Over the past 20 years, I’ve done countless crisis audits and managed more crisis issues than I care to count, and I’m still fascinated how clients define a crisis. Traditional scenarios – manufacturing issues, product recalls, and physical events such as explosions, fires and crashes – have been in sharp focus during our summer of automobile recalls and oil spills.

Terrorism and natural disasters joined the list following 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina, and occasionally I hear about investigative journalism or Attorney General activism. One client even listed CEO kidnapping as his biggest fear.

But events of this past week should give us all pause and remind us that a crisis is anything that threatens a company’s reputation or undermines the trust and confidence of your stakeholders.

At Hewlett-Packard, allegations of sexual harassment forced the resignation of CEO Mark Hurd despite solid company performance during his tenure. Now some news reports suggest the claim was baseless, citing a “breach of trust” related to improper expense reporting to conceal the Hurd’s relationship with a company contractor. (In some circles, that would be called fraud, or theft – but that, along with Larry Ellison’s comments about the HP Board, may be another post for another day). And at Sara Lee, Brenda Barnes voluntarily stepped down after a medical leave of absence.

CEO illness, litigation, investigative journalism, and sometimes corporate or executive malfeasance – all of these things can generate a crisis. And all of them warrant a response, regardless of whether a company and its leaders decide on the response or whether it is decided for them.

My advice to clients: As you think about your own organization’s crisis protocols, are you prepared for the kinds of Crisis 2.0 issues that are making headlines? Is your crisis response team prepared to deal with the multitude of issues that could trigger a breach of confidence, and are they prepared to do it in the lightning speed now necessary due to social media?

If the answer is no, it’s time to refresh, reboot or otherwise re-align your crisis plan. Someone’s job may depend on it.

cwinters Crisis Communications, Executive Visibility CEO communications, Crisis Communications, HP

I read this piece in HBR last week about the role of the CEO in creating and advancing culture. And I agree wholeheartedly with much of what Robbins says about the CEO’s involvement being the single biggest driver of culture, particularly for entrepreneurial organizations.

But I don’t agree at ALL with his premise that once formed, cultures can’t be changed.

I do a lot of work with companies in turnaround mode….where loss of culture or change of culture is often a key factor in the decline of a business….and where changing culture positively enables the success and in some cases, the very future of the organization.

If you read about the textbook turnarounds – Continental Airlines, Nissan, ODSI – all credit culture change as critical drivers of their success.

I often say that the CEO is like the Jedi Master of Reputation. The same is true for culture.

cwinters Employee Engagement, Executive Visibility, General Corporate CEO communications, Company Culture, Continental Airlines, Nissan, ODSI, Turnaround

After the level of expectation and coverage around the BP announcement of a new CEO, the actual announcement may seem somewhat anti-climactic. I can imagine the commentary now:

BP’s board of directors felt it was time to effect a transition (gasp), and they’ve selected an American CEO in an effort to repair their image (imagine that). And Mr. Hayward seemingly gets his wish….and gets his life back.

Leadership transitions always present a unique set of challenges and priorities for those of us in the communications and reputation management business. And sudden or abrupt changes can create chaos…like the night I spent in Bethlehem searching for video crews when Bethlehem Steel changed CEO’s shortly before filing for Chapter 11, requiring an entirely new set of communications toolkits, employee videos (with subtitles) and letters to all constituencies because the new CEO had a new point of view and message.

But leadership transitions in the wake of a crisis can be a really positive thing – an opportunity to create a “fresh start” or at least mark a BC (before new CEO) and AD (after new direction) for a company struggling to preserve, protect or rebuild reputation.

It’s sort of like the first day of school…a new teacher, who (in theory) doesn’t know that you were the class clown, the brain or the homework slacker…you can (at least partially) reinvent yourself…if you change your behavior. A fresh start can be a reputation reboot….if the right changes are made to support the new leader and the new message.

BP is facing a massive loss of trust…one that that they earned by their actions and their inactions in the wake of the Gulf spill. I talked to Ad Age about this very topic…and I am optimistic that a new leader will mark the beginning of a new era for BP. But like most of you, I plan to wait and see what comes next.

cwinters Crisis Communications, Executive Visibility, General Corporate Bethlehem Steel, BP, CEO transitions, Tony Hayward

I went to a networking meeting today where journalists spoke about the state of business in New Jersey. When the floor was opened for Q&A, the conversation immediately turned to how to get your Company in the news. After the session, some members of the group approached me to ask about crisis management and how to put a positive “SPIN” on bad news.

Ahhh, the inevitable SPIN DOCTOR implication.

Let me say for the record, I am NOT in favor of SPIN. The best counselors in public relations may not agree on much, but we agree on this…you can’t “spin” negative news. I am actually astonished about this continued misperception in light of all of the discussion on trust and transparency.

And really, isn’t that what all of the hype about the Steve Jobs press conference is about? He didn’t follow the “rule book” and appear contrite and apologetic, then follow up with some attempt to put a positive spin on the fact that the iPhone drops calls every time you touch it? (A common complaint for previous versions of the iPhone, BTW.)

Authenticity is the buzzword of the day…that is what Steve Jobs gave us. Who he really is. He is not happy that the iPhone isn’t performing. He shouldn’t be whistling zip-a-dee-doo-da – this isn’t the iPad launch.

What did Jobs do?

He acknowledged that the new iPhone isn’t perfect. That he isn’t perfect. That Apple isn’t perfect. And promised to work to make customers happy, even offering a few possible solutions.

Isn’t that the transparent, authentic response we claim to want?

Mickey Mantle once said, “You never have to wait long, or look far, to be reminded of how thin the line is between being a hero or a goat.”

Maybe Steve Jobs isn’t either one of those things.

cwinters Executive Visibility, General Corporate Apple, Authenticity, iPhone, Spin

“Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”

Mark Twain

Antagonizing the press is often times not a good idea. You pick on them, they pick on you back, no matter how “right” you think you are. This doesn’t mean reputation managers should never get tough, it just means to expect a strong reaction rather than capitulation.

This, I suspect, Lucas Van Praag already knows, but doesn’t seem to be much bothered by. Goldman Sachs’s top communications guy is receiving what can only be described as a revenge-fueled beating in the (mostly New York) press, which has found their dealings with the sharp-tongued Van Praag to be less than pleasant. See the Dealbook’s roundup of the criticisms.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Van Praag is vigorously defending the company he gets paid to defend and trying to correct the record where he feels it’s been inaccurately reported, whether that’s true or not. It’s not realistic for the media to expect him (or anyone) to simply hang their head in shame, though it would be in some ways gratifying to see, and accept what the media reports. That’s not his job.

But in doing his job, he sounds like a complete…well, insert expletive here. And it sort of seems he’s having fun with it.

There is a way to do it and way to do it. He should recognize by now, as he should have at the outset, that such a truculent approach isn’t going to accomplish any real objective. He seems smart enough to know that after the bonuses, “God’s work”, the boiling public resentment, the Congressional inquiries, and so on, that bookending this with hostile explanations and journalism lectures isn’t doing much for the GS image he purports to protect. He’s seen evidence that what he’s doing isn’t really working.

With all the external forces congealing into a thick sludge that is difficult to penetrate with the GS message, whatever it is, Van Praag is doing the PR equivalent of lighting cigars with $100 bills while his neighbor’s house is on fire.

Seems to me a change in tone, and strategy, is needed.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, Executive Visibility, General Corporate, Sustainability

Corporate apologies after big screw-ups are a real raw nerve for me. This is because, though they rarely succeed in accomplishing what people think they should, namely engendering forgiveness and understanding and thus restoring credibility and trust, we somehow insist on them.

We insist on them, knowing we will get a heavily sanitized pseudo-apology, then declare them not good enough or too little too late. It’s a predictable pattern.

The New York Times takes on the subject in the context of today’s hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, with the chieftains of Wall Street appearing before it to endure another (richly deserved) public flogging and offer, as the article puts it, “the art of nuanced regret – admitting mistakes without accepting blame.”

Don’t get me wrong – these guys owe a lot of people genuine apologies to start, and some have tried, albeit they were the typically hollow, non-specific kind. It would be just one of the many right things they could do to show respect for the public that bailed them out.

But here is the key line, and communications challenge to weigh, in the story:

“Of course, corporate chieftains worry that apologies may be red meat for shareholder lawsuits.”

And they are right to worry. Winning in actual court is better than winning in public-opinion court.

In precarious times, being liked and winning favor shouldn’t be the communications short-term goal. Wall Street is never liked, even in the best of times, only tolerated. And it will return to tolerable after time and with the right moves. But facing such an overwhelming storm, the best they can hope for right now is to simply find shelter.

So the bottom line on corporate apologies? It, like most things, depends. I certainly wouldn’t say an apology is never appropriate. And I disagree with some experts who say that when people are unhappy, you should always apologize. But if you are going to apologize, do it with meaning.

In this instance, I wouldn’t recommend it as a communications counselor. But when circumstance preclude a proper apology – genuine, and light on corporate speak – you can substitute action. Do something to demonstrate your remorse, that you’ve learned and are trying to make it right, even if you can’t say so explicitly. What’s the phrase? Something about actions and words, and their respective volume. And corporate apologies are too often just words.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, Executive Visibility corporate apology, Reputation Management

I have resisted and will continue resisting joining the Greek chorus of PR pros who have seized this moment to condemn Tiger Woods not just for his current, uh, troubles, but for the way in which he has dealt with the media and public. Lots of bromides about “controlling the story” and other such pieces of doctrinaire advice that, while certainly applicable in some situations, have little bearing on this specific situation.

I have my thoughts on how Woods should handle this going forward and try to repair his reputation, but I’m more interested in the corporate angle – his sponsors. Fortune, also interested, asks the question: “Will his sponsors stick around?” In the days following his, uh, accident, there has been a real dearth of Tiger Woods as pitchman. His commercials have been yanked from the airwaves.

And though some sponsors, like Nike and Accenture, have offered public support and seem willing to stick with him, Fortune suggests that “observers on deathwatch” are just waiting to see how much the sponsors can endure – with revelation after revelation – before cutting ties.

What does a brand have to gain reputation-wise from sticking by a now, if not reviled, then at least tarnished, athlete? Particularly one that attracted such sponsorships in part because of his good guy image? Well, part of it has to be a bet – a bet that after some time, Woods can begin to repair his image and return to some shade of former glory (and marketability). It might be cynical, but being awesome at sports helps overcome a lot.

The article points out two other considerations for sponsors: If they let Woods go now, competitors might want him, and; they might try to renegotiate his contracts, getting him for cheaper now in light of his, uh, situation.

All are reasonably sound rationale for not dumping him overboard just yet. But like most things reputation, there is a risk. Stick by him too long, and offer too much support if things continue to unravel, and it begins to look like you just haven’t noticed. Or worse, it begins to look to your stakeholders like you care little about their values.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Executive Visibility, Social Media, Uncategorized Crisis Communications, Reputation Management

I admit it – I love the corner office column of the New York Times. I love the opportunity to get “inside the heads” of iconic business leaders, and am often intrigued by the simplicity of the key tenets of their leadership style.

This week’s piece featured Jeffrey Katzenberg, who talked about the value of his unceremonious departure from Disney. This was the obvious topic that would have been noticeable in its absence. But for me, the most interesting content of this piece focused on Katzenberg’s simple rules of leadership. Here are my takeaways:

1. Return phone calls every day – even if to say you don’t ever want to speak with someone again.

2. Be punctual – and demonstrate that you respect other people’s time.

3. Talk to your employees – and talk to them about what they want to know, not just what you want to say. In Dreamwork’s case, that meant acknowledged that people are afraid for their jobs, and entrusting them with financial information that would demonstrate that things were solid and safe inside their Company – information that is often reserved for the executive ranks.

The importance of arming employees with substantive information cannot be over-stated. And in this environment, one of the most important priorities for leaders is managing, if not eliminating, employee fear. Joblessness in America has created unprecedented fear in companies in every industry. As a leader in this environment, whether of an organization or a small team, every move you make goes through that “fear filter.” Things like not calling people back or being late get elevated from mildly irritating to indicative of impending doom in the minds of employees.

It’s important to provide employees with the information they need to deal with their fears, and do their job well. But what you do is even more important than what you say.
 
Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com

cwinters Executive Visibility, General Corporate Leadership, Reputation Management

Fortune has breathlessly declared Steve Jobs the “CEO of the Decade.” Quite an honorific. And certainly not undeserved – Fortune makes a persuasive case and few would dismiss Jobs’ eye for design, commitment to innovation and the customer experience, vision, and mastery of the message. No question he was the driving force behind the Apple of today and has, along the way, reshaped the technology biz.

But that might also be a problem. The article asks, When he’s gone, how long will the company thrive without him? It’s a valid and important question; one that companies – particularly those run by a founder or someone else who was “there at the beginning” – struggle with.

I wonder if Apple’s and Jobs’ reputation might be too tangled up in one another. Can we imagine Apple without him? The same words you’d toss out to describe Apple can be ascribed to Jobs, and vice versa. That’s not inherently a bad thing, just a fact that makes Apple’s corporate reputation unique and more challenging to manage. Berkshire Hathaway is in a similar spot with the venerated Mr. Buffet, as was Microsoft as Gates handed off the baton.

Corporate reputation has to outlast management changes. A great leader is focused on what comes after him or her, and making sure the organization is set up for success. No one should be irreplaceable. In fact, part of strong corporate reputation is how well that corporation handles major management and leadership changes. Succession is an emulsifying ingredient to corporate reputation – but perhaps a post for another day.

It’ll be interesting to see how Apple’s reputation evolves in the post-Jobs era.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com

msacks Executive Visibility, General Corporate CEO communications, Executive Visibility, Reputation Management

The new GM chairman, Ed Whitacre, has taken to the picture box as the face of the embattled auto-maker in what is part of a bigger plan to, if not restore GM to its former glory, at least begin winning back consumer confidence and sell some rides.

I’m not commenting on Whitacre’s performance. We (the U.S. taxpayer) paid for the ad, and I think it’s kinda cool that I was a silent producer on the project. But it got me thinking about the broader philosophy of using the top boss as spokesperson in the media – not just in the cocoon of advertising where do-overs are allowed -particularly when things are tough. Like most things in the reputation management world, there are no easy answers as to whether you use the chairman or CEO or not. The answer is almost always “it depends.”

In either an urgent crisis or slow-burning attack on reputation, sometimes bringing out the big gun escalates rather than mitigates a situation. You might want to hold him or her back for later use. Sometimes you need the authority only a CEO-type can lend to put a quicker end to media frenzy. Sometimes you want to put the executive front and center, but have to weight it against their lack of the presence or preparedness needed to be an effective spokesperson. And sometimes the top executive should comment on a matter simply because it’s the right thing to do, when it otherwise would look like he or she is hiding from a precarious circumstance. There are a lot of variables to be sure and such a decision has strategic implications for communicators.

In cases like GM’s, where the very efficacy of the company is in question, demonstrating competent (or at least the perception of competence) and resolute management can go a long way to rebuilding a damaged reputation. Of course, communicating those qualities at all times is what helps fortify corporate reputation against damage in the first place.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com

msacks Executive Visibility, General Corporate Executive Visibility, Leadership, rebuilding reputation