Jun 1, 2010
You Can’t Manage a Crisis Off Site
In the film “Up in the Air“, George Clooney’s character rightly explains to his boss that bad news is something to be communicated face to face. He explains the importance of one-on-one human interaction and how the impersonality of technology negatively impacts an already negative situation.
In "Up in the Air" Clooney's character understood how to communicate bad news - in person.
Exactly. You can’t effectively manage a crisis off site. Case in point, the BP fiasco. In one corner, BP’s CEO Tony Hayward immediately was on site at the areas affected, making himself available to the media and availing himself to the communities. In the other corner, the federal government dilly-dallied until the mess became a political sore spot, and President Obama finally went on site to see and touch the weeks-old problem. Although Obama initially visited the area within days of the oil spill and sent other cabinet members to the southern coastline in the following weeks, the problem only worsened, gathering the attention of more target audiences (environmentalists, scientists, and of course, pundits) and creating the perception was that Obama was only giving lip service to residents and leadership in the southern coastline. He didn’t want to get his hands dirty – literally. Meanwhile, Louisiana workers and officials are becoming hoarse shouting for help from the nation’s capital.
Whether it’s a man-made disaster or a case of food poisoning, the fact remains: you can’t effectively manage a crisis off site. While Hayward’s will resonate for years to come in business and communications circles, nobody can ever say that BP publicly avoided the issue as the CEO remains on the ground for the foreseeable future. My point is not about what’s being said (that’s for another post), who’s at fault, who’s in charge or who’s going to pay (we’re ALL eventually going to pay). My point is that a catastrophic disaster calls for top leadership to make enough of a showing to indicate that management is listening and taking action. If one showing doesn’t do it, go again. If that doesn’t work, you still need to do something. I understand the legal ramifications of being on site; but I also understand that, at the end of the day, perception becomes reality. And that reality can be felt far into the future, whether it be in a voting booth or in a jury box.
What do you think?
If cabinet members were good for soaking up oil, then they should all go to the gulf. Otherwise, let the people who really know what they are doing be the ones on the ground. Too many generals spoils the war.
From a PR point of view I think the post may have merit, but from a tactical point of view sometimes doing the right thing isn't the same as feeding the media. The media itself has an obligation to suggest that the president does NOT need to be there. He needs to run the government, not the recovery effort. Ever since John Kennedy (and maybe Roosevelt), the press has paid attention to the president as though he were king. If you need a king, watch Robin Hood, not CNN.
As always, Don, your comments are insightful and thought provoking. And I agree, PR tactics aren't necessarily aligned with daily operations of a corporation and/or government. Your point regarding the role of the media is exactly right – I wish more "reporting" instead of "opining" were the case, but our society unfortunately hasn't evolved that way, and technology has only added fuel (no pun intended) to the fire for wanting to know what the president is doing. On the other hand, since news organizations are experiencing economic woes like everybody else, they're cutting back on covering the Commander in Chief. Only time will tell if that's a good thing or not. Thanks for sharing an important perspective.
Great insights on the value of being on site and on time during a crisis. It is always a judgement call for leaders to decide how involved they should be during catastrophes and disasters, and the extent that they can do to mitigate any damages. In this case, the escaping oil slick is a rather technically challenging one to cope with, and I don't think anybody can fault BP for not trying. As long as the gusher keeps going, the headlines will still roll – what one needs to do is to try to do whatever's operationally possible to cap the oil slick first while showing the world that this is the priority.
I think part of the issue of being on site is simply about appearances, but there's also a problem with that. You can be on site, but if you're not genuinely concerned or authentically expressing your feelings, you can do more harm than good. Being on site often may only serve as a photo op. On the other hand, when a top exec is on site, is genuine and provides resolution (not just talk), he's the hero of the situation. The result? People are more forgiving of the situation even when it's the fault of what the CEO is representing. Thanks for commenting.