The Law of the Few: World Class Corporate Crisis and Communications Teams

Many companies navigate the routine complexity of business with adequate or acceptable managem

Team Sport

ent, however it is the truly stellar company/s that excel not only on a routine basis but especially in times of crisis. It is select skills, experience and traits that are able to applied during times of critical decision-making that separate them from the herd.  Specific skills and attributes are not something that can be learnt in the minutes and seconds required in order to apply to a critical decision making process but are acquired and developed over many years and supported by advanced processes and tools.

To understand the best-in-class for corporate crisis management and decision-making we need to consider a number of things. Given that the timeliness of response is often predicated on how little time is wasted on logistical or bureaucratic processes before getting to a point of action, therefore companies with existing policy and procedure that is both rehearsed and updated, put themselves in the top 10 to 20% immediately. This element is certainly not a significant contributor to their success our outcome. Second, the quality of information on which decision-makers and leaders are basing their actions upon. This information alone does not comes from traditional sources such as television and paper it increasingly is inclusive of social media. The voices of many, albeit nonofficial, can have a significant impact on the outcome of the overall damage/survivability of an incident faced by a company.

The best-in-class companies not only acknowledge social media but have means of tapping into influencing and monitoring all social media channels as required, not just in times of crisis but on a routine basis. Lastly and most significantly it’s the character of the individuals that fill the functions within a crisis or communications plan. It’s this area will look in more depth to determine the requirements attributes and success factors as crisis management is seldom the catalyst for success or failure but that of crisis leadership.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s groundbreaking book The Tipping Point he mentions three significant class of character that are an important influence on social trends and epidemics. These three main character traits are also vital if not pivotal in the success of corporate communications and crisis response. Companies that lack or fail to identify and leverage from these key character and personality traits fall far behind the best of class and most innovative companies. These character traits and abilities are not governed by job title position or function they are skills possessed within a person and therefore should be leveraged in accordance with the skills to the desired outcome rather than relying on a predefined job title or function within the company. These three character traits are 1. Connectors. 2.  Mavens and  3.  Persuaders. In very rare instances one or more of these skill sets may be founded in a single person but any one person shouldn’t be relied upon in adding depth to any team, which is always sound practice.

What makes someone a connector? The first–and most obvious–criteria is that connectors know a lot of people. They are kinds of people who know everyone

No great team has all the solutions nor knows all of the information, however is vitally important that the team have access to an individual or group of individuals that can connect to all the known and possible resources in a short-as-possible time period. Connectors as such are fantastic networkers with not only huge personal networks but also plug into other complementary networkers or fellow connectors that maybe industry, technical, media or stakeholder orientated. They can aide immensely in benchmarking or calibrating the sentiment of particular decisions/actions or even the most appropriate channel to make sure that their message is heard clear and concisely with the required outcome.

Every company should have at least one connector in a crisis or communications team or one that can be called upon quickly and effectively. It should be painfully evident this is not the type of skill or network that is built up overnight and therefore can’t be expected to be turned on by the flick of a switch; it may take years if not decades to develop and refine.

Second of the three kinds of people who control the work of mouth epidemics are a Maven. The word Maven comes from Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge

Mavens are active if not and borderline fanatics in their collection of information relative to a specific discipline or social scenario. Once again it’s essential that corporate decision-makers and crisis management teams include such knowledge collectors. Some companies may have them within their own organic structure or call upon them as part of their service providers or trusted advisors, in some instances even board members. Mavens may manifest in many shapes, forms, gender and age but they are very quickly identifiable by their sheer depth of knowledge and cross-referencing ability to join problems with solutions. A single conversation with an effective Maven may save corporate decision-makers hours if not weeks of procrastination and circular discussions.

Mavens are teachers, Connectors are conduits but neither may be Persuaders and the reality is that some people are actually going to have to be persuaded to do something, this is the role of the persuader. A Persuader is not a snake-oil salesman, although many very effective salesmen and communicators are Persuaders. Persuaders are able to influence through their tone of voice, their physical appearance, their social observations, their empathy towards listeners or just in the way and manner they use all of the skills to communicate their particular message. Many famous politicians, while drawing criticism for their lack of knowledge and other skills, have been exceptional persuaders. Not advocating the requirement for “empty vessels” but persuaders have a rare and unique talent to be able to communicate and influence people to do something, that something being consistent with your objectives. It is a very dangerous process to use any of the identified skills and characteristics in the roles in which they’re not suited, in particular the use of a persuader in a lesser role or not that of an influencer.

Many can now probably identify these key character traits and how successful they have been in routine and critical environments. However, it should be of major concern if you can not identify these traits within your own corporate crisis and communications team. Additionally if you have a total absence of any-and-all of the skill sets within your corporate crisis and communications team. You may survive the day to day routine rigors of business but survivability rate when exposed to critical incidences without these key elements is very poor.  Even worse are those that assume that job titles within the company or even gender have imparted these skills upon each and every one of their senior executives is a gross oversight. The question remains can you identify these assets or can you contact them on your worst day? Your survival may very well depend on it one day.

¹ The tipping point by Malcolm Gladwell chapter 1–The three rules of epidemics, page 38

² The tipping point by Malcolm Gladwell chapter 1–The three rules of epidemics, page 60

Pareto’s Law-20% of your assets will be exposed to 80% of threats. Do you know which ones?

Bad weather or even natural calamities do not affect every city in the world nor every resident of the affected area. Accidents, an inevitable part of some environments, do not affect all your people or totally devalue all your assets. Terrorist do not consider everyone a viable target nor are their actions likely to impact everyone over the course of their lives. The facts remain that only a small percentage of events or incidents resulting in loss of value or productivity will affect your business but conversely a smaller part of your overall assets are likely to succumb to these events; possibly even repeatedly. If this is the reality, why are there so many singular strategies for organizations, one-size-fits-all policy, uniformity in the approach when greater economy could be achieved by focusing on the priority areas? Most of the threats (80%) will only likely place at risk a smaller percentage (20%) of your assets. Do you know which ones?

Too much time and deliberation is spent perfecting the process of identifying and qualifying the threat. While it remains a valid and useful phase the process becomes unexplainably weaker or less popular once value and measurable impact are introduced. This is in part possibly due to the skill and experience of those conducting the analysis/assessment who typical originate from a weak financial background. Even for those with little resources, training or even time, a qualifying exercise to determine what the impact of service failure, disruption or other stressors will provide you with a workable project plan for applying solutions, counter measures or treatment options. This should have financial implications, tangible and intangible. The higher the number, the greater the priority and easier to be presented to business leaders or collaborators. The easier you make the measurement or driver, in a format most commonly used, the greater adherence and buy-in you will get. Abstract terms, ratings, scientific pontification or just made up data will only erode the objective and almost all will loose interest. No single person ever saved an entire organization, it takes systems and team work that follows a plan.

Many conventions are derived from habit or transferred from what others believe to be comparable models. Take fire sprinklers and suppression systems for example. A worthwhile investment and certainly mandated in some jurisdictions to prevent loss of life, undue stress on public services or even making local authorities look bad. Whatever the driver they are common place. However, not every square meter of a building is at risk of having a fire originate in that locale. Much of the planning and installation works on the assumption it could start anywhere, spread anywhere so lets just cover the entire structure. Not necessarily an efficient or effective process but wide spread practice none-the-less. Transferring this methodology to all/any other part of the business would have questionable benefits or make financial sense. These kind of general applications of similar strategies discredit the validity of risk management and force undue cost onto organizations that quite reasonably at times will forego the entire solution because the bulk of the concept is unnecessary, leaving the critical minority (20%) unprotected.

Vision and direction begins with policy. However, this policy is a guiding principle with brevity and clarity not a standalone document. It should include the priority of care or concern such as people, brand, buildings, etc. Priority of response along with the objective of the efforts should be made clear to all. Any and all measures, outlined in subsequent procedural documents and training, should be measurable (financially, operationally and even brand integrity) and constantly reviewed. While policy is unlikely to change for longer periods of time, the process and even certain objectives may as the business changes in both culture and nature. The most effective policies are a single paragraph that encompasses all the aforementioned elements and does not dictate tactics for execution but ensures everyone at least moves forward in the same direction.

Data is a great tool for creating foundation analysis but it should originate from both objective and subjective sources. Single minded collection, measurement and review lead to much bigger falls. No company knows everything about itself or everything else around it, no matter what some may think. Comparative information, data, review and even assessments ensure greater transparency in the final outcome. Care needs to be applied to ensure it is not a popularity contest or management by consensus, a final impartial decision maker is still required. Companies of all sizes can apply this approach cost effectively and expediently while enjoying maximum return on investment not just plain old return on investment (ROI).

The clock is ticking, the world moves on and the business you had an hour ago is not the one you operate now. The process needs to be renewable, adaptive but above all constantly applied by monitoring and surveillance. Monitoring is required of the business, its actions, its impact, resources, threats, disruption impact potential and relevance to the overall business concerns. Many events that arrive on the doorsteps of your business first visited your neighbor or the business down the street. Just because you weren’t watching will not get you a leave pass on the impact your lack of preparation may bring to your organization. Larger companies have internal resources for this purpose, but the smartest have both internal and external for the reasons of effectiveness previously mentioned. Smaller companies, increasingly thanks to technology and a global market, can enjoy all the benefits of outsourced support that the larger companies do without the cost of ownership or inefficiency but with all the benefits.

Only a fraction of your workforce are at risk; a percentage of your travelers too. Not all your fixed assets are of equal value nor will they be exposed to the same single loss expectancy (SLE) or annual loss expectancy (ALE). Only some markets need heightened levels of support and protection as much as only some markets are the most valuable to your overall financial health. Every single email piece of information your company possesses shares the same value. A single piece of code could be worth thousands but a warehouse of files could be nothing more than an administrative cost and operational burden. The problem with this all is that most companies simply don’t know which end is which. The one-size-fits-all approach is cheap, easily understood and been around for years. Secretly the more profitable, efficient and even safer companies have dispensed with the rule-of-thumb and focus their 80% resourcing on the most valuable 20% assets. Do you know your most valuable assets and are they better preserved than the lesser value assets? Or are you just applying the same approach for everyone, thing, process or bit because that is the way it has always been done?