What Is One Word Not to Use in a Crisis?

How often do you pay attention to PR jargon that is a part of the crisis communication lexicon? There is a playbook from which we all seem to operate. And it only takes two or three times listening to a crisis communicator to get a flavor for it. I’ll bet you walked away hearing the word, or even using it yourself, multiple times. What I happen to know is there is one word that conveys the exact opposite of what speakers think they are communicating. If you know me well and you’re a communications pro, you know my spiel. But first, let me share how we got there.

Several years ago, the president of a large healthcare accredidation organization was laser focused on getting the typical consumers of U.S.-based healthcare to understand who the organization was, what they did, and why that should matter to them. She knew research and medical lingo just didn’t play well with most folks. And, for anyone to truly care about what her organization was doing, they needed to connect with them on both an emotional and intellectual level. The so-called hearts and minds approach to messaging.

To gain insight from consumers, we tested some messaging concepts using cognitive interviews, a think-aloud qualitative research technique. We were not even testing crisis messaging at the time. One of the messages her team was using to describe their work contained the word “transparent.” It was intended to convey clarity and honesty: consumers would understand what metrics were used to rate a healthcare organization because the organization was transparent about its rating criteria (I’m paraphrasing here). Sigh.

Holy guacamole—"transparent” did more harm than good! When I asked interview participants what came to mind when they heard the word, the findings were both surprising and consistent across nearly all demographic groups. Consumers immediately thought of the initial stages of a crisis when there is more opacity (my word, not theirs) than anything else. The truth is, people do not respond to anything in a vacuum. The brain naturally (and quickly!) scans your information, looks for past situations/learning/schemas, and then applies the most salient one to whatever it encounters. It’s vexxing and magical at the same time.

So, if people are accustomed to hearing “transparent” uttered by a company spokesperson in the early days of a crisis over and over again, they are going to have a hard time not applying those circumstances to your use case. And let’s face it, it is rare that an organization follows the “we are committed to a transparent process” with “and this is what we found.” It just does not happen like that in the real world so why would that be the case in a lab?

What is a better word to use? It depends upon the context and the circumstances. “Honest,” “open,” or “clear,” with proofpoints to support the statement and a healthy dose of empathy to whomever is seemingly impacted by the situation or its uncertainty can sometimes due the trick. But let’s be honest, people are going to judge the organization by its actions, and the speed with which they communicate them, over some one, two, or four-syllable word with a vague meaning. Communication is critical but you know what they say, “actions speak louder than words.”