In planning for active shooter table-top exercises an often overlooked area is that of business continuity. How and what do we do to ensure that the university gets back to the business as soon as possible. There are six major issues to consider and that law enforcement officials should collaborate with business continuity planning teams.
First, many administrators, faculty, staff and students fail to realize that when they are evacuated from a building they may not have access to that building for days, if not weeks depending on the nature of the situation. If shots were fired in the building or not, the building becomes a crime scene and appropriate protocols must be followed.
Second, if employees or students are advised they can do telework, what happens if their laptops that are required to access the virtual private network (VPN) remain in the facility and they don’t have access?
Third, even when there is a minimal loss of life, and let’s hope there is none, the psychological impacts on all parties can cause significant absenteeism. Human resources and employee assistance managers must take this into account. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is not uncommon and must be planned for in advance.
Fourth, in the case of functions such as Information Technology Centers, facility heating and cooling operations, etc. facilities and operations that cannot be interrupted does your devolution counterparts know when to assume their support role in an Active Shooter event?
Fifth, recovery time objectives are always problematic. Twelve hours may seem like long enough time to resume business “as usual”, but what happens if a lockdown last for 8-10 hours?
Finally, do your business continuity relocation plans conflict with emergency management/public safety plans and often the need to keep everyone on-site?
Law enforcement, emergency managers, public safety, public relations, human resources, supply chain providers, logistical support and others involved in planning active shooter table-top exercises and planning must have business continuity planners at the table.
L. Darryl Armstrong PhD – www.ldarrylarmstrong.com
Crisis management must be integrated with a holistic approach Read more: Four Rivers Business Journal – Crisis management must be integrated with a holistic approach
Prior to the 24-hour news channels, the advent of social media, and an ever-advancing world of mobile technology, the corporate spokesperson during a crisis could control the messages through carefully constructed news conferences.
This is no longer the case with the advent of “citizen journalists.” Organizations that have not yet recognized today’s new media place themselves in serious peril when a crisis occurs.
Today crisis communication is no longer just a corporate communicator’s function. No longer can the PR department write the crisis manual and just arrange for media training of a select few spokespeople. Today, crisis management is much more than just crisis communication during an emergency such as a flood, fire or nuclear mishap event.
A crisis, by definition, “is a revelation, allegation or set of circumstances which threatens the integrity, reputation, or survival of an individual or an organization.” Crises of any kind, be they event or non-event related, threaten the public’s sense of safety, security, values and appropriateness.
When a crisis occurs, actual, potential or perceptual damage to the organization’s brand and reputation will occur. Because the organization is often at a loss to end the damage immediately, the “after shocks” continue to do even more damage.
Therefore, a crisis management plan must account for what we generally think of as those natural or man-made events that require activation of an Emergency Operations Center and for those business crisis that are non-event related.
Statistics show that most business crises today are non-event related.
These are the “smoldering or simmering” situations that create crisis in organizations, with 49 percent of the crises originating from management and 33 percent from employees.
Of these crises, 61 percent were deemed “smoldering or simmering” while only 39 percent were sudden. This means that, in some cases, the organization was truly blindsided by the onset of the event, yet, in other cases, the organization had sufficient intelligence to be prepared and yet had not sufficiently planned to address it.
These crises range among 2012 crisis categories, expressed in percentages:
White collar crime — 16 percent
Mismanagement — 15
Work place violence — 11
Class action lawsuits — 11
Business disruption — 8
Labor dispute — 8
Casualty accidents — 8
Financial damage — 6
Consumer Activism — 4
Discrimination — 3
Other (not listed) — 3
Sexual harassment — 2
Environmental — 2
Whistleblowers — 2
Executive dismissal — 1
Prudent and strategically thinking organizations recognize the need to institutionalize, within all the key business functions, a holistic and standardized approach to handling both event and non-event related crises.
A coordinated holistic approach addresses crisis prediction, issues analysis, prevention and management as a formal part of the overall business planning strategy. Such an approach ensures solid contingency plans as part of business continuity planning.
A Change Management Plan is a key component of this strategy since such an approach requires a change from the traditional model of just event emergency planning. It requires corporate communicators and management at all levels of the business to carefully think through all the various event and non-event crises that the agency needs to be prepared to handle.
Therefore, to be effective and efficient, crisis management of non-events must be embedded into the corporation’s overall management system. Just as an organization has emergency responders within each business unit, they also must have non-event crisis managers as part of the matrix.
Holistic crisis planning, therefore, enhances the capability of the management within all business units, as well as communicators and management at the corporate level, to be better prepared. They will be ready to respond to new and even unimagined non-event risks and to manage the growing number and diversity of stakeholders, many of whom have conflicting agendas.
As organizations become more complex, non-event crisis planning becomes even more critical. Because as the organizations grow, they restructure, merge divisions and must deal with the business of corporate realignment.
This excellence in management approach can only be accomplished through integration of non-event planning as a value-add, standardized and critical component of any emergency planning activity.
When the threat management process addresses event and non-event issues and is integrated within the overall issues management process in the organization, the crisis prediction and prevention capability is noticeably enhanced. This is particularly the case for the “smoldering or simmering” crises referred to above.
Identifying and evaluating as many as possible threats and issues are always the first steps. Yet it is the management and communication of these threats and issues that is critical and most challenging for all organizations, especially when dealing with the non-event issues.
Obviously, not all crises are predictable or preventable. Yet, an effective threat and issues management process, embedded within the crisis management planning structure and coordinated at the corporate level, allows for the organization’s management to potentially foresee, plan scenarios, exercise them, be proactive and then decide to take, treat, transfer or eliminate the threat.
Forward-thinking and progressive organizations are appointing crisis event and non-event managers. These managers are charged with assessing, planning and implementing a standardized protocol and comprehensive crisis event and non-event response and communication system. This system embeds key business functions such as operations, human resources, legal, IT, health safety and environment, sales and marketing, communications, cyber and reputation security as part of the progressive crisis management teams.
Once processes have been developed covering all key business functions, the competency issues of crisis team members must be addressed. This is accomplished in the following three stages:
1. Utilize behavioral and personality style assessment such as use of the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory.
2. Provide training in those areas in which team members will be engaged, i.e. media, social media, presentation skills, dealing with different personality styles, etc.
3. Conduct extensive tabletop or full-field exercising combined with systematically cataloguing and documenting lessons learned and best practices.
Skills, training and professional experience at all levels of the crisis response structure are critical. The response begins with the receptionist providing the telephone response to callers. It includes the leadership and strategic planning skills of the crisis management team and the ability to provide counseling and support to employees, the next of kin and the victims of a crisis. And, of course, communication with the mainstream media is critical, as well as the effective shaping of messages in social media while protecting the organization’s brand and reputation.
Research, and our team member’s 40 years of experience in behavioral psychology and management, validates that the best crisis management team members are chosen and trained according to behavioral suitability and not the function related to the position on the team.
Due to ongoing staff adjustments and job changes in corporations as well as downsizing and corporate reorganization, it is essential to have a comprehensive plan that trains and retrains crisis team members in a systematic and regular manner to account for this turn over.
Many corporations are choosing to establish curriculum based training certification programs to ensure the right people are in the right place properly trained to handle the situation when needed.
The days of a corporate communicator being able to handle a crisis by calling a reporter friend are over.
Crisis communications of event and non-event situations are complex and require standardization across all business units. Embedding the crisis managers into the corporation at all levels ensures that the best decisions are made by having an active ongoing risk and issues assessment protocol. This protocol utilizes tried and proven strategies and tactics that predict and, when possible, prevent crises while managing the issue and the public and stakeholders’ perceptions.
In today’s environment, many of our customers and clients, when their anger is not handled properly, can and do become “mad as hell!”
In the world we live in today, it is more important than ever to understand how to diffuse anger when dealing with a customer or client. The same techniques can be used when dealing with the anger of a family member or even a stranger you meet in the parking lot.
This article is not meant to scare you. It is intended, however, to raise your awareness about what it means to live in a world where anger can and often is expressed in terms of violence. These techniques will help you be prepared to deal with that anger.
First, we should all recognize that complaints are OK because, at the very least, the customer is letting us know what the problem is.
I would much rather know what the problem is because then I can work toward a solution. If I don’t know what the problem is, there is no way to make things right. We must remember, though, not to become defensive when the customer is telling us their issues with the product or service.
Statistics demonstrate that if a complaint is well handled, the customer will be more loyal than he or she was before they complained. And we may have learned something constructive for our business.
Second, try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.
It becomes critically important to understand the other person’s point of view. We must accept the fact that he or she is entitled to their point of view, although it may be totally different from our own.
Third, let the person tell their story.
The best medicine for upset people is to let them vent. Use your listening skills and give the person a chance to express their feelings. Draw him or her out with questions, or noncommittal and empathetic remarks like “I see” or “I can see why you are upset” or “I can understand why you would feel this way.” This will help calm the customer while revealing some points of agreement or settlement that are important in leading to a solution.
Fourth, learn to listen.
It is not enough to sit passively while a person talks. You have to listen with the mind (as well as the ears), looking for the paths that lead to understanding and problem solving. Be careful not to give a reply before the person is ready. Until someone with a problem has completely vented his or her feelings, they will not be ready to listen to a solution!
Fifth, be empathetic not sympathetic.
Be sure to use empathetic language that illustrates you are trying to understand the caller’s point of view. Sympathy and empathy are both acts of feeling, but with sympathy you feel sorry for the person without truly understanding the what and why of their feelings. Empathy is a much more active process, and it takes work and imagination to get there. See the above.
Sixth, speak the person’s language.
It won’t help to use terms common to your profession or company when dealing with a person who is upset.
Find words he or she will understand when talking about your service. The goal is to communicate. Listen carefully to the person and take notes. If they say they “think” the product or service is defective, reflect back to them that you “understand their thinking”. However, if a person says “they don’t feel good about the service”, this person is emotive so use “feeling” language when responding to them.
Seventh, whatever you say, say it with respect.
Courtesy, respect and consideration are all shown by using a friendly tone of voice and a set of behaviors which show the person that you consider him or her a person worthy of respect. A controlled volume to your voice and a choice of words that will be meaningful to your listener can make all the difference. See above.
Finally, diligently work to make the person “feel” important.
You may hear the same complaint or problem frequently. Just imagine how many times counter agents at airports must hear the same compliant over and over. However, this person may have only told it once. So we must listen patiently. Learning the person’s name and using it in the conversation is helpful also.
We are often reminded as children of the “Golden Rule.” It certainly applies in business, yet perhaps more in the sense that author and longshoreman Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) was quoted as saying:
“The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbor as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves.”
Keep in mind that how we react to what is happening can define whether the outcome is positive or negative. What you have learned about handling anger can influence your success in business and your safety in the world. When our behaviors demonstrate these interpersonal skills, we will succeed.
I may not have been able to articulate it then, but now I realize what the answer to this question was. If you truly want to solve a problem, you must involve the people with the problem in the solution. You must develop meaningful and sustainable relationships with them based on trust.
I took my responsibility of being a “public servant” seriously. I believed then, just as I do today, that all government employees have an obligation to engage the taxpayers (the very people who pay taxes to provide government employees’ salaries) in meaningful discussions to find appropriate solutions to difficult problems.
Many of my colleagues thought and felt, as they expressed to me, that I was wasting my time trying to develop relationships with the very people who wanted TVA to take the proverbial hike.
They were wrong then, and government agencies that still play at public involvement and engagement without meaningful intent are even more wrong now.
Since the taxpayers’ money pays government employee salaries, the taxpaying public has the right to be engaged in helping agencies make the best possible decisions.
Allow me to give you an example.
Recently, I was asked to facilitate a series of public meetings for a federal agency. I quickly determined after the first meeting, a nightmare for all involved, that two things were readily apparent:
- The federal agency didn’t really want a facilitated meeting. Facilitated meetings in my world are set up to bring all the people to the table and keep them there, no matter how long, until an agreed upon path forward is determined.
- The agency really wanted a traffic cop or a moderator for these meetings. The second meeting we moderated, even though I thought it unwise to do. The meeting went well although I voiced my professional opinion, something I rarely do when I am conducting a meeting.
I told the public that we had advised the agency that its meeting model should be changed to a more educational and involvement model rather than just an informational model. An educational model would allow for significantly more public involvement and, at the least, shared assessment of the problem, if not some shared decision-making.
Needless to say, the agency and my former contractor have decided they “really don’t have the funds to have a facilitator.”
Frankly, I am glad they came to that decision. I was going to be forced to walk away from the project anyway, something I have done in the past when agencies tried to fake public engagement by applying only the necessary rules and regulations.
This leads me back to the need to solve the problems by involving the people directly affected.
There are six steps I recommend to truly involve the people directly affected, whether it is a small business or a government agency manager:
- Ask those involved to share the information they want to share, not just the information you want them to share. Be prepared to keep your mouth closed and your ears open.
Ask open-ended questions like, “What else do we need to know that is important for you to share?”
Questions like these not only enable the customer or the member of the public (stakeholder) to vent. It also allows them to be involved in the assessment of the problem.
- Ask them to prioritize information they have shared. Because they are venting, this is their therapy, and you will get a significant information dump. Have them help you figure out the really important information they have shared.
It annoys people with a problem or complaint when you assume you know what concerns them most.
- Ask them for their advice or opinions.
Oh, I know foresters, fishery experts, nuclear specialists and government managers all know what they are doing more so than the public does, However, they (read taxpayer here for government agencies and customer for small business) do have opinions and advice to share.
Being willing to ask for advice and opinions does not mean that you will necessarily take it. This should also be stated up front. However, when you understand their priorities, their values and their viewpoints, a solution can often be created which meets the needs of all parties involved.
- Offer them alternatives.
People are more committed to decisions that they help make. Not only are they committed, they have a stake in the decision and, as such, will help defend the decision, if need be.
In addition, if you are a small business person, you will demonstrate to the customer that you are taking that extra step to satisfy the complaint or meet the request.
When the request can’t be met, for whatever reason, be prepared to offer alternatives.
- Determine the minimum need.
Ask the customer or the stakeholder what he or she would like you to do immediately. This helps to diffuse their anger rather quickly. If this is not done correctly, especially in the government world, outrage can and often does result.
When members of the public become outraged, it often results in unwanted political or media involvement. Don’t believe this? Did you watch the public outrage over the shooting of the unarmed minority teenager in Florida? Or, perhaps you recall the “Occupiers” movement in the larger cities?
By taking some action, you gain some additional time to take care of the greater problem.
- Ask them to provide you some alternative solutions.
Be direct in your request. If you are a small business person say something like, “Ms. Jones, I’m stumped. I’ve offered you all the alternative solutions I can. What kind of solution would you propose?”
Often this makes people realize they are being unreasonable, or at the very least, it lessens the tension and re-engages all parties toward working to a mutually acceptable path forward.
You probably have figured this out by now. Underlying all these actions is your intention to build workable and meaningful relationships.
When you have built meaningful and sustainable relationships, and you have demonstrated that your behaviors match your words (you walk your talk), then your chances of building workable solutions greatly increases. Your willingness to involve the people impacted can make all the difference in solving a mutual problem.
Dr. L. Darryl Armstrong, Armstrong and Associates, is a consultant and counselor. He can be reached at email@example.com or 1-888-340-2006 or www.ldarrylarmstrong.com
I continue to be rewarded for all the intense and hard work that my client the Kentucky Press Association put into their strategic planning process a few years ago. This week David Thompson, KPA’s Executive Director reported that in a conference he was in that he would be presenting the results of some of that work.
David says, “… was thinking of you earlier today. Our first session yesterday, followed by two more hours this a.m., was on strategic planning. Obviously, we’re ahead of the game and in checking my notes from 2008 and 2009, so many of the “obstacles and issues” and the “solutions” that were mentioned yesterday by the group, on what lies ahead, are things we discussed/addressed four years ago. Thank you for that. Tomorrow, it’s my turn to talk about the News Content Service. All because of the Strategic Plan!!! It’s a service that has shared more than 24,000 stories and editorials with 74 participating newspapers, since it began October 1, 2009.”
When you have active engagement by all parties in the strategic planning process you can overcome barriers, secure agreement for a mutually agreeable path forward and discover and implement new ideas such as KPA has done.
And needless to say you can stand up with pride and announce your success!
Congratulations David and team at KPA!!!