FCPA CHINA TRIPLE PLAY

Posted in Bribery in China, Business Crisis Management, Crisis Communication Response, Crisis Communication Strategy, Crisis Communication Success Stories, Foreign Corrupt Practices, Las Vegas Sands, Microsoft Corp., Wall Street Journal on March 25th, 2013 by mnayor

The Las Vegas Sands. The Wall Street Journal. Microsoft Corporation. What could these three companies possibly have in common? Try China. Each is being investigated by the SEC and the Department of Justice for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

 

Last year the Sands disclosed that it was being investigated. It received a subpoena from the SEC in February, 2011 and was advised that DOJ was investigating as well. Some allegations that have come to light are that Sheldon Adelson, the head of the Sands, instructed a top executive to pay about $700,000 in legal fees to aMacaulegislator whose law firm was outside counsel to the Sands. As a result of the government’s investigation the Sands authorized its independent Audit Committee to look into the matter and it recently released its preliminary report. The internal investigation is ongoing.

 

Also last year, the DOJ opened an investigation into allegations of bribery in Chinaby the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ also embarked on its own internal investigation which is close to finished.

 

Finally, a news story broke this week that Microsoft Corp. is being investigated as a result of allegations of potential bribery by employees in China (as well as inRomania and Italy). This is such a new story that Microsoft has not yet begun its investigation.

 

Three different stories with the same tag line, all within the month of March, 2013. So far it seems as if this is the year of the FCPA, even though, in fact, FCPA cases have declined over the last two years. All three of these investigations were prompted by whistleblowers of one type or another. How did each company react and which reaction would appear to best serve its corporate interests?

 

First, the Sands. To its credit the Audit Committee found that there was a likely violation of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and this was reported in the Company’s form 10-K filed with the SEC. But the 10-K went on to say in a rather self-serving way that the Company has improved its practices with respect to books and records and internal controls. It also states that the preliminary findings do not have a material impact on the financial statements of the Company, do not warrant a restatement of previous financial statements and do not represent a material weakness in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012.

 

The Wall Street Journal investigation is part of a much larger DOJ criminal investigation into the News Corporation, WSJ’s parent company, related to revelations that its British newspapers hacked phones and bribed officials in order to obtain information for articles. As part of the overall internal investigation, the Chinese allegations were thoroughly reviewed. The WSJ found no evidence to support the claim or any impropriety, and maintains that the informant is most likely a government official seeking to disrupt or retaliate against the WSJ for reporting on Chinese leadership corruption.  It is not clear that DOJ has closed the matter.

 

Microsoft’s matter is new. But its response to the news report that it is being investigated was straight forward. It said that the matters raised were important and that allegations of bribery should be reviewed byU.S.agencies and its own compliance unit. A spokesperson said that allegations of this nature arise from time to time, that it is possible that sometimes an individual employee or business partner may violate the Company’s policies or break the law, and that its responsibility is to train its employees, build a system to prevent and detect violations, and to investigate allegations and take appropriate action.

 

What can we learn about crisis communication from these three stories. The Sands reaction leaves something to be desired. While it is admirable to admit that the company may have violated the law it is presumptuous and self-serving to draw conclusions that basically are up to the government. The SEC and DOJ may have a hard time swallowing the Sands’ conclusions. It would have been far better to state that it is cooperating with the agencies to resolve all issues and reach determinations that will not have far reaching consequences to the Company.

 

If we take the WSJ’s comments at face value, there is no reason not to aggressively maintain one’s innocence. Yet, it might have been better to acknowledge more clearly that DOJ had not yet signed off on the WSJ’s findings and that the WSJ was working with DOJ to conclude the matter. Instead in a buried paragraph in its own story it states that it is unclear whether the Justice Department considers the matter resolved or still open.

 

The Microsoft reaction is  the best. It is the most honest and direct and states the facts of corporate life: We know our responsibility. We do our very best. Occasionally, a bad apple may slip through. Crisis communication does require that a company assess and anticipate the concerns of stakeholders. Good judgment is needed to walk that fine line between allaying those concerns, and acting appropriately and respectfully to those who have control over the outcomes of your investigations.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

PENN STATE AND OLYMPUS CORP.: WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON

Posted in Crisis Communication Response, Doing the right thing, Ethics and Crisis Management, Olympus Corp., Penn State, reputation management, Sacrifice the Little Guy, Taking Responsibility for actions of an organization or its employees on November 19th, 2011 by mnayor

Two scandals this week couldn’t seem more different. One involves allegations of pedophilia sex at a university, Penn State and the other financial shenanigans at a large Japanese corporation, Olympus Corp. Most in the public relations field would exclaim that both matters require “crisis management”, but there is a closer commonality than that. We have to look at the underlying cause of these scandals to see what they share in common.

In many crisis situations the crisis comes about by an outside force or a factor beyond an organization’s control or ability to anticipate. There are, of course, natural disasters. There can be strikes, new legislation, unexpected competition, employee dishonesty, product contamination and the list goes on. Most organizations are “forgiven” or the matter is soon forgotten if the issue is dealt with promptly. Even the BP Gulf oil spill has receded from our memories because the company dealt with the calamity, no matter how ineptly.

But certain “crises” are either created or exacerbated by an organization itself. There are many participants, willing or scared or just amoral who put the organization first. These types of issues should not be looked upon as crises but as severe ethical failures. Oftentimes the principal players either feel they have no choice, or stick their collective heads in the sand or worst of all, feel they won’t be caught and therefore have no compunction about doing what they see as best for the organization. This is what Penn State and Olympus have in common –people have done something unconscionable and others who know about it do nothing or as little as possible. No one wants to be a whistle blower. Willingly or unwillingly, everyone wants to be a loyal team player.

From politicians to entertainers to corporate CEO’s, there is an ever-growing tendency to believe “I can get away with it”, or “it’s not my problem”, or “let’s not rock the boat” or “I’m not going to stick my neck out”.

These days the words “ethics” and “morals” are used interchangeably Elijah Weber described the difference this way:

“Morals, quite simply, are beliefs about right and wrong conduct….They do not require reason, consistency, or thorough analysis in their initial shaping or practical application…. I can believe that lying is wrong because my grandmother told me it was, and that is what I believe. No further justification is required. Ethics, on the other hand, is a reason based cumulative system of moral decision making. It is built upon one or a few basic principles and requires that we be thorough, honest, and comprehensive in making statements about right and wrong. Ethics is about building the kind of world we want to live in, and developing a consistent process by which to achieve this. Ethics is an advanced expression of morality.”

I like this analysis of ethics: a few basic principles that require that we be thorough, honest, and comprehensive in making statements about right and wrong. It is about building the kind of world we want to live in…Do we wish to live in a world where we turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse? Do we want to turn a blind eye to Ponzi schemes and product failings and financial manipulations built on sand that will have severe consequences to investors, employees, and consumers? I think not.
No one is naive enough to think that every company, every charitable organization, every university will adhere to the straight and narrow but wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could count on ethical behavior most of the time. Wouldn’t it also be nice if every honest whistle blower who performed a public service wasn’t maligned and attacked as a weasel or turn-coat? Wouldn’t it be interesting if every organization that breached ethical norms, faced its predicament responsibly Since it is not possible to have a perfect world, shouldn’t we at least shine a spotlight on those who perpetuate bad conduct no matter how revered, competent and respected they may have been?

I fear that the opposite usually occurs. The whistleblower is a turncoat. The person who tried to do the right thing didn’t do enough. The head honcho and the organization are protected as best as possible. The little guy gets thrown under the bus.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

SONY’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CYBER ATTACKS

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Crises Communication, Crisis Communication Implementation, Crisis Communication Response, Cyber Attacks, negative publicity, Responsibility for date losses, Sony on May 22nd, 2011 by mnayor

Sony has been raked over the coals these last few weeks. Has there been just cause? And has Sony exercised good crisis management and crisis communication skills?

Between April 17 and April 19th the Sony PlayStation Network and the Company’s Qriocity service which streams video to Sony televisions and Blu-ray devices were hacked and knocked offline. Besides knocking out service, unauthorized persons obtained access to personal information including credit card numbers. An estimated 77 million PlayStation users and 12 million of their credit cards were affected, plus 24 million Sony Online Entertainment customers and over 10,000 of their cards. The services have just recently come back on line (Japan itself is an exception because the government is not yet sure they is secure) as of approximately May 14th.

There are two main issues that have gotten the public very agitated. First, did the Company handle its communications well? It took almost a week to publicly acknowledge the attacks and advise its customers that credit card information could have been compromised. This length of delay surely provided hackers with a large window of opportunity to utilize the information it had mined to the obvious detriment of millions of customers.

One of the basic tenants of crisis communication is to act quickly and have as much control of the dialogue as possible. The basic problem was evident, even if a great deal of operational research had to be done to identify the extent of the damage. The first goal should have been to minimize the vulnerability of its customers through immediate notification. By delaying, Sony allowed speculation to build up and therefore it positioned itself defensively, instead of taking vigorous proactive steps.

The other communications gaff came directly from Sony’s CEO, Howard Stringer. In a discussion with reporters on May 17th, he defended the actions of Sony when asked why it took almost a week to notify customers. He observed that the Company reported quickly, noted that many companies don’t report these breaches at all or only after a month, and then said “you’re telling me my week wasn’t fast enough”. This sounds a bit defensive and imperious for a CEO. Most customers would probably disagree with him, especially those whose credit cards could have used by the hackers, or those whose personal information may now be used for identity theft purposes.

The second main issue is operational. Sony must quickly tighten its security and provide safe and secure networks for its customers. The U.S. Congress and the New York Attorney general almost immediately jumped on the bandwagon to “investigate” this technological lapse, but hopefully these actions will not drain efforts away from identifying vulnerabilities and making data protection paramount. Customers need to be confident of Sony’s ability to protect them. Otherwise, it will lose out big time to Microsoft and Nintendo. That should be motivation enough to make Sony create one of the most secure networks available out there in cyberspace.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

TACO BELL: HELP I’M BEING SUED

Posted in Business Crises We Create, Crisis Communication Response, Liability Communications, Litigation Communications, RETAIL FOOD CHAINS, Taco Bell, What to do when you are sued on February 16th, 2011 by mnayor

Ouch! On January 25th it was reported that Taco Bell had been hit with a class action suit asserting that the company’s claim that it uses seasoned beef or seasoned ground beef in its products is false. Plaintiffs allege that the Company’s beef mixture is only 35% beef with the rest a mixture of oats, soy, maltodrextrin and soy lecithin and water. Monetary damages are not claimed. The plaintiffs want to compel Taco Bell to be honest in its advertising.

After a couple of weeks we have not heard from Taco Bell other than it will “vigorously defend the suit”. No damage control here.

Perhaps the Company feels the public will soon forget all about the suit. And maybe it will. After all, not too many people expect ground fillet mignon in their $1.00 wraps. But then again, not too many people expect adulterated food either. Time will tell whether sales are negatively impacted. So what’s a company to do?

Honesty. It’s a difficult concept to play with sometimes. The public likes your product the way you make it. You actually disclose some information on your website (how many people research product ingredients on a website before purchasing?). No harm has apparently been done (although some of the additives are common allergens).

How about some real facts. Instead of ducking down and waiting for the shots to subside (along with the jokes), why not deal with the issue head on. Research carefully. Analyze your products and make full disclosure. Publicize the nutrition value of each product as well.

Most companies and their attorneys play it very close to the chest when they are being sued. But it is not always necessary to be 100% tight-lipped. The goal of any company in this type of circumstance should be to be as up-front as possible without exposing itself to greater liability. In this instance Taco Bell isn’t even being sued for monetary damages. And as for potential suits in the future, any good laboratory can discover the ingredients in Taco Bell products. There are no secret formulas.

After analysis, the Company should make a determination whether it wants to change its recipes or not. It is conceivable that TB may announce that it is retaining its recipes because of their good nutritional values. It may change the wording of its “beef” content. It may upgrade its recipes (with great fanfare). Or it may just let the marketplace decide and let the chips fall where they may. If it chooses the latter it takes a risk (that may be justified in its mind) but it has not taken advantage of the opportunity to sell itself and burnish its image if it can inform the public about some positive information.

Tags: , , , ,

WHAT TYPE OF RESPONSE DOES YOUR CRISIS NEED?

Posted in Crises Communication, Crisis Communication Failures, Crisis Communication Response, Liability Communications on November 10th, 2010 by mnayor

On November 4th, a Rolls Royce engine on a Qantas A380 Airbus blew apart near Singapore. While there were no deaths or injuries there will likely be financial consequences to the three main players in this story: The Australian airline itself, Qantas; Airbus, the pan-European aerospace company; and Rolls Royce Group, plc the manufacturer of the Trent 900 engines.

There has been much press about the incident and the consequences would appear to be a direct function of how quickly the problem is diagnosed and resolved. Qantas and Rolls Royce are both busily inspecting and analyzing specifications, tolerances and operations that could affect performance.

Because Qantas has the most direct relationship with passengers, it has been the most visible and, seemingly, the most direct and quickest in taking action in this crisis. It has taken its fleet of six A380’s out of service at least temporarily and has made major efforts to redeploy aircraft around the world. Additionally it has provided its passengers with a multitude of assistance in order to avoid as much disruption as possible. Its website has detailed instructions to aid passengers.

Rolls Royce made a statement on November 4th and published it on its website.It stated that safety was its first priority and calmly explained that it has “well established processes to collect and understand information relating to the event and to determine suitable actions”. It then finished with a list several self-serving statements about how terrific the company is, the most recent expenditures on R&D, its revenues and its order book. Its November 8th statement advised that it was working closely with Airbus, and that the incident was unrelated to any of its other engines. While the statements exude a coolness and stiff upper lip mentality that Americans are not quite used to, they also reflect competence and a no-nonsense approach that should reflect well on the company, if it is able to determine and fix the problem in a matter of days.

Finally, turning to Airbus itself, the manufacturer of the A380, a search of its website uncovers nothing. There is a highlighted special report on the latest updates on the WTO Boeing-Airbus dispute but no reference to the Qantas incident. The Press Centre tab brings up many articles, all good, about Airbus. A search of its website does not uncover one mention of the incident.

Three different companies, three different types of response. And perhaps rightly so. Obviously, the closer to the consuming public the more urgent the need for a corporate public response. In the case of Qantas there are passengers who need to be immediately tended to. And potential customers need to be considered. One step down is Airbus whose customer base is the airlines themselves, a much smaller market in numbers. At the bottom rung is Rolls Royce whose customer base is tiny. The bottom line is that crisis communication has to be tailored to the complexity of the situation, a company’s responsibilities, and its stakeholders. Crisis communication is not one-size-fits-all. Less communication and more technical expertise and greater effort to solve the problem would have been far more preferable in the BP Gulf oil spill debacle.

Rolls must make good. Qantas can always buy different planes, although it might take awhile. Airbus could always buy different engines, although that could take awhile. Both Qantas and Airbus could suffer financially in the process but can always rebound. But Rolls will certainly suffer the most if it doesn’t fix the problem fast. Strange that it would be criticized for its lack of communication at a time when 100% of its energy appears to be devoted to fixing the problem, as reported by The Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Michaels, on November 9th. Crisis management is more than communication. If Rolls Royce makes a quick diagnosis and resolves all issues expeditiously, it should be praised for its efforts.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

WHAT REALLY CONSTITUTES A BUSINESS CRISIS

Posted in Business Crises of our own making, Business Crises We Create, Crisis Communication Failures, Crisis Communication Response, Crisis Communication Strategy, new customers at the expense of old customers, What is a Business Crisis on October 5th, 2010 by mnayor

 A business crisis can be anything that can negatively effect a company’s reputation or bottom line. Many events at first blush may not appear to be serious. HP’s firing of Mark Hurd and the subsequent entanglement with Oracle was not a big deal in the scheme of things, even though internally it must have been a shocker. However, the death or resignation of a key person in any organization could very well be serious for any company depending on just how key that person really was. Natural catastrophes, product recalls, labor disputes, computer data losses. The list is endless. Some are temporary. Some can cause the demise of a company. Most can be handled with honesty and the realization that it may be necessary to absorb losses over the short haul in order to achieve a long and healthy business life.

Two distinct categories of crisis need to be recognized. In one we lump all those events over which we have no control, such as product tampering by outside forces or natural disasters. Even in these situations there are always some actions we can take: tamper-proof packaging, liability insurance, proper protocols. But generally these events can blind-side us.

The second category contains all those events that might have been avoided had we chosen to take the actions necessary to protect ourselves and the public. Some are obvious. We look at the BP oil spill and see things that surely could have been done.  Other events are not so obvious and these are the ones that can be insidious. When a management believes it is doing the right thing but in fact is fueling a potential crisis we have the makings of a catastrophe. A couple of examples will make this abundantly clear.

Market share is usually very important to a company, oddly sometimes more important than the bottom line. There is always great competition for new customers. Many times the efforts and resources devoted to advertising, marketing and selling to new customers are at the expense of a company’s loyal  customer base. This can even be seen at the local level. Where I live heating oil companies consistently offer new customers a deal for the first year in order to lure them in. This, of course, is done at the expense of old, loyal customers who have to make up the slack. The result is that many savvy oil customers these days do a lot of shopping each year to find the best deal. Loyalty is a thing of the past. On a national level the problem has gotten even more serious. A recent financial story in The New Yorker last month observed that there is almost universal recognition that customer service in this country has deteriorated. Such service is considered a “cost”. Companies are looking for the customers they don’t have so they are willing to spend on marketing and advertising but are not as interested in adding to their costs of service. The article made it sound a little like cynical dating. Companies are interested in luring you in but then once they have you, they don’t quite value you as much as the next potential customer they want to corral.

Lack of service is not just a pain for helpless consumers. In this internet age they can do something about it. This is how a company can sow the seeds of its own destruction, and inexorably create its own crisis. Companies and their products and services are being rated on the internet and consumers don’t hold back. They tell it like it is. Granted, competitors may be planting some of these negative comments but for the most part product and service evaluations are being taken at face value. The moral of the story: be faithful to those who brought you to the dance, or the consequences could be severe.

Another form of self-inflicted crisis involves weathering the storm. Whether in politics, professional sports, or in business, “players” still believe that because of their importance they can ride out any issue or problem. They can’t. We can all easily tick off a dozen or so examples, but the latest is surprising. Johnson & Johnson has recently gone through a spate of recalls of tainted children’s Tylenol and Motrin. The Company has generally kept a low profile and even contracted with a third party to buy up Motrin off retail shelves rather than announce an actual recall. And for the last decade it has been settling with claimants for a variety of injuries and death allegedly due from Ortho Evra, a contraceptive patch made by its subsidiary, Ortho McNeil. It appears clear that the current management of J&J has not followed in the footsteps of the management that handled the Tylenol crisis of 1982 which is often cited as the quintessential example of crisis management in modern corporate history. Back then cyanide had been found in bottles of Tylenol in the Chicago area. J&J immediately issued public warnings, issued a product recall, created tamper-proof packaging, and before long was back in business. The Company was up-front and willing to bite the bullet in the best interests of the public. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the philosophy today. There is clearly a danger in believing one’s invincibility. The trust and respect of the public is at stake, and once lost, is very difficult to retrieve.

A crisis is not just the obvious explosion at a plant or a mine. Companies can and do create their own crises. Companies must evaluate their philosophy, their strategy and their honesty. They must take action to minimize their vulnerabilities but at the same time be prepared to take action in the best interests of the public if they value company longevity.

Originally published in the Management Help Library of  http://managementhelp.org/blogs/crisis-management/2010/10/13/what-really-constitutes-a-business-crisis/

Tags: , , , , , ,

CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND THE BLAME GAME

Posted in Business Crisis Management, Crisis Communication Implementation, Crisis Communication Response, Crisis Communication Strategy, The Blame Game on October 5th, 2010 by mnayor

Over time, crisis management pundits have considered many types of responses to a crisis and have sometimes recommended actions and reactions that today seem out of step with effective solutions for most crisis situations. These out-of-step solutions fall into two categories: 1) stonewall the media and the issue will eventually die without you fueling the topic; and 2) a strong defense is a good offense, namely attack the accuser, deny the issue or point the finger elsewhere.

In today’s media jungle, stories don’t die. If something doesn’t pass the smell test, someone in the media is going to pursue it. Ignoring a crisis by ignoring the media doesn’t cut it. And if the media doesn’t pick up on an issue, the public certainly will, via Facebook, U-Tube, Twitter or some other yet to be invented faster-than-light communications vehicle.

In times of crisis most corporate managements would prefer to avoid the limelight, deal with its issues, solve its problems and escape negative publicity. Understandable, but dealing with a major crisis like an ostrich is terribly risky and makes a company look like it’s not owning up when the crisis is exposed.  

So let’s assume you are willing and able to deal head-on with the public. Most senior executives are used to being in control. They pull the levers, call the shots and aren’t used to being told what to do. There is a tendency to be defensive. “I nurtured this baby, I grew it and I know how to defend it”.  The reaction often lacks finesse. Instead of appearing open, the reaction is authoritarian. Instead of appearing honest, the reaction is defensive and oftentimes gravitates towards the blame game or, just as bad, the rationalization or justification game. 

All of these “public” reactions can hurt your organization, because you will have missed the point. There is a problem. Acknowledge it. The problem has ramifications. Acknowledge them. No one is interested in finger-pointing or excuses, even if you are correct. There is time for that.  Don’t act like the whiney school kid or the weasel that can’t or won’t take responsibility. The public expects companies and organizations to man-up. Period. Man-up and get moving so the problem can be fixed. The public respects organizations (and their spokespersons) that emanate competence and authority.

When BP went to Capital Hill to testify back in May, 2010 they were joined by Halliburton and Transocean, Ltd., two of BP’s subcontractors. All three looked foolish because of the finger pointing and denial that ensued. What to do?  Act like a responsible citizen whether you are at fault or not.  A responsible citizen acknowledges the problem and positions itself to take whatever action it can to help fix it. It investigates and determines the best course of action based on its expertise. The public needs to know you are responsible citizen. You convey that when you take immediate, competent action.

But what if you are not to blame? If you aren’t, good for you. It will come out in the end but as an immediate step the public needs to know that you recognize yourself as a player with a role, and that you willingly undertake that role for the public good. Expensive? Perhaps. Worth it. Most often a resounding yes, in terms of public perception and goodwill. If you are to blame the same holds true. Your legal team and your insurance advisors may have made it clear that you cannot say anything that admits culpability. Even so you can act as the same responsible corporate citizen as you would if you were not to blame. You can act sensitively, you can investigate and you can devote whatever resources you have to help fix the problem and keep the public informed regularly along the way.

Preserving your reputation and directing your efforts to problem-solving are the first order of business. Assessing blame comes later and is best left to third parties. No one ever looks good saying it is someone else’s fault. An insurance investigation, a public hearing, a regulatory investigation, a private investigation that is made public are just some of the opportunities you have to provide input to show the root causes of a crisis. Let a neutral source absolve you of blame. In the end it carries far more weight, and is more persuasive and acceptable.

Tags: , , , , ,

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN FREE-FALL

Posted in Business Crisis Management, Crisis Communication Failures, Crisis Communication Response, Liability Communications on October 5th, 2010 by mnayor

 The Today show on September 21st dusted off a fairly old story. Ortho Evra, a birth control patch introduced in 2002 and produced by J&J subsidiary Ortho McNeil was in the news again. Since the time of its introduction the patch has been the subject of thousands of court complaints. The product allegedly has the effect of causing deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms, heart attacks, strokes and death, all stemming from the fact that it can deliver twice as much estrogen to the body as regular birth control pills. J&J has received years of bad press about this subject. No claim has ever gone to trial and J&J continues settlements that total many tens of millions of dollars.

 The Today show reported that it had recently uncovered a 2005 resignation letter from a former J&J vice president saying that he could not remain in his position knowing the high levels of estrogen delivered by the product. The show also reported that another former vice president was suing the Company for wrongful termination based on his whistle-blowing efforts even before the product was introduced to the public.

 Now switch gears to J&J’s non-prescription products. Over the last year, the Company has gone through a slew of product recalls, including infants’ and children’s Tylenol, for reasons including contamination and the presence of foreign matter. The Company also conducted what is termed a “phantom” recall of Motrin by hiring a third party to buy up the product on store shelves in order to avoid adverse publicity. J&J maintains that it did so under an agreement with the Food and Drug Administration. The House of Representatives investigated the recalls, and questioned the alleged agreement with FDA when it heard CEO William Weldon at the end of September. Weldon acknowledged at the hearing that J&J had let the public down by not maintaining its high standards. An F.D.A. official testified that the Company had an inadequate quality system at a number of its facilities. One lawmaker declared that J&J’s failures would mar its reputation for years.

 J&J’s 1982 handling of the Tylenol scare is often cited as the quintessential example of crisis management in modern corporate history. Back then cyanide had been found in bottles of Tylenol in the Chicago area. J&J immediately issued public warnings, called a product recall, created tamper-proof packaging, and before long was fully back in business. The Company was up-front and willing to bite the bullet in the best interests of the public. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the philosophy today.

J&J’s website states that “The values that guide our decision making are spelled out in Our Credo. Put simply, Our Credo challenges us to put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first.” Maybe so, but it appears as if a new breed of management has taken the reins at J&J – new cutting -edge types whose sole concentration is on the bottom line. Yet it might be this competence and cool business efficiency that will have the effect of undermining the extraordinary 120 year old reputation of this venerable institution. The abilities of current management must be tempered with sensitivity and responsibility to the public in order to salvage and maintain the invaluable good will of one of America’s great corporations. Hopefully the lessons learned will again set management on the right course.

Tags: , , , ,

ANTICIPATION

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Crisis Communication Planning, Crisis Communication Response, Crisis Communication Training, Crisis Management Planning on September 3rd, 2010 by mnayor

This post is about crises that require that you and/or your organization be in the public eye. In a previous post the observation was made that you should try to control the dialogue, as long as you don’t overly rush and sacrifice accuracy. All that is true but in many cases you may have to open yourselves up to questions, and the questions may be hard ones. So not only is it important to craft your message honestly and pick your messanger carefully, but it is also important to ANTICIPATE.

That seems easy enough and many organizations do that but the method is usually very haphazard. A bunch of people get in a room and the leader says “what do you think They’ll ask?” And then the brainstorming begins and people feel obligated to spout something out. After an uncomfortable length of time when the perticipants have spent their energy, someone says “Ok, I think that does it” and that does do it.

Not good! First you should list your stakeholders and one by one list those issues in which each is primarily interested. Investors – the bottom line; employees - job security; customers – continuity of supply; suppliers – change orders and continued ability to pay. There are those in the organization who know the stakeholders best. Pull them into the room to tell you. Role-play. List the issues and develop the answers. Finally, brainstorm to develop everything and anything that might go wrong. Anticipate the worst. The crisis gets worse, competitors ponce, the news media tries to hang you out to dry. Make the list and try to develop the reaction. You won’t be able to anticipate every scenerio or have an answer for everything BUT the process will prepare you and get you close enough to most issues so you won’t be caught in the headlights.

Finally, the chief operating officer should certainly be your front-(wo)man. Nevertheless we all realize, and it is not expected, that the CEO is all-knowing. Mayor Bloomberg has a brilliant strategy of talking to reporters about key situations, giving the broad-brush information or account and then handing over the microphone to his deputy – the police commissioner, his financial chief, his environmental guru or whoever is the person with the handle on the situation. This has a dual-fold impact: the matter has the attention of the very top, and the organization has the expertise and knowledge to provide the public with detailed information. Oftentimes it may be necessary even for the deputy to surround himself with additional experts and rely on them to feed information or come forward and provide the additional information directly. That is why it is very good training to have your employees particpate in meetings and have some experience in speaking in front of a group. You never know when they will be needed.

Tags: , , , ,

APOLOGIES, APOLOGIES , APOLOGIES

Posted in Crisis Communication Response, Crisis Management Response on July 27th, 2010 by admin

Has our country gotten apology slap-happy?

It seems that no matter what, we always want to see more twisting in the wind, whether it’s Tiger Woods, BP or anything or anyone in between. An apology is either not sincere enough, not-heart-felt, not good enough, doesn’t admit enough, doesn’t say what we want to hear. Are we spending more time on form over substance? The bottom line in most cases: we want the problem fixed or we want the situation remedied. Read more »

Tags: , , ,
Blog WebMastered by All in One Webmaster.