Spokespersons will always be in the line of fire

In my last job as head of corporate communications for a leading media company, I held a spokesperson duty and I can say with conviction that being in the line of fire is no fun, but it sure is a fulfilling job when handled properly.

The topic on the importance of the role of a spokesperson came to mind because of recent discussions in media and in communication professional circles about the choice of a spokesperson for the incoming administration of President-elect Rodrigo Duterte. As Richard Arboleda, managing director of Eon, Inc. expressed it, “The role of presidential spokesman requires the most skilled communicator. With no disrespect to the legal profession, lawyers are trained to communicate according to the spirit and letter of the law, or to protect their principals from making statements that will take them beyond legal boundaries. It’s black or white. It’s yes or no. And in the courtroom, that is how it should be. A communicator by profession is trained to be more nuanced. Will this statement elicit reactions that are more detrimental than good? Will I avert a crisis by making this statement or will I fan the flames further? Will engaging the media allow the President to amplify his message to the larger Filipino (and global) audience?”

Arboleda’s take is not a criticism of Duterte’s choice but a wish. It is from an observer who, time and time again, has seen government spokespersons creating more damage than good, with their words. Translating public policy, the President’s position, the government’s stance into a form that will resonate with media, and ultimately the Filipino people, is a critical role, especially since we live in an age where social media headlines, quotes, sound bites and memes are vehicles to create or destroy reputation. “Duterte will have his hands full for the next six years. I hope his presidential spokesman will actually make his life a bit easier and not make it even more complicated,” he proclaimed.

Spokesperson Deficit Disorder

Colleagues in the PR communication profession will agree that if we bungle on our spokesperson job, we are most likely suffering from what PR guru Barbara Gibson calls SDD — Spokesperson Deficit Disorder — an all-too-common ailment, a not-so-silent killer of corporate or public governance reputation, often undiagnosed even when the symptoms are evident. Early symptoms include negative or weak media coverage for our activities, and “misquotes” and interviews that go off track. SDD can strike at any level within an organization and can be most damaging if left untreated.

As spokespeople, we may have undergone media training, but we continue to have bouts of uncertainty when directly addressing a problem. It is our job to help our respective organizations to achieve defined strategic objectives, and at the same time, be responsible in making organizational communication more effective. Here are a few tips on how we can correctly diagnose and treat SDD:

• Involve the spokesperson trainee and intensify the training. As Gibson discovered in her research, the average corporate spokesperson has had only four hours to a full day of media training, which usually occurred over 10 years in the past. Then they were most likely fielded into the challenging arena of Fourth Estate interviews, and have been given meager or no feedback at all since their last exposure to media. A good way to evaluate our spokesperson performance is by asking these questions: How do we assess our own skills? Do we need additional training? Are we receiving the right kind of support to prepare for interviews? Do we receive feedback on our performance regularly?

• Get the analysis right. Spokespersons vary, and each one of us has a unique mix of strengths and weaknesses. Find a way to independently and plausibly measure our capabilities to better help us improve our craft.

• Develop a measurement system that can aid in benchmarking individual development. As we do this, we can also find the right spokesperson match for each media opportunity. The “ability to handle difficult questions,” for example, is one of the things that can be assessed. Scoring high in this area is key for anyone handling crises and financial communication or any other form of high-risk communication. If we believe that our skills need to be enhanced, get into some specialized training or coaching. When working with lifestyle media or doing other feature-type interviews, for example, we must be adept at providing great case examples and proficient in telling interesting and compelling stories.

• Monitor interviews and pay particular attention to the full range of our skills. These are informal assessment tools that can aid in diagnosing strengths and weaknesses. What is lacking, though, in informal assessments is the third-party credibility that a formal evaluation can provide, a process that makes spokespeople more open to coaching, and a course that provides a foolproof approach to better our performance.

• Outline a tailored development plan. It may involve going through basic media training, which aims to provide an opportunity to build on existing skills, create a forum for the development of key messages on vital organizational policies, and prepare identified spokespeople to interact with media with clarity, confidence, credibility, and overall effectiveness.

The syllabus may include tutorials and exercises on the following areas — understanding media and the prevailing media environment, presentation skills, message development, interview formats and techniques, handling ambush interviews and crisis management. By providing a written plan to cover the identified areas for development, we set up the expectation of ongoing development and position ourselves as coaches for future spokespeople.

• No matter how good we think we are, a skills upgrade should be constant. At minimum, this should include feedback after every media interface and regular coaching sessions. The hard part is giving and receiving feedback without bruising egos. However, if available, perform a formal assessment and set up expectations.

When giving feedback, Gibson recommended the use of the “bad news sandwich” approach: start with positive feedback, followed by the negative, and end on a positive note. Reviewing a video of our own performance, for example, can help us see ourselves more accurately. Some of us may be so laid-back and practically asleep, speaking in a quiet monotone, or rarely showing any enthusiasm. We may be incredibly knowledgeable, but with such conditions we may not get the desired coverage.

• Any negative feedback should always include a specific recommendation for improvement. Undergo coaching sessions to work on areas that need enhancement. If we fall apart under fire, bring in a media trainer for a one-on-one advanced session on dealing with difficult questions. If we tend to get sloppy after doing a battery of interviews, impose an “energy break” to invigorate ourselves between speaking assignments. It may also help if we imbibe a mindset that feedback is not criticism, but a coaching mechanism with the ultimate goal of making us more effective and successful spokespeople.

• Avoid the use of four “honesty-related” verbal crutches. These include “Let’s be clear,” “To be perfectly honest,”  “Frankly” and  “Just between you and me.” Undoubtedly, there are a number of other factors that can affect our spokesperson score, but nothing can overcome the negative impressions made by these verbal crutches, and thus, it’s worth working to diminish their use.

In a PR Daily interview, Dr. Susan Fletcher, a practicing psychologist, shared that what these four phrases do is induce suspicion. “These phrases almost act like a ‘highlighter’ or a cue to alert the listener that what we are about to say should be noted,” she explained. “It’s not the actual content or the words in the phrases that are the issue,” Fletcher continued. “The issue is that it takes the listener off track and cues the listener to be alert and pay attention — this type of cue creates suspicion.”

In the same write-up, clinical psychologist Dr. Patricia A. Farrell questioned whether these statements truly call into question a person’s honesty. “Sometimes, when someone needs a few moments to gather their thoughts or to come back with a great sound bite, they will use these utterances to get those precious few minutes. I don’t necessarily see it as crafty obfuscation,” she explained.

No matter where in this world we spokespeople live, we’ve all been in the line of fire, have “danced the dance” and “sung the song” for our respective organizations, but the fact remains: our competency level will always be tested every time we open our mouths to present, explain, and defend.

* * *

Email bongosorio@gmail.com for comments, questions and suggestions. Thank you for communicating.