Last week our class participated in a crisis simulation. After seven weeks of learning about how to deal with a crisis, you would expect our reactions and plans would come easily in the face of disaster. However, our human instincts seemed to kick in and lead us astray in some ways. All in all, it was a great learning experience – and a perfect way to apply what we have learned and gauge our application abilities. In some ways, we succeeded, and in other ways we hit walls.
There was definitely a sense of in trepidation as the simulation unfolded. We were split into groups that specialized in certain areas. Via social media, email, and phone calls the various groups learned of a snowball of events that followed the initial crisis. For one hour we had to navigate our way through the complex waters of the unknown. The terrain was chaotic.
Once a piece of information was learned, we weren’t sure what to do with it, shout it out for everyone to hear, write it down, act on it, or delegate to another team. We needed to develop a filter that could disseminate useful information from extraneous . We never did. Instead, as news was acquired we chose the more counterproductive option of interrupting whatever was going on to yell out the latest. In retrospect, we should have named a representative from the media team to monitor social media and respond to the pressing news matters versus having 15 people weigh in on each tweet and post.
Additionally, there was hesitation in responding to the media inquiries. I think that some of us felt that we needed to address the press with an initial acknowledgment. We didn’t need to accept blame, but we needed to take the opportunity to have a voice and show general concern for the matter at hand. Our group was divided on some things, which took time to wrestle through. Should we be using social media to respond? How many press conferences should we call? In a real crisis, a great deal of time would have been wasted while trying to react. We did create a list of key stakeholders that was quite useful, but we didn’t do so quickly enough to proactively reach these audiences. We needed a proactive plan.
Another shortcoming was the silos that we created for ourselves. Each team sat in separate areas of the room. The only interaction we had was yelling out over everyone- making the entire room stop, listen, and respond. The teams needed to sit close to one another and work together to protect the stakeholders that we each represented.
Unfortunately, I think we needed a few resources that were missing. I think having a company profile would have been helpful. It had been some time since we had discussed the Kick Car and a refresher of the company’s information would have come in handy- especially for those who may not have been there in the class we first discussed it. Additionally, I think giving each team 10-15 minutes to self organize would have been ideal. We were hit with a bombshell crisis and without having some time to think through our strategy as a team, we were expected to jump in. In most real life cases, teams are aware of who their contacts are, what their goal is, etc. Had we as a class been given a little time to self organize and craft our strategies prior to the start of the simulation, I think we would have been better suited to act based on our learning's.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Crisis at Happy Valley- crisis comm reflection 8
The sports world is abuzz with news that Penn State’s former assistant coach is being charged for forty counts of sexual assault on minors. The story began breaking this weekend and has snowballed into a massive national story about the ethics of the staff who worked with the coach and who could have possibly assisted in covering up his crimes.
“Success with Honor” is the school slogan. This is a school renown for academic integrity and a rich history of football excellence, much of which is contributed to Joe Paterno (JoPa) who has been the coach of the team since 1966. He holds a litany of records that have been achieved through his remarkable tenure. On Oct. 29 he celebrated his 409th victory. And, just a few weeks later this news breaks- putting into question the legacy of JoPa’s leadership.
Jerry Sandusky, defensive coordinator who worked under Paterno for thirty years, retired in 1999. However, his influence and presence is still notable in the organization. Sandusky founded an organization for underprivileged children, offering him access to those who would eventually become his victims.
The exact details have yet to be made clear, but apparently a graduate assistant witnessed one assault on a minor and reported it immediately to Paterno. Paterno then reported it to the head of the athletic department and the nothing was done from there. The chancellor and head of athletics have stepped down, indicating some knowledge of Sandusky’s behavior.
This case raises many questions about Sandusky as an individual and about the integrity of the school’s most senior and revered faculty. It also begs to answer questions about some kind of preparation for the crisis that would ensue when this news would break. If staff knew of this, should they not have been prepared to handle it as a major threat to the university’s name? Because of the legal matters at hand, it seems most parties involved are tight-lipped. The news ticker on Penn State’s athletic department web page boasts of recent wins by the girls volleyball team, field hockey scores, and senior athletic day. It is not telling of the grim news that has tainted the entire school’s reputation.
What should be done now to manage this crisis? How can the academic integrity be spared from the downfall of the athletic department? This is a huge crisis for the entire university. There are MANY stakeholders to consider, including potential students, donors, faculty, alumni, future athletes. I am curious to know how communications towards these stakeholders and others will be handled. Is there a plan? Are they engaged enough with their stakeholders? I have seen comments from Joe Paterno expressing his disapproval and sympathy for the victims, but in the face of this crisis, that is just not enough. As the story unfolds, I am eagerly awaiting the communications position of the university.
“Success with Honor” is the school slogan. This is a school renown for academic integrity and a rich history of football excellence, much of which is contributed to Joe Paterno (JoPa) who has been the coach of the team since 1966. He holds a litany of records that have been achieved through his remarkable tenure. On Oct. 29 he celebrated his 409th victory. And, just a few weeks later this news breaks- putting into question the legacy of JoPa’s leadership.
Jerry Sandusky, defensive coordinator who worked under Paterno for thirty years, retired in 1999. However, his influence and presence is still notable in the organization. Sandusky founded an organization for underprivileged children, offering him access to those who would eventually become his victims.
The exact details have yet to be made clear, but apparently a graduate assistant witnessed one assault on a minor and reported it immediately to Paterno. Paterno then reported it to the head of the athletic department and the nothing was done from there. The chancellor and head of athletics have stepped down, indicating some knowledge of Sandusky’s behavior.
This case raises many questions about Sandusky as an individual and about the integrity of the school’s most senior and revered faculty. It also begs to answer questions about some kind of preparation for the crisis that would ensue when this news would break. If staff knew of this, should they not have been prepared to handle it as a major threat to the university’s name? Because of the legal matters at hand, it seems most parties involved are tight-lipped. The news ticker on Penn State’s athletic department web page boasts of recent wins by the girls volleyball team, field hockey scores, and senior athletic day. It is not telling of the grim news that has tainted the entire school’s reputation.
What should be done now to manage this crisis? How can the academic integrity be spared from the downfall of the athletic department? This is a huge crisis for the entire university. There are MANY stakeholders to consider, including potential students, donors, faculty, alumni, future athletes. I am curious to know how communications towards these stakeholders and others will be handled. Is there a plan? Are they engaged enough with their stakeholders? I have seen comments from Joe Paterno expressing his disapproval and sympathy for the victims, but in the face of this crisis, that is just not enough. As the story unfolds, I am eagerly awaiting the communications position of the university.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
JetScrewed? Crisis Comm. reflection 7
One of the biggest current headlines is the October snow storm that pummeled the northeastern US. This week it has been hard to escape coverage of trees being downed, electricity failures, and other related news of weather crises.
In the eye of the storm coverage we are once more seeing Jet Blue defend its treatment of passengers on a flight grounded in Connecticut due to the inclement weather. It’s déjà vu. Once again, like the 2007 incident which resulted in a plane full of people abandoned on the tarmac for eight hours, this time around it was a mere seven hours. Both situations left passengers without food, with limited use of the restrooms and confined in a tight and crowded space. The first go-round warranted an apology from the CEO, David Neeleman, which for all intents and purposes sounded sincere. He called himself “humiliated and mortified” by the failure of procedures that caused such an extended and poor response. He was quoted as saying “we had so many people in the company who wanted to help who weren’t trained to help.”
Neeleman made his media rounds after the 2007 crisis. The Provisional Model of Crisis Communication was clearly used to explain the happenings of the event. There was transparency on where the weaknesses were within the company at the time. There was clear ownership of what went wrong- and confidence that the company knew exactly how to fix it. There was a sense of discourse of renewal in his words, “This is going to be a different company because of this,” Mr. Neeleman said. “It’s going to be expensive. But what’s more important is to win back people’s confidence.” (NY Times) As a CEO he stepped up and did the right thing by promising better for the future.
Jet Blue described this week's circumstance as an "unusual combination of weather and infrastructure issues.” However, storms are not unusual, nor was this storm a surprise. It was anticipated and talked about for days prior to the weather event. And given the aftermath of 2007 incident, I would expect that the company had grown from that time and had learned how to address such situations. I would have thought that crews on the ground would be better equipped to respond. I would think that a plan would be in place to serve the stakeholders, which in this case are the passengers as customers and the employees on board. I’m not sure where that plan was and if the 2007 failure prompted a real resolution to accommodate the stakeholders who are put in such situations.
This time, even the pilot of the plane shared his desperation and disapproval of the conditions. "Look, you know we can't seem to get any help from our own company. I apologize for this, but is there any way you can get a tug and a tow bar out here to us and get us towed somewhere to a gate or something? I don't care. Take us anywhere," the pilot said. Infrastructure issues were obviously a problem, but the type of problem that should have been prepared for in a crisis management plan. There needs to be an infrastructural response when weather events impact their industry.
David Neeleman has not been nearly as proactive with the media this time. There is no apology on their website, but a much more callous rebutal of this weekend's event is described on the company blog. How should the company be responding? Is a blogged apology enough? Is it perceived as genuine at all? Did they learn anything from 2007?
In the eye of the storm coverage we are once more seeing Jet Blue defend its treatment of passengers on a flight grounded in Connecticut due to the inclement weather. It’s déjà vu. Once again, like the 2007 incident which resulted in a plane full of people abandoned on the tarmac for eight hours, this time around it was a mere seven hours. Both situations left passengers without food, with limited use of the restrooms and confined in a tight and crowded space. The first go-round warranted an apology from the CEO, David Neeleman, which for all intents and purposes sounded sincere. He called himself “humiliated and mortified” by the failure of procedures that caused such an extended and poor response. He was quoted as saying “we had so many people in the company who wanted to help who weren’t trained to help.”
Neeleman made his media rounds after the 2007 crisis. The Provisional Model of Crisis Communication was clearly used to explain the happenings of the event. There was transparency on where the weaknesses were within the company at the time. There was clear ownership of what went wrong- and confidence that the company knew exactly how to fix it. There was a sense of discourse of renewal in his words, “This is going to be a different company because of this,” Mr. Neeleman said. “It’s going to be expensive. But what’s more important is to win back people’s confidence.” (NY Times) As a CEO he stepped up and did the right thing by promising better for the future.
Jet Blue described this week's circumstance as an "unusual combination of weather and infrastructure issues.” However, storms are not unusual, nor was this storm a surprise. It was anticipated and talked about for days prior to the weather event. And given the aftermath of 2007 incident, I would expect that the company had grown from that time and had learned how to address such situations. I would have thought that crews on the ground would be better equipped to respond. I would think that a plan would be in place to serve the stakeholders, which in this case are the passengers as customers and the employees on board. I’m not sure where that plan was and if the 2007 failure prompted a real resolution to accommodate the stakeholders who are put in such situations.
This time, even the pilot of the plane shared his desperation and disapproval of the conditions. "Look, you know we can't seem to get any help from our own company. I apologize for this, but is there any way you can get a tug and a tow bar out here to us and get us towed somewhere to a gate or something? I don't care. Take us anywhere," the pilot said. Infrastructure issues were obviously a problem, but the type of problem that should have been prepared for in a crisis management plan. There needs to be an infrastructural response when weather events impact their industry.
David Neeleman has not been nearly as proactive with the media this time. There is no apology on their website, but a much more callous rebutal of this weekend's event is described on the company blog. How should the company be responding? Is a blogged apology enough? Is it perceived as genuine at all? Did they learn anything from 2007?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Crisis in retrospect- Crisis Comm reflection 6
Today I read an article on NPR.com about the story of the first black man to attend LSU in 1953. Although it was a historical narrative unrelated to crisis communication, it got me thinking about the perspective we gain on crises in retrospect; and even more so about how the contexts of time and place can impact the nature of a crisis.
In modern times, if a school were to refuse admission to a person based on their race, ethnicity, or any other attribute they would receive a great deal of backlash on a national level. The integrity of the school would be in question, their would be protests by students, by organizations, by celebrities, etc. It would cause a reputational degradation of the institution.
However, in the south in the 1950's it was commonplace to see colleges refuse minority students
My guess is that colleges today probably don't have crisis management plans for this kind of incident (and in reality they may not have had them in 1953 either), but on the contrary they have plans ready for school shootings, riots and other on-campus violence, or other types of reputational threats. The culture of higher education has shifted thus shifting what types of crisis could potentially impact them. The same goes for any organization. To have a pulse of the external environment can really make a difference in crafting an effective CMP.
Maryann shared with us in class on Tuesday that Maersk was mostly prepared for pirates to take a ship captive. She said "it was not a matter of if, it was a matter of when." It seems to me that when I watch the news or read articles about companies or organizations undergoing crisis, there is usually a sense that the organization was out of touch with reality until the worst happened. There are always signs when a crisis smolders, so why do so many choose to turn a blind eye?
I'm thinking back on school crises that I have seen in my lifetime- particularly Columbine and Virginia Tech. On both occasions there were signs that the individuals who masterminded the attacks were troubled. Fellow students realized, parents realized, teachers realized- and yet, no preventative measures were taken to avoid what ended in heartbreaking tragedy.
How can an organizations' members be better attuned with the indicators of a crisis? Does it always take retrospective perspectives to help us learn and prepare for the next crisis? How can the context of our larger environment help plan for looming crises?
In modern times, if a school were to refuse admission to a person based on their race, ethnicity, or any other attribute they would receive a great deal of backlash on a national level. The integrity of the school would be in question, their would be protests by students, by organizations, by celebrities, etc. It would cause a reputational degradation of the institution.
However, in the south in the 1950's it was commonplace to see colleges refuse minority students
My guess is that colleges today probably don't have crisis management plans for this kind of incident (and in reality they may not have had them in 1953 either), but on the contrary they have plans ready for school shootings, riots and other on-campus violence, or other types of reputational threats. The culture of higher education has shifted thus shifting what types of crisis could potentially impact them. The same goes for any organization. To have a pulse of the external environment can really make a difference in crafting an effective CMP.
Maryann shared with us in class on Tuesday that Maersk was mostly prepared for pirates to take a ship captive. She said "it was not a matter of if, it was a matter of when." It seems to me that when I watch the news or read articles about companies or organizations undergoing crisis, there is usually a sense that the organization was out of touch with reality until the worst happened. There are always signs when a crisis smolders, so why do so many choose to turn a blind eye?
I'm thinking back on school crises that I have seen in my lifetime- particularly Columbine and Virginia Tech. On both occasions there were signs that the individuals who masterminded the attacks were troubled. Fellow students realized, parents realized, teachers realized- and yet, no preventative measures were taken to avoid what ended in heartbreaking tragedy.
How can an organizations' members be better attuned with the indicators of a crisis? Does it always take retrospective perspectives to help us learn and prepare for the next crisis? How can the context of our larger environment help plan for looming crises?
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Corporate Communications State of Crisis- Crisis Comm. Reflection Five
The company that I work for has been in a crisis state almost consistently for the past three years. As a corporate communications teammate, I live in the constant mode of diffusing and responding to industry and company crises. From leadership changes, to stock price plunges, to newly announced debit card fees, we have an ongoing crisis communications plan. It’s almost difficult for me to step back and see it as that because it has just become the nature of my team’s everyday work. Our reputation is almost always at risk. Our responses as a company are generally in the apologia category of responding. Most often, we acknowledge and offer some time of explanation, but rarely engage in a two-way dialogue with our customers and stakeholders. However, there are exceptions.
For the past four years, even prior to working in corporate comm., I have volunteered at the annual shareholders meeting. It’s always an interesting cast of characters- the board of directors, protestors, supporters, the executive team, etc. You never know what to expect. What I have consistently seen is an interactive two way dialogue. Unfortunately, it only happens once a year, but it’s quite impressive nonetheless. For many shareholders, who range from local small business owners who have accounts and loans from BofA, to eccentric wealthy women who are known as “hecklers” at the annual meetings of many Fortune 500 companies, I have seen the CEO and other executives not only respond to the concerns on the spot, but arrange time after the meeting to sit down and discuss their issues. It actually happens. I have seen it with my own eyes. And it’s not just the shareholders with the most stake in the company. I have seen protestors from local charitable foundations receive attention and assistance as well.
Ok, so those are shareholders- of course we are going to coddle them, right? What about the stakeholders?
In March of this year the CEO announced that he was beginning a campaign to shift our culture. In a associate satisfaction survey from 2010 it was learned that the employees were fed up with the way things work here. There is too much rework. It is overly complicated. Navigating the matrix is too hard. The CEO agreed with this feedback. In response, so began the chance for the employees as stakeholders to submit ideas for how to improve our company. There was even a $500 reward given to any employee whose idea is used.
For the past five months the executive team has been vetting the massive pool of submissions. Some changes were enacted immediately, while others will take some time to roll out. In any case, it allowed all of us (employees) as stakeholders to feel valued. In times when what we do faces so much scrutiny, it was refreshing to at least know that our ideas were considered.
Most recently, we have been scrutinized by politicians, including the President for our $5 debit fee. It has been a particularly difficult communications battle for many reasons. We have tried to offer transparency by announcing the change five months prior to its start. We have explained why this charge is necessary- and pointed out that we will not be the only back to use this charge. Our CEO has been particularly vocal towards the politicians who have criticized this move. Still, the reputational stakes are high and the scrutiny continues.
It’s exhausting and sometimes defeating to work in an industry that is always under fire. It doesn’t help that the company I work for seems to be the largest target on the map. I see flaws in our communication plans- or lack thereof in some cases. Our response strategy to our ever faulted reputation isn’t always the best, but I see glimpses of hope in our cultural shift. Perhaps we are learning. Perhaps weathering this economical storm will mean a reinvention of our culture.
For the past four years, even prior to working in corporate comm., I have volunteered at the annual shareholders meeting. It’s always an interesting cast of characters- the board of directors, protestors, supporters, the executive team, etc. You never know what to expect. What I have consistently seen is an interactive two way dialogue. Unfortunately, it only happens once a year, but it’s quite impressive nonetheless. For many shareholders, who range from local small business owners who have accounts and loans from BofA, to eccentric wealthy women who are known as “hecklers” at the annual meetings of many Fortune 500 companies, I have seen the CEO and other executives not only respond to the concerns on the spot, but arrange time after the meeting to sit down and discuss their issues. It actually happens. I have seen it with my own eyes. And it’s not just the shareholders with the most stake in the company. I have seen protestors from local charitable foundations receive attention and assistance as well.
Ok, so those are shareholders- of course we are going to coddle them, right? What about the stakeholders?
In March of this year the CEO announced that he was beginning a campaign to shift our culture. In a associate satisfaction survey from 2010 it was learned that the employees were fed up with the way things work here. There is too much rework. It is overly complicated. Navigating the matrix is too hard. The CEO agreed with this feedback. In response, so began the chance for the employees as stakeholders to submit ideas for how to improve our company. There was even a $500 reward given to any employee whose idea is used.
For the past five months the executive team has been vetting the massive pool of submissions. Some changes were enacted immediately, while others will take some time to roll out. In any case, it allowed all of us (employees) as stakeholders to feel valued. In times when what we do faces so much scrutiny, it was refreshing to at least know that our ideas were considered.
Most recently, we have been scrutinized by politicians, including the President for our $5 debit fee. It has been a particularly difficult communications battle for many reasons. We have tried to offer transparency by announcing the change five months prior to its start. We have explained why this charge is necessary- and pointed out that we will not be the only back to use this charge. Our CEO has been particularly vocal towards the politicians who have criticized this move. Still, the reputational stakes are high and the scrutiny continues.
It’s exhausting and sometimes defeating to work in an industry that is always under fire. It doesn’t help that the company I work for seems to be the largest target on the map. I see flaws in our communication plans- or lack thereof in some cases. Our response strategy to our ever faulted reputation isn’t always the best, but I see glimpses of hope in our cultural shift. Perhaps we are learning. Perhaps weathering this economical storm will mean a reinvention of our culture.
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Contagion experience- Crisis Comm reflection 4
I have the worst memory when it comes to movies. Seriously, I should have taken notes during Contagion. What I do know, is that I have washed my hands more since I have seen that movie than any other time my life. Yikes, germs have never been so terrifying.
From a crisis management perspective, this film was beyond interesting... it was overwhelming. The impact of an epidemic like one in the film was unimaginable. And as the plot went on and more people became infected, the crisis snow balled- making any crisis communication professional stutter in disbelief.
However, in the very initial phases, immediately following the death of Gweneth Paltrow’s character it seemed there were overt and thoughtful crisis management meetings. These brought to light complications based on the interests of the multiple agencies involved, but the largest complication was the unknown.
Early on, there was no knowledge of where the epidemic began, how exactly it was bring spread, and what could stop it. Instead, there were a few deaths that were loosely linked and no understanding of what could be the root of the disease. At this point, there was a lot to consider for the players at the table. They had choices to make- and each of these involved some amount of risk and a different group of stakeholders.
If the news were to go live that there was a possible epidemic looming then panic and frenzy could ensue. This could potentially be more dangerous than the germ. The professionals at the CDC devised a plan to try to separate infected persons from the healthy. A few schools were closed, offices, etc. People were encouraged to stay home if they were not feeling well.
Unfortunately, this was not enough. As time went on panic did set in. There were paracrises beginning as food the supply dwindled. Looting and violent crime increased as people’s desperation to survive increased.
What I found most interesting about the film was the downplay of the mass media involvement. Aside from a few seconds of footage, there was very little mention of the affect the mass media would have. There was one rogue blogger whose coverage of the outbreak and the cure became central to the plot, but CNN, CBS, Fox News, etc were all seemingly uninvolved. If this were a real event, I contend that the panic would have set in much sooner.
Seeing the frenzy over the limited supply of vaccines and forsythia brings back memories of recent gas shortages in Charlotte. Lines at the pump went on for blocks. People filled up their vehicles and spare tanks as well. Where did the sense of panic come from? The mass media.
I really enjoyed this film. It petrified me, but gave me a different perspective on handling crisis communication. Weighing overwhelming options and doing the best thing is not always easy. Likewise, it is not easy to prepare for a crisis of this nature. While contagious epidemics in general are worthy of plans, the unexpected characteristics of one type of epidemic can change the crisis management plan completely.
From a crisis management perspective, this film was beyond interesting... it was overwhelming. The impact of an epidemic like one in the film was unimaginable. And as the plot went on and more people became infected, the crisis snow balled- making any crisis communication professional stutter in disbelief.
However, in the very initial phases, immediately following the death of Gweneth Paltrow’s character it seemed there were overt and thoughtful crisis management meetings. These brought to light complications based on the interests of the multiple agencies involved, but the largest complication was the unknown.
Early on, there was no knowledge of where the epidemic began, how exactly it was bring spread, and what could stop it. Instead, there were a few deaths that were loosely linked and no understanding of what could be the root of the disease. At this point, there was a lot to consider for the players at the table. They had choices to make- and each of these involved some amount of risk and a different group of stakeholders.
If the news were to go live that there was a possible epidemic looming then panic and frenzy could ensue. This could potentially be more dangerous than the germ. The professionals at the CDC devised a plan to try to separate infected persons from the healthy. A few schools were closed, offices, etc. People were encouraged to stay home if they were not feeling well.
Unfortunately, this was not enough. As time went on panic did set in. There were paracrises beginning as food the supply dwindled. Looting and violent crime increased as people’s desperation to survive increased.
What I found most interesting about the film was the downplay of the mass media involvement. Aside from a few seconds of footage, there was very little mention of the affect the mass media would have. There was one rogue blogger whose coverage of the outbreak and the cure became central to the plot, but CNN, CBS, Fox News, etc were all seemingly uninvolved. If this were a real event, I contend that the panic would have set in much sooner.
Seeing the frenzy over the limited supply of vaccines and forsythia brings back memories of recent gas shortages in Charlotte. Lines at the pump went on for blocks. People filled up their vehicles and spare tanks as well. Where did the sense of panic come from? The mass media.
I really enjoyed this film. It petrified me, but gave me a different perspective on handling crisis communication. Weighing overwhelming options and doing the best thing is not always easy. Likewise, it is not easy to prepare for a crisis of this nature. While contagious epidemics in general are worthy of plans, the unexpected characteristics of one type of epidemic can change the crisis management plan completely.
Monday, September 26, 2011
CMT Preparation- Crisis Comm reflection 3
While reading Coombs Ch. 5, I was reminded of my former job on the property management team at the Bank of America Corp Center. As the management company for the world headquarters of the bank, we had to be poised to handle any number of crises.
Yearly we had an external agency come in and offer our team emergency preparedness training for natural and man made disasters that could impact the building- and more importantly, the tenants. We took this very seriously. It was a week's worth of crisis management training, in which we created plans in case any of these scenarios were ever to happen. Luckily, the plans have not been used to date. From bomb scares to tornadoes, we had to create communication and evacuation plans to manage the crisis.
We did a lot of role playing as a way to practice. Through these drills, we learned who relied more on instinct versus some of our team who were much more analytical and felt that following set instructions was best. It was quite interesting to see- even in these types of practice drills who works better under pressure and who seemed overwhelmed. These drills offered us the chance to work as a team to execute our crisis plan-something that isn't always easy to do.
Interestingly, my current role allows me to see the works of crisis preparation in a different light. While working for the property management company gave me the insight into planning for one type of crisis, working in corp. comm has given me an insiders view into handling organizational misdeeds and challenges.
This form of crisis also requires team work. Our media relations reps work together to craft messages that align with the company voice. There have been times when untrained persons have given the media information. This resulted in more chaos and a bigger mess to clean up.
Having a CMP is critical, but you also have to be prepared for those who don't follow it. There can always be a rogue team member- or someone outside of the team who can add impact by not understanding the plan or the nature of the crisis. it's quite scary to think of the limits of what we can really prepare for. We may have the first steps in place, but until the actual crisis unfolds, the team may not know what they are up against.
I have learned in my experience the importance of remaining in contact as a team during the crisis. Having a designated hub where the team can post themselves, or making mandatory time for meetings (virtually if necessary) will be a very critical practice in dealing with crisis. Remaining on the same page as a team isn't necessarily easy, but it is essential to making your CMP work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)