Crisis or storm in a teacup? Why language inflation is proving costly
Modern crisis comms professionals must be acutely aware of the risk of inflation - and no, we’re not talking about the economy.
How does a respected – if mildly dysfunctional – organisation end up spending £100,000 on a few staff surveys and a report with a sensationalist, unfounded conclusion?
It sounds like the set-up to a joke. But it’s not a funny one when the bill is paid by taxpayers and the beneficiaries are opportunistic, low-rigour culture-audit consultancies.
Increasingly, in our polarised digital era, employers panic in the face of flimsy allegations that quickly harden into ‘accepted fact’. In doing so, they can inflict almost as much damage as if the allegations had been true.
At the heart of this is language inflation: the devaluation of once-weighty words through hyperbolic overuse. Not long ago, describing a workplace as ‘toxic’, accusing a colleague of ‘bullying’, or declaring that you ‘feel unsafe’ carried real weight. Today, however, ‘I feel unsafe’ can mean little more than ‘we disagree on a political issue’. The result is that it has become harder than ever to distinguish between a mildly dysfunctional but fixable culture and something genuinely harmful – and that distinction matters enormously when deciding how to respond.
£100k for a highly questionable approach
Take one recent case. A public body faced allegations of a ‘toxic culture’. A determined staff campaign – often it’s only a handful of perpetually disgruntled individuals in an otherwise content workforce – pressured leadership into acting despite very limited evidence. (This isn’t a client of ours, and it is not clear whether communications advice was offered, or heeded.)
The organisation ended up paying £100,000 to one of the many culture-audit firms that have sprung up in recent years – a sector with wildly varying standards, and some notable lapses in diligence and professionalism. Lacking any rigorous methodology, the consultancy sent out anonymous staff surveys, spoke to the most disaffected employees, and duly reported back – to paraphrase – ‘yup, it’s toxic’.
The consultancy’s media-savvy leader urged the client towards maximum transparency. Ostensibly this signalled accountability; in reality, it gave the consultant a platform to talk publicly about the case and promote their own services. The organisation is no wiser about the supposed issues – and the fallout from the review has left the workforce more demoralised than ever.
A Gaza-related flashpoint
In another example, an organisation was forced to deal with internal upheaval over the Israel–Gaza conflict, an issue entirely unrelated to its remit. Staff, distressed by events in Gaza, demanded a public declaration of solidarity. When the leadership declined, matters escalated: the culture was branded ‘toxic’ by staff, people claimed to ‘feel unsafe’, leaders were accused of ‘enabling genocide’, events were disrupted, protests were staged, and information was leaked. The organisation spent months in firefighting mode, diverted from its actual mission by accusations rooted in hyperbolic and inaccurate language.
So how should you respond?
First: don’t accept the framing. Allegations may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between. Many workplace complaints lack specific or verifiable evidence, so consider whether there is anything concrete being alleged or merely a general sense of grievance. Look for corroboration in hard data: staff surveys, exit interviews, whistleblowing records.
Second: think proportionately. Does this genuinely require organisational soul-searching, or is it a personality clash in a single team? Where the issue arises from wider culture-wars debates, consider how to allow internal discussion while grounding staff in your core purpose. Sometimes a simple reminder of existing policies is enough. Patience – although uncomfortable – is an underrated skill in issues management, and doing less can often result in less harm being done.
A common pitfall is asking aggrieved staff how they’d like matters resolved, then panicking when the answer is ‘bring in an external consultancy’. Once a culture-audit firm is appointed on those terms, their findings rapidly become gospel. Challenge their conclusions and you become ‘proof’ of the problem.
If external help is genuinely needed, choose discreet, competent, credible advisers. If consultants have a habit of popping up in the media to comment on clients’ troubles, then you really should feel unsafe in their hands.
Tim Toulmin is the managing director of crisis communication and reputation management specialist Alder.
Further reading
Reach is building a whitelist of trusted PR agencies. What will that mean for you?