Communication without Communicating: Lessons from FG’s response to Atiku’s Press Conference
By Ishola, N. Ayodele
 |
| Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar |
Introduction
In the fast-paced world of politics and public life,
criticism is almost inevitable, and public figures must navigate the
treacherous waters of public opinion with grace and strategic communication. A
recent case that highlights the importance of the Nigerian State house response
to the world press conference of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the former Vice
President of Nigeria and a presidential candidate in the 2023 election. This
response serves as an important lesson in handling criticism especially from
competitors or oppositions. In this article, I will like to argue that from a
strategic communication point of view, attacking your critics, even when their
mischief is apparent, is not the best response strategy. Instead, I will
highlight a more effective approach to respond to such statements without
getting entangled in a war of words.
 |
| Bayo Ononuga (Special Adviser on Information & Strategy) |
The
Pitfalls of Attacking Critics
i. Escalation:
Responding to criticism with hostility or personal
attacks can quickly escalate a situation, turning it into a bitter feud. This
can damage one's reputation, erode public trust, and fuel further criticism.
An example of hostility and personal attack from the
Presidency's response to Atiku's press conference can be found in this
statement:
"We found such claim to be sheer hypocrisy as
Atiku remains one of the worst examples of kleptocracy in Africa."
In this statement, the Presidency directly accuses
Atiku of being a hypocrite and labels him as one of the "worst examples of
kleptocracy in Africa." This is a clear instance of a personal attack and
hostile language, as it not only questions Atiku's integrity but also uses
strong and derogatory language to make its point. Such language is not
conducive to constructive dialogue and can escalate the situation.
ii. Reinforcing
Negativity:
Engaging in public disputes with critics may
inadvertently lend credibility to their claims and provide them with a platform
to further their agenda.
Here is an example from the Presidency's response:
The Presidency's statement refers to Atiku as a
"self-serving serial loser" and accuses him of
"kleptocracy."
The use of personal attacks in referring to Atiku as a
"self-serving serial loser" and accusing him of
"kleptocracy" is counterproductive. Instead of addressing the
specific issues raised by Atiku, it focuses on discrediting him as an
individual, potentially portraying him as a victim and drawing attention to his
claims. This approach erodes civility in public discourse, fostering a toxic
political environment marked by name-calling and character assassination.
iii. Distracting
from Important Matters:
Public figures should focus on their agenda, the
issues that matter to the public, and their vision for the future. Engaging in
personal attacks distracts from these vital matters.
An example is the presidency’s statement:
"We want to advise Atiku that after over three
decades of elusive bid for the Presidency of Nigeria, he must now end his
unprofitable bid and go away from any venture that will further pollute the
political atmosphere and national harmony."
In this passage, the Presidency is urging Atiku to
abandon his political aspirations, calling them "unprofitable" and
suggesting they will "pollute the political atmosphere and national
harmony." This type of personal criticism and advice shifts the focus away
from substantive issues and political matters that are essential for the
country's progress and development. It directs attention to a personal attack
rather than constructive policy discussions.
A
more Strategic Response
So, what's the best way to respond to critics, even
when their motives are questionable?
1. Stay
Above the Fray: It's essential to maintain a statesman-like demeanor and stay
above the fray. Avoid direct confrontations and name-calling, as it can detract
from your public image.
One world leader who consistently demonstrated the
ability to stay above the fray and maintain a statesman-like demeanor is Nelson
Mandela, the former President of South Africa. Throughout his political career
and especially during his presidency, Mandela exemplified grace,
reconciliation, and forgiveness.
One of Nelson Mandela's famous quotes that exemplifies
staying above the fray is: "Resentment is like drinking poison and then
hoping it will kill your enemies."
This Nelson Mandela’s quote perfectly exemplifies the idea of staying
above the fray and not letting resentment or negative emotions consume you. It
emphasizes the importance of maintaining one's composure and not allowing
personal feelings of anger or bitterness to cloud one’s judgment or actions.
2. Focus
on the Issues: Redirect the conversation towards the issues and challenges that
matter most to the public. Emphasize your commitment to addressing these
concerns and your vision for a better future.
Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom during World War II. Churchill is known for his powerful and
inspirational speeches, particularly during the challenging times of the war.
Instead of engaging in personal attacks or dwelling on criticism from political
opponents or hostile forces, Churchill consistently focused on rallying the
British people and the world against the common enemy, which was Nazi Germany.
He directed the conversation toward the critical issues of national defense,
resilience, and the vision of a free and united Europe.
Churchill's leadership through effective communication
helped maintain the morale and determination of the British population and
their allies. He is remembered for his ability to steer the conversation away
from negativity and towards the issues that truly mattered during a time of
global crisis. This approach contributed significantly to the eventual victory
of the Allied forces.
This approach by Churchill exemplifies the
significance of staying focused on the issues and priorities that matter to the
citizens rather than engaging in name-calling and personal attacks. By
emphasizing critical challenges and the vision for a better future, leaders can
demonstrate their commitment to addressing the needs of the public. This
approach not only helps maintain a positive public image but also allows for
more constructive and productive discourse in the political arena. It shows
that leaders are more interested in serving the interests of the people than in
engaging in divisive and unproductive rhetoric.
3. Defend
with Facts and Logic: If a response is required, do so with facts, logic, and
well-reasoned arguments. Present a calm and collected case to debunk any false
claims made by the critic.
Recently, Erisco Foods Limited, a leading tomato
processing company, faced a customer complaint claiming that Erisco Nagiko
tomato mix product was unsafe for consumption due to concerns about the quality
and safety of the ingredients used.
But rather than
defending the reputation of the company with facts and logic by immediately
releasing comprehensive quality assurance reports and certifications from
relevant government agencies and independent third-party laboratories
confirming the safety and quality of its products, Erisco embarked on an
all-out attack and having the complainant arrested which turned out to be a
counterproductive approach that escalated the issue into a major crisis.
4. Use
Humor and Wit: Using humor and wit to manage responses to criticism is a clever
strategy that can help an organization defuse tension and win public support,
even during challenging situations.
In February 2018, KFC faced a major crisis in the UK
when it experienced a shortage of chicken due to issues with its new food
distribution contract. Many KFC restaurants had to close temporarily, leading
to public frustration, criticism, and widespread media coverage. Instead of
resorting to a defensive or confrontational stance, KFC chose to use humor and
wit in its responses to the criticism.
KFC released a series of full-page advertisements in
major newspapers. The ads featured an empty KFC bucket with the letters
rearranged to spell "FCK." The tagline read, "We're Sorry,"
and the text below explained the chicken shortage and apologized for the inconvenience.
This clever use of wordplay and humour was both self-deprecating and endearing.
It acknowledged the problem while simultaneously humanizing the brand.
The “FCK” print led to more than 700 press articles
and TV discourses, reaching around 797 million audience and additional 219
million on social media users all over the world. A single press ad that
delivered to more than 1 billion audience within three months.
Conclusion
In the realm of strategic communication, it's
essential to recognize the profound impact that your responses to criticism can
have on your public image and leadership perception. As eloquently stated by
Nelson Mandela, "Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it
will kill your enemies." Engaging in personal attacks and hostility often
yields more harm than good. Instead, let's draw inspiration from the wisdom of
Winston Churchill, who emphasized, "You will never reach your destination
if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks."
In other words, staying focused on the issues and
rising above the fray is the key to progress. Studies have shown that leaders
who maintain a statesman-like demeanor during criticism enjoy higher approval
ratings and are seen as more credible.
In conclusion, leaders who choose the path of rising
above, staying focused on the issues, and communicating with transparency,
logic, and even a touch of humor when appropriate, not only preserve their
credibility but also fortify their effectiveness. Let's remember that in the
world of strategic communication, a thoughtful response can be far mightier
than a knee-jerk reaction.
Comments
Post a Comment