In the wake of the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting late last year, Seattle's police chief resigned, the mayor is under siege, and there are lots of embarrassing questions, all because they and their city appeared naive about the true nature and behavior of activists. The city underestimated the threat, overestimated its ability to deal with it, and acted under the delusion that a "good city" like Seattle could hardly be ground zero for what did happen.
At the start, there were 500 groups with 500 agendas. Demonstrations were inevitable but manageable. Then, the WTO showed virtually no savvy about activist action and overlaid that naivet with a thick layer of arrogant behavior. This is how 500 agendas got welded into one: Get the WTO. The result was self-inflicted. Seattle lost its civic virginity, and the WTO is now a long-term activist target.
There are important lessons here for anyone that is or could be the target of activism and anti-corporate activist action. To gain a better understanding of what happened and the lessons we can learn, we need to look at the assumptions made by the WTO and Seattle and the realities.
Assumptions: These nice people (activists) kept saying, "We just want to make a point and be heard;" and "Seattle is not the target; WTO is the target."
Reality: When it comes to activism, activists' definitions of the world are considerably different, often counterintuitive. Nice does not equal tranquility, and there's always a certain level of deception in these encounters. Assume the worst. The best intentions often bring out the worst behavior.
Assumptions: Face-to-face meetings confirmed that the demonstrations would be energetic but routine; and there are always a handful of troublemakers in a crowd this size.
Reality: Unlike most of us, activists get up in the morning, look in the mirror, decide who or what they are going to save, liberate or emancipate that day. They then focus their full attention, energy and interest on doing just that. Never underestimate the power of a few if they choose to aggressively, even unlawfully, pursue their goals.
Assumptions: The world is watching, therefore everyone will want to make everything go well; and they won't be able to stop many events from happening.
Reality: Seattle and the WTO had one sense of the symbolism of the event; the activists had a completely different view. Rather than try to achieve both sets of goals, the city decided to push back. Resistance and resolve grew larger and more negative as 500 separate agendas quickly melded into one: Destroy the WTO event.
Assumption: If we appear cooperative but firm, bad things are less likely to happen.
Reality: There are only two ways activists get energy:
- The collective action of many against an irresistible, high-profile target that doesn't resist; and
- A target that resists stupidly, clumsily, or needlessly.
Assumption: A pledge of nonviolence by religious and allied organizations is a pledge of peace.
Reality: Being arrested, then jailed is the penultimate activist experience. (The ultimate, of course, is becoming a martyr.) Understand the concept of faith-based action; it is enormously powerful.
Assumption: Even if some people get out of hand, we can easily scale up and "handle" it.
Reality: "Desert Storm" should remain the model of preparation for major confrontations. An overwhelming force is developed and trained to affect a brief, predictable, positive outcome. Better to have scaled up and not use these resources than to be without them.
Assumptions: We can control many of the messages if we gear up and have enough "real people" available who can tell us how they benefited from free trade; and the public will understand.
Reality: The media is driven predominately by negative events. Adding in anger and emotion makes the news agenda almost impossible to divert. Once violence breaks out, "peaceful" activists will step back and assess how their cause might be advanced before taking any action to condemn or control the violence. The target gets the blame, no matter what.
So what are the key lessons when major activist action is threatened? Here are three:
1. Activists' actions are simple, direct, emotional, and predictable. They often say precisely what they want and plan to do, including schedules, well in advance. Listen, hear, understand, prepare, prepare, prepare.
2. Work to establish, understand, appreciate and preempt every issue that can be dealt with well before zero hour.
3. Require communication from the start. Find ways for activists to be heard, allow non-disruptive attendance at meetings, and set up special briefings and idea exchange opportunities for meaningful conversation.
Some organizations, their lawyers and CEOs dislike this approach because it could "make them look like sissies" or be construed as "caving into people they don't respect." The reality is, if you don't think and act this way you'll look like Seattle.
James Lukaszewski, APR, Fellow PRSA, is a specialist in helping clients deal with sensitive situations including anti-corporate activism and activist attacks. He has an international practice and teaches crisis communication strategy at New York University. For more information, check out his Web site at http://www.e911.com.