A crisis can be challenging enough without having to resolve disagreements and conflicts about when and how the situation should be addressed. A current example of what can happen when people can’t agree on how to manage a crisis is the headline-making drama of the protests against the deportation of immigrants that’s now playing out in California.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom mounted a legal challenge to President Donald Trump federalization of the state’s National Guard as part of his response to the protests in a small section of Los Angeles. From a crisis management perspective, the lawsuit and public disagreements about the handling of the protests might have been avoided if all the parties had met to discuss the options and consequences before they had said or done anything, considered their responses to worst-case scenarios, and took steps to avoid counterproductive harmful outcomes.
Business executives should take these lessons to heart to help ensure that they do not make similar mistakes before and when a crisis strikes their organizations.
Avoid Creating A Crisis Within A Crisis
In the corporate world, disagreements between management teams, boards of directors, legal counsel, and others about how a crisis should be handled can paralyze any response to a crisis and make matters worse. Those internal conflicts can send the wrong message to the public and stakeholders about the ability or willingness of organizations to address a crisis, and damage an organization’s credibility, reputation, and profits.
The failure to create a clear and unobstructed path for responding to a crisis could create a crisis within a crisis for organizations. “When [a] crisis hits, the single most common obstacle to resolution isn’t the issue itself—it’s ego. Boards want to lead. Legal wants to control. [Communicators] want to shape [the message.] Everyone wants to be the alpha in the room. And when there’s no clear understanding of roles ahead of time, the result is chaos,” Lewis Goldberg, managing partner at KCSA Strategic Communications, told me in an email interview.
When companies and organizations prepare for a possible crisis, it is important that they consider and mitigate all factors that could delay or hamper their response to an unfolding situation. That includes who needs to approve and sign-off on actions to address the crisis and identify other roadblocks that could stand in the way of managing the situation. Otherwise, the result could be chaos, confusion, and conflicts.
“The key to avoiding conflict is to plan and prepare beforehand. Develop a plan which explicitly sets out decision-making authority. Get the team together to scenario plan potential crises and discuss decisions that would need to be made. Agree in principle decisions to be ratified if the crisis occurs. Set criteria or triggers for certain courses of action, such as whether to pay a ransom in the event of a ransomware attack,” Jonathan Hemus, managing director and crisis management consultant at Insignia, a crisis management training and planning firm, observed in an mail message to me.
Resolving Differences
When differences arise on how to manage a crisis, it’s important to reach a consensus as soon as possible and ensure that no one acts on their own without authorization. “Any differences within a company involving a crisis or how to handle it should remain behind closed doors. I find it best to get key players in the same room to discuss it. Online conferencing is my second choice. This is the cleanest way to handle differences, even though it can also be the most challenging,” Baruch Labunski, CEO of
Rank Secure, told me in an email interview.
“Once a plan is established, no one should alter or move off the plan. It must be a unified message presented in announcements or press conferences with no press leaks,” he advised.
By testing responses to different crisis scenarios, business leaders can identify areas that need to be strengthened or improved. This could include clearing up any confusion or doubt about who will be in charge when a crisis strikes, and who will speak to the media and the public on behalf of the company. “Establish clear roles and decision paths long before a crisis begins. You can’t sort out who’s in charge when things are already falling apart,” Nikki Jain, CEO of the Sprout PR, said in an email message to me. “Designate a crisis response lead with authority to act. Every crisis needs a final decision-maker, usually the CEO or an appointed crisis officer. This person must have the authority to make fast calls after hearing input from all sides. Without a clear lead, conversations loop, and the window to control the narrative closes,” she advised.
There are plenty of examples of how federal, state, and local governments have conferred, collaborated, and cooperated before or when a crisis strikes. This is especially true as concerns nature-related disasters when FEMA works with governors and mayors to help respond to hurricanes, floods, etc.
Other examples include the coordinated federal, state, and local response to the collapse of the Key Bridge in the Baltimore Harbor, the collision of a passenger jet and army helicopter near Reagan National Airport, etc. In this last instance, the Trump Administration worked closely with the mayor of DC and local state authorities to respond in a collaborative and cooperative way and ignored their political differences.
In the case of the Los Angeles protests, if all parties involved has set said their political differences, they could have at least tried to address the protests the same way the have responded to other crisis situation against the backdrop and requirements of federal and state constitutions.
The immigration deportation protests drama continues to play out California. A federal appeals court will consider arguments on Tuesday whether to uphold a decision on a lower court that President Donald Trump acted illegally when he federalized the National Guard as part of the controversial steps he’s taken in response to the protests.
Other governors and mayors will be watching the outcome closely for clues and guidance on how they should respond to immigration deportation protests in their states. Business leaders should pay close attention as well for any new lessons on how to manage a corporate crisis and learn from the mistakes and successes of others.