Reality TV no replacement for compassion
BP has made numerous missteps in the 5 weeks since the initial explosion that resulted in the massive oil spill. Transparency, or more accurately the perception of inadequate transparency, is one of those missteps. Early on executives from BP and Transocean bungled responses to reporters and others regarding the cause and severity of the explosion and subsequent spill, leaving the public to speculate on both accounts. In the absence of meaningful communication from the sources that are privy to what is happening (in this case BP and Transocean), speculation inevitably led to inaccuracies and exacerbated the blaming game. Lack of transparency also leads to the assumption that the companies are not doing enough, or enough of the right things, to stop the flow of oil. So their communication and strategy up to this point has been fairly dismal.
Generally speaking transparency during a crisis is a good thing—regardless of how ugly the truth is. I do not know what motivated the decision to put the ‘spillcam’ on live feed. Perhaps it was an attempt to change course and become more transparent; or perhaps there were other motivations. Without knowing what prompted this decision I think it may be a stretch to say that the on-going live ‘spillcam’ feed is actually a strategy. Rather it comes across as merely a tactic to try to reclaim some of BP’s reputation by allowing the public to see the top kill maneuver. Doing so merely gives the illusion that they are being more transparent.
Transparency comes in two forms: There is transparency in the tactical response to the crisis; and there is transparency in the emotional response to the crisis. The ‘spillcam’ is a tactical crisis response. Yet, the gulf coast region is facing a tremendous devastation. I’m confident that the men and women employed by BP recognize the pain and suffering of the residents in and around the region. Unfortunately, the lack of emotional transparency, in this case communicating a sense of compassion, has compounded their problems and further aggravated stakeholders.
Furthermore, one can question whether the ‘spillcam’ is in fact a mechanism for transparency at all. The live footage does not really provide any more information than what we ultimately know anyway. The increasing amount of oil floating atop the shore’s surface is visible to the naked eye. We don’t need the ‘spillcam’ to tell us that the oil well has not been plugged. Moreover, when it is eventually plugged I can assure you that BP will communicate the news. So watching the live feed speaks more to our voyeuristic tendency than it does our inclination to be rational. And what perfect timing. Now that the reality shows have had their season finales, we can turn on ‘spillcam’ t.v. and tune into “Top Kill”. Sounds like a compelling show to me.
For BP’s sake, I hope that they seek other, more meaningful ways to be transparent—tactically and emotionally. The lack of transparency, or creating only an illusion of transparency, not only makes them less credible, but undermines whatever confidence the public may have initially had in BP’s ability to effectively resolve this issue.
Tags: crisis leadership, transparency