You, like me, must be in WhatsApp groups where Hamas’s act of terrorism against Israel and the Israeli government’s violent response still trigger terrible disagreements, even with the rapid ceasefire and the beginning of the release of hostages and prisoners by both sides. If the subject itself already arouses passions, confusion tends to increase in the context of ideological polarization in which we live, in which people continue to be inclined to take sides in a very radical way, disregarding the arguments and pains of those on the other side.
You must also be, faced with so much news of the murder of innocent people, experiencing the drama of wanting to take a stance on the war. Whether to express solidarity with the Jewish and Palestinian people, or simply to express your personal point of view on the issue.
It’s not just you and me. Leaders in the corporate market and public managers face the same difficulty. They want or need to take a stand, but they have the challenge of calibrating the risks so as not to say something inappropriate while showing solidarity with the civilian population who are suffering the horrors of a fierce conflict.
After all, simply demonstrating solidarity, calling for peace and defending that innocent people are not murdered may not be enough as a business demonstration or institutional positioning. Watching a painful event without trying to help those who are suffering from the omission. Worse, it could generate an even bigger crisis.
Crises grow with statements lacking context from CEOs and senior public administrators. This is a big problem for leaders when they speak out. It’s sad to see how hatred is amplified in discussions between public and private managers that could give way to dialogue and the proposition of solutions.
Reactions to the war also sowed discord in the university environment. In the United States or Brazil, episodes of intolerance or insensitivity in the academic world are multiplying. Driven by passions (sometimes pro-Palestine, sometimes pro-Israel), many do not even admit to listening to anyone who brings a different perspective on ongoing military actions.
The violence of the war in the Gaza Strip generates a war of words across the planet. At Harvard University, student organizations that make up the institution’s Palestinian Solidarity Committee issued a statement immediately after the Hamas attack, asserting that the “Israeli regime” is “entirely responsible for all ongoing violence.” This prompted a rebuke from former Harvard president Larry H. Summers, who said on X (formerly Twitter) that he was “disgusted” by the university’s “silence.” The university administration then issued a statement expressing the hope that Harvard could “modulate rather than amplify the deep divisions” that existed.
A basic concept in major humanitarian crises, such as this case, is that human lives must always come first. There is no way to make any public statement without first placing the right to life at the center of the issue.
In the book “Far beyond Media Training – the spokesperson in the hyperconnected era”, which I have just launched in partnership with journalist Miriam Moura, we dedicate a chapter to crisis management, emphasizing the importance of seeking balance when dealing with complex scenarios. The credibility and reputation of an organization, as well as any spokesperson, are closely influenced by the perception of their stance during crisis situations.
Winston Churchill, the former English Prime Minister recognized for the teachings he left for posterity after being one of the main leaders of the Allied resistance during the Second World War (1939-1945), gave us profoundly current advice: Not to have difficulty It’s a wonder leaders who keep their ears to the ground. He used these words to emphasize that the effectiveness of great leadership comes less from the ability to give beautiful speeches than from the ability to listen.
When he made this statement, the British statesman naturally did not count on the success of innovative events that would make it possible to create a network of connected people around the world, nor on the consequences that current slogans such as real-time transparency have caused in the most varied spaces.
Nor did Churchill know that, increasingly empowered, citizens would find, in new communication technologies, ways to listen to public figures, companies and governments. In these scenarios of constant and accelerated transformations, it is up to organizations to discover new ways of addressing an increasingly informed and diverse public, responding to their appeals and combating so-called fake newsinstead of taking ideologized positions.
In 2020, the murder of a black man (George Floyd) by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a wave of protests in the United States and other countries. Some leaders made very unfortunate statements, typical of those who did not know how to capture a moment when the racial issue was particularly problematic. Now, millions of people of African descent felt deeply affected by Floyd’s death. Therefore, there was outrage even against those who failed to repudiate an act with clear racist characteristics.
Since then, several institutions have been drawn into cultural and political battles in which the option of remaining silent is ruled out and inappropriate positioning can make them look very bad in the public eye.
Good communicators have existed since ancient times, and there are certainly many attributes that differentiate them. What they have in common, however, is the understanding that context analysis, empathy and proposing solutions are key elements in the use of communication as a conflict moderation tool.
Omission cannot be a path. The moment calls for leaders to bring knowledge, civic education and the sharing of proven real facts to light. The crisis is an opportunity to combat ignorance and fake news, that aggravate hatred against others.
The difficulties of positioning ourselves in a complex and ambiguous scenario cannot stifle voices and projects that contribute to delivering solutions to such urgent issues. Communication at this time must be used as an instrument of peace.
In Gaza or anywhere else, there is no future for humanity without peace, without dialogue and without the competence to mediate conflicts.
* This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Adnews
Follow Adnews onInstagram,LinkedIneThreads. #WhereTransformationHappens
