What To Do When Things Go Wrong: Part II, Essential Steps In Crisis Management
by Paul Ruden /Photo: Joi Ito.
In the situation we considered last month, we introduced the subject of crisis management with the principle that the first crucial step is to acknowledge the concerns of the other party. This action creates the initial foundation of trust on which to build the rest of the crisis response. Keep in mind that the success of crisis management depends on all of the elements working together.
The second key step is to decide how to determine the facts that produced the dispute. Here, again, the natural temptation is to engage in unilateral action: “we’ll look into it and get back to you.” That approach is not a trust-builder. It may appear to the complaining party, and the media in our hypothetical case, to be a defensive maneuver designed to slant the narrative in the agency’s favor.
The better approach is to create a process of joint fact-finding in which the other party is permitted, indeed encouraged, to play a role in working toward a common understanding of what actually happened and what the consequences were. By engaging the complaining party in building that factual understanding, the aggrieved person will be encouraged to be less emotional and to see the agency as a potential ally in resolving the problem. This is far superior to a “move to your corner and prepare to fight” atmosphere that often results from excluding the other party from the fact-search.
The form this engagement takes will vary with the circumstances. An agreed exchange of written statements is one approach. Depending on the parties’ location, it may be desirable to propose a face-to-face meeting to review the “evidence” and discuss possible outcomes. If the aggrieved party has shown a lot of emotion, and the amount in dispute is large enough, it may be helpful to have a neutral third party present to mediate the discussion. While you will want to discuss the options for this process with the agency’s attorney, having your attorney present is not a good idea at this stage.
The goal here is to get to the bottom of the problem and open possible avenues of resolution without prematurely agreeing to anything definitive.
The risk, of course, is that the consumer may discover facts that add to her frustration and anger. Your attorney may well argue that enlisting the client in joint fact-finding may expose the agency to liability that it could escape by taking a totally defensive position. This brings us to the third element of crisis management technique.
The idea is, at an early stage in the process, to offer contingent commitments to minimize impacts if they have occurred. This seems like a big open-ended commitment by the agency, but consider the alternative: a potentially drawn-out fight in the public space (the media is already on the case!) in which the agency’s mistake may lead to liability anyway. It is also relevant that you are dealing with a client who may be induced to bring you more business, and become a marketer for your agency with her friends, if she believes the agency has treated her fairly. We will return to this concept in the final installment.
The combination of enlisting the aggrieved consumer in determining the facts together with the agency, while providing assurances that if damage occurred, you intend to make good on it, can defuse an escalating situation and produce an outcome that benefits both parties. This is the concept of “mutual gains,” which is the key motivation for dealing with crises in the manner suggested. The goal is to make everyone a winner rather than the traditional outcome of “one wins, the other loses.” The financial and other costs of an ongoing, potentially public, dispute strongly point to a de-escalation mutual gains approach.
Next month, we will wrap up this series by considering the final three elements of crisis management: Accepting responsibility, admitting mistakes, and sharing power, while acting in a trustworthy fashion at all times and focusing on building long-term relationships.