inspiration to apply my tool again to the support of the measures. The question I ask myself is, which aspects of support are failing here? Why did people seem to take a massive risk of contamination just to be able to go to sea? A challenge to try to measure support once more.

My analysis comes to the following color palette: (click for a better view)

Discussion:

Legitimacy: people indicated that they knew that the risk was still there, that it might not be a good idea to be packed together on a train.

Coherence of the target group through proximity of the issue to the target group: Lately there have been many people who do not have a dead or sick person in their personal circle of acquaintances.

Effectiveness: because more people hear that the figures fluctuate around a very high number of patients in hospitals and ICU they may doubt whether their own efforts really matter?

Purposefulness: the web pages of Sciensano show to anyone who wants to know clearly the evolution of the vaccinations. However, a barometer had been announced  and never came, vaccinations that were promised to the masses by saying that the end of the tunnel is in sight, but are dependent on the supplier who does not seem to deliver, while ambiguity remains why… All of that make the whole less transparent. There remain many unknowns. The people may even have lost purpose.

Efficiency: the government is insufficiently successful in showing in a transparent manner where the shoe is pinching. Demonstrating the effectiveness of the government’s own actions is done insufficient.

Perseverance: the people lose their discipline. There has been (for a long time now) corona fatigue. Many begin to believe their own false hope that there is no harm in it all, and take risks as a result.

Leadership: about this I do not look at the situation. It is unclear to me whether actors or other public figures with a good example have any influence at the moment. So I’m currently leaving it open.

Internalized: the people see the restrictions increasingly as a mandatory process. People probably know very well about themselves whether they are showing the behavior of a super diffuser, but partly due to the lack of perseverance and too little inspiration from above, they let themselves go.

Reputation: about this I do not look at the situation. I don’t know if people are currently attached to their personal reputation or if corona can continue to be seen as a force majeure. So I’m leaving it open at the moment.

Conclusion: there is a lot of red on the canvas. That is not good. It seems that the negative hope, the hope that it doesn’t do all that much harm, is winning over common sense. It has been stretched for too long a time. But what needs to be done is clear: persist and vaccinate as much as possible. We will desperately need that.

How about post-crisis with covid-19

admin

Author: Manu Steens

In this article I write my own opinion.

With multiple vaccines and the global roll-out of vaccination in the pipeline, it is not only useful now but also desirable to take a look at what might be called the post-crisis phase.

In this post-crisis phase of covid-19 there will be opportunities. It must be a time for psychological, physical, social, emotional and economic recovery. This applies both on an individual level and on a social level. But it must also be a time of honest self-analysis of the crisis approach (by organizations and governments) , of lessons Identified in all sections of society, whereby doubts about yourself as a person, about your organization as a company and the authorities are central. In effective crisis management, there is always a post-crisis moment for debriefing with comments from the sidelines and commendations of the achievements. This self-assessment must be used for small and large improvements to the own operation, structure, culture, … of the organization, and corrections at all levels. One must dare to take a view on processes, systems and procedures up to the smallest details. This improves insight into their own functioning. The assessment provides the opportunity to apply renewed and especially motivated new insights . The fact that adjustments can be implemented suggests that the anxiety because of the perception of risks and resistance due to uncertainty as to change (through insights by the results obtained in the crisis), be transcended. Appropriate actions provide the basic operation for the prevention and processing of future crises. That way the organization can learn, modify administration and initiate a wide variety of changes. This under the motto “never again”. Because a crisis is often transient, the suffering takes an end and the memory of society is sometimes too short, the moment par excellence to make use of these levers must not be lost. Action must therefore be taken post-crisis if the innovation opportunities are to be used optimally.

Unfortunately, there is always collateral damage. People or organizations that will not be able to reach the post-crisis phase (alone). A crisis like covid-19 includes therefore often media attacks on governments and their agencies . The opportunity to provide answers to urgent needs that were first only latent, makes the organizations stop for a moment and often marks a turning point for these organizations, but also for society.

To thoroughly analyze crisis management afterwards, three types of “investigative board ‘s” are needed : one for the organization, one for a society within a country, and the authorities in the countries, and across countries. They represent with regard to society, every citizen as an individual and the victims and their families the fact that that the problem is being tackled on a permanent basis. Because the board represents the public as the ultimate stakeholder, they can be considered as legitimate, and as authority for the investigation.

The goal of the boards in a post-crisis phase is a permanent solution, which includes a pandemic plan with international cooperation as one of my wishes. That is possible when uncertainty is reduced, legitimacy is achieved, and each of the three boards proves to make efforts to establish a basis to address future crises as well as the consequences thereof. Intensive communication will have to be conducted about this, in order to continuously convince and keep the public informed of progress and planned actions. Note that the effects of actions, findings and conclusions in the accompanying investigations of the board can counteract these effects. Therefore, great skill in conducting in-depth objective investigations, drawing conclusions and making appropriate recommendations without external influences (industry or other governments) is required.

Each board is supported by experts from a large number of disciplines in such an assignment. In order to work effectively on solutions in the aftermath of the crisis, a 360 ° approach of the problem is required. This requires specialists who work together in a “modular system”. There are reasons for this

  • Extra expertise and hands at work for generating solutions
  • Direct access to much more data and decisions based on all available information (which is then much broader), where possible without involvement of the crisis teams that did their work during the crisis.

These experts also feed their own organization with information  from the research which they consider necessary. Factors affecting the size and diversity of the expert teams determine the severity of the pandemic , the methods that are involved (here organizational methods , policy action and vaccination technology), the collateral damage that occurs, the chance that a detailed narrative report will be written, numbers and circumstances of injured and deceased persons, public interest and the chance of a formal “board hearing” (committee hearing). The degree of public interest is perhaps the most complex to estimate here.

The expert teams and assessors must take the time to make a thorough analysis of the pandemic. Their report should not be actively public (due to too much technical detail, and potential privacy issues). It must however support the report of the board (committee) which have to be transparent to stakeholders and the public.

The board / committee then decides on a “public hearing” based on

  • Interest of the citizens.
  • Severity of the pandemic.
  • Quality of successes and severity of errors in dealing with the pandemic.
  • Benefits of all kinds with regard to a future pandemic. (e.g. when citizens, society and governments know how to arm themselves against another pandemic thanks to science)

A public hearing is the first real opportunity for the media to know something about the post crisis, but it is also a first chance for the organizations and the authorities and their board to communicate something to the press for their own benefit. So it must be thoroughly prepared. So if a party involved in the investigation wants something in the press, this must be discussed with his board in order to avoid contradiction.

Because contradiction causes anxiety and uncertainty, and even gives the impression after the crisis that the situation is not under control.

“Higher – Lower” and Covid-19

admin

Author: Manu Steens

In this article I will tell you my own opinion. It is by no means the intention to present dealing with the pandemic as a simple matter. But there are some simple principles that strike me.

In the past, “higher-lower” was a game on television. Never before had I thought that these two words could be so important in assessing the need for action in a pandemic.

Currently, the federal government makes use of the services of specialists: virologists, biostatisticians , epidemiologists, etc. They can be used at any time to draw up difficult mathematical models to estimate the pandemic and to distil difficult indicators of the evolution from them.

How could it have been assumed with higher-lower at the beginning of September how it would evolve at the end of September and the weeks after ? (The next few months remain to be seen, but our experience with the first wave tells us that this wave is not over yet, and it is going to be difficult.)

Using three qualitative, easy to understand indicators as follows:

  1. What was the situation with the number of infections in Belgium at the beginning of September with regard to the number of infections at the very beginning of the first wave? Higher! Much higher ! And what about the number of super spreaders? Also much higher in September.
  2. What was the spread of the disease in the country with regard to the early onset of the first wave in early 2020? Also much higher.
  3. How did people behave in relieving the measures in terms of elation and carelessness? – higher ! And that is normal. If you doubt that, you should see a bunch of cows roaming about after a long winter, and then released into the pasture. People who have been a long time in lock-down have the same desire to be free again. And that behavior became part of the new normal. Goodbye caution. Goodbye discipline.

Is the result surprising, then, that there will be a more severe wave after September, which can whip higher than the first wave?

And that’s not even the question I want to talk about. What I want to talk about are lessons for the near future.

Is it inconceivable that there will be another wave after this? And what should we do about it?

We will not be able to do much about the first two indicators. As for the first, we are not even going to know if all the sick have been healed, and that no one is a carrier anymore. As for the second, mutatis mutandis: we cannot say much about the spread if we are not 100% sure who is still a carrier and who is not.

That is why it is important to do something with the third indicator. This is currently done by reducing the transmissibility of the virus as much as possible. In this way they try to prevent the spread in order not to overload the hospital system, if possible until there is a vaccine, and preferably forever.

But that requires discipline, both during the approach to reverse the new wave and the period afterwards to prevent another wave. So the discipline must be higher ! And that regardless of the precise measures in a ministerial order, or in the protocols, or in the local measures.

The search for exceptions, loopholes, back doors,… to do their thing must therefore be lower !