Margaret Brigley on evidence over echo chambers in crisis decisions
“Validate it. Verify it. Make it real.”
Resilience Unfiltered Coffee Chat Series
In this edition of Resilience Unfiltered, I sit down with Margaret Brigley, CEO and Partner at Narrative Research, to explore how organizations can use public opinion research and stakeholder engagement to guide high-stakes decisions. With more than 30 years of experience spanning research and communications, Margaret serves as Chair of the Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC). She is also a Certified Analytics and Insights Professional (CAIP) and a professionally trained focus group moderator. Earlier in her career, Margaret worked in public relations and crisis communications in the banking and public service sectors.
Natalia
Margaret, you and I have collaborated on some high-stakes projects, and one trend we’ve seen is a growing demand for public consultations and stakeholder engagement. What’s driving this surge, and is it likely to continue?
Margaret
Definitely. Appetite for public input is higher than ever, and it’s factored into major decisions more. With so much mis- and disinformation out there, leaders need to be deliberate about the input they rely on. They need to validate it. Also, the public increasingly expects their voices to be heard. Organizations need to show they are genuinely listening.
Natalia
What are the pitfalls to watch out for in how organizations are designing and implementing stakeholder engagement?
Margaret
One risk is relying on methodologies that produce big numbers but misleading results. Take open-link surveys. They are popular because they are cost-efficient and, on the surface, look very inclusive. Anyone can click the link and respond. Sounds great, right? The problem is, if someone feels strongly about an issue, they can fill out the survey hundreds, thousands of times. We’ve seen activists mobilize networks to flood responses. Bots and AI can be used to game the process. The result? Biased, low-quality, sometimes even fraudulent data – very different from a representative sample. What looks like broad support or opposition may actually be a few determined voices. In effect, you are handing the mic to a vocal minority. At the end of the day, quality research is about data integrity. Leaders need input that reflects the entire community rather than the loudest group. Otherwise, they risk making decisions on skewed data that do not tell the real – or the whole – story.
Natalia
Can you share any examples?
Margaret
In a recent Canadian Research Insights Council webinar, “The Value of Research and Consultation in Public Engagement,” I talked about a CTV poll – open-link survey – about the Freedom Convoy. In a nutshell, the convoy began as a call to end a federal vaccine mandate requiring unvaccinated Canadian truckers returning from the U.S. to quarantine. The poll asked: do you support the truckers’ convoy coming to Ottawa? More than 30,000 people responded. At first glance, a very impressive number. Picture the headline: “8 in 10 support the convoy.” But the data was not representative. We know convoy supporters had coordinated efforts to drive up the numbers. One person boasted on Reddit how he had filled out the survey a thousand times. Compare that with a Leger study using a representative sample. Only 32% of Canadians supported the convoy. 62% opposed. A very different picture.
Natalia
How can organizations avoid falling into the trap of misleading results?
Margaret
Validate and verify. Always. Researchers should clearly state the limitations of each method, with the proper caveats. CRIC has set new standards for open-link surveys. Their results should never be mixed with representative surveys or weighted to look “representative.” At the end of the day, decision-makers need both evidence and context. Our job is to present results with methodologies’ strengths and limits, explain what they mean and help leaders see the real story behind the numbers.
Natalia
Sounds like methods and standards are evolving with the times. Can you talk more about what’s changing in research and consultation – and what we can expect looking ahead?
Margaret
COVID pushed us online at a quicker pace and that really changed the game. Digital engagement opened the door to more voices. It’s easier for people to log on and join a discussion. Consultations are more accessible. There are many ways to gather input: open houses, online surveys, town halls, citizen panels, focus groups, phone surveys, in-depth interviews. In roundtables, for example, stakeholders don’t just give feedback. They learn from each other. When they wrestle with complex issues, decision-makers can find common ground, explore trade-offs and anticipate unintended consequences. Pair consultations with research and you get a richer picture and essential context.
The other piece is buy-in. Stakeholders want more voice in the process. When they are consulted, they are more likely to support the final decision. That builds trust and a sense of ownership in the community. Of course, there are new challenges, too, notably increasing challenges in online data quality.
With greater accessibility, it’s easy to over-listen to like-minded or highly motivated groups because they are louder or easier to engage with. Think of a dinner party with a few friends. If everyone at the table agrees, you might leave believing “everyone” feels that way. That’s why we need to be even more vigilant. Validate it. Verify it. Make it real.
Natalia
In my experience, dinner-table conversations can veer quickly into polarized territory over a glass of wine. Maybe it’s a sign of our times. Opinions swing to the extremes. It’s either black or white, with fewer shades of grey in between. I’ve noticed the same in online surveys for stakeholder engagement. More respondents choose “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree.” Fewer land in the middle.
Margaret
Our research shows frustration is running high, with the economy adding fuel to the fire. That anger often boils over into strong, harsh opinions. Organizations need to factor this in when they design research and consultation programs. Yes, you have to weigh the general mood of the public and your stakeholder universe. But you don’t want to mistake raw emotion for representative opinion. The real test is to separate what truly reflects the broader population and what is just emotion boiling over, sometimes from a vocal minority.
Natalia
Public opinion can be volatile in a crisis. The challenge for leaders is to stay true to their values while also showing they are listening and responding to shifting sentiment from employees or external stakeholders. How can they avoid building a strategy on the wrong premise when the pressure is on?
Margaret
You have to know where the hot spots are. The anger, the frustrations can have real implications for a business, especially when stakeholders get very vocal. But spotting the hot spots is not enough. You need to ground all your inputs in reality. I’ll say it again: validate them, verify them, make them real. Take employees, for example. You need to hear their frustrations – and also put those in context. How widespread are these views? Regular surveying of the full employee base is more important than ever. The same goes externally. It’s easy to overreact to a single angry social media post. One outlier can take on a life of its own and drive the entire crisis response. Now, you are reacting to a single angry voice instead of addressing the real issues. Leaders need to step back and ask: how representative is this view? Of course, you can’t ignore it, especially in the age of social media. But it must be weighed against the total picture for context. The question is: how common is that sentiment in the context of the full range of perspectives?
Natalia
At the IABC Crisis Comms Summit I led in Vancouver this summer, there was strong interest in evidence-based frameworks for crisis response. As you know, our next crisis comms shared interest group (SIG) session is called “Data versus Gut: The Art and Science of Crisis Decisions.” From your perspective, where can research or consultations make the biggest difference in high-stakes moments?
Margaret
So much of crisis management comes down to the message. What should we say? The wrong frame can inflame an already bad situation. Research helps you see the problem as it unfolds and informs the narrative – showing both the scale of opinion and why people feel the way they do. It’s not just about what goes into a statement. Context is as important. Why are we in this situation? What opinions brought us here? What’s the public perception now? You can acknowledge the challenge and provide the right context to de-escalate. It’s also critical to measure how both communications and actions shift opinion over time. That’s how you know where you stand with the public before, during and after a crisis. We’ve all seen how, in politics, a single comment can move voting intentions. In crises, one message can shift perceptions in real time. You need to track when those shifts happen and what triggers them so you can adjust.
Natalia
You talked about knowing where you stand with the public before, during and after a crisis. I couldn’t agree more with that systemic approach. How can organizations use it to build resilience proactively?
Margaret
What’s often missing in crisis management is evidence-based processes – knowing exactly where you stand on the metrics that matter to your business: customer satisfaction, employee sentiment, reputation scores or sales. Research doesn’t have to be constant. Annual or semi-annual snapshots are often enough to create a baseline. It’s invaluable in a crisis. With an ongoing lens on public opinion, you can measure the immediate impact in the acute phase and track recovery afterward. Without it, decision-makers are flying blind. One underused tool is syndicated research, or omnibus surveys. They give you a representative sample and are really inexpensive. You can add just one question – say, about overall reputation – without commissioning a full survey. These regular pulse checks give you a trend line showing where the organization stands over time.
Natalia
We are both WBEs – running Women Business Enterprise-certified businesses. Many of them are small or mid-sized, without big research budgets. How can they take advantage of data-driven decision-making when the stakes are high?
Margaret
Research doesn’t have to be expensive. Sure, there are large-scale projects, but smaller efforts can be just as valuable. For example, if you have customers, at the very least, you should ask: what do they think about the service I provide? I like the 80/20 rule. The bulk of your business usually comes from a small group of repeat clients. That 20 per cent is gold. As an owner, you need to understand and nurture these relationships. And it doesn’t cost much to set up a simple follow-up on the work you’ve done. What do you think? Would you recommend us? Would you buy from us again?
Natalia
Margaret, I feel like we could keep this conversation going all day. I can’t wait to pick it up again at our IABC crisis comms SIG discussion on October 28. So excited for our community to hear more from you.
The Resilience Unfiltered Series encourages open dialogue on tough issues to help executives and communication leaders build resilience in times of change. Ready to start your crisis preparedness journey? Email nsmalyuk@nbau.ca.
Natalia Smalyuk is an award-winning advisor specializing in strategic communication, crisis resilience and stakeholder engagement. She leads NBAU, a Women Business Enterprise (WBE) certified communication consultancy. What is NBAU? Not Business as Usual. Why NBAU? Because there’s no such thing as business as usual for leaders who think ahead and see a landscape of opportunity – and risk – across the unchartered global space. NBAU supports organizations in building resilience before, during and after adverse events with a unique crisis planning and training model that broadens the understanding of crises and enables positive action in an uncertain world.
Earlier chats in the Resilience Unfiltered Series:
A coffee chat with Richard Brown: Leading global comms across cultural divides
Dr. Matt Tidwell: crises, values and media readiness in a divided world
Anne Marie Aikins on proactive reputation management in ‘good and really bad times’
Coffee chat with Kim Clark: is there a way to get layoffs right?
A coffee break Q&A with Alexander Rau: “Cyber resilience is a marathon, not a sprint”
A coffee Q&A with Helio Fred Garcia: the agony of decisions and the power of patterns in a crisis
A coffee Q&A with Christal Austin: climate emergency & disaster preparedness