The value of responding, not reacting | Digital Letterpress: Part 16
As someone concerned with communication, I strive to always be prepared with words (obviously) and my actions. Communicators for organizations are tasked with the same responsibility of preparation, carrying the weight of the organization on their shoulders. In our socially-minded society led by interconnected technology, it seems impossible for organizations to always have answers or responses at a moment’s notice. For this reason, communication specialists work to create crisis response systems that can be turned to when a situation hits.
Why invest so much energy in creating responses before the spotlight of the public hits the organization? The key to successful interaction with audiences looking for answers lies within responding to the crisis instead of reacting to it.
Those two terms seem like the same thing, and on paper, they do resemble in definition, but putting them to use in real life can evoke completely different results. Jon Mertz, a leading mind in the field of building Business Leaders, explains the subtle difference between responding and reacting in a post on thindifference.com. He terms a response as being “thoughtful.” Whereas with reactions our “emotions take a central role,” responding is guided more “by logic.”
Mertz goes on to say: “Responding may be passive in nature, as we are going second in a series. However, a response is more active, and it can change the direction of an interaction. The upside of a solid response is an engaging conversation, all positive and all civil. We learn. We grow. We listen. We respond. We act forthrightly and from within.”
For organizations facing crises and an expectant public eye, then, the route to success should follow that of a response instead of reaction. When responding to a crisis, the goal should be to be civil, collected, prepared, and ready to change the direction of the current interaction. Doing these things will ensure confidence and not backpedaling through a controversy, emotionally trying to answer questions or demands. Being communicative, open, and calm will help keep organizations away from public snafus on top of any potential controversies at the hand of the crisis.
An organization that recently could have benefited from better preparation and execution of a crisis communication plan is Blue Bell. The company, now finally on the market again, nearly went bankrupt due to a listeria contamination announced last year, forcing the ice cream maker to recall its entire product line. The reason for the outbreak might not necessarily have been Blue Bell’s fault. Their response, however, could have been handled differently and could have prevented further injury to the company and its public perception.
Peter Elkind of Fortune Magazine cites a slow and staged process for Blue Bell dealing with the news of possible contamination. Instead of alerting the public immediately and pulling everything off the shelves before it hit the fan, they tried to fix the problem internally and in small chunks. Over the period of a few months, more news began to surface, and illnesses began to be tied to the company.
Elkind describes Blue Bell’s response to the crisis, explaining that it was less than stellar:
“The episode reveals not only how difficult it is to trace the source of food-borne illness but also what happens when a company is slow to tackle the causes—and doesn’t come clean with its customers. Experts say Blue Bell’s responses this year were an example of “recall creep.” That occurs when executives hope that taking limited action—as the company did five times when informed of findings of listeria—will solve the problem and minimize commercial damage, only to find themselves forced to expand the recall repeatedly.”
Organizations responding to the public should never be described as “creep”-ing along. One might say that Blue Bell in every stage of this process was reacting, always on the defensive, playing catch-up to breaking news and difficult questions. Instead of responding early, being transparent, and acting upon the initial news, they chose to backpedal throughout the recall stages.
Lynn Perry Wooten and Erika Hayes James describe the need for transparency during crisis situations in their article “Linking Crisis Management and Leadership Competencies: The Role of Human Resource Development.” Had Blue Bell reflected this mindset, things might look different for them:
“Moreover, effective crisis leaders will be proactive and forthcoming in their communication during a crisis and will adopt a posture of acknowledgment and accountability (James & Wooten, 2006)—actual fault notwithstanding. What often hurts a firm in crisis is a lack of transparency and communication messages that are interpreted as defensive.”
The description offered by Wooten and James echoes the sentiments of Mertz presented earlier in this post. “Defensive” interactions from companies fall under the reaction category and lead to negative outcomes with audiences. Organizations and individuals who always act in defense will never get ahead and will always scramble to reach their audiences with the correct tone, timing, and content. Blue Bell’s slow reaction to its production crisis nearly killed the company. Although it is slowly turning its fortune around, perhaps its fate would have been less negative if it had been transparent with the public from the beginning. Now, it faces the ongoing scrutiny of public perception as well as further criminal investigation from the Department of Justice. The whole predicament serves as a lesson for organizations thinking and planning about potential crisis communication systems. Getting caught like Blue Bell is not a good goal for such businesses. Instead, they should strive for be preparation and better execution.
Elkind’s Fortune article cites Johnson & Johnson’s handling of controversy in 1982 as a good example of a company responding to crisis in the right way. According to Elkind, “the brand famously saved its reputation by swiftly recalling every bottle of the medication.” So the difference between Blue Bell and Johnson & Johnson lies in the speed and manner of their responses. One tried to attack the controversy in stages, ultimately faltering to save any of its reputation while the other took the crisis head on and fared better in the end.
At the end of the day, organizations seeking to stay positive in the public’s eye regardless of surrounding controversy should work to stay prepared. Pre-planning crisis responses will go a long way toward keeping the organization calm, collected, and able to respond instead of react.
