At BMF, we spend a great deal of time helping our clients in the energy, manufacturing and shipping sectors prepare for, train for and respond to crisis: spills, pipeline leaks, ugly mergers and acquisitions, labor actions, industrial accidents and shipping incidents that can have multiple negative internal and external impacts and levels of liability.
But as important as effective and open communication in crisis may be, it is only one side of the communications coin. The other side-- equally as important but too often ignored—involves communicating effectively about risk—long before something bad actually happens.
In this document we’ll explore effective risk communication: engaging people openly and honestly about the risks of what your company does or makes, in ways that sincerely address their concerns or fears by giving them the information they need to draw educated conclusions that could ultimately make for a better relationship between you and your neighbors.
Simply defined, effective risk communication seeks to provide a proper context for the dangers posed to the public, calm fears and explain risks in honest, clear and reassuring terms that go far beyond made-for-media sound bites.
To be clear, risk communication is not the same thing as community relations and philanthropic giving. While these things may put a “human face” on your company and help make some people feel better about your company, they do little to mitigate lingering concerns about the health and safety risks of living and working next door to you.
At BMF we believe that effective risk communication is as much about listening as it is about talking. Experience has taught us at least one thing: concerned or angry neighbors and stakeholders are more than smart enough to know the difference between talking and listening.
Only by listening and really hearing what your neighbors and critics say about their fears regarding what you and how you do it can you truly find common ground beyond the fence line.
This process begins by accepting that people are very unlikely to: -
- accept things they don’t understand
- accept things or situations that are beyond their control
- accept things they believe are unfair
- accept things they derive no perceived benefit from
- accept situations they believe are forced upon them
- accept without anger or hostility things that are man-made instead of acts of God or nature
Effective risk communication is not achieved in one step or through limited on-again, off-again engagement. It is a process that takes real commitment and on-going outreach and accessibility. It takes thick skin and a willingness to hear things said in the kind of way you’re not accustomed to hearing from people who start from a fundamentally different perspective from you. And it takes the willingness to accept incremental change in your relationships with your stakeholders and neighbors over an extended period of time rather than the kind of sea change in attitudes all of us would like to see happen.
Good risk communication involves inviting those stakeholders who matter most to you inside your organization to meet your people and learn about your processes and your value to the community from the ground up. This learning process doesn’t just happen overnight but over a great deal of time.
Effective risk communication also entails being open minded to at least some of the changes your most important stakeholders want you to make. After all, it is totally unreasonable for you to expect to change their minds if you’re not open to changing yours.
We’ll flesh this concept out in more detail over the next few weeks. In the meantime, if you’re interested in exploring this subject in more detail, be sure to contact me at gbeuerman@e-bmf.com
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Sad Times in Happy Valley
My original intent was to write at least three blogs about this unseemly and unfortunate issue, but as Monday passed to Tuesday and Tuesday to Wednesday (and so on), things happened so quickly that what I started the day before was no longer relevant.
In reality, that’s good news for Penn State and for a university that’s looking to put this mess behind them. The goal after all, for an institution in crisis is to seize control and move from page one to page none as fast as possible. And while the enormity of the scandal is still unfolding and will continue to for weeks to come, Penn State’s Board actions to fire President Graham Spanier and usher legendary coach Joe Paterno out the door, are a huge step in the right direction in restoring student, faculty, donor and media confidence in an educational institution that was on the verge of failing the ultimate test.
Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book, The Outliers, relates that in nearly every major airline accident approximately seven different signals are sent that trouble is on the horizon, nearly all of which are missed, dismissed or considered and ignored, resulting ultimately in a catastrophe.
The same can be said for the events at Penn State. How the university, its President, Athletic Director, legendary coach Joe (Joe Pa) Paterno and others responded to and handled rumors, reports and allegations all the way back to 2002, is shocking and disturbing and deserves to be considered here in real time.
Let’s take the key players one at a time.
Paterno
As a life-long Penn State and Joe Pa fan I’ve come full circle on Joe’s dismissal, from trying to make excuses for way Paterno failed to take decisive action based on what he learned nine years ago (instead of passing the buck and doing the absolute minimum), to the realization that he was dead weight on the school’s storied football program and needed to exit now, no matter how gracelessly such an exit might be.
As a professional communicator who helps corporate executives, politicians and others through their own tough times I analyzed Paterno’s November 8th statement announcing his resignation (effective at the end of the football season) and was struck by two important sentences: First, that the Board should not waste a single moment considering his fate—that he had made that decision for them and that they had more important things to do. While that statement could be read at least 2 different ways--that he was sincere in wanting to relieve them of that burden on the one hand, or that he alone was worthy of controlling his own destiny on the other. Sadly, I’ve concluded that an arrogance that is clearly typical of the university itself could only mean the latter.
The other statement in his announcement that gave me pause was his acknowledgement that in hindsight he should have done more. Clearly, Paterno knew more that he cared to and opted to shut his eyes to a sad, cold reality he’s rather never have known. In acknowledging that he “should have done more”, Paterno is clearly opening himself up to a lifetime of legal liability and lawsuits that will include endless depositions and even more public scrutiny. Still, he’s done the right and the only thing left to do by making such an admission.
But while Joe Pa certainly earned the right to call his own plays over 61 years of coaching, in his failure to follow up on such a heinous accusation as came to his attention years before, Paterno forfeited the right to determine his own destiny.
Last Tuesday afternoon’s, almost comical made for TV octogenarian auto chase scene featuring Joe Pa, slumped in the front seat of his Toyota Camry while his wife Sue weaved her way through crowds of reporters--starting, stopping, speeding up to avoid the media on their way to Paterno’s office at the stadium, put a bold exclamation mark on the entire craziness that came to epitomize Joe’s last days at Penn State. That imagery alone should have been more than enough to convince even the staunchest Penn Stater that the gig was up for Joe Pa.
Graham Spanier
While it is still possible, if not only natural to feel some degree of sympathy for Paterno, no such thing can be said for PSU President Graham Spanier who fostered and encouraged the all-pervasive air of power and arrogance that has come to define Penn State’s administration and athletic department.
Spanier’s almost immediate declaration of his unconditional support for Athletic Director Tim Curley and university Vice President Gary Schultz, who had just been charged with perjury and covering up the allegations against former defensive coordinator Sandusky, was the ultimate in stupidity, tinged with more than a hint of the invincibility the powers that be had created in Happy Valley.
Spanier got what he deserved. There’s a pretty good chance there’s more to come.
The University Board of Trustees
After getting a slow start out of the gate, paralyzed no doubt by too many sips of the university’s own Kool-Aid, the Board found the strength to take decisive action, ordering its own investigation into the scandal and sacking, in one fell swoop Spanier and Paterno, thereby giving the university and the unhappy denizens of Happy Valley at least a fighting chance to turn the corner and begin the process of rebuilding the university’s reputation and self-esteem.
The Board’s task now is to stay the course, undertake an exhaustive self-study and clean house from floor to ceiling of any and all who knew anything they failed to report or act on.
Make no mistake: this scandal isn’t about football or even about Joe Pa. It’s about sexual abuse of children, violating the law in the most egregious of ways, and institutional arrogance and absolute power that corrupts absolutely and cowers everyone who gets in the way or dares to question those in charge. It’s about cover-ups that many people seem to have engaged in for nearly a decade, blind or oblivious to the distinct fact that the truth never dies.
Clearly, Jerry Sandusky is sick. But so is Penn State at the highest levels of the administration and athletic department. Such overwhelming power as the university has amassed can’t help but breed arrogance, and with that arrogance comes a false believe in invincibility. Still, the mighty have begun to fall and they will continue to do so until the university faces reality. Lip service, blue and white anti-child abuse ribbons at football games and half-hearted actions simply won’t cut it when trying to repair the immense reputational damage done to Penn State or to the lives of dozens of scarred young men who have suffered emotionally for years while the Nittany Lions played on.
Joe Pa was and is a legend. Over 61 years as a coach he’s rightly earned a reputation as a teacher and molder of young men. Now’s the time for Joe Paterno to dig deep and with great humility and sincerity teach the ultimate lesson: That actions—and inactions-- have consequences. That real men accept responsibility for what they’ve done and haven’t done. And that no one is above the law or too important or legendary to be held accountable for their deeds or lapses of judgment.
Joe Pa still has some teaching to do. And some tough life lessons to teach himself in the process.
In reality, that’s good news for Penn State and for a university that’s looking to put this mess behind them. The goal after all, for an institution in crisis is to seize control and move from page one to page none as fast as possible. And while the enormity of the scandal is still unfolding and will continue to for weeks to come, Penn State’s Board actions to fire President Graham Spanier and usher legendary coach Joe Paterno out the door, are a huge step in the right direction in restoring student, faculty, donor and media confidence in an educational institution that was on the verge of failing the ultimate test.
Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book, The Outliers, relates that in nearly every major airline accident approximately seven different signals are sent that trouble is on the horizon, nearly all of which are missed, dismissed or considered and ignored, resulting ultimately in a catastrophe.
The same can be said for the events at Penn State. How the university, its President, Athletic Director, legendary coach Joe (Joe Pa) Paterno and others responded to and handled rumors, reports and allegations all the way back to 2002, is shocking and disturbing and deserves to be considered here in real time.
Let’s take the key players one at a time.
Paterno
As a life-long Penn State and Joe Pa fan I’ve come full circle on Joe’s dismissal, from trying to make excuses for way Paterno failed to take decisive action based on what he learned nine years ago (instead of passing the buck and doing the absolute minimum), to the realization that he was dead weight on the school’s storied football program and needed to exit now, no matter how gracelessly such an exit might be.
As a professional communicator who helps corporate executives, politicians and others through their own tough times I analyzed Paterno’s November 8th statement announcing his resignation (effective at the end of the football season) and was struck by two important sentences: First, that the Board should not waste a single moment considering his fate—that he had made that decision for them and that they had more important things to do. While that statement could be read at least 2 different ways--that he was sincere in wanting to relieve them of that burden on the one hand, or that he alone was worthy of controlling his own destiny on the other. Sadly, I’ve concluded that an arrogance that is clearly typical of the university itself could only mean the latter.
The other statement in his announcement that gave me pause was his acknowledgement that in hindsight he should have done more. Clearly, Paterno knew more that he cared to and opted to shut his eyes to a sad, cold reality he’s rather never have known. In acknowledging that he “should have done more”, Paterno is clearly opening himself up to a lifetime of legal liability and lawsuits that will include endless depositions and even more public scrutiny. Still, he’s done the right and the only thing left to do by making such an admission.
But while Joe Pa certainly earned the right to call his own plays over 61 years of coaching, in his failure to follow up on such a heinous accusation as came to his attention years before, Paterno forfeited the right to determine his own destiny.
Last Tuesday afternoon’s, almost comical made for TV octogenarian auto chase scene featuring Joe Pa, slumped in the front seat of his Toyota Camry while his wife Sue weaved her way through crowds of reporters--starting, stopping, speeding up to avoid the media on their way to Paterno’s office at the stadium, put a bold exclamation mark on the entire craziness that came to epitomize Joe’s last days at Penn State. That imagery alone should have been more than enough to convince even the staunchest Penn Stater that the gig was up for Joe Pa.
Graham Spanier
While it is still possible, if not only natural to feel some degree of sympathy for Paterno, no such thing can be said for PSU President Graham Spanier who fostered and encouraged the all-pervasive air of power and arrogance that has come to define Penn State’s administration and athletic department.
Spanier’s almost immediate declaration of his unconditional support for Athletic Director Tim Curley and university Vice President Gary Schultz, who had just been charged with perjury and covering up the allegations against former defensive coordinator Sandusky, was the ultimate in stupidity, tinged with more than a hint of the invincibility the powers that be had created in Happy Valley.
Spanier got what he deserved. There’s a pretty good chance there’s more to come.
The University Board of Trustees
After getting a slow start out of the gate, paralyzed no doubt by too many sips of the university’s own Kool-Aid, the Board found the strength to take decisive action, ordering its own investigation into the scandal and sacking, in one fell swoop Spanier and Paterno, thereby giving the university and the unhappy denizens of Happy Valley at least a fighting chance to turn the corner and begin the process of rebuilding the university’s reputation and self-esteem.
The Board’s task now is to stay the course, undertake an exhaustive self-study and clean house from floor to ceiling of any and all who knew anything they failed to report or act on.
Make no mistake: this scandal isn’t about football or even about Joe Pa. It’s about sexual abuse of children, violating the law in the most egregious of ways, and institutional arrogance and absolute power that corrupts absolutely and cowers everyone who gets in the way or dares to question those in charge. It’s about cover-ups that many people seem to have engaged in for nearly a decade, blind or oblivious to the distinct fact that the truth never dies.
Clearly, Jerry Sandusky is sick. But so is Penn State at the highest levels of the administration and athletic department. Such overwhelming power as the university has amassed can’t help but breed arrogance, and with that arrogance comes a false believe in invincibility. Still, the mighty have begun to fall and they will continue to do so until the university faces reality. Lip service, blue and white anti-child abuse ribbons at football games and half-hearted actions simply won’t cut it when trying to repair the immense reputational damage done to Penn State or to the lives of dozens of scarred young men who have suffered emotionally for years while the Nittany Lions played on.
Joe Pa was and is a legend. Over 61 years as a coach he’s rightly earned a reputation as a teacher and molder of young men. Now’s the time for Joe Paterno to dig deep and with great humility and sincerity teach the ultimate lesson: That actions—and inactions-- have consequences. That real men accept responsibility for what they’ve done and haven’t done. And that no one is above the law or too important or legendary to be held accountable for their deeds or lapses of judgment.
Joe Pa still has some teaching to do. And some tough life lessons to teach himself in the process.
Friday, November 4, 2011
This is more of a rant than a blog-something I swore I'd never do.
But as a voter, and as a media professional, I can't help but be disappointed and angry about the campaign conduct of most of the recent candidates for the various judicial seats in the City of New Orleans. Campaigning for offices such as Civil District Court without an ounce of civility is the absolute height of hypocrisy. Sitting judges as cartoon characters? Seriously? Unseemly, untrue and totally contrived allegations about failure to pay child support (that are so far off base that a local court orders them pulled off the air in record time)? Really? And you want to be a judge?
While the political consultants can be somewhat excused for slinging such mud (taht's what they after all) there is no excuse for someone seeking a judgeship to stoop so low. What could possibly qualify someone with no sense of propriety or dignity to feel even remotely qualified to judge anyone else?
Surely being a judge is more about you than about your opponent. After all, once you win, the only thing relevant is your behavior and demeanor, not your former opponent's.
If there's ever an argument in favor of an appointed judiciary, those candidates who spent millions of dollars to tear each other (and their families) apart have become the new poster children for a comprehensive change in how we put people on the bench. Such behavior is a sad commentary on the integrity of far too many of the great legal minds who seek to judge the rest of us in court.
But as a voter, and as a media professional, I can't help but be disappointed and angry about the campaign conduct of most of the recent candidates for the various judicial seats in the City of New Orleans. Campaigning for offices such as Civil District Court without an ounce of civility is the absolute height of hypocrisy. Sitting judges as cartoon characters? Seriously? Unseemly, untrue and totally contrived allegations about failure to pay child support (that are so far off base that a local court orders them pulled off the air in record time)? Really? And you want to be a judge?
While the political consultants can be somewhat excused for slinging such mud (taht's what they after all) there is no excuse for someone seeking a judgeship to stoop so low. What could possibly qualify someone with no sense of propriety or dignity to feel even remotely qualified to judge anyone else?
Surely being a judge is more about you than about your opponent. After all, once you win, the only thing relevant is your behavior and demeanor, not your former opponent's.
If there's ever an argument in favor of an appointed judiciary, those candidates who spent millions of dollars to tear each other (and their families) apart have become the new poster children for a comprehensive change in how we put people on the bench. Such behavior is a sad commentary on the integrity of far too many of the great legal minds who seek to judge the rest of us in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
