On August 21 2014, I found myself travelling by train from Helsinki, Finland, to attend a conference in St Petersburg, Russia. At the next station, immigration officials boarded the train to check our travel documents. When my turn came, the official perused through details in my passport before scanning it. But something prompted him to consult his boss, who was watching the proceedings from a distance. After some consultations, he came back to me. This time, he came with his superior. They re-examined my passport as I waited in apprehension.
They had no issue with my passport. But it later transpired that this was simply a case of mistaken identity for which they vehemently apologised. For whatever reason, they thought I was from Mali, which coincidentally was one of the West African countries affected by the ebola virus between 2013 and 2016.
I have never experienced challenges with my passport in all my trips abroad. This was just an isolated incident.
It is, therefore, quite disturbing to hear media reports about 16 Malawians being denied visas on the basis that chips on their “newly” obtained passports failed to read during processing. There have also been reports about some desperate Malawians waiting in vain for the precious document to travel abroad for business, medical or education purposes.
While this happened, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Services (Dics) was entangled in altercations between top management and employees on issues that could have been settled amicably. Such incidences, and many others, have the potential to tarnish the image of Dics, let alone the credibility of the once-adored Malawi passport.
What started as an incident a year ago, which authorities described as a temporary glitch in the production of passports, has degenerated into a crisis.
Let me, nevertheless, acknowledge efforts that the Dics is undertaking to address this passport conundrum.
However, the passport debacle could probably be a reflection of how crises are handled in most public and private institutions, if recent events are anything to go by. That is why it is important to actively involve public relations (PR) professionals for effective crisis communication.
Crisis communication is a bedrock of crisis management. The reason is that trust and credibility issues are at stake during a crisis.
It is, therefore, advisable to prepare for a crisis at the onset. Crises are inevitable—be it in a corporate entity or country. Have a crisis communication plan to ensure coordination, clear messaging and quick response. Since the passport saga, there has been a variety of narratives advanced by various top government officials— sometimes conflicting— raising questions about whether there was proper coordination in messaging.
A communication plan also provides clear guidelines to employees on what to communicate to the public. It further provides an opportunity to decide in advance who should be the spokesperson or persons in time of a crisis to avoid situations where a chief executive officer doubles as the spokesperson. The crisis plan also helps in safeguarding the institution’s reputation by demonstrating that it is accountable, transparent and emphatic. Above all, it provides an opportunity for review on how the crisis was responded to while identifying areas for post-crisis improvement. As a preparatory measure, have a crisis management team which should, among other things, be trained in media relations.
Secondly, be honest when communicating about a crisis. Get the story out and over quickly. Avoid the temptation to give out distorted information in order to fend off public discontent. Cover-ups or misinformation may end up being exposed. Once exposed, they may look worse than the original problem itself.
Do not, however, count your losses in public. For instance, while the authorities tried to be honest by revealing that Malawi’s passport issuing system had been hacked, such information could have been for management consumption only as it had the potential to make the system even more vulnerable to hackers.
Thirdly, when a crisis occurs, take responsibility and apologise with sincerity. Respond with real action, not just words. Blaming others or being defensive would not help matters.
Fourth, how an institution reacts in the first few hours after a crisis occurs will determine how it is perceived from that point onwards. According to crisis communication expert Paul Shrivastava, all crises that occur have “a window of opportunity” to gain around control of 45 minutes to 12 hours. Beyond that point, people will have already decided what they think about the crisis. Once they have made up their minds, they are reluctant to change them. Therefore, move quickly. Remember that bad news spreads fast, especially in the wake of social media. Even when things move quickly, there is still a need to act carefully.
Finally, communicate with the press and stakeholders, including the organisation’s own employees and management.
When all is said and done, organisations should actively involve PR professionals in crisis management to ensure that decisions are scrutinised through reputation lens. PR professionals, however, must be seen to add value with their thoughts and ideas instead of just being bystanders.
