Force For Good Communications

Crisis Communications Lessons from Utah Mine CEO Bob Murray: Belligerence Is Not a Strategy

(I wrote this post as an Op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. It ran today in edited form at this link.... I think it's safe to say that Bob Murray has now moved into the lead for the coveted 2007 "PR Disaster of the Year" award.)

As the saga of the Utah mine collapse moves “from disaster to catastrophe’ to, inevitably, a place beyond our collective front-page consciousness, the national media leave Crandall Canyon families to mourn their losses. Reflecting on the news coverage of the tragedy, we are left to ponder the strange legacy of the chairman of the mining company, Bob Murray, and his bizarre style of crisis communications.

...

The 67-year-old Murray was in Montana when he heard of the collapse. He hopped on a private jet and was on the scene within hours, taking command of the rescue operation. He provided media with frequent updates. All this was textbook PR in the best sense. The presence of the concerned CEO on the scene of a disaster has been understood to be essential to successful crisis management since Exxon’s CEO infamously took far too long to travel to Valdez, Alaska, in 1989 to take stock of one of history’s worst environmental disasters.

. 

But Murray broke so many rules of crisis communications he had news anchors questioning on-air what they had just witnessed. From his first briefings, Murray angrily denounced the media (seldom a winning strategy) and blamed union organizers for suggesting that the dangerous practice of “retreat mining” had led to the mine’s collapse. He blasted environmentalists for their crusade against global warming, calling it an affront to the coal industry and to the American economy.

.

Crisis communications experts universally panned Murray’s rantings as “callous,” “damaging” and “not helpful” to the families of the trapped miners.

.

Murray insisted that an earthquake had caused the mine collapse, then doggedly held to his theory despite all evidence to the contrary. Seismologists concluded that the collapse itself had caused tremors detected in the area. In a crisis, there always is the temptation to provide answers before all the facts are in, and to hold onto beliefs even as new evidence contradicts what we want to believe. This truism was underscored last year at the Sago mine disaster when the public was told that buried miners were alive (when in fact all but one had been killed), setting off jubilation among relatives that would be dashed hours later when disaster officials finally admitted they had been wrong.

.

When three rescuers were killed by a further cave in, and each passing day dimmed any reasonable hope that the six trapped miners were still alive, Murray dropped out of sight, leaving a subordinate to conduct the briefings. Without any explanation for Murray’s disappearance one was left to assume that he was made to understand that his abrasive style did not fit the increasingly grim mood.

.

Clearly there are lessons to be learned from Murray’s failings as a crisis communicator. Corporate executives need to work with public relations to develop effective crisis communications plans before a disaster strikes. They need training to be able to speak clearly in times of great stress, and to avoid the urge to talk about causal factors before all the facts are known or to debate critics when the sole focus of comments should be on the safety and welfare of the victims of the crisis. 

.

Crisis readiness begins with an audit of potential vulnerabilities. Preparing for a future crisis does not mean one considers a crisis an acceptable event; indeed a thorough crisis audit may uncover deficiencies in critical systems that can be addressed to lessen the possibility of a crisis occurring. Responsible executives understand that things can and do go wrong despite their best efforts, and they understand the value of preparing for emergencies in advance.

.

Crisis communications properly conducted is not spin or damage control. It is the calm and honest disposition of information that critical stakeholders need at a time when the set of known “facts” is incomplete and may be changing by the minute. Media demand immediate answers and will not hesitate to speculate to fill voids in information. Critics will criticize. It is the job of the spokesperson to rise above the melee.

.

It doesn’t have to be pretty. It is a measure of the cynicism that the public holds for slick and overly scripted spokespeople that Murray’s unpolished, bellicose presence struck many as refreshingly candid.

“Despite [Murray’s] occasional moments of near-insanity, I suspect he's better liked by the general public than he would be if he'd gone by the crisis communication book and said all the right things with controlled corporate somber,” David Murray wrote on his public relations blog “Shades of Gray.”

.

Indeed, in times of crisis, spokespeople should trust in the redeeming power of authentic and candid communication. One must prepare for the worst and put in place plans for dealing with crisis while hoping never to have to use the plans. If and when tragedy strikes, the plan provides only the structure for coping successfully – the spokesperson must connect with stakeholders by being real, true and utterly human.

.

We empathize with the leader who bravely steps up in a time of peril. We readily forgive an unpolished and even shaky presentation as long as we feel in our hearts the spokesperson is being truthful to us, a feeling Murray has not always inspired.

.

- Jon Harmon

Public Relations as Reputation Management: Beyond the Roles of Mouthpiece and Mop-up Crew

Back in March, I wrote a post about an experience I had as a speaker following the legendary Harold Burson at the Texas Public Relations Association’s annual meeting. Burson and I subsequently exchanged emails on the subject of reputation management and the future of the PR profession. Burson's next post on his blog further developed his thoughts on the roles of PR professional beyond a narrow definition of communications, a theme he has spoken about for more than 30 years. This post on Force for Good picks up from those conversations.)

.

The role of the corporate communications professional is rapidly changing, responding to the sea changes all around us: the rise of consumer-generated social media, globalization, the incredible personalization of information technology, greater expectations on corporations for transparency and social responsibility, and increasingly inter-connected stakeholder groups including often-adversarial activists.

.

Corporate and agency public relations professionals must do more than merely adapt to these sweeping changes in the communications dynamic. Corporations need their PR professionals to move beyond helping them communicate to stakeholders (the traditional role of corporate mouthpiece); they need guidance on how to engage in fluid conversations (that means listening as well as talking, respectfully understanding the new rules of engagement). And they need their PR professionals to be an important input into the business, to participate “at the table” when business decisions are made rather than serving only as a mop-up crew called in to clean up a messy situation. Participation at the table requires PR professionals to understand the business thoroughly to be respected by the company’s operations as a full partner in making decisions that may affect the company’s reputation and the value of its brands.

.

This evolution beyond passive corporate communicator to active reputation manager elevates the value and importance of our profession. That’s an exciting, if not wholly new, development. More than 30 years ago, Harold Burson began speaking about a role for public relations beyond the communications function. Here are some lifts from a speech of his entitled “Social Responsibility or‘Telescopic Philanthropy: The Choice is Ours” (forgive his exclusive use of masculine nouns and pronouns, bearing in mind this prescient speech dates back to 1973):

.

The public relations executive provides a qualitative evaluation of social trends.  He helps formulate policies that will enable the corporation to adapt to these trends.  And he communicates – both internally and externally – the reasons for those policies.  Public relations, I’d like to emphasize, is involved in all the steps – from analysis through action to communications – a corporation must take to meet its obligations to the public.  And those obligations are numerous and constantly changing. 

.

Burson then dissects his vision for this expanded role for public relations:

.

In a sense, the public relations professional doing his job for the modern corporation fulfills a role that may be divided into four parts:

>

First, he serves as the sensor of social change.  He perceives those rumblings at the heart of the society that augur good or ill for his organization.  In a way, he is like a radar man.  He gives early warning.  And, after detecting the yearnings and stirrings, he interprets the signals for the management team.

.

His perceptions, of course, cannot be founded on intuitive judgments and guesswork.  He must be objective and analytical; he can bring the insights of the social sciences to bear upon his conclusions.  In analyzing change, he must have a strong sense of reality.  He must identify the situation as it really is, not as he imagines it to be.  He must be able to separate enduring social changes from current fads….

.

The second role which the public relations man must fulfill is that of corporate conscience.  I trust you will not infer from this that a person must be a public relations professional to be sensitive – or that public relations people behave in ways that are either more moral and ethical or more in the public interest than executives with different titles.  There are others in the corporate hierarchy who may possess the same amount or even more of these attributes than the individuals responsible for public relations.  But the fact is that being the professional corporate conscience is not part of the job description of other executives.  It is part of the job description of the chief public relations officer.

.

The third major role of the public relations professional is that of communicator.  The tendency is to think that communications is his only role.  That is hardly the case although it is an important function.

.

Communications relating to social issues moves in two directions – internally and externally.  Most often, the emphasis is placed on external communications.  Although external communications is important, it is, in many respects, secondary to and dependent upon an effective internal communication program.…

.

The fourth function of the public relations professional is to serve as corporate monitor.  I am tempted to use the word ombudsman here, for I think it is in the spirit of an ombudsman that the public relations officer should regard his job. Obviously, he can’t be an ombudsman in the strictest sense of the word. But since public relations is involved with public issues, there is a need for constant monitoring of corporate policies and programs to make sure that they do, indeed, match public expectations. If the programs are not functioning or if they fall short of expectations, it is his job to agitate for new programs and new policies. It seems to me quite natural for the public relations practitioner to adopt this posture. If he fails to do so, he fails to live up to the requirements of his job.

.

Perhaps what we are saying is that social accountability is just another management art that corporations are going to have to learn.  In the long run, the corporation which does the best job of managing its operations will also do the best job of adapting to social needs.

.

That’s a lot to chew on – and amazingly as on-point today as it was during the time of the Vietnam War and Watergate. In my next post, I’ll add my thoughts and take it a step further yet – moving beyond the “seat at the table.”

.

- Jon Harmon