How Not to Make a Reputation Crisis Worse

Michael Toebe, founder and specialist at Reputation Quality

There is so much that can be done, much of it simple, to avoid a crisis of reputation. Yet sometimes, because of our own mistakes or errors or problems we didn’t anticipate, we find ourselves in a crisis anyway. In those situations, ‘what now?’

Ronn Torossian, the founder and chairman of 5W Public Relations, has some ideas that I can discuss a little today.

In his article, 8 actions that can make a PR crisis worse, Torossian advises you what not to do. Because there is wisdom in what he says, I’m sharing it here. Everything below is Torossian except where I share my insights.

Lying

Since the point of managing a PR crisis comes down to managing public perception, lying about the crisis or about the involved parties can make the situation worse. Because of social media, the perception the public has of an organization will stay in the public’s memory for a long time. Lying during a crisis will paint the organization in a bad light.

Reputation Quality analysis: Be careful. The temptation to deceive might be tempting, irresistible even in the moment to decrease or prevent additional criticism and pressure and mitigate consequences yet that decision and behavior is a dangerous road to travel down.

Critics will tear you apart for lies in the present and near future and remember those for much longer than you imagine, continue to use them against you for years. The costs will be higher and more painful.

Disappearing

While disappearing from the public eye used to be a good strategy a few decades ago, it is an impossibility now. When the representatives of an organization disappear without addressing a crisis, it does not bode well for the reputation of the organization. It is crucial for the leaders of the organization to step up and face the crisis head-on, instead of hiding without doing much about it.

Reputation Quality analysis: May I share a hard truth, unpalatable as it may be to read? Going into hiding, so to speak and hoping everything will blow over and people will forget, while a natural human survival reaction, rarely works. This might sound like an overstatement but here’s something critical to remember:

“In a crisis, don't hide behind anything or anybody. They're going to find you anyway,” the late, great college football coach Bear Bryant said.

You let others control the narrative which might not be entirely accurate or even true at all. This will add fuel to the fires of anger and rage that might be happening.

Plus, the internet remembers almost everything and people can find almost anything online and with other sources if they are truly looking or digging.

Better yet to effectively manage the stress and anxiety and navigate what needs to be done, all of it, and skillfully and thoroughly, to meet cultural expectations and mitigate present and future danger and damages.

Deflecting responsibility

Credibility is important—not just during a crisis, but during less tumultuous times as well. When an organization plays the blame game, or deflects responsibility for the crisis, it loses its credibility. The representatives of an organization should refrain from issuing denials or shifting blame before they have all the relevant facts with them.

Reputation Quality analysis: Deflecting responsibility is not a common error yet it does happen. When it does, it is, respectfully said, a dumb decision.

I’m not saying that other people or other factors may not have contributed to a crisis. That is entirely possible. Yet choose not to be arrogant or appear to be arrogant, shift responsibility and scapegoat. Did I mention, “dumb?”

Oh, I did. That’s because it is just that and it comes with a high price: negative judgment, derision and behavior that needlessly and foolishly escalates problems instead of de-escalating them.

Minimizing the crisis

Being dismissive is a less-than-stellar quality—and something an organization should refrain from at all costs when they are facing a crisis. It might be tempting for the leader or the communications head to issue a statement regarding their ignorance. But such a statement can cause more harm than good for the reputation of the organization.

Reputation Quality analysis: This does happen, yet I personally see it rarely. That said, it is unwise to believe stakeholders will believe and tolerate this type of thinking, decision-making and communication. In other words, don’t do it. It’s amateurish.

Trivializing the crisis

Any representative of the organization should refrain from making jokes or inappropriate remarks about the crisis. Instead of seeming light-hearted, it can often come across as malicious, disrespectful, or convey a lack of seriousness regarding the crisis.

Reputation Quality analysis: This is another error that I rarely see. But I’ve definitely witnessed it. The reaction it creates is predictable. It’s not good. Choose “no” on this type of thoughtless reaction or planned response.

Issuing platitudes

Issuing general platitudes instead of a true holding statement can prove to be detrimental for an organization. Statements such as “We are working on the issue” or “We are taking the matter seriously” are considered to be generic and convey no real information. Issuing platitudes can often backfire since it does not add anything significant to the narrative.

Reputation Quality analysis: This occurs frequently and honestly, is communications leadership malpractice. Do it and you look like a con man or con woman (or con non binary) if you believe this approach, if it’s all you say without sincere admission of responsibility and details about corrections and “when” and how problems will be addressed and solved.

Bringing focus back to the issue

While the organization should take responsibility for the issue, repeatedly bringing up the crisis can have the opposite effect. It does not convey that the parties are taking responsibility – and it keeps the perception of the public on the crisis. One of the tenets of crisis management is focusing on the positive and remaining proactive. Prioritizing negative aspects can prove detrimental to crisis management.

Reputation Quality analysis: I’m a big proponent of providing sincere, detailed and meaningful status reports within a crisis yet it is possible to over-communicate if you are communicating nothing of value, are being insincere or say something that is much more revealing that is expected to know by your various audiences.

Wasting time

When a crisis strikes, it brings panic with it. The shareholders, board members, and employees may experience anxiety and want explanations. The teams in charge of managing the crisis, such as the legal counsel or the communications team, may have ideas or inputs that they might want to convey. But in a crisis, time is of the essence – and it cannot be wasted.

Using the limited time available to hold internal meetings or reassuring the members of the organization can make the crisis worse. The efficient management of time can help an organization deal with the aftermath of a crisis.

Reputation Quality analysis: A sense of urgency is important. The late, great college basketball coach John Wooden had a useful saying, “hurry but don’t rush.” Time is of the essence in a crisis when it comes to communicating yet being sloppy is not the answer either.

So often people and organizations are so afraid of saying anything, for legal protection, that they dawdle and say nothing or say something ridiculously pointless or foolish.

These are intelligent, educated, successful people in most instances, proving again that intelligent, educated, successful people can make poor decisions and communicate without foresight and skill. This is why it’s helpful to have specialists in the fold.