By Mary Beth West, APR

One of the most common foul-ups that organizations encounter in crisis response – apart from not having a crisis plan itself – is a lack of internal teamwork and collaboration.  The result: a crisis rages on while those in charge of responding to it encounter their own self-created roadblocks, fed by a lack of internal communication, information-sharing and mutually agreed-upon roles.

Here are some elements of this problem and how to deal with them:

• Effective crisis planning and response can’t happen in a silo.  If a company’s operations and communications departments haven’t worked hand-in-hand to create their crisis plan from the outset, then the company really doesn’t have a functional plan at all.  On the Ops side, every front-line employee may initially know where to go and what to do if an emergency ensues.  However, if communications processes and information flow start breaking down either interpersonally or through media channels, then operational processes can be hindered, if not completely derailed.  Which makes the case for the next point:
• Adequate crisis communication is not limited to media relations.  While it’s critical to have an information-management strategy in place for media coverage of a crisis, modern crisis plans don’t treat traditional media as the silver bullet for adequate communications response.  This reality is particularly true with online and social media so prominent now. 

For example, if managing employee communications is not treated as a top priority – if not the top priority in the early crisis stages – then the company risks losing support from its best pathway out of the crisis: well-informed, focused, loyal employees.  Direct outreach to employees (and, possibly, to their families if a crisis involves employee safety), customers, community members, investors / donors and other stakeholders should be included in the plan, with a system for reporting updates and ongoing developments.

• Operations is in charge of actions, while Communications is in charge of messages – and in a crisis, these two functions must be in sync.  A brilliant communications strategy won’t quick-fix a company’s reputation if Operations can’t resolve a fundamentally broken product or service – and it shouldn’t be expected to.  The public generally forgives problems that are solved through a definitive, visible and well-communicated course of action, even if it takes awhile.  On the flipside, the public is categorically unforgiving of being played as fools with a “move along – there’s nothing to see here” type of message, intended to downplay obvious product or service failures.  When things aren’t going smoothly and a company faces a high-risk communications void, this next point can be helpful.
• When communicating about a company’s crisis response efforts, it pays to get specific – conservatively.  Don’t just say, “We’re taking every measure to address the problem” and leave it at that.  Doubtful customers, investors, media and members of the public won’t necessarily take management’s word for it, particularly for prolonged time periods. 

Spell out what’s being done at an appropriate level of detail.  Use this opportunity to manage public expectations.  If the problem is complex, explain why – at least at a high level.  Don’t skew reasonable expectations by suggesting there is a simple solution or by speculating on unknown factors.  Instead, explain action steps being taken incrementally, and report significant measures toward a crisis resolution that demonstrate progress.  Yet again, close teamwork between internal departments is critical to know what, when and how to communicate. 

• In everyday work as well as in crisis mode, the CEO is essentially a company’s Chief Reputation Officer and must lead the team accordingly.  Corporate reputation in the wake of a crisis isn’t repaired nearly as much by what the chief executive says as how he or she leads.  Part of that leadership requires the CEO to be sure the entire management team is working together collaboratively to resolve a crisis without individual people, departments or divisions resorting to turf-protection or isolationism.  CEOs must hold their executives accountable not to stymie the work of other team members with counterproductive behaviors.  A thoughtful crisis preparedness plan will spell out team crisis-resolution roles and processes in advance to help prevent infighting or internal information bottlenecks, which only serve to exacerbate problems. 

Crises are chaotic enough without the added burden of internal management inefficiencies.  When CEOs and their teams understand challenges that may arise and work together to resolve them, then the real crisis issue at hand can be tackled quicker, with less reputational and financial fallout.