reputation risk

I was eager to read JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s Letter to Shareholders this year. Considering the London Whale episode of the past year, I thought his Letter would be revealing. He clearly did not skirt the issue. I cut and paste some quotes below which are direct, apologetic and conciliatory. Also, I used the picture from the Letter to Shareholders here because it was surprising in that it almost looked like a man running for office but mostly because it is something that we advise clients which is to make better use of photos of their CEOs and execs with people (preferably employees) and not alone in some corner office isolated and solitary. You can’t know what is going on in your company by spending too much time in the office. It derails CEOs all the time.

What I like was how he presented his lessons learned for his reputation recovery plan. They are bulleted below as follows and include a favorite piece of advice of mine — problems don’t age well:

• Fight Complaceny
• Overcome conflict avoidance
• Risk Management 101: Controls must match risk
• Trust and verify
• Problems don’t age well
• Continue to share what you know when you know it
• Mistakes have consequences
• Never lose sight of the main mission: serving clients

On Responsibility: “I also  want our shareholders to know that I take  personal responsibility for what happened. I deeply apologize to you, our shareholders, and to others, including our regulators, who were affected by this mistake.”

On Complacency: “Complacency sets in when you start assuming that tomorrow will look more or less like today – and when you stop looking at yourself and your colleagues with a tough, honest, critical eye. Avoiding complacency means inviting others to question your logic and decisions in a disciplined way. Even when – and especially when – things have been going well for a long time, rigorous reviews must always take place.”

On the Aftermath: “There are a few things, however, that occurred this past year that we are not proud of. The “London Whale” episode not only cost us money — it was extremely embarrassing, opened us up to severe criticism, damaged our reputation and resulted in litigation and investigations that are still ongoing.”

On Reputation Committees: “That’s why we have a risk committee framework within the firm with extremely detailed reporting and many other checks and balances (like reputation committees, underwriting committees and others) to make sure we have a disciplined process in place to question our own thinking so we can spot mistakes before they do real damage.”

Reputation is often high on agendas these days.  Years ago, it was not usually number one but among the top three to five items that kept boards and CEOs up at night. This week someone sent me an issue of Operational Risk and Regulation and I quickly breezed through the table of contents online when I noticed that they had an article describing a risk survey among operational risk managers. This is not usually the typical stakeholder group I get asked about so I took a look at the various types of risks that were keeping them up at night or at least, stressed out during the day. Reputational damage was at the top of their top 10 list for 2013.  When I turned to the fuller description on reputational damage, the first sentence was quite boldly stated. “A good reputation has never been easier to lose — though this may not be a problem for much of the financial sector, as it doesn’t have one.” I understand where the author is going with this statement but the financial sector does have a reputation, just not a particularly good one. A company or sector can have a good or bad reputation and in some cases, somewhere in between. Most every sector, person and organization has a reputation. And just as a company can lose reputation over night or in seconds, so can it begin the process of redeeming itself by beginning the process of being straightforward, transparent and communicative. The financial sector, like many others, has certainly been battered but it does not mean that it is not crawling back and trying to restore its credibility. If anything, the financial crisis of the past few years has taught the financial sector to be more humble and that might just be a good place to start.

Ordnance Survey, in association with Operational Risk & Regulation

It is that time of the year. Last day of 2012 and the start of a new 2013. I posted an article to Huffington Post on what I see ahead by looking backward at reputation trends bubbling up and trends on the vast horizon.  Here is the post if you want to settle into the new year with a clear lenses on reputation possibilities.

Wishing you a happy new year!

McKinsey is coming out soon with their new research on defining and developing reputation. I was one of the 3,601 executives who responded when they sent questionnaires out in September and I was eagerly awaiting its release. They kindly sent the final report to those who had completed the survey before distributing it more widely. However, in their note to panelists, they mentioned that the report can’t be republished without permission. For that reason, I am not linking to the report results although I bet that public release will come soon in the new year. I do think that I can mention a few of the results that I found most interesting and will add the link when they are made available. Stay tuned.

McKinsey obviously leads the opening paragraph with what they consider the most important findings and that is that many executives do not think their companies’ reputation management strategies are effective. Only one-fifth of executives think their companies manage reputation very effectively. Then they look at reputation management through the lenses of these “effective managers” and report that these companies are more likely to say that reputation management is among the top 3 objectives for their CEOs and that their companies formally track reputation among key stakeholders. It is always interesting how when CEOs focus on something, it becomes company mantra for all. Overall, that is the job of the CEO to focus the organization on what will advance their company’s success.

As I would suspect, two-thirds (64%) expect the scrutiny on their external reputations to be more intense in the years to come. No doubt the belief that there will be increased scutiny on corporate reputation is directly tied to the fairly high percentage (47%) of companies who say they have experienced a reputation threat in the past two to three years. The industries that are above average in having experienced reputation threats are telecom (67%), pharma (60%) and financial (56%).  Interestingly, executives in the healthcare sector reported that they were  just about average (46%) in having experienced a reputation threat in the past few years but are way above average in what they expectto see in their sector over the next two to three years — 81%.

There are some other findings I will report on when the final report is released. This is just for now. Back again soon. Have a merry Xmas.

In an article today on the academic dream team that consulted with President Obama’s team, a few lessons are shared that should be helpful for the public sector and CEOs or other executives. The group of behavioral scientists who were unpaid advised that voters focus on two characteristics in choosing a president or leader – competence and warmth. This is especially good advice for new CEOs coming into office to hear. The article states that Romney had the competence factor working for him but less so the emotional warmth factor, particularly with all the negative advertising that many people saw. Clearly, CEOs have to project both factors to gain support from their followers.

Another lesson to be learned that was shared in the article is useful for companies facing crises (who isn’t?). The social scientists that made up the dream team advised the Democrats running the Obama campaign that when it comes to neutralizing rumors, it is best not to deny the charge but to affirm a competing one. The example given was how the rumors about President Obama being a Muslim stuck over the long term but their advice (and probably well taken) was to counteract that rumor by asserting that Obama is a Christian. I do recall hearing that. Good advice that can apply to corporate leaders faced with hearsay and wanting to deflect innuendos.

When I was speaking at the YPO/WPO luncheon in Minneapolis two weeks ago, I mentioned that I was talking about how to prepare for a public relations crisis that can cause reputational damage and what can be done. I always like to find examples that might resonate with an audience and I found this one which I still can not get out of my head. In the checklist I provided attendees regarding preparing for a crisis, I mentioned the importance of establishing a chain of command. It is important that everyone knows exactly what to say and who should be saying it when crisis strikes. This control over a chain of command starts with the person who answers the phone!

Two weeks before I arrived in Minneapolis, I had come across an article that described exactly how it should NOT be done. The article was about how some workers at JFK airport filed a complaint with the TSA about how they were being rushed to do their jobs to avoid schedule delays.  And the jobs they get paid to do are important. One quarter of these workers — security agents — employed by this small business complained that they were unable to search flights in enough time to discover if there were any weapons, drugs or explosives left behind after the passengers left. These agents are supposed to pull down every tray, check every overhead bin, probe seat pockets and use metal detectors to make sure the planes are safe and secure as mandated by the federal government after 9/11.  Since airlines are very concerned about flight delays and on-time arrivals, these employees felt that they were being given little time to do their jobs. As one employee said, they were being asked to do their jobs in three minutes when the minimum amount of time needed was 25 minutes.

Here’s what stunned me. When the company that employs these agents was asked about the complaints, the pr director responded by saying that the employees were lying. “It is impossible for these allegations to really take place.” Here is an example of a company caught unaware and responding poorly. Within a few words, the director put the company’s reputation at severe risk. When The New York Times calls to find out information about an alleged complaint, the company spokesperson should have said that they would get right back to the reporter with a response and more information. Saying that one’s own employees were lying just does not cut it. From what I can gather, the PR director said that the employees were trying to unionize and therefore intent on aggravating the situation. Whatever the reason or excuse, this was quite the example of self-inflicting repuational harm. One for the books!

I was pleased to be alerted to a copy of Reputation Review 2012 by Rory Knight, chairman of Oxford Metrica. Years ago I used some of their research in my book on CEOs and particularly on how CEOs can build their reputation or kill it when crisis strikes.  Knight just completed his annual reputation review for AON, the global risk management, insurance and reinsurance company, and as I expected, the report has insightful and timely information for those seeking to better understand the impact of crisis on a company and its bottom line.

Knight reviews the top crises of 2011 such as TEPCO, Dexia, Olympus, Research in Motion, Sony, UBS and News Corp, among others.  His company looks at the recovery of shareholder value following crisis. Among 10 crisis-ridden companies in 2011, only News Corp found itself in positive terrain afterwards. In fact, what they found was that 7 of the top 10 lost more than one third of their value. Two companies lost nearly 90% of their value. These companies clearly had to put big restoration processes in place afterwards and I would suspect paid good dollars to firms to restore their good names and overlooked other everyday business to move forward.  Oxford Metrica says: “Managing the restoration and rebuilding of reputation equity is an essential part of the value recovery process following a crisis. Reputation equity is a significant source of value for many companies and a coherent reputation strategy can be the difference between recovery and failure.”

The big takeaway from the report, or at least what seems to resonant with me, is that there is an “80% chance of a company losing at least 20% of its value (over and above the market) in any single month, in a given five-year period.” Those odds are not good and as Knight says, screams for having a careful and well thought out reputation strategy in place before a minor event turns into a raging crisis and monopolizes headlines, offline and online.  A solid reputation strategy will also help guide the reputation recovery process which is often too hurried.  This is the kind of advice that I write about in my book on reputation recovery and underscores having a strategy so you do not find yourself in this situation in the first place. Additionally, Weber Shandwick’s stumble rate of 43% for the world’s most admired companies tracks with Knight’s high rate of expectant reputational downfalls. It is not good at either rate.

The report outlines a process for managing a company’s reputational equity. They are 1) Measure your reputation through benchmarking and vis a vis your peers; 2) Identify the drivers of your company’s reputation in order to allocate resources properly; 3) Prepare a strategy for recovering your company’s reputation; and 4) monitor your reputational equity often and respond accordingly when risk emerges.

The report analyzes the reputational losses of Olympus and Research in Motion after their reputation-damaging events. It is worth reviewing.  It also takes a look at the financial results from TEPCO after the tsunami hit Japan. Apparently, 90% of TEPCO’s value was lost, over $US37 billion.  Oxford Metrica estimates that events associated with mass fatalities have double the impact on shareholder value than do reputation crises in general.  I believe they are right. BP’s Gulf of Mexico tragedy which involved over two dozen deaths wiped off substantial shareholder value off their books.

Where I wholeheartedly agree with Knight is when he talks in the report about the impact of senior management on crisis and the need for that management to lead with transparency and openness.

“For mass fatality events particularly, the sensitivity and compassion with which the Chief Executive responds to victims’ families, and the logistical care and efficiency with which response teams carry out their work, become paramount. Irrespective of the cause of a mass fatality event, a sensitive managerial response is critical to the maintenance and creation of shareholder value.” One of the takeaways from the report is that winners and losers, reputationally, can be determined by how the CEO responds to the crisis.

The report contains an article by Spencer Livermore, Director of Strategy, at Blue Rubicon, a reputation consultancy. He quotes a stat that is dear to my heart, “Oxford Metrica’s analysis shows that companies which open up more following a crisis and tell a richer, deeper story are valued more highly, increasing share price by 10 per cent on average over a year.” He calls it the communications dividend which comes from investing in communications. Years ago I wrote an article for Ernst & Young’s Center for Business Innovation called Communications Capital and the idea was similar – the right communications can increase market value and strengthen reputation.  As Livermore says, “We can make communications worth hundreds of millions more simply by making them better understood.” Having the right compelling narrative built on a well thought out reputation strategy is worth its weight in gold today.

Totally fascinating to me that China releases a list of its wealthiest citizens, similar to the Forbes 400. The list, Hurun Report, had some amazing facts worth sharing and which I learned about reading The Economist. The leading source of wealth came from individuals making their living off of manufacturing and not real estate as it was one year ago.  There were also interesting correlations between wealth and zodiac signs with those born in the year of the Rabbit outranking those born in the year of the Snake (2^nd) and year of the Dragon (3^rd). At the bottom of China’s wealthiest 1000 individuals are those born in the year of the Ox. The reputation of the Ox is in danger.

But most interesting was the downfall of some of those who make the Hurun or the Forbes Wealthiest people list. There is greater scrutiny from tax collectors, regulators and the public. There is even a book titled “The Curse of Forbes” which describes the problems that surface when being lauded as one of the nation’s richest.  In a report that the article cites, researchers found that those companies headed by entrepreneurs who make the list find that their market value declines sharply three years afterwards.  Clearly, being on a rich list in China brings the bad with the good and puts reputations in jeopardy.  The Economist title was “To Get Rich Is Not Always Glorious.” An apt headline.

Boards continue to see reputation risk as their top concern.  In the third annual study by EisnerAmperLLP among board members, two thirds (66%) see reputational risk at the top of their agendas for concern, ahead of regulatory issues (59%).  In fact, reputational risk has grown while regulatory risk has remained stable year over year. Both IT risk and privacy risk showed increases from the last survey and reflect the many breeches in systems security that we’ve seen which inevitably led to attacks upon a company’s reputation. Similarly, according to the report, crisis management, is also an indicator of reputational concern.

What do board members really mean when they say they worry about reputational risk? In an open ended question, board members are most likely to be talking about product quality, liability and customer satisfaction (30% of all responses) followed by concerns about integrity, fraud, ethics and specifically the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, (24%). IT concerns fell in at about 12% and environmental concerns at 8%. It always surprises me how little attention is paid to environmental issues at the top.

 How are risks assessed? About two in 10 get reports from executive management, discuss risk issues at board meetings and get help from professionals or outside experts. About one in 10 get information from the risk committee.  That seems like an area ripe for assistance.  The report interestingly mentions that recent years have not been kind to risk teams and that with all the recent issues and crises stealing headlines, boards are realizing that CFOs need greater support. In fact, the survey found that nearly two-thirds of boards are planning to enhance staff and increase audit coverage and about one in three are leaning towards hiring outside service providers.

Timing is everything when it comes to reputation. There are several articles today about how London’s reputation for financial integrity has been damaged by recent events in their banking system. What’s more interesting to me besides the three banks whose reputations have been undercut for rigged interest rates and money laundering is the timing of these crises. All three bank debacles occurred within weeks of each other which is a collective reputation-killer for the city of London and the sector. I always say that you can err once, misstep again but the third time and you’re out! I think that is a baseball cliche of sorts. But it is true that three is the magic number when it comes to reputation. Companies and leaders fall, often trip a second time as they institute change but on the third try, you definitely lose investor and customer patience.  After a third attempt or three sequential mishaps, your reputation gets a scarlet R. I think that is what is happening to the U.K. banking system. Not that this has not happened to us in the U.S. We have had our fair share of 1-2-3 and 4+ reputational fouls.  In fact, enough for a lifetime. The saving grace for the U.K.’s financial sector is that the Olympics are stealing the show and its summer holiday time. People are also very worried about the economies around the world and leadership changes in the U.S. and China. As they say, timing is everything and the U.K. banks picked a good time to stumble (if they had a choice, very unlikely).

There was a line in one article about this reputational meltdown for the City of London which made me read it twice: …”the U.K. government had launched a public inquiry into banking culture — even bringing in a bishop to offer a moral perspective.”  I am curious what the Bishop shared.

There are plenty of companies with excellent ethical programs and cultures that could serve as best practices for these wronged companies. I’d turn to them too. We’ve got to get these ethical violations straightened out to restore trust once again in our financial centers. Let’s do more than keep our fingers crossed. And let’s make sure we listen to the stories from the other side in case we’re not hearing the full story. That’s been known to happen!