THE LUCKY AND TRAGICALLY UNLUCKY IN THE LONDON TERROR STRIKE
Amidst the confusion, chaos and courage triggered by the terrorist attack in Central London last week, some were far more fortunate than others.
I was as fortunate as anyone could be.
Having been in Central London in the middle of the day on that tragic Wednesday, I was safely on a train heading away from Euston Station to run a media interview coaching session for clients in northern England by the time the crazed one-man assault took place.
I avoided the trouble by just over an hour.
I didn’t find out about the incident until the train glided into Wigan on the outskirts of Greater Manchester.
Far less fortunately placed was Romanian tourist Andreea Crisea.
At precisely the wrong time she was crossing London’s Westminster Bridge – a precinct where I run a lot of master classes and one-to-one coaching sessions. It’s a place I easily could have been.
Andreea was hurled into The Thames by the attacker’s four-wheel drive vehicle as the murderer targeted random pedestrians on the footpath.
She has remained unconscious in hospital even though her condition is reported to be improving.
Andreea’s partner, on holiday with her in London, had been planning to propose to her later that day.
It seems she doesn’t know that yet.
Less fortunate still was Police Constable Keith Palmer.
He died of stab wounds after the driver left his vehicle and maniacally continued his assault on humanity on foot with a knife outside the Houses of Parliament.
In the days following the attack there’s been widespread and highly justified praise for the police and emergency services for their rapid, professional and heroic response.
This included shooting the attacker before he could do even more harm.
And in an admirable “turn the other cheek” moment, emergency services angelically tried to save the attacker’s life, though without success.
But despite the impressive emergency response, there’s strong early support for a review of the security arrangements at Westminster.
There’s a consensus that the heart of Britain’s democracy – “protected” by an outer core of police officers without guns – is a softer target than it should be for any terrorists wanting to follow the lead of 52-year-old British-born Khalid Masood.
PLANNING YOUR MEDIA RESPONSE
BEFORE TROUBLE STRIKES
While security around parliament can clearly be strengthened, there’s a strong case for improving the police media communications – to get it closer to the impressive standard of the emergency response itself.
In contrast to the swift and seemingly well-rehearsed arrival on the scene of police marksmen in the immediate aftermarth of Masood’s rampage, police interaction with the media after things calmed down was far from reassuringly smooth.
This was exemplified by the press conference conducted the following morning by an on-edge and somewhat rattled Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mark Rowley.
Mr Rowley was no doubt doing his best in difficult circumstances.
Holding a press conference for the world’s media is not an easy thing to do after one of your police colleagues has been killed and others injured while heroically seeking to defend democracy.
But Mr Rowley’s performance – where he appeared excessively rushed and defensive in the face of understandably persistent questioning from the media – was far less impressive than the physical police response the day before.
Mr Rowley looked like a man unprepared for the spotlight which inevitably falls on someone high up in the service after a terrorist attack – especially an attack which had been so long predicted for London following similar outrages in Brussels, Paris, Nice and Berlin.
It’s understandable that in the early stages of such a serious police investigation there’s a lot that can’t be said – because much remains to be uncovered and because wrongly revealing the early findings could cause more harm than good.
But there is a golden rule for anyone being questioned by the media about an unfolding story where there is a strict limit on what can be revealed.
This rule is that when you can’t or won’t say much, you have to explain WHY this is so.
Mr Rowley’s answers were peppered with defensive and ultimately unhelpful phrases like “I’m not saying any more” and “I’ve said as much as I’m going to say”.
You can study his performance here:
What spokespeople need to do in such situations is to explain briefly and patiently at the start of every probing question they won’t or can’t answer exactly why that information cannot be revealed.
Assuming the reasons are good – as they could well have been at that moment – it immediately takes the pressure off.
The next thing the spokespeople must do is to graciously give out whatever they can helpfully say on the topic of each challenging question – even if it’s not specifically what has been asked for – so they are positioning their organisation for being as helpful as possible to the journalists and the public beyond.
I help organisations rehearse for tragic situations in Britain and – often through United Nations bodies – elsewhere in the world so they are as ready as they can be to communicate impressively under pressure.
Sadly of late this has involved rehearsing for media responses to the type of situation where there has been a terrorist attack.
But it’s an investment well worth making.
One of the things which comes out of such training sessions is that participants get an idea – even though they’re taking part in what at the time is a theoretical exercise – of just how emotional they might understandably feel if having to respond to the media in the wake of a real tragedy.
The more you plan, prepare and practice ahead of potential trouble the better you and your organisation can expect to come across when the heat is on.
There’s much more on this in “Great Answers To Tough Questions At Work”. The publishers will let you read the first chapter free, by clicking on this image:
INTERVIEW WITH THE GIBRALTAR BROADCASTING CORPORATION
It’s been wonderful to work again in Gibraltar on two separate training missions during this month.
And it was nice to have the opportunity of being interviewed by the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation – which even kindly showed a picture of my book!
Thanks to the chair of the Academy For Chief Executives in Gibraltar, Pete Yeoman, for helping to make the interview happen and for driving half way around the Rock of Gibraltar to get me to the studio.
And thanks, too, to Pete for enabling me to run an open session on “Giving Great Answers To Tough Questions” to help raise money for the dynamic charity, Clubhouse Gibraltar, led by the inspiring Emily Adamberry Olivero M.B.E.
The charity helps those suffering from mental illness to reach their full potential and to get into – or back into – the workplace.
The link to the TV interview with the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation’s Kelly-Anne Turnbull is below.
The interview begins on the subject of my training in Sydney in the art of applying “blow-torch-on-the-belly” questions to politicians, business people and others in the sphere of Australian journalism – which laid the groundwork for allowing me to understand how to help people to answer such questions…
Two things to note about the interview:
- It is too late to attend this particular “Great Answers” open session referred to in the interview. There was an encouraging turnout in Gibraltar’s Marina Bay area, but the event is indeed over. However there may be future private and public sessions in Gibraltar so drop me an email if this is something potentially up your street.
- In the spirit of constant improvement which I seek to foster in others, you might think I look a bit hunched in the interview. Before the interview the camera operator kindly advised me to sit on the tails of my suit jacket as it would look better. Alas in the process I managed to give myself a slightly stooped look – exacerbated by the fact that my chair was a little lower than the interviewer’s. So I need to look out for this one next time and ensure I sit in a more upright position when following the camera operator’s instructions.
MICHAEL AND THE INFAMOUS MONKEY BITE
And carrying on with the ethos of living and learning, I did manage to avoid one previous mistake in my latest trips to Gibraltar.
Long-standing connoisseurs of this ezine may recall that when writing about my 2013 visits to Gibraltar I told of how I, rather stupidly, allowed myself to be bitten on the finger by one of the famous monkeys on top of The Rock of Gibraltar.
This time I managed to avoid such a blood-drawing situation.
My enduring memory from the 2013 monkey-biting incident was the pouring in of sympathy which followed the publication of that particular ezine.
So many of you kindly wrote back to ask: “Michael, is the monkey OK?”
And while I can’t vouch for the current well-being of that particular miscreant monkey, I can assure you that – despite the bite – the monkey colony in general in Gibraltar is alive and well.
