Category: Organization Development

It helps to stick to familiar ground when it comes to social media crisis management

Our friend and colleague Chris Syme published a blog post last month in which she explained why spreading your social media crisis messaging too thin can be a major problem. This issue seems to pop up most often when organizations attempt their own crisis management without consulting an expert, but there are some in our field who are guilty of taking on too many communication channels in a misguided effort to get word out as well.

This quote from Chris’ post cuts right to the heart of the matter:

Stay within your established platforms. This is the most important guiding principle to remember. For instance, if you have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, and an Instagram account, stick to those channels when planning any kind of crisis responses. This is where your fans are and this is where your detractors will want to voice their opinions.

There are several reasons for doing this but the most obvious is that a crisis is not the time to build an audience or plan strategy for a new channel. Objectives are different in a crisis than in everyday social media. Your goals should be two-fold: reach the widest audience and enlist advocates who will help you spread the message. Second, every channel you post on, you have to monitor. Think of your resources, personnel, and time. Third, you don’t have to answer every negative post that pops up on every channel. You’ll be playing whack-a-mole. Stick to the channels where you have established a fan base, and enlist your advocates to help you amplify your message. Use scheduling and amplification tools, but don’t try to build a presence on a new channel during a crisis.

From a crisis management standpoint, the major reason we encourage clients to establish a presence and stay active on social media is to A) create an active communications channel which has a publicly viewable history of your attitude and actions, and B) build the cushion of goodwill that Chris refers to when she says, “Stick to the channels where you have established a fan base, and enlist your advocates to help you amplify your message.”

While there is no set formula for determine the best channels to utilize, we suggest you ask the following questions:

1. What medium will best reach the client’s stakeholders?
2. What medium currently features negative information about the client?
3. Where do you already have active advocates and a cushion of goodwill established?

Just going through this short list should seriously narrow down options for almost every crisis situation, freeing up valuable resources, and, even more important when you have a breaking crisis, TIME, to handle business.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[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 Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

A Guest Post by Tony Poderis

The best, and the most needed non-profit organizations begin with a founder’s vision to do something good for society — often to serve a need no one else is serving, and unfortunately, sometimes addressing needs some others would rather not even know exist. So, as such a founder, good for you with your mission and vision. You are a true non-profit entrepreneur, though you know there is no profit motive involved.

However, wanting to achieve what you want to achieve to your own founder’s vision, could, sooner than later, change and be counter to your original founding views.

That’s because, when you form “your” non-profit organization, it then become a public charity. You cannot personally control it. Even if you name yourself, or are named, by your Board of Trustees as the Executive Director on one day, at the board’s discretion the next day, with cause as they see it, they can fire you. Or, only serving as a board member, you can as well be replaced by board decree.

That’s reality, and something you should know right from the start.

All founders of non-profits should know that no individual or group of individuals can “own” a non-profit. Typically, a founder of a non-profit organization has a difficult choice to make: should I be an employee or a board member? While it’s legally *possible* to be both, there are ethical and legal restrictions imposed on such a dual status.

In addition, organizations having the founder’s tight and unyielding grip often find it more difficult to attract new Board members, other volunteers, donors and grant support than do organizations with better-defined, more diverse, governance structures — i.e., other volunteers involved in making policy and carrying out the mission, and even changing the mission course as needed.

Beware of the “Founder’s Syndrome”

Founders who bring new ideas to the “table” develop a mission statement for their new organizations as the embodiment of their own vision and ideas, usually based upon a personal experience or passion.

Quite often though, the organization’s clients/users, donors, volunteers and staff play largely a passive role, responding largely to the founder’s passion.

A Remedy For “Founder’s Syndrome”

To succeed in today’s nonprofit “marketplace,” a new organization must be able to attract board members, other volunteers, audience, donors, and staff. And it does that through a shared vision and imparting “ownership” of the organization to others. A shared vision that speaks to and appeals to a diverse constituency is critically important to success of any nonprofit organization.

Staying On The Mission Statement “Course”

Your mission statement is working at its best when it clearly and firmly guides the board in making effective decisions about the organization’s future. It motivates and challenges the staff to meet well-defined and shared goals. And it is the beacon of hope for the people the organization directly serves. It is the responsibility of leadership to see to it that the organization always operates within the confines of its mission.

With that necessary team effort, that mission course might or might not be the one as originally set by the founder.

———————————————————–

Have a question or comment about the above posting? You can Ask Tony. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com .

————————————————————

Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks? They’re easy to read, to the point, and cheap ($1.99 – $3.99)

————————————————————–

If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

Belatedly thwarting a grade schooler’s scheme is nothing to gloat about

Most American airlines have been struggling to maintain any type of positive reputation for years now. With many of the most rage-inducing issues, like long security lines, beyond their control, you would think they’d be taking pains to ensure their own processes are working like clockwork. Speaking of, with the amount of focus that’s been placed on protecting our commercial planes since 9/11, shouldn’t we be able to expect airlines to stop a passenger from boarding without a ticket?

After reading this quote from Minnesota’s KARE 11 news, you’ll be asking the same question we were – hey Delta, are you smarter than a 4th grader?

Despite numerous checkpoints and gate agents, officials at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport say a 9-year-old was somehow able to sneak through security and onto a Delta flight headed to Las Vegas.

“At this point, this is a Delta and TSA issue,” said airport spokesperson Pat Hogan. “This is a rare incident.”

The security mishap occurred Thursday on Delta Flight 1651. It wasn’t until the plane landed in Las Vegas that the boy was stopped and questioned.

MSP officials say they’ve reviewed security footage and at this point do not believe he was carrying a boarding pass.

Delta’s statement after the incident was less-than-impressive from a crisis management standpoint, with more of a focus on self-congratulations than apologizing for allowing a potentially devastating gap in security:

“Delta continues to work with authorities and look into the circumstances involving an un-ticketed minor boarding an aircraft in Minneapolis-St. Paul. We commend the flight crew of flight 1651, whose vigilance and awareness of the cabin led them to proactively alert authorities to the situation prior to the aircraft landing in Las Vegas. Safety and security are always Delta’s highest priorities and we are reviewing our policies and procedures to make sure something like this does not happen again.”

Where was an apology to the boy’s family? Where was the red-faced spokesperson who should have stood in front of a camera and said, “We screwed up, we’re sorry, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen again”?

n the first half of 2012, natural catastrophes and man-made disasters caused insured losses of about $21 billion, Swiss Re said.

The numbers confirm what we’ve long espoused — crisis preparedness is an investment, not an expense. The above mentioned damage averages at $9.3 billion monthly. The cost of comprehensive vulnerability assessment, crisis planning and training is miniscule compared to the potential losses.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[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 Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Still don’t think crisis management should be a priority?

We all know that crises can create financial damage, but do you really understand how much damage? The stats below, quoted from a BusinessInsurance.com article, may surprise you:

Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters caused insured losses of $20 billion in the first half of 2013, with floods a major contributor to that total, according to a Swiss Re Ltd. report released Wednesday.

The Swiss Re sigma study found that natural catastrophes and man-made disasters caused economic losses of $56 billion and resulted in insured losses of more than $20 billion during the first six months of the year, $17 billion of the total due to catastrophes.

In the first half of 2012, natural catastrophes and man-made disasters caused insured losses of about $21 billion, Swiss Re said.

The numbers confirm what we’ve long espoused — crisis preparedness is an investment, not an expense. The above mentioned damage averages at $9.3 billion monthly. The cost of comprehensive vulnerability assessment, crisis planning and training is miniscule compared to the potential losses.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[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 Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Well, that didn’t take long

The first crisis to be directly impacted by the U.S. government’s shutdown reared its head this week in the form of a Salmonella outbreak that’s affecting at least 18 states thus far. Wired’s Maryn McKenna reports:

While the government is shut down, with food-safety personnel and disease detectives sent home and forbidden to work, a major foodborne-illness outbreak has begun. This evening, the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the US Department of Agriculture announced that “an estimated 278 illnesses … reported in 18 states” have been caused by chicken contaminated with Salmonella Heidelberg and possibly produced by the firm Foster Farms.

“FSIS is unable to link the illnesses to a specific product and a specific production period,” the agency said in an emailed alert. “The outbreak is continuing.”

This is the exact situation that CDC and other about-to-be-furloughed federal personnel warned about last week. As a reminder, a CDC staffer told me at the time:

“I know that we will not be conducting multi-state outbreak investigations. States may continue to find outbreaks, but we won’t be doing the cross-state consultation and laboratory work to link outbreaks that might cross state borders.”

That means that the lab work and molecular detection that can link far-apart cases and define the size and seriousness of outbreaks are not happening. At the CDC, which operates the national foodborne-detection services FoodNet and PulseNet, scientists couldn’t work on this if they wanted to; they have been locked out of their offices, lab and emails.

Yes, the shutdown has effectively hamstringed the CDC’s crisis management, leaving the department without resources to monitor, provide information about, or combat an issue directly affecting consumer health. Now one Salmonella outbreak isn’t going to create mass chaos, but it is a sign of the dangers involved in the political drama being played out in Washington. Let’s hope they get it together soon.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[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 Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Rockstar’s reputation may hang in the balance

With Grand Theft Auto V claiming the record for not only the fastest-selling video game, but also fastest-selling entertainment product of all time, creator Rockstar North is in crisis management mode as it prepares its servers to handle millions more players than expected at the launch of its Grand Theft Auto Online service, scheduled to open today, October 1.

BBC News Reports:

Last week the company admitted it was facing “unanticipated” pressure because sales had been stronger than expected.

“We are working around the clock to buy and add more servers,” its blog said.

But it added that matters could be “more temperamental than such things usually are” because using so many computers introduced its own issues.

In the online version of the 18-rated violent crime game, up to 16 players can interact simultaneously within a virtual environment and create personalised avatars.

It is included free with every copy of the GTA 5 console video game. According to one analyst’s figures, more than 15 million units of the title had been sold by early last week.

“At a conservative estimate I would expect about two million players to log on to GTA Online within the first 24 hours,” added Keza MacDonald, UK games editor for IGN.com, the video game and entertainment site.

“Rockstar has never done an online game of this scale before, so they are totally unproven in terms of their network infrastructure.

“And even the highly successful World of Warcraft at its peak didn’t have as many people playing online at once as GTA is likely to have, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there were problems.”

The Rockstar team has to be thinking of the debacle that was the Sim City launch, and if they’re smart they’ll have a plan of action for even their worst-case scenarios. By the time this post is published Rockstar should have Grand Theft Auto Online up and running, but you can bet we’ll be watching to see how they handle the inevitable curveballs that come along with any major online event.

Of course we’d love to hear from you gamers out there as well! Were you able to get online, and what do you think of Rockstar’s efforts thus far?

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[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 Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Always ask, “who could be offended by this?”

When launching a major promo for a product, it’s Crisis Management 101, it’s very important to do your homework to ensure that you won’t be creating an ugly situation in the process. After reading about Coca-Cola’s latest marketing #fail there should be no doubts as to why. Here’s what went down, as reported by PRDaily’s Kevin Allen:

Coca-Cola is apologizing profusely (and rightfully so) after a Canadian girl opened a bottle of Vitaminwater to find the words “You Retard” printed under the cap.

Blake Loates and her family were especially offended due to the fact that Loates’ younger sister, 11-year-old Fiona, has cerebral palsy and autism.

Her father, Doug, sent a strongly worded letter:

“What would you do if you opened up your bottle of Vitamin Water and on the bottom of the lid it read, “YOU RETARD”? Think about it. I bet you’d be pissed off if you had a Fiona in your life… Can you imagine if SHE had opened this bottle?”

In a public apology from the beverage distributor, Coca-Cola spokesperson Shannon Denny told ABC News:

“We have spoken to the family to offer our sincerest apologies and to explain the production process to them. This is certainly not an excuse in any way for what has occurred. We wanted them to know that this was in no way intentional and was a mistake on our part during the review process. We also wanted to share that the promotion has since been cancelled and we are no longer producing bottles with those caps.”

OK on the apology. Well done there, but Coca-Cola’s explanation for the mistake was simply ridiculous:

Representatives for Coca-Cola have since stated that the language inside of the cap was the product of a competition pairing one random English word with a second random French word. In French, “retard” means “late” or “delayed.”

To make matters worse, Coca-Cola already had warning that their marketing trick could have unintended consequences. According to GlobalPost.com, “Coca-Cola got a similar complaint from another consumer who had the word “douche” printed on a bottle cap. In French, that’s the word for shower.”

We understand the enormous pressure that’s being exerted upon advertising departments to push out the next edgy, viral campaign, but slow your roll, people. Nobody enjoys having their “brilliant” ideas shot down, but you really do need that guy in the room who’s always asking who could be offended, how other cultures might interpret things, or, just to take a totally random idea, researching what might come up when you combine words from your English and French word lists for a bottle cap promo…

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[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 Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

The Only Form of Problem-Solving

What would you say if I were to say there are no secret processes to be had–just the basic process we can apply to every plan we have to make and every problem we have to solve? I hope you would be flabbergasted, but believe me when I say it is true.

I am talking about process improvement as a result, by not only simplifying the process, but by ensuring more correct answers.

Remember, how were we expected to approach the manager stereotypes of old? There were four character types, but these two are the ones that concern us the most. One expected you “to get the job done,” while the other expected you “to get the job done right.” The latter is our goal. I have always been in that court anyway.

Using our brains, by letting our personal biological computers help us problem-solve is one way, if not the best way “to get the job done right.”

To make effective use of The Process, we use the following 4 ways to solve a problem, form a clear idea, build a plan, etc.–

1. We gather the information
2. We organize the information
3. We deep think, cogitate, meditate or pray about the information, and finally
4. We regurgitate the information in an interesting, and hopefully, creative form, designed for success

Easy, right? I going to make it even easier.

Ever have an obsessive idea about something, one that won’t leave? It’s a little like your “physical” computer when it wants to finish the first action before performing the second action. The issue or ideas are still there in your mind. You may have put up a “wall,” but your mind via your brain is trying help you resolve the issues or complete the idea.

Now, comes the time to deep think, cogitate, meditate or pray. Any will do–whichever makes you most comfortable. Cogitate defines the act best for me, but each term performs a similar action–that of relaxing the brain. Our way of simplifying the process is to let is it rest and you might say, “sleep on it.” What we are doing is letting the facts and ideas come together with our desires, both conscious and un- to complete the Gestalt–the picture.

To cogitate means to think deeply, to contemplate, to meditate on a subject or an idea. In other words, keep the idea general. Don’t connect all the dots just yet. Keep the amounts of information you’ve researched moving via brain waves to various parts of the brain we know nothing about to stir things up until it yields value.

Beforehand, only jot down the basic notes you need to keep the assignment on course.

We all talk about organizing and learning as if there is a best way to gather, organize and regurgitate information. No matter what you’ve been taught about how to process, you still process inside in a way unique to your brain, even though you will perform outwardly what you’ve been taught. You hold onto your thoughts. And, if you can, allow some time for those thoughts to work on their own to help you do what you have to do.

Praying, meditation or just sleeping on a subject does the same thing as cogitating; it allows an idea to roll around in your mind without expectations, without manipulation until a subconscious answer comes to mind. Think about any problem-solving course of training that uses one of these methods. They all allow for a concentration on a verbal or nonverbal, auditory or inaudible statement of thoughts.

Not only that, but holding on to those thoughts instead of worrying about them is a good stress reliever, according to Dr Willis McCann, Professor Emeritus in Psychology at Missouri Western State University. He held a doctorate in psychology, a juris doctorate and a doctor of divinity degree. He taught Mental Health among other subjects while I was there.

We often organize by writing points down as we learn them, taking notes, or do we? But how do you put them in the right order? Note cards? I’ve heard some speakers do that. Cut and paste. Writers do that. I do that. The germ of the idea may come out first. Or, the strongest idea or the best phrase. Or, the solution to a business problem. All the while the brain is listening. Is the brain responsible for the order created out of chaos or are you going to take credit for that?

Ultimately, it will be the internal process that comes up with the answer you really need. After all, you only use 10 percent of your computer brain, but the rest of it is there and we don’t know of what it is capable, especially when you give it a chance to focus. Imagine if you could use all the memory and knowledge stored in your computer to solve just one problem.

So, keep an open mind about what you have formally written. You may want to change it later before someone else comes up with the better idea.

For me, it may be a new scene, a solution to problem in novel itself, or a new character that I hadn’t thought of but was there in my subconscious. See where that cogitating can be helpful. I included “thinking,” “meditating,” and “praying” because the result is the same: relaxing the mind so that it has time to help you put ideas together. Remember, your brain is a computer, too. Of course, like any computer, it’s only as good as the input you put in, but your biological computer can be affected by outside factors, including emotions and health, for example.

Sleeping on ideas can help, but only if worry or agitation don’t get in the way.

Imagine the insight that can come to one man or woman working alone. Imagine you are that one man or woman who has thought this problem through consciously (and subconsciously) and come to the meeting ready to provide good creative feedback. You will be confident and prepared.

I am not advocating never taking notes or never putting anything in writing until that last minute; I am saying it’s better to get it “done right,” instead of “just get it done.” Leave the ending open and flexible so you can change the answer easily. Make your deadline, and if nothing changes, you will know you’ve done your best and stress free.

My approach is often looking at training and development from outside. By doing so I hope to shed light on areas that may not be noticeable to the players involved. In this case, even though my experiences are different, our minds work the the same way.

I write commentary. That is not to say, I am clueless about training. I have been a trainer, training developer and training manager at the corporate-level, and freelanced my training services as well as coached executives in speech for many years. However, my background is unusual. I hope that gives me unusual insight as well. I may go off on a tangent to keep us all on our toes, but I try to leave readers with something to think about.

Feel free to contact me with a comment, or with a request to be a guest writer. I welcome opposing views, and trainers who wish to speak on other topics. Be generic and talk about the industry you represent without selling your own services. We will, however, link to you and your company with the hope you will link back to us.

*Just a short note to let you know I have shut down my website and re-named my Acting Smarts blog to Shaw’s Reality, which reflects my more eclectic writing these days and I use instead of my website. Still doing some acting, directing and performance criticism; however, I am more involved in writing these days and want to focus there. I promise straight talk and to be cryptic about anything on my site, which is meant to enlighten those who read between the lines. Harry’s Reality is still on sale at Amazon will be available through all other ebook distributors and directly through Smashwords in all digital formats after September 30th.

Happy training.

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

A Guest Post by Tony Poderis

In my opinion, there are limits (compared to the business sector) for nonprofit organizations regarding the building of their markets, the percent return on activities, investment for the future, general operational efficiencies, and some business practices and tools.

There are things nonprofit organizations simply cannot do, which are second nature to businesses seeking to improve their bottom line. To my way of thinking, nonprofits cannot operate like businesses, but they certainly can work in a businesslike manner.

There are indeed many similar and interchangeable tools and components comprising the marketing of a commercial product and the services provided by a nonprofit organization – and for fundraising. But at the beginning and the end of that marketing process the differences are as wide apart as they can be. And they are practical and understandable. That’s why we have the for-profit and nonprofit sectors in the first place.

— A for-profit (business) has a Mission to serve the market, which means its reason for being is to provide something of value and at the best price and quality in the marketplace.

A business is bottom-line-driven. The results are based on a goal to profit and a return on investment for its shareholders. (Easy to quantify and measure.)

— A nonprofit (charity) has a Mission for the public good, its reason for being is to provide something of value in life.

A nonprofit is not bottom-line-driven. The results are based on a goal to provide needed services and to increase and better the quality of life for the beneficiaries. (Highly subjective, next to impossible to measure.)

To operate at optimum effectiveness, a nonprofit needs to work to maximize its potential to produce income – within the confines of its Mission Statement. This is a very important distinction from a business free to retool and reposition and downsize in the market at any time.

Act more like a business, or be more businesslike?

At the Cleveland Orchestra, when we were asked about our limited profit-making capabilities, vis-à-vis those of local businesses/corporations, we responded (half-jokingly) that we could not increase our productivity or efficiency with an eye to greater product management, even if we played a Beethoven symphony faster than it was played 200 years ago.

We could not speed up our assembly line, nor could we reduce the number of violinists required through automation. If what we produced was symphonic music, we could not cut costs by turning ourselves into a chamber orchestra and still produce our symphonic-music.

Unlike a business having a “loss leader,” we had nothing to “sell” below cost in the hope that “customers” who bought it would also buy other profit-making things.

Unlike for-profits, which usually thrive and aggressively pursue new and expanding markets, our Cleveland orchestra could not work to build market demand outside of our area of service. We would have been in competition with like organizations performing in their own communities. Those other communities’ civic pride would always win out. And, duplication of effort does not work well with the wishes and guidelines of donors and other granting entities.

We had no money, nor the need, for future “R & D,” when our hard and fixed costs were at home, year after year paying the salaries of 105 of the world’s best musicians.

Businesslike, yes. Like a business? Not a chance.

———————————————————–

Have a question or comment about the above posting? You can Ask Tony. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com .

————————————————————

Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks? They’re easy to read, to the point, and cheap ($1.99 – $3.99)

————————————————————–

If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

Here’s a suggested framework from my colleague Jim Kucher (founder/managing director, Income for Outcomes).

A viable social enterprise must have:

• A viable social change theory (what makes you think you can actually effect the change you seek)
• Market opportunity analysis (both social and commercial – who is in this space, what are they doing, why is that not working)
• Venture feasibility study (again, social and commercial – are there enough customers, can you price competitively, etc.)
• Match to mission (sadly, not focused on nearly enough IMHO)
• Capital access plan (ok,so who’s gonna pay for this, and what is the plan for return on investment)
• Exit strategy (not just financial but social- how will you know when you have effected the change you seek)

Therefore, assisting in developing each of these becomes our work, and the way we go about that work becomes the “code”.