We often see news about public blunders and corporate mistakes that do lasting damage to an organization.
As a consequence, we see how leaders have to leave the companies they founded; sponsors who cut ties with causes or personalities; fines imposed by regulators and, consumers who choose not to invest time or resources due to a crisis that stigmatizes a brand and affects its credibility.
The crisis does not discriminate, and the responsibility of managing it will fall on the shoulders of the main leaders, so there is always the temptation to bring out the “heavy cavalry”, from the beginning. The goal in dealing with the crisis is to minimize or completely neutralize it and resume regular operations as soon as possible. But there’s a leadership strategy misstep that too many companies make in the search for a quick fix.
By definition, a crisis is a fluid situation. It is unknown what its course will be. As it evolves, it will require you to go out and deliver a series of messages, so it’s a good idea to keep one or two senior executives in reserve. Excessive turnover in an initial response could raise questions about judgment, proportionality, the perceived scale of the crisis, among others.
But, for the CEO to speak first during a crisis is a measure that could worsen the situation and its consequences. Every crisis or conflict management scenario is different. Always using your CEO as the reference spokesperson should not be automatic.
The CEO should be guarded as the option to contain a crisis when it grows to a level that warrants his presence and reassuring authority. The CEO’s credibility is a crucial asset and must be preserved.
It is common, that at the beginning of a crisis, complete or verified information is not available. If the CEO is exposed to misstatements or facts early on, it will be challenging to restore that credibility with customers, regulators, and employees. There is a concept called “red velvet rope politics”. This means providing less access to those who matter. By the nature of his position, the CEO has restricted access with a metaphorical “red velvet rope” around him. For that reason, they normally shouldn’t be the first to speak up during a crisis.
On the other hand, if the CEO leads as the primary spokesperson, stakeholders are much less likely to accept or believe in a secondary messenger. Once you hear the voice of God, why settle for an angel? For this reason, it is best to start with executives with some authority, specialists in issues related to the event, and then move up to the CEO if necessary. A measured response is required for each crisis, including a final option to de-escalate the situation if required. That’s where the CEO comes in.
Crises can be all-consuming and can be a full-time job. We must allow the CEO to run the company and not be consumed by the crisis. It is better to defer business continuity during a crisis to a competent executive who is closer to the situation. He must keep his superior informed, but strive to prevent her from getting involved in both issues.
Perhaps the most egregious example is that of former BP CEO Tony Hayward at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. His public comments shortly after the environmental disaster were unprecedented in tone: selfish and incendiary. He looked visibly fatigued and emaciated as the crisis dragged on. Ninety days after the spill, Hayward’s comments worsened unimaginably, creating a chaotic situation that resulted in his exit from BP.
The leader’s role is to connect, motivate and inspire others and show true empathy with humility and candor. He assesses each crisis and tries not to respond with a hasty reaction. There may be times when it is necessary for the CEO to be the first to appear; every crisis is different. Just be careful that it’s not the last thing you do in the organization.