Mom used to say:
“Stop Spinning so Much or You’ll get Dizzy”
Spin doctors are everywhere. What used to be the Public Relations
Department of the typical non-profit now more closely resembles Madison
Avenue every day. Part of this is due to the fact that for-profits
have waded into funding streams that used to be considered the arena of
non-profits. And when they arrived they brought sophisticated
marketing and publicity techniques with them. If organizations in
the not-for-profit sector were to compete, then they had to fight fire
with fire, especially for fee-for-service monies.
What may be less well known is the use of refined techniques designed to
cover unpalatable moves by non-profits. That is, their actions
would have been viewed as objectionable by key stakeholders.
Instead, the release of information was cleverly choreographed in order
to put the best possible “spin” on things. This is known as
Defensive Impression Management.
The following is from an article by Arndt and Bigelow in the
Administrative Science Quarterly of September, 2000:
Defensive impression management serves to protect an actor from negative
reactions to an event or maintain a desired reputation (Tedeschi and
Melburg, 1984; Gardner and Martinko, 1988)
The Arndt and Bigelow article describes some basic techniques of
Defensive Impression Management that they observed in a number of
hospitals they were studying. Here is another excerpt from their
article:
First, the organizations offered accounts that excused change and
justified restructuring as appropriate. Second, the organizations
offered disclaimers about the new structure. Third, they concealed that
they were innovators with respect to the diversified corporate
structure.
The above Defensive Impression Management terms will now be examined one
by one. First, are the excuses and justifications.
Don’t Blame Me
Excuses avoid responsibility for negative outcomes by denying the
actor's role in the event (Tedeschi and Melburg,
1984). How many times have CEO’s used phrases such as “We’ve been
forced to…” or “I have no choice but to…”. They attribute the
actions they are announcing to unforeseen circumstances or unfriendly
outside forces. This writer is not aware of a single circumstance
in the U.S. in which a CEO said “I should have seen this coming and
prepared for it. Since I did not, I will resign”.
We Might be Better Off This Way After All
Justifications are closely related to excuses. Justifications
are explanations that acknowledge responsibility for the consequences of
an event but not their negative implications (Tedeschi and Melburg,
1984). In this case, rather than just focusing on the
circumstances which “forced” the action, the leaders list other positive
aspects of the change. Interestingly, they do not list the
negatives with the same emphasis.
Second, the disclaimers.
“Trust Me, I Know What I’m Doing”
(Sledge Hammer from the TV comedy Sledge Hammer)
Disclaimers are a device "to ward off and defeat in advance doubts and
negative typifications which may result from intended conduct" (Hewitt
and Stokes, 1975: 3).
These assure stakeholders that the new plan really is the best way to
go. It will work if everyone gets behind it. Disclaimers say
that the situation has been examined in every conceivable way, with the
help of experts. They may even swamp stakeholders in extraneous
details. These are likely to be topped off with the reassurance
that most folks won’t really encounter a drastic change in service
delivery anyway.
Finally, the concealment.
Believe Me, You Don’t Want To Know
This is self-explanatory. The organization’s leaders hide things
that might lead to objections to their plan. Among those who
should not expect that they would be told everything are:
customers, the community at large, staff, and donors. In fact,
boards of directors should be quite wary too. Perhaps the
not-for-profit arena has an Enron or two?
Defensive Impression Management, as described here, does not encourage
outright lies or malfeasance. However, it is designed to avoid a
balanced examination of the matters at hand. Its approach is
contrary to the mission statements of most non-profits with which this
writer is familiar. Though with good advice one can implement the
above strategies without violating the letter of the law, they are very
likely to violate its spirit.
Lies? Maybe not.
Dishonest? Certainly yes.
Some might say it is unpalatable, but necessary.
But at what cost? The trust of the stakeholders is only the first
casualty.