HOW TO TREAT CEO’S: THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE

Posted in ACTIVIST BOARD, Corporate Crisis Management, Crisis Management Response, DIAMOND FOODS, Doing the right thing, don't white wash the crisis, ETHICS FROM THE TOP DOWN, FIRING THE CEO, HOW TO SHOW THE CEO THE DOOR, MICHAEL MENDES, REPLACING THE CEO on November 28th, 2012 by mnayor

Last week I read that Michael Mendes formally resigned from Diamond Foods Inc. Mendes worked for Diamond most of his working life, serving as President and CEO  from 1997 and adding the title of Chairman in 2010. Then at the beginning of 2012 he was placed on administrative leave after an accounting impropriety was discovered involving payments to walnut growers, which artificially inflated financial results of the company.

 

The shift in payments must have been whoppers because they necessitated the restatement of 2010 and 2011 profits. As a result it appears that Diamond has lost its deal to purchase the Pringles brand from P&G, which was to have been an all stock transaction

 

It is not uncommon for companies to manipulate numbers to look good. It is also not a surprise to find that those at the top may not have been in the know. As a result of such an “event” a CEO will clean house, heads will roll and internal accounting measures tightened. But here it look like the perpetrators may have been those at the very top, including Steven Neil, the former CFO, who was also placed on leave. Why else would Mendes and Neil have been placed on administrative leave? Why else would Mendes repay $2.7 million in bonuses he received for 2010 and 2011, and return shares awarded to him in 2010. He leaves with a net retirement balance after repayment of bonuses, and will not be granted any severance.

 

In his wake, Diamond Foods is stuck with a share price that has plummeted 60%, a lot of angry shareholders who are ratcheting up class action suits against the company, and ongoing Department of Justice and SEC investigations. That’s quite a trail to leave behind.

 

The Board should be commended. In the face of a serious crisis it took decisive action. There was no attempt to white-wash the situation or cover for Mendes. Crisis management oftentimes means nothing more than biting the bullet and facing problems head-on. In this case the Board has taken steps to tighten its internal controls and has cleaned house. But in my view it has done more than that. Too often the guy who screws up, especially if he is at the top, gets a golden parachute and a pat on the backside to ensure that the door doesn’t hit him on the way out. The wheels are greased and everyone thinks the right thing is being done. But this Board obviously saw no need to reward people who created the crisis in the first place. Hopefully this Board will set a precedent for the many situations which will undoubtedly follow in the business world.

 

CEO’s should pay a price when they do something illegal, or in violation of a company’s  ethical standards. All companies should take a page from this playbook. Don’t deplete the assets of your company even more after a crisis by rewarding bad behavior. It adds insult to injury to your shareholders and other stakeholders. CEO’s and others in top management need to receive what they deserve. If they earn a walk out the door, they are not entitled to a fat paycheck. It’s one thing if the chemistry isn’t right or the results are disappointing. It’s another thing if a person has left his company high and dry, bleeding from bad decisions and actions that have done harm. It’s time to change the ugly unwritten understanding between boards and their managements that says that the upper echelon is a fraternity whose members are entitled to hop from company to company accumulating prizes while their reputations remain unscathed, regardless of their perfidy or incompetence.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

THE CASCADING DECLINE AT THE BBC

Posted in BBC, Corporate Crisis Management, Covering for the organization, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Response, Crisis Mitigation, fix the problem, Protecting the organization at any cost?, the effect of ignoring a problem on November 14th, 2012 by mnayor

Covering for the organization rarely works. Neither does the belief that an organization is so strong and respected that it exits on a level all its own.PennStateofficials found that out recently and now the BBC is suffering from the same ill-advised mentality. Whistle-blowing is a separate but related topic but the concerted effort of many in positions of power at an organization to hide something or sweep it under the rug deserves special attention.

 

For many years a popular, long-time host at BBC, Jimmy Savile, was suspected of sexually abusing young people, sometimes even at the premises of the BBC. The Company recently came under blistering attack when it was learned that an investigation of Savile had been cancelled by the editor of BBC’s Newsnight program last year. Newsnight is an important current affairs program of the BBC. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s Director General until last month (and who is destined to join the New York Times shortly) claims to have had no knowledge of the accusations against Savile although there were many opportunities to delve into the matter if he chose to do so.

 

Within the last week and in a matter of weeks since Thompson’s departure, his successor, George Entwistle, resigned because of another flap, again involving Newsnight, which wrongly implicated a Conservative Party politician in a pedophile scandal inWales. And just yesterday the BBC’s Director of News, Helen Boaden and her deputy, Stephen Mitchell announced that they have “stepped aside”.

 

The upshot is that there is turmoil at the BBC. There is a lack of control and the Chairman of the BBC Trust has acknowledged that the organization is in a ghastly mess and in need of a thorough overhaul.

 

How does any organization get itself into this type of crisis and what types of crisis management are called for? First, hubris plays a significant role. When an organization attains a stratospheric reputation such as that of the BBC, those who personify it not only begin to believe in its infallibility but also in their own. Heightened reputations beget dizzying overconfidence. Secondly, there is a tendency of employees, whether they be worker bees or top management to put their employer above all else. Not many people want to be held responsible for the decline or unraveling of an organization. Most want to be team players, no matter what they know and no matter what they really think about their place of work.

 

Crisis management calls for continual checks and balances. An organization cannot continue to coast, as many do, on old and outdated reputations. It is incumbent on top management, and lower levels in turn, to clarify lines of responsibility and authority, to define the values of the organization, to impose clear lines of accountability and to review regularly issues that arise. Often, top management wishes to be insulated from bad decisions already made, and hard decisions that need to be made, even with the knowledge that, more often than not, the buck stops with them and they may be the sacrificial lambs regardless.

Crisis management does not just mean planning to avoid a crisis if possible. Nor does it just mean managing a crisis once it hits. It also means taking steps to mitigate a crisis in the works. A CEO and his/her lieutenants are charged with monitoring the ship as a captain of a vessel or plane would. Rectifying what is wrong is a vital part of the job. Time does not absorb and dissolve a bad decision. It only heightens the culpability of the parties who either made no attempt to rectify it or tried to white-wash it. This is a hard lesson for people such as the former President of Penn State and the late Joe Paterno. It is a hard lesson for the former and current management of the BBC.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE JPMORGAN DEBACLE

Posted in analyze the problem, Business Crisis Management, Corporate Crisis Management, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Planning, Crisis Management Response, don't white wash the crisis, fix the problem, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase, problem employees, Taking Responsibility for actions of an organization or its employees, Throw an employee under the bus on May 23rd, 2012 by mnayor

The JPMorgan $2 billion debacle stunned me as it did everyone else. It was like catching the self-righteous little kid with the smoking slingshot in his hand.

Well, not quite. I got to thinking. Yes, it’s true that Jamie Dimon has this holier than thou attitude and perhaps it’s nice to see him knocked down a peg or two. But many crises are without question caused by those employees who you think you know – but don’t. Or caused by the hierarchy or the controls you’ve established but which really don’t work. You look out over your domain and deem it good, but there is always someone or some circumstance or some poor decision that puts you and your company in the hot spot.

 Yes, the buck stops here and the CEO should always take the rap (instead of throwing someone or a few  people under the bus and taking the $23 million), but that doesn’t mean the CEO can really plug every hole that springs a leak. It would require too many thumbs. Dimon was frank and honest, but he did forget to say it was on his watch and he accepted full responsibility. You can’t have everything. But, what do you do when your trusted employee or employees do something dumb, or worse.

 Several months ago I wrote about Charlie Sheen. I also wrote about Christian Dior’s John Galliano. For those who don’t recognize the names, suffice it to say that both of these guys gave their employers and themselves black eyes and heartburn. CBS and C.D. each acted fairly quickly and dumped its famous and talented employee, regardless of his value. They restructured. They went on and in a matter of a couple of weeks after their decisions, the crisis each faced disappeared.

 Crisis management calls for decisive action. That doesn’t mean just dumping a perpetrator. It means analyzing a situation to see if the organization continues to be vulnerable. It means identifying the basic problem and rectifying it. Do potential employees have to be tested? Drugs? Psychological testing? Do they have to be supervised more closely? Should they be cleared to give public statements? Do employment contracts have to be tightened up? Do the work environments have to be more closely supervised? Do supervisors have to have greater responsibility for the conduct of their departments? Do department managers and regional vice presidents have to be more hands on? Should they be required to know all the employees under them? Should the work environments be evaluated for potential risk? Are there checks and balances? Are there activities being conducted that are beyond the scope or the purposes of the business  or the established guidelines or policies of the company?

Crisis management should lead to problem solving not problem white-washing. JPMorgan Chase has to look well within itself to answer these types of questions. So does the rest of the banking industry. The crucial question that needs to be answered is whether the reins on the biggest banks should be tightened: re-institute Glass-Steagall? Put real teeth into the Volcker Rule? Something has got to give and the big boys should act like big boys. The financial fate of the nation depends on it and the right to massive profits is not justification  for behavior that jeopardizes the well being of the country.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

J&J: IT’S ABOUT TIME OR MORE OF THE SAME

Posted in a ggod reputation guarantees long term profits, Business Crises We Create, cheating the public, Corporate Crisis Management, corporate integrity, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Response, Doing the right thing, Ethics and Crisis Management, Hurting customers, J&J, Johnson & Johnson, Respect your customers, Taking Responsibility for actions of an organization or its employees, when the bottom line is more important than your customers, William Weldon on February 22nd, 2012 by mnayor

 In October of 2010 I highlighted many of the difficulties Johnson & Johnson had been going through since the early part of the decade, from tens of millions of dollars to settle claims against its product Ortho Evra, to product recalls including children’s Tylenol and contact lenses. Other telling issues involved a wrongful termination suit by a whistle blower and a resignation by a senior executive whose conscience would not allow him to remain at J&J knowing what he knew about Ortho Evra.

My conclusion was simply that J&J’s management had veered way off course and had sullied the reputation of one ofAmerica’s greatest corporations, one that was known and respected for its integrity and honesty. I ended with an expression of hope that the lessons learned would set management on the right course once again.

 This was not to be. Just this past week the press reported that J&J took a year to recall a version of its artificial hip after the FDA refused in 2009 to approve it because of its high rate of failures. The device was recalled in 2010, and J&J maintained until that time that the device was safe and its own studies refuted the allegations of professionals. J&J continued to market the hip in Europe and other overseas countries until the recall and sold another version of its hip that didn’t need safety approval in theU.S., even though the hip socket cup, which the FDA found to be flawed, was the same in both products.

 It is interesting to track the timeline of most of J&J’s recent woes to the timeline of William C. Weldon’s tenure as chief executive. Whether directly attributable to Weldon’s misfeasance or malfeasance is not the issue. The torrent of missteps, mistakes,  dishonesty, deception and manipulation has occurred on his watch. The least that can be said without pointing a finger directly at him is that he failed miserably to instill a sense of integrity within the company, a sense of integrity that transcends the needs of the short-term bottom line. So many executives foolishly sit at their desks with blinders on. Weldon and his followers allowed a culture to fester within their walls that calls for the good of the company to transcend the good of the public.

 No executive worth his title would allow the disintegration that has taken place at J&J. Thankfully, William Weldon will step down in April of this year although he will remain as chairman. Alex Gorsky will be the new CEO. Has the Board done the Company, its shareholders and the public a major disservice? Gorsky is cut from the same cloth as Weldon. They both cut their teeth in sales and both are sensitive to the bottom line and enhancing it above all else.  Hopefully Gorsky will recognize the need to build trust, and instill honor from which J&J can once again earn the widespread respect of the public. Build it and they will come. With that will come the financial success that Weldon’s crew tried to obtain on the cheap. If Gorsky has not learned from past mistakes, expect more of the same from J&J. We will all be witness to the transformation of a great American company into just another self-serving medical conglomerate that feeds off the public.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NICKEL DIMED AND FIGHTING BACK

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Bank of America, Banking Industry, Business Crises of our own making, Business Crisis Management, Crisis Management Consulting, Crisis Management Response, DECISIONS IN A VACUUM, Excessive consumer fees, negative publicity on November 6th, 2011 by mnayor

The first time I noticed the flagrant imposition of an additional fee for a business service was when ordering Broadway tickets on line. It was a six dollar “service fee” per ticket. I paid the fee but was puzzled. I was paying the company for a service which they were in business to provide. Strange. Do architects charge an extra fee for putting their plans on paper?

Since then of course things have gotten much worse for American consumers. Airlines seem to charge for everything except the air you breathe, and probably don’t, in order to avoid a debate on how inferior that air is. Everywhere you turn there are extra fees for services and “things” that were once free. Understandably businesses and industries are trying to maintain their financial positions. Many want to bring back the good times when they were flush. Because of the weak economy, and the higher cost of resources, they must extract more from the customers who keep them in business in the first place. Obviously, much analysis has gone into the “cost” (interpreted to mean loss of customers and bad press) of implementing new fees. It is clear that most businesses are willing to sacrifice a certain percentage of customers who will bolt in anger, if the economics work.

But it appears as if we are entering into a new phase of business/customer relations. Customers are fighting back, asserting essentially that business has to have skin in the game too. In bad times business cannot expect to maintain the same level of profits or to ride on the backs of consumers in order to do so. Case in point: Bank of America’s announcement in September that it was going to impose a $5.00/month fee for debit card use. A debit card fee is a charge for you to access your own money for commercial or other financial transactions. It is the same money you have deposited with a bank and the same money it needs to conduct its lending business.

Some analysis definitely went into the Bank’s decision. New regulations have reduced the payments merchants pay the Bank for processing debit card payments and BofA didn’t want to just absorb the loss of income. Fair to say that many other banks also entertained the idea of customer debit fees. Some have implemented them. But, after witnessing the backlash from BofA customers, many backed off. BofA itself announced at the end of October that it would allow customers to avoid the fee if they maintain a minimum balance, or arrange for direct deposit of paychecks or use BofA issued credit cards. But just a couple of days later, it fully capitulated to the pressure and scraped the plan in its entirety.

Unlike Netflix which lost 800,000 customers after announcing a 60% price increase a couple of months ago, BofA will likely weather the storm without a major loss. Why? First, it announced its new fee well in advance and wasn’t the only bank contemplating debit fees, so it didn’t look like the only bad guy. Secondly, many of its customers are locked in to BofA with automatic bill paying, multiple accounts and complicated relationships. Unraveling a bank relationship can be complicated. Finally, BofA certainly calculated the loss of customers it would have to endure if it implemented the plan and decided it was worth it. Now that it has jettisoned the fee, many fewer people will transfer their banking relationship. But unquestionably, some damage has been done. There is a strong movement currently underway in the country to pursuade the public to withdraw from national banks and transfer business to community and regional banks and local credit unions.

People are no longer rolling over. They are fighting back, and businesses should realize that weathering an economic storm (or a regulatory reversal) is something to which all segments of society are subject. One segment is not entitled to be made whole at the expense of another. Profits made in good times cannot always be sustained – especially if they can only be sustained on the backs of others who are suffering just as much. Businesses and industries should be rewarded for innovation and creativity, for new and better goods and services, not for figuring ways of squeezing the hand that feeds them. The moral of the story is quite simple: a business can create its own crisis by being too greedy. Before making a dramatic decision that could adversely effect one or more of your stakeholders analyze both the short-term and the long-term costs. Many of your investors may also be your customers. Aiming for profit maximization may not necessarilly please everyone, especially if bonus maximization is the underlyiong motivation and result.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

QUICK RESPONSE VERSUS INTELLIGENT RESPONSE

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Crisis Communication Strategy, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Planning, Crisis Management Response on July 27th, 2010 by admin

A maxim in crisis management is that you should control the dialogue. It is better to leap out in front rather than be reactive to questions and probing which often leads to the deer caught in headilghts phenomenon.

What is not said quite so often is that a quick response must be an intelligent response that is backed up by facts and knowledge. Which brings us to the Obama Administration. Early in his term President Obama held a press conference and was asked why it took him a couple of days before he made a statement on AIG bonuses. He gave the CNN reporter an icy stare and stated that he liked to know what he was talking about before he made public statements. Bravo I thought.

Read more »

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: , , ,

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Posted in Crisis Communication Failures, Crisis Management Response, Crisis Mitigation on April 5th, 2010 by admin
Sometimes it pays to come out fighting, with fists flailing away. Other times it looks mighty defensive, if not downright ridiculous.
To equate the current “persecution” of the Pope with the persecution of the Jews during the holocaust falls into the latter category. Furthermore it just digs the hole deeper. Now instead of appearing not to understand the seriousness of deviant sexual behavior within the Church, Rome makes itself look quite hardened to the death of six million Jews, lending truth to the many accusations of antisemitism over the years.
What to do? Presumably, direction is not coming from the top, but it should. A few competent souls need to plan and orchestrate a world response. This has to be done with great foresight and intelligence – and bravery and humility. The planning must be two-pronged. Not only must the words be chosen carefully and sensitively, but the actions must be carefully planned to prove to the world that the Church wishes to correct its mistakes and to make the Church a better place. The desire to make real corrections within the Church must be genuine.
Next, the bureaucracy has to muzzle self-appointed spokespersons who are inept. The spokesperson needs to be the Pope or someone with the stature to be taken seriously and as the final word on the subjects that are plaguing the Church. Of course Rome cannot muzzle individual priests but no one will mistake individual comments with the declarations from on high.
Creating window dressing and masking mistakes of the past haunt the Church. The expression of genuine regret, acknowledgement of past transgressions, the will to deal with issues head on and actually implementing changes and punishment of transgressors will help restore the Church. Otherwise Rome will be reigning over an ever more exclusive club whose membership will surely diminish as defections escalate.
Tags: , ,

THE PUBLIC FACE OF CRISIS MITIGATION

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Corporate Crisis Management, Crisis Communication Implementation, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Planning, Crisis Management Response on March 27th, 2010 by admin

Pre-crisis mitigation doesn’t have a public face. It is comprised of all the efforts and planning necessary to either avoid a crisis or mitigate its consequences when one occurs. Everything from identifying and buying the appropriate insurance to fire drills fall under this umbrella.

Post-crisis mitigation is an entirely different matter. The crisis has hit the fan and there is much work to do. Naturally the first item of business is confronting the crisis head on, dealing with the issue and taking corrective action. Equally as important is taking on the public. This is oftentimes not as easy as one would think. Very talented people can grapple with the identification of and the solutions to a crisis, yet are completely flummoxed by the requirements for dealing with the public. Read more »

Tags: , ,

PLANNING FOR POST CRISIS MITIGATION

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Crisis Communication Planning, Crisis Communication Strategy, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Planning, Crisis Management Response, Crisis Management Strategy on March 23rd, 2010 by admin
No one can anticipate exactly what kind of crisis may befall your organization. Nevertheless there are many things that can be done – let’s call them generic – that will extremely helpful if and when the day comes that you need to call out the troops. And that is precisely the first step.
Assemble a team. Naturally, you have to assemble people who are trustworthy, loyal and competent. You may find that certain employees fit the bill while others are doubtful. You are not limited to employees. You most likely have relied on the services of outside people – people who have been your organization’s kitchen cabinet – throughout the years. Lawyers, accountants, marketing and public relations people, former employees who have gone out on their own. Shake the tree and you’ll be surprised who can be helpful.
Next, prioritize your needs. Who are the technical people available to fix the most likely problems? Who are the ones most capable of immediate fact-finding? These are the people who need to be mobilized quickly in order to isolate and address the most immediate concerns. Who are the individuals who can set up a document management system, document the issues, preserve evidence, research and fact-find and make information available to the very top. Finally, who are those who will speak for the organization. A communications strategy is a must. Generally speaking there is one spokesperson, perhaps with a backup individual. Information from the technical people and the document management people have to flow to the communicators who must be fully informed. Legal specialists and public relations personnel round out the communications team.
Communications is the key to effective crisis management. Of course, an organization’s problems need to be solved. But just as important, the public needs to know what the problems are, and what you are doing about them. The day of “no comment” is over. In fact it is long gone. Whether it’s Toyota or the local public utility, communications strategy is largely the same. An organization must be quick or else others will set the agenda and you will always be on the defensive. An organization must be proactive otherwise it will always be reactive. Openness and honesty coupled with the most up-to-date facts constitute good communications strategy. Staying on message, taking bold action to protect the public or making its needs paramount generally rule the day, regardless of whether you have been totally successful. Best intentions and extraordinary efforts are very often held in high regard by the public, especially when communicated regularly, clearly and openly.
Tags: , , , ,
Blog WebMastered by All in One Webmaster.