Resist the temptation to retreat to purely legal responses in times of crisis. Prepare a strong message that gets across correctly to all stakeholders.
WASHINGTON DC – DECEMBER 5: (LR) Harvard University President, Dr. Claudine Gay, Liz McGill… [+] University of Pennsylvania President, Dr. Pamela Nadel, Professor of History and Jewish Studies at American University, and Dr. Sally Kornbluth, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testify before the House Education and Labor Committee.
Getty Images
After campus protests erupted last fall over the war between Israel and Hamas, the presidents of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Pennsylvania appeared before the U.S. Congress in December, demanding their universities take action regarding anti-Semitic speech. Explained the norms.
For five grueling hours, both presidents fielded questions from a hostile committee and gave answers about law and fact that were principled, nuanced, and accurate by some standards. However, it is also true that the presidents have stepped into territory that cannot be resolved through legal arguments. This wasn't a courtroom. They and their advisors were unable to get the right advice to help them craft a message that would be supported by all stakeholders and, most importantly, in the court of public opinion.
Within a month, the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania lost their jobs. Commentators have decried everything from political correctness in academia to a lack of civility and respect in government halls. The presidents, who received testimony and guidance from the same elite law firms, were well prepared to understand policy, but completely unprepared to deal with the emotions of the moment and the hostility of the room.
Practitioners of values-based leadership argue that satisfying multiple stakeholders simultaneously causes leaders to settle for the “worst thing'' instead of aiming for the “right thing.''
Here are some tips for navigating the complex world of multi-stakeholder communication.
Resist the temptation to consult a lawyer about your PR strategy.
When a crisis occurs, senior executives are often at a loss and tend to turn to lawyers by default. But as leaders at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT discovered, this is a bad strategy when it comes to messaging. Lawyers are trained to advise clients not to say or do anything that could be used against them in court. But leaders must seize the moment. If you don't say anything, they'll go on the defensive and won't be ready to respond to an attack.
Just because it's right doesn't mean you need to say it or that everyone wants to hear it.
Business leaders often believe that being “technically” correct brings integrity. It shows their mastery of the subject matter, their understanding of the context, and the quality of their analysis.
But taking a stand, especially one that may be controversial, is never just a question of whether it's right or legal.
In 1999, tire company Michelin announced a 20% increase in profits and a 10% reduction in its European workforce. Management made a plausible argument that the layoffs would create value. Under French labor law, even profitable companies have the right to fire workers. Nevertheless, Michelin was lambasted in the press for exposing its own values ​​by including these two pieces of news about him in the same sentence. The New York Times called it an “astonishing act of disrespect.”
When it comes to reputation, play the long game.
One of the most difficult business metrics to assess is the financial cost of reputational damage. What is the economic cost of changing public opinion?
ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit in Texas in January to block a climate change proposal by an activist investor from being voted on at the company's shareholder meeting in May.
Fossil fuel companies are certainly bearing the brunt of the ire of climate change activists, and from ExxonMobil's perspective, perhaps this seemed like a good way to silence the opposition and stay in business. .
But from a long-term reputational perspective, as commentators have pointed out, launching a pre-emptive strike against shareholder democracy is a terrible idea.
As a business leader, you may not want to listen to public opinion or the opinions of minority shareholders. But as leaders living in the real world, we must acknowledge the power these external voices have to help or hurt us in achieving our goals.
Don't let your PR advisor have a yes-man.
No matter how open-minded and knowledgeable you think you are, you are not the best judge of how the world perceives you and what you want to say. Absolutely not. You need a sparring partner, even if it hurts your ego.
From a communication perspective, this is the goal to achieve all other goals.
