Every so often, thanks to the Internet, I come across a discipline or subset of a discipline which is entirely new. This was certainly true when I first encountered the DARVO phenomenon. Today I want to introduce my readers to another new area of discourse, one which has a slightly longer history. It is called Impression Management (IM). This is a study of the way that individuals and organisations project themselves, particularly when confronted with a crisis or threat. How should they respond, especially when the crisis challenges their very existence? In exploring this issue, we have especially in mind the way that revelations of past wrong-doing are handled by church organisations. Every organisation that is answerable to the general public may need to face these kinds of challenge from time to time. Public image and reputation will always be a precious commodity for any firm, commercial organisation or religious body. The tainting of OXFAM and other aid organisations with abuse scandals in recent years, has seen their public image and reputation damaged. Such attacks on the integrity of these organisations will have a negative effect in terms of the donations and contributions they receive, and which form a large part of their income.
This discussion on impression management owes much to the doctoral studies of an American Christian scholar, Wade Mullen. He has sought to apply the principles of this sub-discipline to evangelical church bodies in the States. He has allowed his total thesis to be published on the net. I am not proposing to summarise all his findings. Rather I wish to utilise this central tool of his analysis, IM, to question, as he does, on how a church should react when faced by abuse scandals. These severely call into question a church’s integrity and are a stumbling block for the faith of many of its members. Whether in the Catholic church or in the Southern Baptist network in the States, the way scandals are handled will determine whether churches can successfully pick themselves up after a crisis of this kind. The damage that such scandals cause to church bodies is a very serious matter. We still do not know what will be the results of the many evils committed within churches over recent decades.
The origins of the theory of impression management go back to a book published in 1959 by Erving Goffman entitled The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. In this book Goffman used the metaphor of an actor on the stage. He/she influences the audience by using a variety of communication techniques to win them over. What an actor does on stage is not a clear-cut lie, but neither is it the truth about his real off-stage character. The audience is persuaded (manipulated) to see reality as the actor defines it. Words are used, emotions are displayed to draw the audience into the actor’s world. The methods of Organisational Impression Management (OIM) all link back to the basic notion that members of an audience can be persuaded by techniques and words such as those deployed by an actor on the stage. Those involved in public relations for a company are a bit like teams of actors who work to sustain the corporate image desired by those in charge, even when a crisis is breaking.
Companies and organisations are often forced to negotiate crises and threats to their reputation because of mistakes, incompetence or sheer malevolence. Amid the huge literature on the way organisations cope with crises, there is one article from 1999, quoted by Mullen, that I found particularly helpful. With the off-putting title of ‘A Taxonomy of Organizational Impression Management Tactics’, Mohamed and others, the authors, describe the tactics that organisations use to defend their interests. The article authors employ a series of eight words, memorably all beginning with the letter B to describe the process. Four of these B words describe methods which relate to ‘assertive tactics’ while the remaining four relate to methods of defence.
The assertive tactics used by an organisation to defend its reputation, are, as one might imagine, not necessarily very pleasant or even always completely honest. The ‘B’ words that appear in this category are respectively boasting, blaring, burnishing and blasting. Behind these words we catch a glimpse of the techniques of intimidation, bribery, false claims and a general flirtation with the edges of truth on behalf of the organisation. The claims of success which may be made relate probably more to propagandist-type thinking than to reality. Assertion through sheer bluster (a 5th B word!) is combined with the claim that the organisation is always successful, effective and competent.
The defensive tactics of Organisation Impression Management are summed up in four additional words: burying, blurring, boosting and belittling. The two words which sum up all these ideas are justification and excuse. Justification is a word that implies that full responsibility for the threat can be, in some way, partly or completely avoided. Even when an organisation is forced to admit that their procedures have failed and that fault is admitted, the apology offered often comes with an expectation that all will be quickly forgotten and that the good name of the institution will be quickly restored.
The IM/OIM literature is extensive and even Wade Mullen’s summaries are beyond what we can share in this short post. Enough space remains for us to consider the outlines of what might be a Christian approach to impression management. Mullen’s thesis contains a consideration of several biblical episodes. The characters recorded in them are seen to use typical IM techniques, such as avoidance, excuse or ingratiation as ways putting things right with others. One example of extensive IM by an individual is in the story of Saul and his interaction with Samuel (1 Samuel 15). Whatever we think of the command of God to kill the Amalekites in this chapter, Saul was full of excuses in explaining his failure to obey God’s direct command. Mullen notes six IM strategies being employed by Saul to avoid admitting that he had disobeyed. In contrast we have the surprising and instant confession of sin by David when confronted by Nathan over David’s adultery and murder of Uriah. It is interesting to note that David’s passion to punish the man in Nathan’s story who had eaten the poor man’s lamb had been stirred.
Prevarication, truth avoidance and excuses seem to mark the way many individuals in the Bible used impression management as they do today. While it is natural to wish to present an organisation or an individual in the best possible light after a mishap or failure, there is always the temptation to retreat into fantasy or even dishonesty as a way of making a problem somehow go away. Impression management is a good description of what is going on in the Church today as it seeks to do two things in English society. It wants to convince others that it has Good News while at the same time it wants to be seen as an organisation that supremely values truth, transparency and love. Somehow the dishonesty that currently afflicts the Church of England at the highest level, in its failures to be open about its past (Smyth, Whitsey and the revelations of IICSA), is a stumbling block. It is hard for these Christian values to shine clearly. IM with its undertones of propaganda afflicts the Church at present. We all want to be part of a Church where we encounter not impression management but reality and honesty. We serve a God who demands from us openness as we pray that in him ‘all hearts are open …. and from whom no secrets are hid’. The truths of impression management don’t quite measure up to this standard.
Impression management? “They don’t seem to be very good at it” I hear you say, “you couldn’t make it up!”
Let’s say a bunch of bishops decide to have a big meeting, and it’s a prestigious one, so they announce that important others are invited too. Crucial caveat: but not if they’re same sex partners.
It’s hard to imagine a more inflammatory way of publishing the meeting to an equality-asserting society, with discrimination aversion right at the top of its agenda.
Poor impression management? I’d say.
The Church has a challenge of course. The impression it is managing is NOT those outside it, but the internal audience. It treads an eggshell path attempting to avoid offending one conservative (but influential) faction at the expense of a more liberal one say.
Disconnection from the rest of the world, again with ostrich-like proportions, has lead to another in a series of catastrophic impression management blunders.
We were called to be ‘in the world, but not of the world’. I think the first bit of this has been forgotten about.
The second and larger audience is watching. We Christians are supposed to be better people by the way. The steady media stream of abuse scandals, frauds and other church wrong-doing being broadcast to in an increasingly transparent society sees us as corrupt.
It will take a lot more than impression management to change this view, but it would be a good idea to start. Everyone is watching. And not because they’re interested in our way of life, or our beliefs. No. They’re waiting for the next instalment in the soap opera we may not even realise we’re putting on for them.
In 2016 I raised my concern to Bishop Sarah Mullally as follows about the role Luther Pendragon was playing:
“I was astonished to discover that [the Bishop of X] seems to have been deliberately prevented from reading the relevant documents by his colleagues in the Diocese of Winchester.
I had read that the Diocese of Winchester had a contract with a “scandal management company” (presumably Luther Pendragon from the information on its website) and that they “acted to obstruct, apply pressure and threaten survivors, whistleblowers and others who have spoken out about Anglican clergy abuse” but I hadn’t realised until I received the Bishop of X’s letter that they seemed to be employed to do the same to neighbouring Bishops too – and during the course of the Inquiry at that.”
How long will it take them to realise that employing an organisation or advisors to obstruct or distort the truth is an own goal?!
It reminded me of Screwtape……!
Steve and Jay. You are moving the argument as I hoped someone would from a theoretical idea to the actual working out. Of course the C/E is a fair disaster at managing its image. I mentioned three continuing ‘wounds’ that fester to show that I am aware of how far the church has to go to get back a reputation for honesty and transparency. The point of the article was to introduce impression management as an idea. Jay I am mortified to think that a church could go near something called a ‘scandal management company’. How unchristian in spirit is that? How about a bit of Ash on the forehead as befits this time of year?
I don’t imagine that Luther Pendragon use that phrase to refer to themselves but this is the link to the article from which I quoted: http://www.churchnewspaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/coen_16-06-2015.pdf
It would seem that those who support the church financially in Winchester and London are contributing not only to the hierarchy “impression managing” the rest of the church and society but to the bishops deceiving each other and themselves too. (Anyone good at writing in the style of CS Lewis to add another chapter to The Screwtape Letters?)
Bishops have the freedom, of course, to deceive each other and from what I’ve seen it appears they can do so with impunity; the rest of us can choose whether or not we go along with their deception. (I found Colin Coward’s recent piece very helpful in understanding how the bishops’ dishonesty is normalised and how it can distort every aspect of church life. http://www.unadulteratedlove.net/blog/2019/3/2/honesty-and-truthfulness-in-the-church)
It surprises me how dated the “assertive” and “defensive” tactics being employed are. Of course the “B” summary word, namely bullying still works. But when it doesn’t it’s counterproductive. For example the more some survivors are told to be silent, the louder their cries.
Another response is deflection: creating a diversionary issue such as “greedy bankers/corporations/politicians*” (*insert pet hate) and trying to deflect attention to them and away from church scandals. Unfortunately again this rarely works. A few decades ago some of these techniques may have been effective, but not now.
Get your own house in order first.
I had also found the following on the Church Reform Group’s website (but the link doesn’t seem to be working now):
“On Tuesday 18 November 2014 in the House of Commons, there took place a public discussion about issues to do with clergy ethical standards and abuse of children and vulnerable adults within the Church of England and other denominations and faiths. The panel brought together clergymen, academics, parliamentary peers, survivors and legal experts in the field of clergy abuse, all in the context of the current government inquiry into abuse, and parallel legislative developments at the Church of England Synod. The audience comprised of abuse survivors and campaigners on clergy sexual abuse, legal experts from the government abuse inquiry, together with clergy and lay people of different faiths. The Church of England declined to send representatives to face questions about clergy abuse, and instead employed a private public relations crisis management company “Luther Pendragon Limited”, to apply pressure against the meeting taking place, and thereafter attempted to prevent the publication of this film footage of the open discussion in Parliament. Luther Pendragon Limited has undertaken controversial lobbying and PR scandal management on behalf of the tobacco, arms and nuclear industries – as well as for the Church of England. “
I notice that in the book of Revelation, even the Beast has his Image.
In contrast, Jesus made himself of no reputation.
Oh my goodness. How do they expect to make any headway with evangelising? To quote Groucho Marx, sort of, you wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would take people who were attracted by this sort of behaviour.
Exactly