Facts or perceptions

How to maintain public support during a crisis
Edited: June 10, 2024 Reading time: 4 minutes

Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), Babboe Cargobikes and the Dutch public broadcaster NPO all faced an investigation which showed negative results and attracted a high level of media attention. All three organisations responded in a defensive manner, questioning the investigation. Is this an effective approach? How to navigate such situation and what are the principles to hold on to when you have to provide a first response? Herewith we share a few insights.

In response to the situation at Delft University of Technology, Ardi Vleugels in Het Financieele Dagblad (March 7, 2024) features three experts discussing how to respond to a critical report on social insecurity: lawyer Marjan Olfers, communication advisor Marit Holman, and psychologist Naomi Ellemers. The lawyer advocates for more thorough research, the communication advisor calls for more empathy in communication, and the psychologist states that a mere legal approach and defensive responses do not help.

Defensive response

Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) is not alone in its type of response to negative investigation results. The response of Babboe Cargobikes to the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA)’s reports about defective cargo bike frames and the Dutch public broadcaster NPO’s response to complaints about inappropriate behavior were essentially the same as the response of TU Delft. In all three cases, the executives defend themselves by questioning the investigation.

Grief-like emotions

Psychologist Naomi Ellemers calls TU Delft’s response ‘understandable’ because when people are confronted with an image that does not align with how they perceive reality, a process similar to grief follows. “They are shocked, deny, become angry, and only then room for improvement emerges.” That is well explained.

Widening the gap

Responding to the outside world by stating that the portrayed image is incorrect and that the organization perceives the situation differently is of little use. By doing so, you are ignoring a large number of signals from your key stakeholders: in the cases mentioned above, the employees, customers, or students. In effect, you discredit them and widen the gap between you and them.

Out of the emotional rollercoaster

To quickly get a crisis situation under control, it is important for the board to swiftly and internally navigate through the emotional rollercoaster. After that, it is crucial to immediately rise above the situation and ask yourself what the core of the problem is. After all, customers or employees do not complain without reason.

We agree with the experts in FD. However, in our view, there is a significant misunderstanding underlying the response of the executives in question: the idea that stakeholders’ perceptions are formed by facts. Perceptions are largely based on (unconscious) emotions.

Manage perceptions, not facts

You change perceptions by recognizing and addressing those emotions. The general public has already formed an image and judgment based on all the external reporting. As an executive, it is therefore crucial to take these perceptions as a starting point and regain trust as quickly as possible. You do not regain trust by proving your right in court. Trust is only earned back when stakeholders feel taken seriously. And then it does not matter how many people are involved.

Be wise in your public approach

Of course, Marjan Olfers touches on an important point: research must always be thorough. Where this is not the case, you want to address it, but at a different time and through other channels. For the organizations in question, it is wise to refrain from addressing this issue in the heat of the moment in their public response, if they wish to prevent further erosion of societal acceptance of their organization.

Klaartje Kluiters & Maartje Snellen,
Partners The New Edge

Would you like to know more?

Please contact us: