For the last two months, I have had the privilege of taking a graduate course in crisis communications.  I have learned a great deal and my communication toolbox has expanded once again.  Some of the major themes of responding to a crisis are:

• Have a plan before a crisis happens
• Organize a Crisis team and practice different scenarios
• Identify Stakeholders
• Respond quickly
• Be open
• Be honest
• Cultivate relationships with the media before, during and after a crisis
• Recognize the importance of social media
• Own only the crises that belong to your organization
• Be flexible
• After a crisis, debrief and revise plan(s)

I was shocked to hear from several of the speakers that visited our class that many organizations don’t have a crisis plan.  In retrospect, it’s not that surprising at all.  One simply has to look at how BP handled the oil spill to realize that they didn’t have a plan. The CEO (Tony Heyward) consistently made statements that positioned him and BP as disconnected and insincere.  BP failed to address the key factors of the crisis and control messaging.  Now that some time has passed, it appears that BP has realized where they fell short and have taken measures to craft their own message.  Whether or not their efforts are effective is debatable.  In any case, BP has begun to rebuild their integrity amongst their stakeholders.

In a more recent crisis, Penn State has had a rough week.  I was following the scandal on twitter and YouTube the day JoPa was terminated.  I was fascinated by how fast information was flooding social media sites and how slow news agencies were reporting on the matter-even though there were reporters on the ground.  Simply by searching YouTube posts, I soon realized that videos of the riots were on YouTube 30-45 minutes before the same videos hit the airwaves.  Within 3 days of Sandusky’s arrest, Penn State’s identity, and brand image were decimated.  Although the actions of the university on Saturday has been effective in restoring their brand image, Penn State has a long road ahead.  Penn State needs to find a new identity away from sports and sell it to their stakeholders (e.g. students, boosters, prospective students, alumni, boosters parents, and fans).  How Penn State creates their new identity is a question that won’t be answered for some time.  There are criminal and civil proceedings that still need to play out.  However, Penn State does have an opportunity to continue to distance themselves from the scandal and show their stakeholders what they learned from this crisis and how they will change.  

Lastly, the most important take away I have from this class rests in my new super tool in my communication toolbox.  I am confident that I can pitch virtually any organization about the importance of developing a crisis management plan.  Regardless of whether or not I am an expert in an organization’s niche, I know can research and industry and effectively anticipate potential crises and sell the importance of being prepared.  After all, failing to plan is a recipe for planning to fail.

Last week in our crisis communication class, Lawrence Grayson spoke to our class on the subject of crisis communication.  Mr. Grayson is a Senior Vice President of corporate communications at Bank of America.  To say that he is an experienced communicator would be a gross understatement.  One of the points that Mr. Grayson emphasized was the strategic use of “no comment”.  I found this interesting because most of our class readings emphasized the importance of responding quick and being open.  However, after hearing Mr. Grayson explain why using “no comment” important, I quickly understood.  Mr. Grayson described a scenario where an independent company was performing construction on a Bank of America building and reporters were asking for statements from bank employees.  He continued by emphasizing the importance of not owning a crisis that isn’t yours.  Had a bank employee commented, that would have been the story.  Say what you want about big banks, but the bottom line is that in today’s economy, news agencies don’t want to report on the good that banks are doing.  They simply want to fuel the negative fire that continues to permeate the 24-hour news cycle our society operates in.

Conversely, tonight, Judi Wax (a senior vice president of a major PR agency here in Charlotte contradicted Mr. Grayson’s view of the “no comment”.  Ms. Wax submitted that the term no comment implies that the organization is hiding something and others view “no comment” in a negative way.  Although I understand that responding with “no comment” can cause reporters to dig deeper, if an organization doesn’t have ownership of a crisis, then there is absolutely no reason to comment.  Even if a representative states that she/he doesn’t own a particular crisis, I feel he/she has said too much.  While I do respect where Ms. Wax is coming from, I believe Mr. Grayson’s take on the matter is more realistic and less problematic.  Sometimes organizations that are consistently under fire from the media need to sweat every word and if a situation isn’t connected to his/her organization then don’t comment.  After all, the situation doesn’t belong to organization so there is really nowhere for a reporter to go.

According to Coombs (2011), issues management ” tries to lessen the negative impact of an issue and is intended to shape how an issue develops and is resolved” (p.32).  Sometimes what a communications representative doesn’t discuss can open the door for the representative to redirect the media to convey a message that is relevant to the organization.  For example, a representative might say, “I have no comment on issue X, however, we will be rolling out initiative Y at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon.  Would you like an exclusive.”  Although the reporter may come back at 4:00 and try and get the representative to slip up, the communicator will also have an opportunity to get a well thought out strategic message out to the public.  For me, it’s simple, stay on message and only own what’s genuinely yours.

A couple of weeks ago our crisis communication class practiced a disaster simulation for a fictitious company called Kick Kar.  The organization is an automobile manufacturer that markets a specific type of vehicle to teens and young adults.  The automobiles are fitted with extra safety applications (seatbelt sensors that are linked to the ignition, wi-fi technology that only works when the car is off etc.)  In the scenario, one of the automobiles is involved in an accident that kills 2 students and injures 2 others.  Another classmate and myself were the owners of the company and the other 17 students were members of a PR firm that we hired externally.

The scenario played out in chunks.  Information was given to the PR firm via reporter inquiries, twitter feeds, Facebook posts, blogs and telephone calls.  I found it very interesting to watch my classmates react to the massive amount of information that was being given to them.  One particular thing I noticed that because of the immediacy of information, the entire class was immediately thrown into a reactive mode.  The class had only one hour to get out a statement.  Although the environment was stressful, everyone did absolutely fantastic and us owners definitely had the easiest job.

According to Coombs (2011), when responding to a crisis, organizations should (1) respond quickly, (2) speak with one consistent voice and (3) Be open.  Crisis communicators have traditionally believed that organizations have one hour to begin to craft a crisis response statement.  However, social media has changed everything and many professionals would argue that the golden hour is much shorter.  Although the fictitious Kick Kar did get an official well worded response out within the hour.  The team in charge of social media was engaging users via social media well before the hour deadline.  All statements were agreed upon by the group and the messages were consistent and open.

The major takeaway that I got from the class is that it would behoove organizations to routinely practice crisis response simulations.  There are several reasons why I feel that practicing scenarios is important.  First, by routinely summoning the crisis team together, team members begin to develop relationships among one another and may come to a consensus more quickly.  Secondly, cross-departmental team members will get a better understanding of departmental roles other than their own.  By understanding other roles contained within a mutually inclusive organization or situation, members may be more likely to empathize instead of criticize roles that they are not familiar with.  Finally, and most important, crisis breeds uncertainty and uncertainty is directly linked to uncertainty.  By practicing crisis simulations, crisis teams will be familiar with different scenarios and will respond with a lesser degree of uncertainty and anxiety.  The one caveat I submit would be that organizations remain flexible enough to pivot when different crises mandate creative problem solving from the crisis team.

So, how many of you initially thought that I would be blogging about Apple?  Sorry, this post isn’t about Apple’s loss of Steve Jobs.  My Uncle Scott and I are very close and we share information between us frequently.  Scott works as an engineer providing technical services to movie theaters nationwide.  The company he works for is a relatively small company, and for years, bidding, pricing, marketing and messaging have been performed solely by its owner.  Two weeks ago, He died unexpectedly of a heart attack.

When my uncle was telling me about how his company has lost its visionary, leader and friend, I could feel his grief.  Also, I knew that his entire company was/is in a crisis.  Scott went on to say that competitors were calling him and seeking information and their customers (some of whom have million dollar contracts) were very uncertain about the future of the company.

I mentioned to Scott about our crisis class and that the material that I have been reading may be very helpful to the organization.  He agreed and obtained permission from the operations director for me to develop a crisis management plan specific to this circumstance.  

According to Coombs, W.T. (2011), organizations in crisis need to respond immediately in order to restore trust and certainty with stakeholders.  Therefore, in order to help the organization, I prepared a bullet point list of things to consider (from chapter 8 of the Coombs text) as the organization moves forward.  They include:

•  Identifying Stakeholders (examples, employees, customers, vendors & competitors)

•  Evaluating existing organizational goals

•  Redefining organizational goals

•  Preparing a statement to stakeholders (emphasizing the importance of immediacy)

•  Identifying a Spokesperson

•  Controlling messaging (Consistency, speaking with one voice (p.143).

•  Reducing uncertainty (transparency)

My uncle and the operations director have reviewed my recommendations and are looking forward seeing the CMP once it’s completed.  Therefore, since this is a real life crisis, I look forward to any comments you have.  Once I figure out scribd and tumblr.  I will upload to document to this blog for the class to see.

Last week, my crisis communication class went to see the Movie “Contagion”.  Don’t worry, this blog post is not a spoiler alert.  As you can see from the trailer  , an unknown virus comes out of nowhere and kills millions of people.  The movie is definitely not a feel good, happy-go-lucky story where the good survive and the villains get what they deserve.  In fact, the movie is quite realistic.  After all, while Hollywood may tend to spare the good and innocent protagonist, a virus doesn’t discriminate.  Analyzing “Contagion” from a crisis communication perspective reveals some telling and somewhat disturbing facts.

First, when dealing with a pandemic that has the potential to kill millions, every human on the face of the earth is a stakeholder.  Therefore, communicating the facts has to be strategic.  Otherwise, panic could magnify the crisis and diminish the efficiency and ability of the specialist charged with containing a global nightmare.  In “Contagion”, it was evident that protocol was King.  Deviating from protocol was not an option.  The professionals knew from the start of the outbreak that people were going to die.  Their objective was to contain the spread and find a cure.  There were teams preassigned to assume these roles (and considering rapid spread of the virus), those CDC teams performed well.  The flaw that frightens me is the lack of communication between the multiple bureaucracies who would be forced to communicate with each other if an epidemic were ever to threaten our lives.

After analyzing “Contagion”, I can honestly say that (in the movie) the system worked as best as it could.  However, reality isn’t Hollywood.  One simply needs to view some real life documentaries that documented actual disasters (e.g. Katrina, 3-11-11 Earthquake, Chernobyl) and the difference between Hollywood and real life becomes all too clear.  I guess all we can do as mutual stakeholders is plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I did (um) enjoy “Contagion” and I encourage those with a strong stomach to go see it.  However, don’t bother buying popcorn or (heaven forbid a burger) during the movie. Trust me.  All in all, “Contagion” is a disturbing, yet eye-opening reality that uncovers how vulnerable we all actually are.

By the way, I now have at least 2 years of hand sanitizer in my garage.

When organizations are faced with a crisis, some choose to deal with the situation prescriptively, while other businesses choose to handle the situation provisionally.  The organizations that follow the prescriptive ideology tend to view a crisis as destructive, threatening and negative.  This view is often evidenced through their defensive and negative communication efforts.  Often, they will scapegoat, minimize the impact and focus on legalities that genuine stakeholders could care less about.  A great example of a prescriptive crisis management endeavor is the recent BP oil spill.  At first, the company blamed the deceased platform workers and denied responsibility.  However, as the oil continued to poor in the gulf, it became apparent that their prescriptive crisis management plan was flawed.  BP’s reputation with their stakeholders went in the toilet well before the leak was plugged nearly 90 days after the accident.

In contrast to the prescriptive method, the provisional method for handling a crisis is open, ethical and forward thinking.  Furthermore, an organization that follows a provisional model reflects will reflect their strong, positive and ethical core values when faced with a crisis.  Provisional crisis management plans leave their stakeholders with little uncertainty and tend to recover faster than organizations who strictly follow prescriptive crisis management strategies.

Bill Lear (inventor, pilot and founder of the Lear Jet) exemplifies an organizational figure head who diligently followed a provisional crisis communication method.  Lear, after serving in WWII as a crack fighter pilot, believed his product was a reflection of himself.  Lear’s vision for the Lear jet was actualized in the early 60’s and a large number of corporations were owners of the Lear Jet.  However, when planes started crashing under mysterious circumstances, customers began to speculate about the safety of the Lear Jet.  Bill Lear recognized that the future of his organization was in serious jeopardy and he decided to handle this crisis in a very unconventional way.  Lear immediately grounded the entire fleet of the jets and communicated to his stakeholders that a solution will be dispatched to them in the near future. Once Lear was satisfied all Lear jets were on the ground, he personally flew the problem model in order to diagnose the flaw.  After simulating all of the crash scenarios (nearly crashing himself), Lear identified the defective part and immediately sent out replacement parts to his customers.  Grounding the planes cost Lear a lot of money.  Although it planted seeds of doubt with potential customers and stakeholders, he never regretted his decision.  He was willing to risk his success, his fortune and even his life to solve the mystery of those crashes and eliminate the uncertainty among his customers.  What Lear wasn’t willing to risk was his integrity.  Lear knew exactly what he was going to do to fix the problem and restore legitimacy and grow his organization into the icon it is today.

A couple of years ago, Toyota was experiencing a communication nightmare.  The initial problem, a defective gas pedal would turn out to be a communication nightmare for the Japanese car manufacturer.  Although car manufacturers are forced to deal with recalls fairly regularly, Toyota was ill-prepared to deal with the public’s demand for clarity.  After the first few crashes went viral, the mainstream media picked up the story and ran wild.  Toyota remained silent for a very long time and refused to address the situation directly.  Thousands of soccer moms began to flood Toyota dealerships nationwide demanding to know whether or not their vehicle was safe.  Toyota’s messaging was so poor, that the Japanese executives failed to prepare American dealerships with adequate answers that would possibly regain the trust of their consumers.

Crisis management theory lists three categories that organizations may employ in order to effectively navigate through a crisis situation:  Apologia, Image Restoration Theory and Excellence Theory.  Toyota’s decision to remain silent heightened the uncertainty and anxiety of their stakeholders.  Thus, all the messaging about Toyota was from the media and frightened consumers.  

I find it hard to believe that an organization as large as Toyota didn’t have a crisis plan in place to deal with recalls.  What I do believe is that Toyota’s plan was inadequate for an American constituency and today’s 24 hour news cycle.  Toyota could and should have immediately issued a response from an apologia approach.  Not necessarily admitting fault.  But definitely acknowledging and apologizing for the problem.  Furthermore, an apologia approach would have positioned Toyota to restore legitimacy with their stakeholders through an Image Restoration approach.  Instead, Toyota’s decision to remain silent demolished their legitimacy, reputation and Toyota’s relationships with their stakeholders.

There have been many articles written recently that highlights what Toyota did wrong.  How would you like to be a part of an organization that exemplifies what not to do?

I have been very excited for this course all summer.  Considering I have a wide variety of experience ranging from food/bar service, non profit management and clergy, There have been many occasions where one of those particular organizations found itself attempting to navigate a crisis.  I have been struggling a little regarding what I would like this blog to cover.  After all, there is so much going on in our world, the possibilities are literally endless.  So I have decided to begin with a focus on current events and how those events relate to our discussions and class readings.

Reflecting on the first class, the one thing that struck me was that if the “perception” of a crisis exists among steak holders, then there is a crisis.  Far too often executive leadership fail to listen to their stakeholders and simply ignore potentially devastating crisis indicators.  History has shown this to be true in politics, big business and most recently in my case a particular non profit agency here in Charlotte.

As you may or may not know, last year I worked in a management position at The Men’s Shelter of Charlotte.  I enjoyed helping the hundreds of Men who stayed at the shelter deal with their own crises and see the hope return to their once hopeless lives.  However, after several months of working there, I noticed that there was a disturbing policy that was/is a ticking time bomb for the shelter and all of its stakeholders. 

It is the policy of the shelter that every guest leave the premises by 7:00 A.M.  Most of the guests leave after breakfast between 6-6:45.  There are a good number of convicted sex offenders that have no other alternative but to stay at the shelter.  The reasons are varied.  Some are indigent, some have families that live too close to schools or parks and are forbidden to reside with their loved ones.  In any case, these men stay at the shelter and are put out on the streets at the same time hundreds of children are waiting across the street for their school bus to arrive.  I realized that the exit policy put the shelter and the community at risk.  In addition to the shelter’s legal liability, the community and many children are at risk.  Furthermore, we are charged with housing these sex offenders and keeping children away from them.  Does that liability end if the shelter forces sex offenders to violate the terms of their probation by demanding that all guests leave by 7:00 A.M.?  That was the question I posed to upper management.  Although my concerns were heard, I was admonished for “stirring the water”.  After several months of not hearing anything back, I resigned my position.  Although I miss helping the men at the shelter, the failure of the leadership to realize and act, left me no choice.  In retrospect, my shelter experience remains a saddening reminder that far too many leaders live in a vacuum and fail to take proactive measures to protect themselves and others.  

I look forward to hearing your comments.