By Gil Rudawsky, Rockford Gray Partner
Many business leaders will tell you they have learned more from their failures than their successes. There is no more stinging nor more enduring lesson learned than a communications blunder in a crisis. The failure to communicate effectively while managing a crisis can inflict more damage on your reputation than whatever provoked the crisis in the first place.
So, let’s take advantage of some lessons from the painful experience others.
Here are the five crisis communication pitfalls we’ve seen that will take your crisis from bad to worse.
The Duck and Cover Strategy
Some of you are old enough to remember duck and cover. That is what schoolchildren were taught to do in the early days of the Cold War in the event of nuclear attack. It would not have been a successful strategy in the case of nuclear attack, and it won’t work with the news media or any other audience.
-
- Reporters. Ignoring reporters will not make them go away. It will only confirm that you have something to hide. You’re waving a red flag that says, come after me.
-
- Victims. Your crisis has created a victim. All crises do; that is the leading indicator that you have a crisis. The failure to reach out to the victim will be perceived as re-victimizing that person or group and be judged as callous.
-
- Stakeholders and employees. They don’t want to learn about a crisis from the media. They deserve to hear from you. They believe their reputations are at risk along with yours.
By the way, you may perceive the media as the most clear and present danger, but you will live with your stakeholders and employees long after the media have left. But don’t say anything to employees that you wouldn’t say to reporters, because an employee may talk to a reporter. Stick to the facts.
Saying No Comment
This is an alternative strategy to duck and cover for the media-apprehensive. What’s wrong with ”No Comment”? They are two perfectly good words in the English language that communicate your desire not answer a question substantively. The problem is they have become fraught with all sorts meaning in our media saturated environment. You’’ve consumed enough gotcha journalism; you know what they really mean. They mean you’re hiding something. Or guilty as charged. A reporter may even take your “no comment” as confirmation of fact. As in response to this question, “Isn’t it true you are filing for bankruptcy as a result of this crisis?” And, if the best thing you can think of to offer in the midst of your crisis is, no comment, it suggests you are not in control.
Letting Lawyers Practice Public Relations
You hire lawyers to manage your legal liability. Don’t confuse legal management with crisis communication or reputation management. They are not the same. In fact, they are often in conflict. Your lawyer may be the chief advocate of duck and cover or no comment. But will your lawyer have to run your business with your reputation in tatters? There must be balance between what is in your best legal interest and what’s best for public relations. If you run the company, you will have to be the one to insist on striking that balance. That may not be easy when legal counsel paints an Imax size picture of your legal liability.
Failure to Express Sympathy
Sympathy. There’s a word that may not be on the tip of your attorney’s tongue, but failure to acknowledge early and often the distress you have created for your victims with your crisis is sure to haunt you. An expression of concern and sympathy does not ipso facto admit liability. It does position you and your company as a responsible member of the community that understands there are victims who are suffering and that you want to see the right thing is done for them.
Getting Angry
It is hard to keep your cool when something bad has happened. You may find yourself presiding over chaos. Blood pressures rise. It gets hot. Very hot. You stand accused. Internal and external audiences will be asking tough questions. Many of the questions will imply you did something wrong. And reporters particularly will be asking questions that seek to determine the cause of the crisis because they want to determine who is to blame. Somebody is to blame, and they are looking right at you. That is hard to take. But getting angry is an emotional indulgence. Lashing out. Getting nasty. Criticizing a reporter. Responding with sarcasm. They don’t play well. And you are picking a fight you won’t win.
None of this is easy. Communicating effectively with stakeholders, employees, regulators and, certainly, the news media is challenging in good times. When something truly bad has happened, you will be operating in an environment that you likely haven’t experienced. The bearings that have guided you, the instincts you’ve followed, the counsel you’ve relied on may not serve you well. So, take advantage of the lessons learned from the trial and error experience of those that have endured their crises before you.
About the Author
Gil Rudawsky specializes in issues and reputation management, and crisis communication. He began his career as a reporter in Aspen, Colo., and journalism took him across the country and then back to his native Denver, Colorado, where he worked for the Rocky Mountain News. His journalistic skills – source development, research, credibility, storytelling, and curiosity – remain the foundation of his work with clients. He has experience working on a range of issues across sectors, including federal investigations, corporate and workplace issues, DEI and public advocacy campaigns. He provides expert-level strategic counsel, including on-the-ground support. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California, with a degree in philosophy.