In this week’s bulletin, Charlie discusses steps to consider when planning on visiting a disaster site and gives an insight into some examples of well-known visitors at recent disasters.
Last weekend, the King of Spain, Felipe VI, Queen Letizia, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, visited the scene of the flooding in Paiporta, where 219 people died, and 93 are still missing. They faced angry locals who protested the lack of warning before the storm and the slow response from local and national governments. The protesters threw mud at them, and one resident even attacked the Prime Minister with a spade, injuring two bodyguards. The visiting party had to make a hasty retreat from the scene. This incident made me reflect on whether senior managers, politicians, or royalty should visit the site of a disaster.
So, what should senior managers, politicians, or royalty consider when their country or organisation faces a disaster with loss of life or property damage?
Visit Soon After the Disaster
It’s crucial to visit the site shortly after the disaster. Excuses such as “I didn’t want to hamper the disaster effort” used by George W. Bush after hurricane Katrina, or “I was on holiday” (which Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said after the 2019-2020 Australian bushfires), or “I am monitoring the incident from home”, don’t sit well with the public. These statements can come across as indifferent to people’s suffering. If you intend to visit the site, do so early—before the media begins criticising you for inaction. A delayed visit, especially after public criticism, can fuel perceptions that you’re only there because of bad publicity.
Engage with Those Affected by the Incident
Prime Minister Theresa May’s visit to the Grenfell Tower site, where 72 people died, is a lesson in the importance of engaging with survivors. She only spoke with first responders and didn’t meet any survivors during her initial visit. This omission drew heavy criticism and contributed to a narrative that the government was indifferent to the people of Grenfell. When May returned to meet survivors, the damage to her reputation was already done. Her lack of empathy seemed to reinforce the view that the government had neglected Grenfell residents for years and didn’t care about the people affected by it.
Demonstrate Emotional Intelligence and Empathy
The response of New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch shootings in 2019, where 51 people were killed, is a strong example of empathetic leadership. She visited survivors, wore a hijab in respect to the Muslim community (many of whom were victims), and was seen hugging people affected by the tragedy. She expressed sympathy and solidarity, and quickly enacted changes to New Zealand’s gun laws. Her actions were widely praised and helped to unify the nation in the wake of a horrific event.
Consider Legal Risks Carefully
Shortly after the Bhopal disaster, where thousands of people died due to a gas leak, the Chairman of Union Carbide flew to India to take control of the situation. Upon landing, he was immediately arrested by the Indian government. Though he was released on bail, he quickly returned to the USA and never returned to India. While it may feel right to visit the site, senior leaders should consider legal risks, as an arrest could leave the organisation leaderless in a critical time.
Be Prepared for the Visit
After the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada in 2013, where 47 people died due to an explosion caused by a runaway train, Edward Burkhardt, CEO and chairman of the rail company MMA, visited the town. He arrived several days after the explosion, without an entourage or support, dressed inappropriately, and was unable to speak the local language (French). His media interviews came across as defensive and lacking empathy, as he appeared to deflect blame onto the train engineer rather than acknowledging systemic issues within his company. This lack of preparation and sensitivity worsened public opinion.
Consider Whether Your Presence Will Help or Hinder
Leaders must decide whether their presence will genuinely aid recovery efforts or risk exacerbating the situation. Royalty and politicians often aren’t directly responsible for incidents and therefore might not be seen as culpable. However, if a disaster involves government or regulatory failure, politicians should carefully weigh up whether their visit will help resolve the situation or inflame tensions.
In the end, royalty may have no choice but to visit disaster scenes as part of their public role, but politicians should evaluate from the outset whether their presence will be beneficial or detrimental to the recovery and healing process.
