Month: July 2018

Crises can be divided into three categories:

1. Creeping Crises – foreshadowed by a series of events that decision makers don’t view as part of a pattern.

2. Slow-Burn Crises – some advance warning, before the situation has caused any actual damage.

3. Sudden Crises – damage has already occurred and will get worse the longer it takes to respond.

It is not uncommon for what seems to be a sudden crisis to have actually, first, been a creeping crisis that was not detected. Appropriate measures, early in the process, can often prevent or, at least, minimize the damage from slow-burn and sudden crises.

Below are some examples from the healthcare industry. From this, readers in other industries should be able to develop comparable lists.

1. Creeping Crises

• Lack of a rumor-control system, resulting in damaging rumors.
• Inadequate preparation for partial or complete business interruption.
• Inadequate steps to protect life and property in the event of emergencies.
• Inadequate two-way communication with all audiences, internal and external.

2. Slow-Burn Crises

• Internet activism
• Most lawsuits.
• Most discrimination complaints.
• Company reputation
• Lack of regulatory compliance – safety, immigration, environment, hiring, permits, etc.
• Major operational decisions that may distress any important audience, internal or external.
• Local/state/national governmental actions that negatively impact operations.
• Official/governmental investigations involving your healthcare organization and/or any of its employees.
• Labor unrest.
• Sudden management changes – voluntary or involuntary.
• Marketing misrepresentation.

3. Sudden Crises

• Patient death – Your healthcare organization perceived to be liable in some way.
• Patient condition worsened – Your healthcare organization perceived to be liable in some way.
• Serious on-site accident.
• Insane/dangerous behavior by anyone at a location controlled by your healthcare organization.
• Criminal activity at a company site and/or committed by company employees.
• Lawsuits with no advance notice or clue whatsoever.
• Natural disasters.
• Loss of workplace/business interruption (for any reason).
• Fires.
• Perceptions of significant impropriety that damage reputation and/or result in legal liability, e.g., publicized involvement of company employee in a group or activity perceived to be a threat to the U.S. government or society; inappropriate comments by a “loose cannon;” business activities not officially authorized by management.

Typically, reviewing a list like this triggers thoughts of other situations that need to be addressed during the crisis planning process. Know what constitutes a creeping, slow-burn or sudden crisis for your organization and have plans in place to address them!

Looking for more on crisis management, prevention, preparedness and response? Click here to head to our articles section.

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is vice president for the firm and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

We love to connect with readers on LinkedIn! Connect with Bernstein Crisis Management | Connect with Jonathan | Connect with Erik

Which of the following statements about a jury, civil or criminal, are true?

1. Prospective jury members never lie regarding their advance bias about a case.
2. Jury members are always truly “peers” of the defendant.
3. Jury members never talk about a case outside of jury deliberations, or read and watch TV about a case when sequestered, once directed not to do so by a judge.

If your answer is “none of the above,” you begin to appreciate the potential value of crisis/issues management for the purpose of educating a jury pool. Now, I am aware, though not an attorney, that members of the bar are not allowed to influence a jury. Ed Novak, a partner at the Phoenix-based law firm, Quarles & Brady Streich Lang, bridges the gap between influencing and educating.

“While it is unethical to attempt to influence prospective jurors, there is nothing unethical or unprofessional about having an accurate picture of your client presented to the media and other audiences,” said Novak.

A jury consultant is typically not called in until there is some high certainty that a case will, in fact, go to trial. By then, if the case in question has been highly visible in the press, it may well be too late to educate a jury pool “contaminated” by the media’s interpretation of events.

Any honest reporter (yes, there are honest reporters who might even acknowledge there are honest attorneys) will admit that he or she brings a natural bias and an institutional editorial perspective to a story. Journalists will do their best, in that context, to report in a “balanced manner,” with the exception of columnists, who are often free to say pretty much what they please and not worry about “balance.” These media representatives are a gateway through which both plaintiff/prosecutor and defendant can communicate not only to the publics thought of most often – business contacts, community VIPs, etc. – but also to potential jury members. It is the responsibility of counsel, with expert assistance as necessary, to direct media relations that can shift the balance of coverage.

“If we say something to the media, we realize we may be talking to future jury members as well, and if we don’t say something, we’re telling those jury members ‘we don’t care enough about you to keep you informed.’ When we get to court, they’ll remember that,” said Novak.

And, he notes, his firm has realized that the same analysis done by crisis management professionals to anticipate multi-audience response to various public relations tactics also helps them anticipate jury response.

“I’ve had a crisis consultant sit in on practice sessions for depositions, resulting in a change in the client’s choice of words,” he said. In that circumstance, the crisis consultant was actually hired as a jury consultant under the law firm’s umbrella of confidentiality.

What tactics can be used for this public education process? They include, but are not limited to:

• The use of spokespersons trained to deliver key messages to the media and other audiences.
• Educating employees of defendant or plaintiff’s companies about what to say or not to say about the situation at hand when they’re back home, out in the community which will eventually be the source of jurors.
• Advertorials — buying print space or broadcast time in which one puts news-like stories about your client organization that are designed to help balance any misinformation which may already be in the public eye. This tactic is usually only employed if the media has consistently mis-reported the facts.

The battle for the hearts, minds and votes of jury members does not begin in the courtroom. In my experience, advance communication begins immediately after a legal situation hits the media. It can work together with legal tactics to (a) preclude a case ever going to trial (assuming that’s a desired outcome for either side of the issue) or (b) affect public perception sufficiently to enhance either side’s chance of a favorable outcome in court.

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is vice president for the firm and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

We love to connect with readers on LinkedIn! Connect with Bernstein Crisis Management | Connect with Jonathan | Connect with Erik

A vulnerability audit is a thorough self-inspection designed to identify potential crises before they occur and pave the way for creation of a crisis communications plan which will allow an organization to avoid, or at least minimize, the negative impact of such crises.

This is done by:

1. Collecting data from people in key information flow positions. Senior executives are not always aware of all of the circumstances which can lead to the birth of a crisis. Hence, interviews are conducted with both white- and blue-collar personnel at various echelons of the company, typically a minimum of 20 interviews. Multi-location businesses usually require interviews with remote location personnel who have insights specific to their area.

2. These interviews are conducted on an extremely confidential basis. Ideally, interviewees are told that the firm’s senior management will not, under any circumstances, be told “who said what.” Information gleaned during the interview process includes (1) potentially harmful trends (facts or perceptions reported by multiple sources); (2) significant inconsistencies between answers from different subjects; (3) non-verbal cues that there may be something amiss in certain areas, which then prompts further questioning; and, (4) consensus opinion regarding the probability of certain types of crises.

3. Looking for operational and communications weaknesses which could cause or contribute to a crisis.An employee who’s a “loose cannon” is a more obvious potential source of problems, even if he/she is well-intentioned, but there are less obvious issues revealed through the vulnerability audit process. For example, one past client relied on a single fax machine for incoming and outgoing faxes from its headquarters offices during a crisis, which tremendously delayed communication with a number of important audiences. The simple addition of fax machines, creation of broadcast fax/email lists and similar tactics can often greatly improve crisis response.

4. Anticipating actual crisis scenarios. Every organization is vulnerable to certain types of crises inherent in the nature of its business, plus others inherent, perhaps, in the nature of its particular style of operating. Additionally, the vulnerability audit has been known to reveal “skeletons” of which senior management may not have been aware.

5. Reporting results. The conclusions from the vulnerability audit are then analyzed and presented both as a in-depth overview of issues that need to be addressed.

The information collected during the vulnerability audit process is used as the basis for writing a manual which will guide the entire organization in the communications aspects of responding to crisis situation. A side benefit we’ve seen – the discussions necessary to the audit process often spur more overall interest in protecting the company from crisis, which of course saves you money!

We typically spot the first vulnerability within minutes, and as the process continues problems “everyone knew” existed (except, often, those at the top!) quickly emerge. Time after time clients who feel they’ve prepared adequately are stunned by the list of vulnerabilities this process identifies, and the liability they would have faced if the possibilities had become reality. Every organization has weaknesses but they don’t have to put you out of business. Know what they are and make prevention a part of daily conversation.

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is vice president for the firm and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

We love to connect with readers on LinkedIn! Connect with Bernstein Crisis Management | Connect with Jonathan | Connect with Erik

Practice makes perfect is cliche for a reason. We all accept that it takes repetition and training to be good at anything, but in spite of this we’ve seen certain concerning behavior repeated throughout our 30+ years of experience:

• Many organizations still don’t plan or train for crises at all, either rolling the dice that their “crisis number” doesn’t come up and/or wrongly assuming that they can “wing it” because of their combined skills.
• Even when organizations have gone to the effort (and cost) of developing or even getting initial training in the use of business continuity or crisis communications plans, most still engage in little to no ongoing training thereafter.
• Most organizations go through periods of significant personnel turnover and major operational changes, all of which can require modification of existing crisis plans and then re-training. The former happens sometimes, the latter – not so often!
• Too many organizations continue to turn incidents into crises, and minor crises into major ones, because their people simply aren’t ready to rumble.

If you could choose to know – in advance – how you’re going to handle your own nightmare scenario, and that your team can handle it, why wouldn’t you? Crisis training just makes sense.

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is vice president for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

We love to connect with readers on LinkedIn! Connect with Bernstein Crisis Management | Connect with Jonathan | Connect with Erik