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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)