crisis

Yesterday I was asked to talk about what I do at Weber Shandwick to our Crisis and Issues group in New York. It was an end of the week get together to take the edge off of all the long hours. I talked about reputational issues and answered several questions. It was a nice opportunity for me to reflect too.

I was asked where all the celebrity CEOs had gone which made me recall my first book on CEO reputation. The book was released at the height of the dot com boom when 22 year old CEOs were the norm and celebrity CEOs were plentiful.  In my book, I tried to make the point that it was not CEO celebrity that mattered but CEO credibility. As I was answering this question, I realized that I hit on some of the right notes as to why CEO celebrity was not the same today but missed a few. In fact, I mentioned that being CEO today was not  an easy job whatsoever. CEOs are much more embattled.  Here are some of the reasons I talked about yesterday but others as well taken from an Economist article I was saving to post about.

• CEO tenure is shorter than it used to be (on average 6.6 years, according to Booz’s research).  They usually come into office with great fanfare. They get approximately two years of grace when they start out (more like 18 months), 2 years to provide evidence that their strategy is working and two years to get pushed out. After six years like this, it’s best to be a CEO nobody.
• CEOs don’t have all the power anymore. Most CEOs now have separate chairmans that are looking over their shoulders and asking a lot of questions.  Booz found that in 2002 48% of incoming CEOs were also chairmen.  In 2009, that number dropped to 12%.  Hard to be a celebrity when there is power sharing going on.
• CEO compensation is always a headline and increasingly links the CEO title to perceptions of greed. CEO compensation is actually declining.
• Shareholders and stakeholders are not sitting idle. They are much more aggressive.  Some hedge funds are actively browbeating CEO and corporate decisions and in executives’ faces. The ridicule can get strenuous.
• Boards are more active too. They don’t want their reputations shamed either by poor CEO decisions or poor behavior. And according to Korn Ferry, new board members are more likely to be deep in international experience and have worked abroad. They are not necessarily golfing buddies like board members of yore. Angry birds maybe, but not necessarily tee time!

With all these barriers in place to curb the power of CEOs, celebrity CEOs can hardly flourish. Instead, we are looking at a new world of convening CEOs who communicate internally to employees, communicate online or through video to netizens, travel to speak to customers and influencers at forums they convene themselves (IBM‘s Smarter Planet  method), partner with third parties and government to problem solve on today’s economic woes and so forth.

In a piece I wrote for The HuffingtonPost for 2012, I forecasted that reputation blackmail would show its hand this year. Lo and behold, a front page article in yesterday’s paper headlined “Hackers-For-Hire Are Easy to Find.”  The article had to do with two feuding brothers from Kuwaiti who were suing one another over business they held. One of the billionaire brothers found someone to hack into his brother’s account and post online all his brother’s personal emails including finances, legal affairs, pharmacy bills and everything else that you can imagine gets sent and received from one’s personal account. The cost: $400. Hackers to hire are that cheap and apparently easy to find. One of the reasons there has not been much on this topic where reputations can be easily lost is that people do not want to report this type of reputation blackmail and generate even more attention.

In this instance, the one brother hired Invisible Hacking Group located in China and here is how it works:

“It requested the target person’s email address, the names of friends or colleagues, and examples of topics that interest them. The hackers would then send an email to the target that sounded as if it came from an acquaintance, but which actually installed malicious software on the target’s computer. The software would let the hackers capture the target’s email password.”

You get the picture.

Reputation blackmail presents a very scary scenario. Not only is privacy damaged but reputations which take a long time to rebuild get decimated.  Reputation protection can only go so far. Risk management and reputation warfare gets more complicated by the day.

We recently released an interesting exploration on the relationship between top corporate communications officers and legal counsel when it comes to reputation management. I have already posted about this relationship where these two senior corporate officers seem to be working together more than ever. In light of the multiplying crises that companies and its leaders are facing on an hourly basis, the relationship between the two officers including outside counsel has to be strong and respectful.  As we say in the report, “general counsels (GCs) and chief communications officers (CCOs) are now finding themselves participating in the same reputation management strategy meetings, conference calls and contingency planning sessions. GCs, external legal advisors and CCOs now have no choice but to trust and understand each other.”

There are several noteworthy insights and best practices in “Managing Legal and Reputation Risk” but two stand out for me in particular. The first is that you can’t prepare enough and expect surprises. …”executives still find the nature or intensity of the situations they’ve managed to be unfamiliar or unanticipated on some level.” This is so true. There is always something overlooked or unexpected.  In fact, it seems to me that it is getting harder to find precedence for some of the crises that arise. For example, the Olympus crisis has few precedents.  For this very reason, being ready, practicing a few scenarios ahead of time and giving time to “near misses” are sensible readiness processes to have in place.

Another finding that resonated with me was how general counsels appeared more willing today to balance the interests of the business with legal priorities. They said this, not just me. There are times when the short term hit (such as apologizing or admitting that the company could have done better and will do better in the future) outweighs the costs of winning or losing in a court of law down the road. The fact that many of the legal counsels we interviewed agreed that the “short-term pain for long-term gain” is often the right strategy demonstrated the transformation in communications-legal circles that we explored.

The incidents were the latest examples of what security experts call “reputational attacks” on media companies that publish material that the hackers disagree with. Such companies are particularly vulnerable to such attacks because many of them depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard — and because unlike other targets, like government entities and defense contractors, they are less likely to have state-of-the-art security to thwart attacks.

As I was reading this article this morning on how several media companies were dealing with recent hackings, I noticed a call out box saying “So-called reputational attacks follow controversial reports.”  The hackings over the past few days of news programs on public television came about because of negative stories that were clearly disliked  by certain parties. I would underscore that most entities — government, military, corporate or otherwise — are having a very difficult time with hackers, privacy, leaked information, etc. 

I was somewhat surprised when I saw “reputational attacks” in quotes as if this was a new label of sorts. Reputational attacks online have become commonplace and not just assaults on media companies. Either way, the most interesting element in the discussion on these “so-called reputational attacks” is the common refrain that they are usually the work of repressive governments. And these attacks are much more than reputation vandalism or Web site defacing. In fact, this is reputation warfare. No doubt about it.

The reputational risks that companies and organizations are increasingly facing continues to amaze me.

  I must be on a “leadership” kick as this week ends. Yesterday I posted about leadership’s role in crisis preparedness. Today I am going to post on the effects of crisis on a leader. At a dinner the other night, my colleague mentioned the impact of the killing of Osama bin Laden on President Obama. We agreed that he had to be a changed man. In yesterday’s reading, Daniel Henninger wrote the following in the same vein:

A candidate is not a president. In the fall of 2008, after Mr. Obama won, our offices were visited by then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former anti-mob prosecutor. Asked about the Obama criticisms of the war on terror, Mr. Chertoff replied that it was impossible to overstate the sobering effect of learning the true magnitude of the threat and bearing responsibility for thwarting it. On another occasion, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a federal judge presided over terrorist trials in New York, was asked the difference between his understanding of terrorism then and as attorney general. “About the difference,” he replied “between what you thought you knew in the sixth grade and a post-doctoral education.”

Without a doubt, the decision to launch the Seals attack on bin Laden’s hideout and the risks that entailed changed the man. Whenever people go through their CEO transition to finally land their company’s highest office, they realize the enormity of the position. Nothing ever looks the same. The buck really does stop at that corner door. As you’ve undoubtedly heard before from Shakespeare,

“Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.”

I am in a big believer in being prepared for reputational damage or crisis. My book on Corporate Reputation: 12 StepsTo Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation is all about learning from crisis and being ready for the next one.  As Weber Shandwick’s most admired stumble rate declares, every company should plan on some reputational mishap or misstep in the future. Nearly four in 10 companies have lost reputational status in the past year. I just read an article sent to me about the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative at Harvard. The initiative’s goal was to learn lessons from leaders who have faced crisis situations such as terrorist attackes (Israel, Madrid, London), natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina), health scares (pandemics), oil spills (Deepwater Horizon), etc. 

One of the first lessons they uncovered applies to companies and institutions and is:

“…that bad leadership – much like smoking – is a public health risk factor. Whether in the aftermath of a terror attack or a natural disaster, we have seen that when leaders don’t perform well lives are lost and people abandoned.”

And the second lesson is getting everyone on the same page so everyone can work quickly, effectively and efficiently on behalf of a common and shared goal. 

“Working together after a disaster requires forging bonds before a disaster.” 

Third, and a powerful lesson for companies, is to “expect every citizen to participate.”  Leaders have to listen no matter how soft or weak the signals are. And these early warning signs need to get to those who can act and whose job it is to protect reputation. Empowering employees is critical to averting reputational disaster. As the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative found, “citizen bystanders” can make all the difference as we saw with the shoe bomber and underwear bomber airline incidents of the past few years.

“We should regard these heroes as leaders in their own right.”

I was lucky enough to attend the Arthur W. Page Society meeting a few weeks ago and hear some thought-producing  speakers on reputational issues in a complex world. I believe I promised in my last blog post that I would write more about the 10 lessons learned from the global corporate communications officer at Toyota, Jim Wisemen.  One of the statements he made which deeply resonated with me was how he used to think that he was among the top corporate crisis counselors – pre-recall, that is.  He candidly and I must say very humbly said that he learned once the crisis began that he had a thing or two to learn about crisis in today’s world.  Wisemen said that when the recall began, they were receiving 500 calls a day from the media! And although they had a 1-800 number for customers to call regarding the recalls and that they had been used to getting 3,000 calls daily on average, that figure jumped to 100,000 per day when the recall began.  And this 800 number had only been programmed to manage 15,000 per day.  Imagine managing in this type of reputation-on-fire environment.  So here are the 10 lessons he gave to the audience of senior corporate communications officers at the meeting. Worth keeping in a safe place to pull out when the fire bell rings at your company. His lessons are good guides to our collective futures. Thank you to Jim for sharing with us.

1. Listen to customers
2. Communicate internally, fast and frequently
3. The new media breeds hysteria, deal with it
4. Get help from friends
5. Understand the politics and fight back
6. Swallow pride and communicate with legal (you are now joined at the hip)
7. Educate the media (consider informing reporters on automotive issues beforehand such as safety)
8. Emphasize social media
9. Stay true to your principles (The Toyota Way)
10. Don’t let it ruin your life –try not to take it personally

I am traveling in Asia so have not had alot of time to write in my blog. 

I just read this interesting perspective on what eBay said their real accomplishment was: “…neither their clever technology nor the marketplace they created. Rather, it was to build trust between people who had never met.” That’s reputation building at its core — building reputation between people who’ve never bought or come close to the company’s products.

I have been traveling to different markets to discuss my article on Reputation Warfare. In one meeting, a corporate communciations officer told me that after a recent crisis, the previously shy CEO said he now realized he was the company’s PR chief. And to keep it coming. It often takes a crisis to turn chief executives into media hounds.

I have not written about this interesting development in corporate crisis history but I am glad that I didn’t because I have been thinking about it for quite awhile and am thinking about it differently today. Last November, I read in The New York Times that BP is working on a feature length film that would cover the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. I did not know what to think of this at first. I was particularly interested because it fit well into the strategies I recommend in my article in Harvard Business Review on Reputation Warfare.  It fit right into my suggestion of “going rogue” and adopting unconventional ways of defending and resetting one’s reputation. As a BP spokesperson is quoted in the article:

“They are making a film of the spill primarily for an internal audience as an archive of a momentous event in the company’s history (not to mention those impacted by the tragedy and its aftermath),” Robert Wine, a spokesman for BP, said in an e-mail.

I tried to learn more about this film because I was so curious about how BP intends to use the documentary. At first, I thought it might just be a one-sided affair which is what the scant coverage online has said. However, over these past few months as I have been thinking about it more and more, I see it as an opportunity if it conforms with what I think.

As the spokesperson said, the film is intended as an internal filmfor internal audiences. If the film is used to document history and provide a lessons learned framework, this could be a vital way of not letting history repeat itself. Although there is plenty of information online about the oil spill disaster, a film that starts at the beginning and takes employees and management through all the rights and wrongs — a visual and dramatic rendering of  its roots causes and decision-making — it could be good.

In my book on reputation recovery, one of the stages of recovery is “Rewind.”  The opening story in the chapter is about the Columbia spacecraft explosion and how NASA seriously investigated the organizational causes of the accident because of the breakdown in leadership. The lessons learned from the shuttle tragedy were clear — organizations must carefully learn from the past because the cost of failing to do so far exceeds the cost of doing so.  This way of thinking might just apply to the reasons behind the BP film and could set an example for other companies facing internal communications challenges when recovering their reputations.  

The quote that sticks in my mind from thinking about the opportunity that this film provides to the future of BP is what one CEO wisely said when he led his company through a massive reputation recovery: “We had to settle with the past to prepare the future.”

A double whammy this week.

Just saw that a new corporate reputation survey by Prophet come out today and tomorrow Fortune’s World’s Most Admired Companies survey hits the airwaves. Prophet surveyed consumers in the U.S. and found that “attributes related to openness, ethics, and the kind of public dialog companies foster in response to marketplace events and circumstances were deemed most important.” Companies’ behavior in response to crisis and difficult times apparently makes a difference in perceptions.  How people deal with adversity matters in our perceptions of friends and colleagues, why not companies? I was not surprised reading this since a company’s character and values are most on display when companies are under assault or scrutiny. You learn alot about people and companies when they are in the spotlight or shadows.

I finally found a moment on the train to read McKinsey’s latest research on how well companies manage their government relations. In fact, today I was talking to someone about this so it was definitely top of mind. He made the point that reputation matters even more today because government has such a big role in business affairs and can affect economic outcomes.  There is one CEO I quote often who said that government affairs was his 7th line of business. Love that line.

The McKinsey survey was conducted among corporate executives around the world and this was my favorite part. When asked which stakeholders would have the greatest effect on corporate economic value over the next 3 to 5 years, 74% named customers. Makes sense. But second on the list came government/regulators at 53%.  This highly influential group ranked higher than employees (49%), investors (28%), suppliers (17%), media (measley 9%, ouch), NGOs (mere 3%, ouch) and organized labor (2%, definitely ouch).  When you look at industries such as health care, energy and financial, government/regulators are #1 for each….ahead of customers and all the rest when these executives are thinking out 3 to 5 years from now. Now that says something about where reputation will be headed too.