Overcoming the Five Counterintuitive Effects of Explosive Visibility and Their Corollaries

Whenever a business interest, product, or person is suddenly forced into the limelight, a predictable set of counter-intuitive effects occurs. These effects can be prepared for, often pre-empted or mitigated. The limelight or public visibility can be caused by positive or negative events. Managing sensational visibility depends on anticipation, planning, and preemptive, sensible counteraction:

Effect 1. Inverse Credibility - Opinions of the lowest employee, neighbor, public official, or competitor will outrank and overcome the facts supplied by scientists, CEOs, acknowledged experts, sometimes even Nobel Prize winners.

Victim values define who is credible in adverse situations.

Corollary: Pick a strategy that ends and prevents the production of victims.

Effect 2. Inverse Intellectual Content - Complex, difficult to understand issues and nuances are reduced to abject simplicity.

The rule of the thirteen-year-old applies. If it can’t be explained so that your mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or an average thirteen-year-old can easily understand it, it will be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misspoken, all of which will be considered your fault.

Corollary: Go for a strategy that focuses on what is simple, sensible, constructive, and positive.

Effect 3. Inverse Relationships – Those most negatively affected (victimized) by your actions will have irrationality on their side and be more powerful than common sense or the greatest-positive majority. People you may not respect, or like, will have great power over you and your decisions.

To paraphrase what Margaret Mead said early in the 20th century, “Never underestimate the power of a handful of dedicated individuals (or victims) to change everyone else’s life.” Believe it. They can and they will.

Corollary: Find your own core group whose passion, energy, and commitment is aligned with your goals and objectives, and turn them loose.

Effect 4. Inverse Compatibility - Getting to and staying at a table - no matter what - is crucial to controlling outcomes. Overcome your discontent, your distrust, and your disrespect for your opposition. Compatibility isn’t necessarily essential to winning. What’s essential is engagement with trust. Be in the discussion, in the fight, in the dispute, in the debate - positively - until the situation is resolved. Make a superior argument.

Corollary: Drive the discussion in new directions. Focus on tomorrow. Yesterday will kill you if you go there. Everyone owns yesterday from their own perspective and will never change. Nobody owns tomorrow. That you can build together with many others.

Effect 5. Time vs. Healing - In high-profile disputes, discussions, and problems, time lags, delays, and unresponsiveness are always counterproductive. Delay is perceived as arrogance or incompetence; postponement is perceived as collusive; and being non-responsive is admission of guilt or negligence acts.

Corollary: Do it now; say it now; decide it now; ask it now; challenge it now. Act decisively; decide; control; energize with ideas and goals. Move toward tomorrow and toward victory.

The Lesson:

Explosive visibility remains sensational as long as you allow it to. Get ready for it,
help it catapult your ideas forward towards the sensible, doable, positive victories
and destinations you choose.

First Response Strategy: The Golden Hour: A Metaphor for a Successful Response

Most responses in crisis situations fail in the first hour or two. That’s because the most challenging aspect of readiness for urgent situations is the strategy for first response; literally, what you do first, second, third, etc. Problems become emergencies, crises, or disasters due to the hesitation, timidity, and confusion that occurs as the threatening nature of a situation rapidly unfolds is recognized, and management is overwhelmed.

When a crisis occurs, management has a crisis of its own.

A successful first response depends on the activation of appropriate counter measures and proactive decision making that were pre-authorized during the crisis response and readiness planning process.

Pre-Authorization
If we’re looking for the one word definition of readiness work, it is this concept of pre-authorization. If decisions can be programmed into a response scenario and executed instantly, the most successful response and the overall success of dealing with the challenges presented by crisis situations will be met.
The most powerful ingredient of scenario based readiness work is what happens when a specific threat is identified, hypothesized, and time lined. Many of the critical decisions that will have to be made in the sequence of events can be identified, brought to management, and decisions made well ahead of time.

The Golden Hour
Perhaps the most useful and appropriate model or metaphor for first response strategy is “The Golden Hour” concept, which comes to us from wartime battlefield medicine. It was probably the Korean War that taught us the benefit of bringing sophisticated medical care and facilities to the front lines rather than transporting the wounded miles behind the front lines for medical treatment. The lesson was that the severely wounded who received medical treatment within minutes of injury had a survival rate enormously higher than the soldier who was treated well beyond the first 60 minutes of injury, if they even survived the journey. Time and again, major problems turn into crises or worse due to lack of initial momentum to do something, to make decisions, and to begin grinding down on the problem. Speed of action beats smart action every time. Preauthorization enables more smart decisions earlier in the response.

The First Response Checklist
An appropriate, scenario-based first response checklist will help deal with the most urgent, crucial matters and decisions as early as possible. This is possible because crisis managers considered a wide variety of decision points during the planning and testing phases of readiness preparation, and pre-authorized many of those decisions to achieve a more prompt response.

Relax when you review this checklist. It is complex and comprehensive, and based on years of experience mostly learning from things we failed to do when we should have. One of the potential criticisms of this approach could be the “fear of overreacting.” This is a totally phony fear. In 30 years of crisis management, some involving enormous tragedy, not one single case of overreaction has ever been observed or documented. To the contrary, more common is indecision, timidity, hesitation, and confusion leading to far broader litigation exposure, larger clusters of victims, a longer public memory of less than appropriate behavior, and serious damage to an organization’s reputation.

Note that the First Response Checklist also includes monitoring your responses and dealing with the issues and collateral damage that responding always causes.

I have also included an After Action Analysis outline.

1. Recognize a crisis.
The situation is a people-stopper, product-stopper, and show-stopper with reputation-defining potential, victims, and/or the potential for explosive negative visibility.

2. Reaffirm communication policy in emergencies.
• Candor
• Openness
• Responsiveness
• Empathy/Apology
• Truthfulness
• Transparency
• Engagement
• Managing the Record

3. Activate response strategy.
• Begin resolving, reducing, or eliminating the problem.
• Deal with those who opt in: critics, competitors, regulators and overseers, and others who appoint themselves.
• Establish communication with employees.
• Manage the victim dimension.
• Notify those indirectly or involuntarily affected.

4. Implement first response infrastructure including incident response teams trained on a scenario specific basis.

5. Review your first response checklist.
• Act and speak promptly.
• Analyze constantly.
• Begin a log.
• Create an ongoing, detailed chronology with key events and decisions.
• Create a database of key contacts
• Establish response priorities that meet community expectations.
• Expedite communications..
• Identify the most likely collateral damage scenarios.
• Manage the record as it evolves.
• Prepare to back up your core response team.

6. Begin fact-finding.
• What happened?
• Who’s involved and responsible?
• When did events occur?
• Where does the problem exist and where might it expand?
• How could it have happened?
• How could something like this occur?

7. Forecast the potential for collateral damage.
• Bloggers, Bloviators, and Bellyachers
• Consultants − theirs/ours
• Critics, competitors, celebrities, and media promotion of negative events
• Disgruntled employees
• Lawyers − theirs/ours
• Victims’ families/survivors
• Well meaning employees

8. Activate your crisis Web site. Your crisis home page may include:
• About our work
• Advertisements
• Company history
• Company overview
• Contacting us
• Corrections and clarifications
• Dear so-and-so
• Ethical practices
• In the news
• Investor center
• Issues inventory
• Letters
• Media center
• Our purpose
• Policies that guide our business
• Special projects
• The global picture
• What we stand for
• Who we are

9. Activate the communications response process.
• Assist in victim management
• Develop a chronology/sequence of statements.
• Manage communication to all constituents.
• Monitor response progress.
• Monitor the status of settlements.

10. Manage the big issues.
• Victims:
− Identification
− Notification
− Acknowledgement
− Compensation/treatment/settlement
− Prevention/detection/deterrence
− Follow up
− Closure

• Gaps and lapses:
− What failed/who failed?
− How was it detected?
− Who’s responsible?
− Who’s at fault?
− Who’ll be punished?
− What changes will be made to prevent similar circumstances?

11. Avoid failure triggers.
• Minimize response effort. Always do more than is required.
• Underestimate the victim dimension. These individuals can change your life and your future.
• Blame the victims
• Shift Blame
• Fail to be empathetic (or apologize where possible)
• Let the media drive your response strategy: Keep the record straight, manage it or someone else will.

12. After Action Analysis: Learn from adverse events.
• Step One: Situation assessment
− What happened?
− What are the facts?

• Step Two: Strategic considerations
− What decisions did management need to make and when were they made?
− What are the implications of these decisions on those directly and indirectly affected?

• Step Three: Operation response/action steps
− What essential steps did the company take or need to take to get the situation under control?

Step Four: Communication response/action steps?
− Who spoke for the company?
− What immediate short-term and long-term communication issues were created?
− Who were directly and indirectly affected by those issues?

• Step Five: Holding statements and other communication
− What were the critical messages and the order in which they were delivered?
− What were the most important points made during this crisis situation and what were the results?

• Step Six: Questions and answers
− What were the five or six most difficult, challenging, unanswerable questions raised?
− What were the most crucial messages gotten across during the process?

Step Seven: Incident response
− Which organizational officials or representatives were crucial to resolving the situation?
− Were they members of the incident response team?

• Step Eight: Tools, vehicles, mechanisms
− What were the most effective techniques of communication for those directly affected? Indirectly affected?

Step Nine: Hindsight
− What would you do have done differently, how?
− What would you have avoided, why?
− What failed, misconnected, or caused substantial collateral problems?

When people or organizations fail to promptly address a problem and resolve it, the resulting crisis creates additional, victims all of whom are left untreated and situations left unresolved. In the minds of the public, the victims, and survivors, delay equals denial. Refusal to promptly commit to a constructive course of counteraction is viewed as arrogance, which says the perpetrator doesn’t care.

Murdoch “Apology” Will Only Expand His Crisis Management Problems

Mr. Murdoch is learning the most crucial axiom of crisis management: Bad news ripens badly. This decay continues with the so-called apology statement published and signed by Rupert Murdoch in British newspapers over the weekend, just in time to soften up members of Parliament, before whom he is testifying and being grilled, today.– It is vacuous,  weak, evasive, insincere, incomplete and therefore very problematic. Here it is:

 ”I realize that simply apologizing is not enough,” wrote Murdoch. “Our business was founded on the idea that a free and open press should be a positive force in society. We need to live up to this. In the coming days, as we take further concrete steps to resolve these issues and make amends for the damage they have caused, you will hear more from us.”

It is not even an apology. These are personally puffing remarks designed to continue his whining, self-centered, self forgiving, and “I am really the victim here-” approach to communication. Not one word about the victims and their suffering. Not one word about his co-conspirators and fellow perpetrators. No words of contrition. The word “sorry” doesn’t appear…because he isn’t.

This is a crisis management disaster and fits the pattern of most senior executives initial failures to take their situations seriously. The time wasted avoiding what has to be done, and the additional critics and enemies these initial poor behaviors create, can not be overcome.

 Apology is a victim-focused, personal admission and responsibility taking process based on acknowledging specific damaging actions. The ingredients of a sincere and credible apology, one with integrity, arise from answers to the following questions for Mr. Murdoch, his fellow perpetrators and his growing army of image advisers:

  1. Where is the true, unconditional admission and enumeration of specific destructive, illegal and unethical actions he knew about or should have known about that hurt thousands of people, damaged the reputation of journalism, his country, the British government, among others, and promises, that instant that he will subject himself to the most powerful outside scrutiny, letting the chips fall where they may?
  2. Where is the list of specific wrongdoing, damaging behaviors, or the lists of specific individuals who were targets and victims, all of which is known by employees of Murdoch enterprises and Murdoch himself?
  3. Where is the explanation, complete with specifics of what went wrong, who are the additional perpetrators, inside and outside News Corp., as well as those who facilitated years of abuse, intimidation, privacy violations, reputation destruction and other human damage?
  4.  What specific steps does he plan to take, including stepping aside at least for a while, so this entire matter can be brought to light, exposed to public view, and the victims along with the public allowed to make up their own minds about the sincerity of Mr. Murdoch’s contrition and future intentions? The public should have the opportunity to determine whether or not News Corp. deserves to retain any public permission to continue operations.
  5. Where is his plan to seek forgiveness directly and specifically from those whose lives he has damaged or perhaps even ended?
  6. How will he execute the heart of a true apology which involves extraordinary acts of restitution and the continuous verbalization of regret, contrition, plus other self-imposed but publically acknowledged acts of penance?

 When Mr. Murdoch leaves News Corp, voluntarily or involuntarily, these events and the apology process begins  and these words and actions start happening, you’ll know that Murdoch is offering real sincerity rather than mechanical, routine, PR crisis management activities designed to bore and numb the audience and the media into shifting their attention to other things and ignoring the victims and  the suffering of so many.

 Mr. Murdoch will only begin to regain his integrity, public trust, and successfully initiate the steps toward rebuilding whatever his future holds when he begins subjecting himself publicly to the same unyielding, relentless, ruthless and degrading public humiliations that he and his organizations inflicted on so many for so long. 

It is said that there is no saint like a reformed sinner. Mr. Murdoch needs to publically get about the business of his own personal reformation. All the PR experts in the world will fail because this is a personal journey for Mr. Murdoch which can only begin after he leaves News Corp., rather than a crisis manager’s fantasy exercise.

Tomorrow Is Dying for Rupert Murdoch

James Bond would be extremely proud as he surveys the damage Rupert Murdoch has created for himself. You may recall the Bond movie “Tomorrow Never Dies” featuring actor Jonathan Pryce as the malevolent media mogul, Elliott Carver. The story is loosely based on the actions and companies formed by Robert Maxwell and Mr. Murdoch, whose worldwide media empires were, we now know for certain, really in the business of fabricating and staging the news stories they reported.

Mr. Murdoch has revived William Randolph Hearst’s famous instructions to Frederic Remington, a famous photographer (technically an artist in Cuba during the Spanish American War). When Hearst asked for pictures of the war, Remington replied “There will be no war.” Hearst replied, “You provide (furnish) the pictures, I’ll provide (furnish) the war”

This is clearly the mantra of the Murdoch Empire. Remember, Murdoch, an American, owns Fox News, where we suspect the “F” often stands for Fabrication.

My forecast is that the Murdoch situation is just the predicate to an emerging media story involving fabrication of news in journalism as a whole. The New York Times’ dramatic move to showcase opinion journalism and embrace it literally throughout its pages is the greatest manifestation of what we’ll probably come to call the “Murdoch Effect”. Since the news is simply too boring, it needs to be spiced up by energizing, colorful language and situations created by characters committed to changing the world from their own perspectives. When PR News asked me to grade Murdoch’s crisis management performance thus far, here’s what I told them:

Murdoch’s performance has to been graded on several levels:

‘C’ for Catastrophe: Terminating a major business unit, losing a major acquisition deal, and his global humiliation before the British Parliament. These are just the beginning steps in the story.

‘A’ for Arrogance Run Amuck. He’s been abandoned by those he intimidated and by his media buddies who salivate most at eating one of their own.

‘E+’ for Extraordinarily Evil Activity. How else do you describe the despicable actions designed to hurt, embarrass, and humiliate people?

Will Murdoch suffer much from this circumstance? Probably not. Will Murdoch’s empire be harmed in many serious ways by this situation? Probably not. Will Murdoch learn many, if any, lessons from these circumstances? Probably not. Will the abuses and problems yet to be uncovered in the United States by federal investigation have much impact on journalism or Mr. Murdoch? Probably not. Fox News will continue to be the most watched of the bloviating channels.

Will bloviators, bellyachers, and back bench critics enjoy watching him suffer? Absolutely.

What is his crisis management strategy? It’s called applying the Insulating Capacity of Money, something not often talked about. The more money you have, the more insulation you get from almost anything that could hurt you, damage your interest, or even make your life uncomfortable.

Malcolm Forbes, the Harley Davidson riding son of the founder of Forbes magazine and always one of the world’s richest men, was inevitably asked by every interviewer whether he ever thought there might be some value in having been poor for part of his life. Every time he explained with great patience, something like “Given the choice, I would always pick rich.”  Mr. Forbes and Mr. Murdoch are two peas in a very comfortable and posh pod.

The Toxicity of Silence

In crisis, silence comes in many colors and in two varieties: intentional and cultural. All strategies of silence have the same outcome: toxic shock to the perpetrator. Silence strategies are ethical impediments to finding the truth. Silence and denial, which generally go together, quickly fuel relentless attacks by outside forces to pierce the veil of secrecy and bring down the perpetrator. There are at least five environments where cultures of silence are often the first response to trouble, disaster, embarrassment, or threat of uncomfortable disclosures.

Read more »

Bill Murray Visits RMPR

 

Today we had the honor of welcoming PRSA National President and COO Bill Murray to our agency to discuss trends he’s seeing in the public relations industry nationally, and how the national and local PRSA chapters are supporting the professional development of members.

Read more »

We want your opinion!

…please excuse this break in RMPR’s regularly scheduled blogging.

Online pressrooms – most of us use them, create them and critique them on a daily basis. In the coming weeks, I’ll be developing a white paper that showcases trends in online communication /social media in pressrooms but I also what to incorporate some realopinions and feedback from all of you!

If you are a blogger, journalist, PR/marketing pro or even a “regular Joe”/consumer, I’d love to get your feedback on how online pressrooms are being used currently and how you think they could be better! I’ve developed several short surveys that can be accessed by the following links:

If you are a journalist, click here.

If you are a blogger, click here.

If you are a PR/marketing pro, click here

If you are a “regular Joe”/consumer, click here.

THANK YOU!!

…now back to our regularly scheduled blogging.

Goodbye Chet. The Remembrance of a Remarkable Man


Photo by Andre Burger, Chet's grandson and lifelong photography student

From your first little note to me in 1975, complimenting something I’d said that was quoted in a PRSA publication, to our last conversation in December of 2010, the power of your friendship, the insight of your thinking, and the profoundly pragmatic advice you so freely offered have guided my career and much of my personal life.

Your sense of yourself was such an interesting part of knowing you. In November of 1990, you opened a presentation to the PRSA Foundation with the phrase, “In the afternoon of my own life . . .” During that presentation you predicted that if your computer was right you would live until approximately 2010. You did a little better than that.

In a private note to me written last year, after I had asked you a question and for some guidance, your reply began, “Sure, especially in the evening of my life.” Perhaps this is the most important lesson among the many I learned from you: The power of candor, which I have come to define as “Truth with an attitude, promptly given.”

Read more »

A Crisis Guru Blog: When Should Lawyers Be Spokespersons?

With more and more PR people becoming lawyers and working for law firms there seems to be a growing push for having outside spokespersons, especially attorneys when crisis situations occur. But this approach is simply unacceptable in today’s world. Whether it’s Congress, the Legislature, Parliament, a neighborhood organization, or group of families who’ve lost loved ones, when bad things happen and there are victims it’s the CEOs backside that is on the line.

Many if not most would prefer to defend their circumstances themselves, whatever the risk.

The legal position that lawyers as spokespersons can prevent further damage is simply unfounded. Where is the evidence of nothing happening? The job of the attorney is, like the job of a communicator to advise the people in charge how best to work through the situations and problems they may have caused, and probably may cause in the future, as a part of the response process. Read more »

KDWB needs a Perfect Apology

Minneapolis radio station KDWB is the latest organization to feel the sting and power of victims angered by an inadequate apology. The radio station’s pain comes from loosing advertisers because the station still refuses to take adequate responsibility for its gaffe of broadcasting a parody of Hmong. One advertiser left saying the apology was “Inadequate.”

The most powerful action in reputation recovery and rehabilitation is to apologize.  If you want or need forgiveness, you’ll need to apologize.  “Wait a minute,” you say, “The lawyers won’t ever let me apologize.”  Well, let’s talk about apology, understand it, and then we’ll get back to the attorneys.

Management avoids apologizing by using an amazing array of avoidance strategies.  There’s self-forgiveness:  “It’s an industry problem, we’re not the only ones,” “Let’s not blow this out of proportion.” There’s self-talk:  “It’s only an isolated incident,” “It’s never happened before,” “Not very many were involved,” and “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.”

Look for self-delusion:  “It’s not our fault,” “It’s not our problem,” “We can’t be responsible for everything,” “It won’t happen again,” and “Life can’t exist without risk.”  Or how about lying:  “I don’t know,” “We’ve never done that,” “It won’t ever happen again,” “I am not a crook,” and “I did not have sex with that woman.” Read more »