Too Tired? Too Anxious? Need More Time? We’ve got your back.
When facing a crisis, especially one in which the organization is
implicated, many experts on crisis management take the approach that
management or the firm needs to quickly repent of its malfeasance or
wrongdoing, ask for forgiveness, and promise to do better in the future.
This soft approach argues for engaging in careful communications and
apologizing, if necessary. This approach, some believe, is the best
route to limiting damage and restoring the public’s confidence in the
company and its leaders.
In their book Damage Control: Why Everything You Know about Crisis
Management Is Wrong, authors Eric Dezenhall and John Weber argue that
this soft approach is often wrong. According to the authors, if you are
facing a lawsuit, a scandal, a defective product, or allegations of
insider trading, experts may tell you to stay positive, get your message
out, and everything will be just fine. But, Dezenhall and Weber
conclude, this kind of cheery talk does not help much during a real
crisis, and it’s easy to lose sight of your genuine priorities. If your
case goes to trial, for example, you might want the public to think
you’re a wonderful company, but all that matters is what the jury
thinks.
The authors support a political model of crisis management, which
means you may have to fight back and defend yourself. When the company
has done wrong, repentance is in order. When the company has been
wronged, a strong defense is recommended. The authors recommend not
admitting guilt and meeting each accusation with a counterclaim. They
say this is how Martha Stewart turned her public image around after
serving a jail sentence. They also cite how successful the mobile phone
industry was in mounting a defense against the consumer complaints that
the phones were causing brain tumors. The key, they say, is determining
when to be conciliatory and when to defend aggressively.
What are the relevant issues in this debate over the best response to a crisis?
Is it best to apologize, repent and move on, or stand firm and aggressively defend?
What is the downside risk of mounting a rigorous defense?
If a company apologizes for minuscule mistakes, does
it risk angering customers by drawing attention to what otherwise might
have been a nonissue?
Review the case about the Chipotle crisis. Did the company repent or defend?
Too Tired? Too Anxious? Need More Time? We’ve got your back.