Feature & Video

To Comment on this article Click Here

Because Canada and the United States inherited a pretty good public relations sense from the British, we are mystified by the Japanese reaction to crisis.  A lot of PR in crisis amounts to leadership.

Good public relations are not evil or trickery.  When executed in a crisis a well functioning PR system can be helpful.  The key to it is telling the truth where you know it and also saying: "I don't know yet!"

The hardship, loss of life and long term effects on people and families of Japan make an instant impression on us. We don't need PR for that. What seems off kilter is the Japanese government's reaction to all the chaos especially in the nuclear power situation.

On Sunday the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's press conference turned into something of a farce for western eyes at least.  He came on the stage, bowed and had some words for the people and the power companies.  He asked the populace and industry to save power.  In essence he called for the people to endure what he termed an "inconvenience" according to the translator.  He said "We Japanese have had a lot of difficulty in the past and have overcome it"  He called for unity to overcome the "difficulty"

Prime Minister Naoto Kan's Sunday Press Conference.

After six minutes he bowed again, this time twice and left without taking any questions.  This would be unheard of in Canada, the US or the UK.  What was the viewer left with from the PM's talk?  He seemed in the Japanese way too polite and overwhelmed at the same time.

Another odd part of the Japanese government's reaction to the disaster is their almost total lack of grip of the emerging facts.  For a long time they were giving absurd estimates of the death toll.  While they were doing that, viewers all over the world were able to see for themselves before and after pictures and videos of the sites of total devastation.  It took way too much time to admit that their original estimates were terribly off base. 

The speaker who followed the PM was asked why Kan took no questions.  He said that "we are doing the best to explain the details"  What this meant was that the PM did not know enough details to answer any questions.  The PM just made a request and turned it over to his ministers to answer the questions.  This is common in Japanese business practices.

This approach is not uncommon in the west either, but the PM should have stayed on stage and directed the questions to his ministers.  When he left the stage and turned it over to his minister experts, who would he have to meet that made him leave so quickly?  What was so important?  He might learn things from the answers to the questions.  He might not have thought of the questions himself.

It seemed that he was almost embarrassed by the situation especially the nuclear crisis.  This was not unlike Toyota's original response to the messy recalls that they had.  They seemed embarrassed and as time went on they got worse.  The final solution was as messy as the lead-in to the accelerator crisis.  It turned out to be a set of nine shims one of which would be installed in your Toyota on recall after a careful measurement by  a mechanic.  Hardly something that an in control manufacturing process would serve up as a solution

Naoto Kan's debut in crisis reminds us of BP's fumbling of the ball in the gulf crisis.  It took them weeks to figure out what PR was all about.  They never had to do it before and it looked like Kan was a first timer with PR too.

George Bush did a good job of taking the helm on the 9/11 crisis and a terrible effort with Katrina.  In both cases he did not know the facts, but at least he stayed on stage when others talked.

Well, so what?  In this case it is not just a Japanese issue.  Nations are rushing help to the suffering population.  At the same time the future of Nuclear Power in the 'ring of fire' is at stake.  Already the rebirth of Nuclear Power in the US is facing a possible moratorium on the west coast  where the landscape is subject to earth quakes.  What about China and other emerging nations?  What about British Columbia's long term needs?  They are on the 'ring of fire'.  The spillover will effect nuclear power world-wide even if the situations and technologies are totally different.

People understand the natural disaster.  They don't understand the domino effect at the power plant.  What they are being told is that the redundant systems in an old style reactor site failed one after the other just like dominos fall.  What planning went into these sites?  It's an old site.  What risk management went into their operational plans?

^{for world news, books, sports, movies ...}

Monday, March 14, 2011