At Work Newswire

By D. Quinn Mills

Crises of all sorts arise, confronting leaders with major challenges. Sometimes the crisis is major; sometimes it is minor. Sometimes people think it is more important than the facts suggest; sometimes they think it is less important than merited. The responsibility of the leader is to put any crisis in proper perspective, and to lead people out of it, to resolve
the situation for them.

There are many elements to resolving a crisis, but among the most important is the communications surrounding it. Fortunately, we have more and better methods of communication at our disposal today than ever before, ranging from broadcast (mass media) to narrowcast (e-mail). But can a leader use them well?

The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City represented a crisis of first order for the United States and, more specifically for the people of the city and their mayor. fire and death and a crisis for the major of New York. Rudy Giuliani responded well—so well that he is now a candidate for President of the United States. Communications with the people of the city of New York were central to his response to the crisis. What did he handle communicating during this crisis?

Communicating in a crisis: 9/11

First, Giuliani got in touch with the mass media (TV and radio) and made himself available to them at almost all times. His message was simple: the authorities of the city were in charge and were responding and that the people of the city should keep calm. It is important to remember that at this key juncture, neither the mayor nor the people of the city had any idea if the attacks on the World Trade Center were all that was to come—they were worried that there would be more, and perhaps even more devastating attacks.

Giuliani’s first responsibility was to prevent a panic in the city. He did not lie to the people of the city; he told them that he didn’t know if there would be more attacks: but he assured them that the city’s leadership was alert and would inform them of the situation as it developed and do all that could be done to protect them and their families and friends. “Stay calm!” was the first message, delivered with conviction by the mayor through the mass media.

Second, the mayor did more than talk to the people, he went to the scene of the tragedy and there directed the efforts of law enforcement officers to keep order and of fire fighters to control the conflagration. With him he took the mass media reporters so that they could show and tell the people of the city that the authorities were actually on the scene acting effectively. The message was sent not just by words, but through actions. The actions gave credence to the words—people heard the mayor call for calm and they saw him on the scene of the disaster, in control and calm himself.

Third, the mayor communicated compassion and concern for the victims of the attack and for their families, many of whom were in terrible ignorance about who had been spared and who had been lost. Compassion was as important to the mayor’s message as coolness and competence in the emergency.

Fourth, communication was continual. In the absence of authoritative and accurate information, rumors abound and people are driven to extravagant emotions and acts by exaggeration and other misinformation. The mayor and his staff were almost always there on the media when people looked. It was an admirable performance by Mayor Giuliani.

But it was not a perfect performance by New York’s embattled mayor. While communicating effectively with the people of the city, his first responsibility, Giuliani failed to communicate as effectively with elements of the uniformed services coping with the disaster—so that there remains today bitterness among some elements of the uniformed services about the mayor’s performance on that critical day.

The Johnson & Johnson example

The classic effective performance in a business crisis communication involved the Johnson & Johnson company almost two decades ago, when its pain reliever Tylenol was tampered with in a few locations. The mass media coverage sparked rumors of tampering on a huge scale, presenting the company with a very serious emergency. Johnson & Johnson’s leadership was urged by some to try to minimize the situation, because to remove the product from shelves all over the country would be very expensive, something no for-profit company wants to endure unless it must. But the leadership of the firm decided that the best way to confront the crisis was with a powerful communication package of words and actions. The actions would give credibility to the words.

The firm promised the American customer that Tylenol would be safe on the shelves of the nation’s stores, or it would not be there. To prove the words true, an announcement was made that the product would in fact be removed from shelves nationally ­ so that there could be no risk of any further poisoning. This was done; the tampering was isolated and ended, and the product was returned to store shelves repackaged for greater safety and very quickly resumed its position as the leading product for sales in the pain relief area. Again, the leaders involved did an outstanding job of communicating concern and a resolve to set matters right—communicating at the same time the underlying values of Johnson & Johnson.

In recent years allegations of corrupt management have seriously embarrassed some major American not-for-profit organizations, among them the United Way and the Red Cross. Such allegations threaten to undermine popular support for the organizations, imperiling their financial base (people won’t give to an organization they think is corrupt) and their ability to give assistance in time of disaster.

In these crises leaders had to communicate with the public as a whole and with the employees of the organizations. The message is much the same: the incidents are isolated to certain chapters of the organizations; they are being investigated and will be dealt with; immediate action is being taken to stop any misbehavior; contributors and employees alike can trust the national leadership of the organizations to prevent any further problems of the type.

The keys a leader for effective communication in a crisis? A leader should stay cool and reflect confidence; he or she must match words and deeds; and recognize that decisive steps should be taken and communicated. People watch closely in a crisis to see whether the leader is backing up the public message with concrete action and that whatever is said, is done. Whether a government, corporate, or non-profit leader the “rules” for communicating in a crisis remain the same: stay calm, remember that symbols matter, show your concern and empathy, and provide the most accurate information possible.

D. Quinn Mills, the Alfred J. Weatherhead Jr. Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School (emeritus), consults with major corporations in the U.S. and globally. He has written extensively on leadership, strategy, and management issues.

---

Copyright © 2007 D. Quinn Mills

 Email This Post