JOHN CREAN

Crisis management is not easy.  And while it may appear easy enough in hindsight, it is always complex and challenging when you are in the midst of the storm.

Crisis management (and the related discipline of issues management) is now a fully recognized part of doing business. While a crisis can destroy a company, most organizations have little experience nor do they really understand the dynamics of the art. Start a conversation with anyone about crisis, and quickly someone will reference the Tylenol crisis during the autumn of 1982. It is a good case study, but is certainly not the only one. There are hundreds of cases from which we can learn some lessons. It is also important to note the Tylenol crisis happened long before the advent of social media and citizen journals. Certainly in the early 80s, the world was far less connected than it is today.

So given the complexity, it is easy to find comfort in the snappy formulas and simplistic aphorisms of so-called experts who make crisis management seem straightforward and to characterize those who mismanage crisis as foolish, careless or incompetent. The truth is that perfection is not possible in crisis management. Every strategy has its pros, cons and trade-offs. Often brand or reputation concerns play second fiddle to more pressing legal priorities. Most communicators cringe at the sight of CEOs doing interviews that lack transparency, yet many do given the possibility of long-term and costly litigation.

Most crisis today put management teams and business leaders under excruciating pressure. Most will find themselves under the constant and unremitting surveillance of media and must respond to allegations, react to criticism, report to regulators and yes, still run the business…. for hours, days or weeks in succession.  Media, the general public, government, shareholders, stakeholders and activists all want a response to their concerns, all the while when management is trying to put out the metaphorical fire.  

Some elements of crisis management have remained true over time. These include the need to react (and to be seen reacting) quickly and publicly, the need to be open and accessible for as long as it takes.  No matter what the problem, you must fix it as quickly as possible (not always easy, witness BP) and explain what you will do to ensure it won’t happen again.  And lastly, to beware of false dawns. Declaring the crisis over before it’s over will certainly come back to bite you.

One maxim that does continue to resonate over time is to show you care. For business today, appearing to act only out of self-interest (or in crisis, self-preservation), serves only to demonize the company further, destroying any possibility for sympathetic reaction. If the public, in the end, think that you deserve all the bad things that so often happen to companies in crisis, there will be a scant chance of making a comeback for many years.

The world is increasingly being divided into camps.  George Bush said it post-9/11 when he charged: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”  While he set the tone for the debate on terrorism, his proclamation was a classic false choice…a style of logic, speech, and argumentation that leaves no room for discussion and that is increasingly common in public discourse.

Look no further than the environment, animal rights, executive compensation or, for Torontonians like me, the Leafs! No one is “in the middle”, where the truth often lies. More and more we, the public, have positions we defend rather than points of view to discuss… perspectives that can and should evolve (even change) with time and new information.

This is important for public relations practitioners to understand and explore. Are we “enlightened and rational”, open to changing our minds when presented with a different perspective? Or are we defensive of our ideas and not really listening to the debate, entrenched in a position formulated years ago. Politicians get criticized for changing their minds. That’s called a “flip-flop”. Certain activists who sit with corporate executives are called “sell-outs”.  Academics that change their minds are “undisciplined”.

Audiences for national (and international) issues can be divided into those in favour, those against, those who are aware but don’t have a position and those who are simply not interested or aware. As public relations practitioners, we need to know who we are trying to connect with and persuade. In an increasingly polarized and partisan world, is it still possible to change someone’s mind? I hope so but am not sure (and that is concerning).

The world, like politics, is increasingly hard-edged. The public relations practitioner needs to spend energy and effort informing the opinions of those who are open to change and receptive to new ideas.  Society is more receptive than ever to new ideas, but it is also more hostile and quick to debate (and debase). That is what makes the practice of public relations more interesting and relevant than ever.

Forty years ago, Earth Day was launched as a small but earnest attempt to focus attention for a day on our environment, our climate, our planet. In those early days, fewer people than today paid much attention. I wonder if the people behind Earth Day 40 years ago ever imagined that the environment would eventually be on equal footing with other major global issues such as poverty, war and health care.

So, is Earth Day part of a global public relations exercise? I suggest it is and that is a good thing. Getting the public to pay attention and to care in a sustainable way about issues affecting the air we breathe and the water we drink has always been difficult. Dare I say that public relations, then, has played a pivotal role in moving environmentalism from a small movement to a global priority.

Powerful imagery, passionate leadership, clear language that connects and creates a sense of urgency … and, of course, an unrelenting commitment. These remain the elements of a strong public relations effort, one that endeavours to not just shift public opinion but to also shift social values. Along the way, science evolved and the evidence became more compelling. But science without communications would not have moved the hearts and minds of school children, business executives, parents and politicians (nor would or should communications without the science. But that is a different issue).

Earth Day provides us the opportunity to drive home the importance of the issue, celebrate our successes (and there have been many) and galvanize support for ongoing action. This year and last, NATIONAL acknowledged Earth Day by releasing its Corporate Responsibility Report. Our report is a transparent account of our growing progress against such measures as recycling, paper use, social investment and human capital development. We continue to live by the credo, “Do it right and let it be known”.

Companies around the world, including NATIONAL, are using professional communications approaches to express their concern for the environment and to share with stakeholders their commitment to make the world a better place.

Public relations can—and does—shape our environment for the better.