reputation damage

I feel like I have read this article before. The title in USA Today yesterday was "CEOs stumble over ethics violations, mismanagement." Is it 2002 over again when Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia made headlines over ethical transgressions and wrongdoing? I agree that there seems to be a rush of these events recently but I am not sure it is vastly different than it has always been. The Internet has certainly added to the scrutiny of corporate executives but the spotlights were just as glaring and intense as they were years ago. In fact, I tend to think that wrongdoing on the part of CEOs stayed in the news for a longer period of time than they do now. I am waiting for headlines about JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to be replaced soon.  Not sure what will substitute for him in the days ahead but I can bet $5 that something will surface in the next week to knock Dimon off the front pages (so to speak). And whistleblowers have been around for a long time.  It is not the first time I have heard about a note being sent to a board member about an executive transgression. The real difference is that there is zero tolerance for these missteps and for a simple reason -- "reputation." It was interesting to me that the word "reputation" did not appear once in the USA Today article. Boards are making split-second decisions about CEO tenures because they know the downside of having their reputations tarnished, trashed, torn and tattered. Not only are their own personal reputations at risk but that of the companies on whose boards they sit (and that impacts their compensation which is often in stock).  As Lucian Bebchuk, director of corporate governance at Harvard Law School said in the article, "Boards do seem to move faster to deal with scandals and public failings that attract shareholder and media attention."  Being in the headlines and chatted about online about reputation failure is the new scarlet letter. I hope that next time an article appears, the reputation damage that brings down share prices, dampens employee morale, attracts headlines and invites investor activists gets mentioned. The cost of reputation failings are higher than ever and the stain can be very deep. In fact, it takes years to wash out.

I have to say that the headline in today’s WSJ re the $2 billion trading loss at JPMorganChase strongly resonated with me. The title is “J.P. Morgan Trades in Its Crown.”  In our research on safeguarding reputation, we start out by summing up reputation failures among the world’s most admired this way:

 

“The last decade has seen many of the world’s most admired companies descend from their once lofty positions. They were in a class by themselves — corporate reputation royalty whose invincibility was universally accepted by business executives around the globe. No one could have predicted that these companies would ever part with their crowns. How the world has changed!”

 

It looks like we now have another major kingpin to add to our Weber Shandwick “stumble rate” analysis that we calculate every year. You can find more about it in an earlier post.  But…between 2011 and 2012, 49% of the world’s largest companies experienced a reputational stumble, up from last year’s 43% but exactly the same as 2010’s rate.  There seems to be no more untouchables among the Fortune 500 with this recent news.

 

I was also intrigued by Jamie Dimon’s remarks about what he could have done differently to have caught this $2 billion blunder earlier. Dimon’s deadpan answer was paying more attention to the “newspapers” among other things. He was referring to earlier reports in the papers about the trading problem. Have to hand it to him for taking the blame and being brutally honest in his response. He’s been true to his reputation on that count.

“In hindsight, the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored. The portfolio has proven to be riskier, more volatile and less effective an economic hedge than we thought.”

Another side note of interest is that this reputation crisis did not start in social media. It has certainly taken off online but as far as we know now, there's been no social media assault that instigated this crisis. No online cloak and dagger here.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out reputation-wise. Will this tarnish the bank’s reputation for the long-term or just be a stain? No doubt it will be headline news for a while. Dimon is eminently quotable --the WSJ has his most notable quotes already listed. I hate to have to say it but another one hits the dust.

CEOs get the importance of corporate responsibility. At the recent Board of Boards CEO Conference in New York where heavyweight CEOs from around the world meet annually, the discussion on doing well by doing good was front and center. In an article on that meeting in Barron's, the attending author said,

"How the times have changed. Whether investors like it or not, this era’s consumers do care deeply that the products they purchase are both cheap and do no harm to the environment, or, better yet, positively contribute to the state of the world. A full 59% of the queried CEOs felt consumers were “demanding greater levels of transparency regarding their companies’ community engagement initiatives;” 69% claimed such efforts on their part were “rewarded by consumers.” Because consumers care, investors should care. Fact is, when a company’s cool and progressive spirit—it’s intangible goodwill— is undermined by the firm’s community-damaging business practices, investors often wind up paying the price."

I was glad that CEOs noted that consumers care because that is what we found in our recent The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust. Consumers are no longer passive about the companies that make the products they buy. They care and do not like being surprised if they find that the product they adore is made by a company they detest. At the meeting, CEOs were asked whether their company's community and social engagement was "rewarded" by its shareholders and I agree with the author that the response was positive. More than one-half (56%) believe shareholders reward firms for their corporate citizenship. And yes, we all know that it comes down to having the right metrics. It is awfully hard to pin down. What is most interesting to me over the next 12 months is seeing how Apple's reputation fares as the Foxconn issue of employee mistreatment stays in the news. I believe that companies get just so many chances to soar above the damaging reputational news and then it reaches the tipping point where it surely matters. I often refer to the BP Effect. BP had three chances to make their reputation right -- the Texas City refinery episode, the Alaskan pipeline debacle and then the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The third one did them in.

Just was forwarded an interesting study out of Northwestern's Kellogg school. It found that the share price of a company that is being boycotted drops nearly one percent for EACH day of national print media coverage. Ever wondered what happens when those protesters zero in on your company and tell people not to buy your products? Often I will hear the response, "The boycott is not affecting our sales so let's not worry too much about this."  However, the research uncovered that perhaps your sales are not being affected, but watch out for your reputation and stock price. Assistant Professor Brayden King found that Day One may not be as much a problem (decline of one half of one percent in share price) but there is an average decline in share price of 0.7 percent for EACH day afterwards that the company remains in the national print media spotlight.  After looking at 177 firms who were boycotted over several years (1990 to 2005), King concludes that there is a clear link between reputation and media coverage. And when you think of today with the Internet, whoah. I liked this fact -- about 25% of those companies generated a concession from the targeted company.  What does that say about the other 75%? Perhaps there are some behind the scenes negotiations that we are not privy to. And clearly companies stuck to their position if they felt they were right. Also liked this fact. King used the Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking (one of my favorites) and found that boycotted firms with a high reputation ranking generated 4.4 times the coverage generated by boycotted firms that were unranked, three times the coverage of those in the lower quartile and six times those in the middle ranking group. Essentially, the bigger you are and the more admired, the greater the coverage when boycotts land on your door. Like I often say, when you make it to the top of your industry in the Most Admired, you might as well paint a bulls eye on your back (or logo).

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.

It has been an unusually warm couple of months here in New York. I can't    help but think that global warming is staring me right in the face.  I often think of myself as a bear that hibernates when cold weather arrives. I often joke with my neighbors that they won't see me until spring because I'll be going into my bear cave for my "winter sleep" when the first chill arrives.  So the past couple of months have been an anomaly as I have wandered out doors more often than usual on the weekends. Of course I have to go to work and do the ordinary errands that surround my life but given the choice, I stay inside. Maybe that is why I like to write about reputation because it gives me an excuse to sit in my little office cave that is closed off to the world. All of this got me to thinking about how climate change gets communicated today when there is criticism about  the science after controversies arose from the release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. This happened a year or two ago.  Undoubtedly this is the perfect case study for how an industry (climate change scientists) suffered reputational damage and now has to recover and restore reputational equity. Climate change skeptics were fairly adept at effectively persuading many in the general public to doubt the scientific validity of global warming. I was glad to see an article in the New Scientist (sorry, you need a subscription) by Robert Ward (policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics) on how some of the reputation recovery methods that I recommend in my book might be applied to regain confidence and trust in climate science.  He sees the situation right, "Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence are eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few bad apples, mud sticks."  This is a truism -- no matter how much science you have on your side, it is sometimes never enough when it comes to public opinion.  Sometimes the facts just don't matter as much as they should in a perfect world. Ward is right that hope is not a solution to rebuilding reputation. Many CEOs used to think they could outlast controversy but in fact learn the hard way that it only extends the problem.  "Communicating tirelessly" -- one of my recommendations -- is the right path forward.  "No comment" does not work as it used to. Whether it is finding neutral partners or independent coalitions to bring additional voices into the discussion or actually training climate scientists to transparently talk about and defend the science -- its certainties and uncertainties, communications will do more good than harm in this digital world. An interesting analysis of temperature records appeared in an article in The Economist  which speaks to the importance of bringing in a third, fourth or fifth party opinion to validate scientific findings.  I read it on a plane to Europe in November but kept it because it made commonsense as an approach to understanding the climate change debate -- is it getting warmer or not?  Let me just add here that the topic of global warming is a lot more complicated than I will ever understand -- gaps in readings, different criteria, different types of thermometers, urban settings where temperatures might be recorder higher, etc.  But interestingly, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project stepped into the argument on climate change 18 months ago to test existing analyses. And they did so with the addition of skeptical scientists and funders as well as Nobel prize winners. As it is often said, let's open the kimono and thus they did. And they found that the existing temperature records that the earth was warming was not far off the mark from what had been previously reported.  A peer review is underway and I look forward to learning more about that when it is released.  Next up, however, for climate scientists and institutions affiliated with climate change,would be communicating openly and collectively (and maybe relentlessly) to explain how the newest findings answer questions, raise new ones and guide us as to what we need to be doing Now not Later.

There has been a fair amount of news this year about people who risk everything and ultimately lose their whole reputation.  Why would anyone take that risk?  An article on "What makes a rogue trader?" made me think about people who take risks without realizing that they have so much to lose.  Also the news today about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich being sentenced to 14 years in jail for corruption made me wonder what drove him to this pitiful situation. Money? Power? Just because he could do it. Interestingly, the article posits one theory...."What matters most of all is not how much a gamble alters their wealth, but where they start --whether they are already satisfied, or have suffered loss. Their overriding trait is their inability to accept loss." Thus, these people are compelled to do whatever they have to in the name of gaining more wealth or achieving political office to avoid loss of their stature or status or sense that they are okay human beings. The loss seems to always outweigh what they sought in the first place. And these risk-takers lose all remnants of reputation and respect in the end. Something that you can't even put a price on. Makes you think about Bernie Madoff. What was he thinking? His reputation is in shreds, at best.

Took me a few days but finally found a chance to read a fascinating review in the Financial Times of the impact of the insider trading scandal at management consultant McKinsey & Company and its impact on their reputation. Andrew Hill did a fine job providing a historical review of McKinsey's ups and downs over the many years of its storied existence and finding former partners and employees to offer their perspectives. As you already know from the trial of Raj Rajaratnam of Galleon Group, the hedge fund CEO is accused of insider trading using tips from former McKinsey partners' Anil Kumar and Rajat Gupta, global managing partner who left after several terms in 2003.  What intrigued me of course was how McKinsey was recovering from this reputation catastrophe and how it fit with the best practices in my book on reputation recovery. This is not just a bruise but a serious injury to McKinsey's reputation. Here is what they did so far:

• Communicated regularly with employees and former employees
• Initiated an independent inquiry with the help of a law firm
• Improved processes over protecting confidential client information
• Reviewed its ethics policies and standards
• Redefined what constitutes "material non-public informtion"
• Built a formal "stop-list" of client stocks that no McKinsey person can trade (not just those assigned to the account)
• Added new training procedures
• Strengthened governance

True to its highly analytical way of attacking corporate challenges (they work for 90 of the top 100 companies in the world, among others), they looked back at how they handled prior problems. Coincidentally, the article points out that they had been putting together a comprehensive internal history of the firm which luckily offered them insights on how they have historically dealt with challenges to their reputation and livelihood. The latter best practice is one I highly recommend to others. In my book, I talk about the importance of the Rewind period where companies study their mistakes to from the past to create a better future. Lord John Browne of BP did so after the refinery fire in Texas City and asked the question of how they did not see the pattern of errors that turned deadly sooner. Looking in the rearview mirror may take time that leaders do not think they have but critical warning signs are often present. Retromining is a critical piece of recovering reputation. As the new McKinsey global managing director, Dominic Barton, also did, he studied other thriving cultures that failed. As Barton said in the article, he had been “thinking what happened with the suppression of the Jesuits in the 1700s. This may seem strange, but [it was] an organisation that was thriving and doing well and all of a sudden was severely challenged.”

Another stat to add to the many on how long it takes to recover reputation. Actually I should say...to add to the few. There really are not that many besides the one we did some research on that shows it takes about three to four years after a crisis. However, I found this one from the Ponemon Institute and Experian that says that nearly 850 executives say that it takes about one year to restore an organization's reputation after a data breach.  It also found, depending on the type of breach, that the average loss ranges from $184 million to over $330 million. Or put another way-- the minimum brand damage is a 12% loss which could increase to 25% of the brand value if the breach was horrific. Just as disturbing is the lack of data breach preparedness according to the research. A fairly large 43% had no plan in place to deal with a breach of confidential leak or theft of customer data.  Perhaps this is why there seem to be so many. Most companies are unprepared and do not think of a data breach in the same way they do another type of crisis that is more common. Either way, it is critical to be prepared since if you really want to make your customers mad, a data breach is a surefire way to make that happen.

  It has been a very hectic week as we travel around to the many markets in EMEA to discuss Socializing Your Brand, our new research on what it takes to be truly social today. As always, I try to keep up with other news and events and that has been harder than usual as my laptop crashed between markets. Caught an article citing Michael Silverleaf, legal counsel hired by News Corp., saying that it would be harmful to air information related to “a culture of illegal information access” because it would be "extremely damaging to NGN's public reputation."  (NGN=News Group Newspapers) I had a double take when I read the last two words of this sentence. Is there such a thing anymore as a public vs. private reputation? It seems to me that there is no longer a divide between private and public. There are no secrets and we are all public figures and public institutions. Let`s get real. The other article that caught my eye came about while taking a train with my colleague to a mountain top village near Geneva.  Instead of day dreaming as I had hoped, this brought me back to reality. The article is terribly interesting because it is about women CEOs and how their husbands support them in their quest to the top.  James Stewart wrote it probably because he was thinking about the new female CEO of IBM who recently joined the exclusive – and small -- club of women CEOs.

“Asked at a Barnard College conference what men could do to help advance women’s leadership, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of the landmark “Men and Women of the Corporation,” answered, “The laundry.””

Hah. If only it were that simple. Made me realize that I had to get back to the hotel and get some laundry done quickly for the next leg of the tour.