Crisis Management 

On September 18, Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University, publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. By taking this brave step, the universities where she earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees issued statements in support of her actions. In contrast, her current employer opted to stay silent. This situation highlights the importance of organizations having a crisis management plan in place.

Crisis Management is 70% Internal and 30% External 

The ability to plan for adversities that seem unlikely is a challenge for businesses and corporations. With any luck, a crisis management plan will be a documented, trained, and ready-to-implement set of procedures that the corporation will never have to put into action until an anomalous event occurs that threatens operational continuity. However, when needed, a crisis management plan is essential, helping businesses return to operational norms as quickly as possible. 

When organizations think about crisis management, their focus is almost exclusively external. They are worried about how reporters will cover the story or what they might say to upset customers. 

If leaders were to spend more time focused on the internal aspects of crisis management, their ability to respond externally would improve dramatically. 

In crisis management, the name of the game is speed. The faster a crisis team can get ahead of the issue; the less damage will be caused to the company. Speed is based on three factors: the flow of information inside the company, the internal processes that drive decisions, and trust. 

A supply of information 

Lack of information is the reason companies choose not to respond rapidly. Indeed, sometimes critical information is not available often it’s discovered after the fact that a key piece of information was blocked by a senior manager afraid to share bad news. It is common for a spokesperson to learn of a disaster from the media and not their own company. Information is critical in determining the strategic direction leaders choose to address an issue. If the flow is slow, so will the response. 

Having a process in place 

One way to improve the flow of communication is to fine-tune internal processes that drive decision-making. During tabletop exercises, you can measure how team dynamics impact a company’s ability to respond. 

Dysfunction within a team is a result of a lack of process and understanding the process works. Without that understanding, meetings become a free-for-all with differing opinions and paralyzing indecision. Team structure, clear roles and responsibilities, and simple protocols are all effective tools to manage chaos. If internal teams aren’t clear on their roles and responsibilities, and if they can’t immediately get to work to address the issues without direction, the company’s ability to respond effectively will suffer. 

Trust 

Trust is at the heart of every issue. Do I trust this person or this company to do what they say they will do? Trust can’t be earned on the outside if there is no trust on the inside. I constantly remind my clients to focus more on their employees during a crisis than any other audience. Employees are brand ambassadors who foster a relationship with each target audience. A relationship without trust is bound to fail. 

The first 24 hours of a crisis will determine how the issue will be resolved. Organizations that have strong plans that allow for information to flow freely and have established trust within the team will respond better. When speaking with executives, trust is the core issue. They either question the data provided to them by their internal partners, or they question whether their key audiences will trust that they have the situation under control.