While yesterday's Cup Day hike was expected, the Board's split vote was news, and so was seized upon by media and economists. In September, the RBA Board was unanimous versus this time 6 to 3 for a rate rise.
Nine smart people had the same data but arrived at different answers. There may have been some big differences of opinion behind the scenes but an hour later, the Governor still had to walk out and give a clear, united message: “it's what's needed to get inflation down.”
We'd all be better in a crisis if we rehearsed the debates and decisions before the message.
The room
In a financial services crisis, the room sooner or later splits, only faster, with worse information and in more directions. Sometimes this happens even in the face of even mild media inquiries.
Everyone is an expert. Even at media relations and drafting! Sigh.
“It's an HR / privacy / legal matter”
“We have to deny this”
"It's too early to say anything"
"We shouldn't say anything"
"We should say something immediately"
The GC knows everything, the media or comms person (even if right) sometimes gets literally pushed out of the room; and a dominating type (sometimes subtly so) can prevail to everyone's later detriment. Often, the client or customer is long forgotten. Sometimes the likely reaction of the media is lost in all the blablabla.
The RBA is lucky to have a) days to agree their messaging and b) a published majority. You and I are more likely to get only hours to respond to accusatory questions from a journo.
Internal disagreement isn't fatal, and actually can be a sign of healthy decision-making. The problem is when you land in the wrong spot. If opinion wins over fact or good practice, or one voice dominates, things are said that are wrong or misleading, or so poorly worded that you create a media issue instead of avoiding one.
The envelope: part 2
In September, I told you about a journalist with a stack of corporate credit card statements, some nasty questions and an article series we killed off. I didn't tell you how we got there.
A colleague asked me three questions. Had I seen everything the journo had sent? Had I asked for the original documents? Had I met the chair in person? All a big fat no. I was too busy wiping sweat off my palms.
The leadership move in the end wasn't a statement. It was tsitting down with the journo.
That was only possible after quite a process internally.
So what?
Before your room splits, decide who asks the questions and what earns a place in the “verified” column of messages and facts. That work changes who gets listened to, and what you say.
I'm telling the rest of that story and running a live scenario next Tuesday, 10 November, 12-1pm: From Rumour to Response: the first three hours of a corporate crisis. Everyone who comes gets the one-page F.E.L.T. card. Register here or hit reply and I'll add you.