Part 2: How to deal effectively with the M-Generation

Part 2: How to deal effectively with the M-Generation

In Part One of this series, we gave some general behavioral insights into the M-Generation, the people born between 1982-2000, who are currently entering the work place. In this article, we will look at the common characteristics that further define this generation and how to effectively deal with them.

As Baby Boomers and GenXers, our parents invariably worked hard and often long hours to provide us a better life. Parental involvement was limited, and our parents trusted us to our teachers and coaches, pastors and Sunday school teachers.

Parents came to ballgames, plays and special events. We knew that if the principal or teacher called our folks because of our unruly behavior during or even after school, we would suffer the consequences, and, yes, there would be some parental involvement at that juncture! This parental involvement did not include blaming any one else for our misdeeds. We were expected to accept responsibility for our behavior or accept the consequence.

Enter the “Helicopter Parent”

However, in the last 30 years, we have seen a major shift in the parental role as parents have become more involved socially and educationally with their children.  As a result of this era of “parents being the child’s friend”, the parent is no longer in a role of authority in their children’s eyes.

Millenials became their parents’ “colleagues” and “associates”, and with the proliferation of the cell phone, the kids were never far from the “nest” of the parents. So, enters the “helicopter” parent, and the parents, in many cases, enjoy this relationship because psychologist say it “gives them more meaningful lives”  and therefore they don’t choose to or want to “push the child out of the nest.”

The Millennials are fine with this because they are not seeking or striving for independence in many cases. Educators and others have observed this trend for years. Yes, it is the M-Generation that chose to live in their parent’s basements as long as possible while finding themselves and their calling whereas the Baby Boomers fought for and sought early independence from their parents the Millennials prefer the security of the nest.

Teachers, and counselors in some cases, have appreciated more parental involvement, if it was not “too much”. Employers, on the other hand, frankly have little to no interest in parents “helicoptering” their Millennial employees.

“Sadly, it is increasingly common for employers to receive phone calls from a parent wanting to discuss problems or a disappointment their (adult) child has had at work says.” Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman, authors of The M- Factor: How the Millennial Generation is Rocking the Workplace” (Harper Collins, 2010).

Employers have even reported that Millenials have told them they have asked their “Mom or Dad as their colleague” to review their work or even do it for them. Just like they did in school and sadly, in this author’s opinion, many parents do so. These same parents maintain even more control of the M-Generation often by paying their bills, buying them cars, food or clothes and taking care of their children because after all these children are the “grandchildren” the Boomers and Gen-Xers always wanted.

Lancaster and Stillman note that one of the bigger surprises experienced in the work place is when the new hire millennial shares some feedback from a parent, who happens to be a senior vice president at a similar company. This feedback about how the parent could do things better, if they were in charge, is not solicited or appreciated by the employer.

Simply, the M-Generation view their parents as valuable resources whose counsel and input will be as vital for their work life as it was when they were students. When you hire a millennial, you will get the parents as part of the bargain, whether you like it or not.

Initially, I thought this was hyperbole or outrageous complaining until I actually observed such behavior from a member of my own extended family. Since I left home at age 17 and paid my way through college, I found this enabling behavior to be an antithesis to my idea of maturity, healthy self-reliance, and productivity.  I would dare to say that much of society feels the same way. But then, apparently there are a lot of helicopter parents who do not.

However, based on my own observations and research, I recommend that you forget about trying to change this perspective, or debate with the new hire (or their parents). Whether this perspective and behavior is appropriate, healthy, or mature is irrelevant to them. The reality is you must accept the fact that this “parental helicoptering” and the M-Generation’s social behaviors are now at least 20 years into solidification, and you are not likely to change that perspective anytime soon.

There are strategies, however, that can be deployed to deal with this M-Generation behavior. One is to articulate and clearly establish boundaries up front in the working relationship regarding your feelings about parental involvement.

For example, personnel records, including performance reviews, are generally considered organizationally confidential and are not open for discussion with anyone other than the employee and her supervisors. This is a distinct and most appropriate boundary that you should clarify to a new hire in case his parent wants to explore his child’s experience at your company.

However, some researchers say it might also help to understand the close relationship Millenials have with their parents by viewing it the same way they do – as an asset when it comes to “reflection” on work place issues.

Remember these Millennials are products of parental engagement. They have been sharing and processing their experiences with their parents from the earliest of ages.

If your new M-Generation employees seemingly have this kind of relationship with their parents, encourage them to involve their parents in reflection on their profession, roles, responsibilities and chosen vocation. Do not, however, allow them to think that you and the parents will be having this kind of relationship.

Remember that Millennials don’t readily grasp the concept of confidentiality, especially in conversation with their parents. Therefore, it is important to provide them clearly articulated and well-defined guidelines on what kind of information is inappropriate for such conversations.

Lancaster and Stillman note that a Millennial’s relationship with his parents is the template for interaction with other older adults and authority figures.

If you can objectively observe or ascertain from his comments how a Millennial interacts with his parents, you may uncover clues on how he hopes to relate to you as an older colleague.

If your new hire sees his parents as a perpetually available resource, he may expect the same from you. If he is open to their counsel and coaching, he may readily accept the same from you as his mentor.

Accept the fact that you will have to spend extra time and attention on the Millennials, which can be burdensome at times. However their enthusiasm for your input may leave you feeling more gratified than grumpy.

Next: The single greatest complaint about Milleninals from employers

Sources: The M- Factor: How the Millennial Generation is Rocking the Workplace” by Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman (Harper Collins, 2010)

PWC.Com – Millennials in the Work Place – Reshaping the World https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/managing-tomorrows-people/future-of-work/assets/reshaping-the-workplace.pdf

 

Bankruptcy or rebirth following a crisis

Your company has just killed 23 people and 57 others are deathly ill, some critical. Your production plant is dead in the water and more than 5,000 unique media stories have been written about your crisis.

What you do and how you communicate in such a situation literally will make or break your reputation and can lead to bankruptcy or rebirth. Perhaps, you think this is just one of those table-top worse-case scenarios and that it just couldn’t happen, especially not to your organization.

The Canadian firm Maple Leaf Foods most likely thought the same thing in 2008; however, listeria bacterium contaminated a number of its food products at its plant in the Toronto area. Suddenly the firm had a 100 percent brand recognition rate among Canadians and many Americans, and it was the sort of recognition you would rather not have.

Dr. Randy Huffman, senior vice president operations and chief food safety officer for Maple Leaf Foods, doesn’t mince his words when speaking of this crisis. He frequently starts his presentations by saying he works for a company that took the lives of 23 Canadians.

When the listeria crisis erupted, Huffman was president of the American Meat Institute (AMI) Foundation. Maple Leaf Foods contracted with Huffman, as an external consultant on food safety, and after working with the senior leadership team during the crisis, he joined the company’s safety and quality assurance programs primarily because he was so impressed with the company’s values when it came to handling the listeria outbreak.

Eight years later, he remains dedicated to the constant improvement of food safety standards. He and the other members of Maple Leaf’s senior leadership team continue to talk about the event that so drastically changed their organization because they believe others need to learn from that tragedy.

“We keep it real and alive,” Huffman said in an interview for Ivey in November 2014. He explained that, in the orientation video for Maple Leaf staff, from top level executives to middle management to temporary plant staff, the seriousness of this event is always emphasized in all trainings.

“I can guarantee you, you won’t find any other major corporate training videos that show a hearse,” he said, emphasizing that it’s important for new staff members to understand why the organization continues to raise the bar of food safety standards.

Few organizations get accolades for handling a crisis; however, Maple Leaf Foods is lauded time and time again for how well it handled this tragedy through open and transparent and timely communications.

There was no complex communications strategy. There was not a huge PR crisis team.

Instead, the company chose to keep a handle on the crisis within its management leadership team and strictly adhere to its company’s values. The strategy worked. The team did a number of things well to manage its crisis; Huffman emphasized three vital moves company officials made:

n They acted with urgency.

n They held themselves accountable.

n They were open and transparent from the outset.

CEO Michael McCain and the entire senior leadership team immediately accepted accountability and responsibility for the mistake once investigators pointed to the Maple Leaf products. They didn’t shift blame to food safety standards, or equipment manufacturers, or individual employees, or deign that they needed more time for investigation. The CEO simply owned up to the breach of standards at the organizational level and continually apologized throughout the event.

“Our values said to do what’s right, be transparent, open and honest,” Huffman said. “So that’s what we did.”

Once investigators linked Maple Leaf Foods to the outbreak, McCain immediately went to the media and told the company’s side of the story.

The company acknowledged the seriousness of the problem right up front. The homepage of the Maple Leaf Foods website featured a full-page update with information from the company along with links to information on the recall.

McCain personally apologized for the tragic incidents in a video that played on mainstream TV, and that the company posted to YouTube. Later the various social media platforms carried the video repeatedly.The company immediately moved to recall all 220 packaged meats produced at the affected plant.

A sense of urgency, being proactive and open and transparent from the outset of the crisis allowed Maple Leaf to rebirth itself and prosper instead of landing on the heap of bankruptcy, and the lessons learned apply to many organizations looking for guidance during a crisis.

1. Darryl Armstrong is a crisis prevention and management consultant. He can be reached at 1-888-340-2006 or drdarryl@aol.com. His website is http://www.ldarrylarmstrong.com. He is available on a limited basis for speaking engagements and workshops.

What we can learn as crisis communicators from Dallas Police Chief David Brown

38 Important Questions to Answer Before You Invest – Body cameras are just part of a complex audio and video documentation puzzle

www.ldarrylarmstrong.com

(The Chicago dashcam video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz03rvyhIk) of the shooting of a 17-year old released last evening 11.24.15 raises many of the questions that must be answered prior to purchasing body or in-car video/audio cameras.)

Let’s face it in law enforcement these days whether it is on campus or in the city, county and state LE groups the issue of outfitting officers with body cameras has become a national focus with many LE organizations rushing to get the grants and funding to purchase equipment. One in three police departments in the U.S. are using body cameras for at least some of their officers, according to a 2013 study conducted by the US Department of Justice.

President Barack Hussein Obama has proposed a three-year, $75 million investment that could help purchase 50,000 body-worn cameras for law enforcement nation-wide. The goal is that these cameras will increase accountability for the police and civilians.

However, there are questions and issues to consider before making decisions on audio and video equipment that LE personnel would be wise to answer and resolve in advance of making such significant investment.

Let’s consider how will the purchase of a body camera lead to an all-inclusive system of audio and video recording?

As a crisis communications professional, when debriefing and investigating clients’ situations and how well they handled their crisis, I want to understand the complete context in which an action or reaction to a situation has occurred. Video obtained from body cameras is only one piece of a complex puzzle and only provides a glimpse into the overall event.

If we are to successfully either prevent or manage an organizational crisis, then we must understand from outset to completion how the incident came to be and how it evolved so that a time-line can be generated to see how and why decisions were made during the incident. Simply, this means that you need the audio 911 recording from the minute the incident starts at dispatch and the entire audio and video dialogue between dispatch, command and patrol until the incident is resolved.

I believe that simply reviewing video of an incident as it evolves or erupts even with audio from the scene can be presumptive without overall context and can lead to less than accurate interpretations by command, the media and the public.

Simply, when doing crisis investigations and reconstructions without pre and post context you are severely handicapped in determining how and why certain decisions to act or react were made.

In other words, body cameras are just another tool in the documentary arsenal. When selecting audio and video equipment consider these factors and answer these questions in advance of any purchase:

1. Does your body or in-car camera have as good an audio recording capability as it does a video capability?
2. Does the video and audio recording begin immediately or is there a delay?
3. Does your 911 system have a dedicated audio recording system that has the capability of backing up files for quick future reference, ease of use and rapid association with the video capture?
4. Is the quality of the audio recording systems for incoming 911 calls and your body cameras the best available?
5. What is the quality of a night recording on the camera?
6. How easy is the body cam system you are considering for an officer to use?
7. Does it have an on and off switch or is there the capability for an immediate on using other activation parameters?
8. How much work will be required of an officer to download videos from the camera, label them and store them in a secure database or video management system? How often will they be required to do so? How easy is the download process to learn and use?
9. How durable are the audio/video hardware systems for the weather conditions under which they must operate in your community?
10. Have you vetted the durability and reliability of the equipment through other LE departments that have experience with them?
11. Have you investigated the cost of operation/maintenance based on other LE departmental experiences? What are the annual costs of repairs and replacements for departments of a similar size?
12. Is the system comfortable to wear and reasonably unobtrusive?
13. Where will your officers wear these cameras i.e. chest, shoulders, on helmets or eyewear? Different mounting positions come with different challenges. A chest-mounted camera view could be blocked by an officer’s arms when in a shooting stance. A shoulder-mounted camera will not follow the officer’s line of site when peering around a corner with the officer’s back against a wall.
14. Do you and your officer understand and are you willing to accept that wherever you place the camera it still won’t capture 100% of the actions, which is why audio capability is equally important.
15. What is the length of the video and audio that can be captured on the camera?
16. Does the camera only support a proprietary rather than a standards-based video format?
17. Is the video format the same as current cell phones in the market place? Using such a format will help eliminate complicated video analysis issues later on because of the need to convert the footage to a standard format, which can also impact the actual video quality.
18. Does the camera provide date and time visuals and other possible environmental conditions?
19. From the moment of capture to storage does the camera encrypt the data so that it cannot be altered?
20. Can the camera’s audio and video be remotely accessed by command, viewed real-time and recorded at command central?
21. What does the system you are considering cost in terms of hardware compared to other systems?
22. What “unusual” and “unexpected” hardware issues have other departments had with the system?
23. What will be the cost of training, technical support, video storage, software to analyze and manage the audio and video evidence?
24. Does your department have Informational Technical (IT) support, or will training of each officer be required using the vendor’s training resources? Does the vendor provide a “train-the-trainer” program?
25. Can the vendor provide IT support 24/7/365 and what will it cost annually? What is their turn-around time on a call for immediate assistance? Are they willing to come to you on immediate notice?
26. What policies and guidelines need to be developed to ensure transparency and accountability?
27. When can an officer record or not record an interaction?
28. How long will you keep the video evidence?
29. Do you have offsite backup (cloud) storage for long-term evidence needs?
30. How will the data be shared externally?
31. Do you know and understand the requirements in your state to consider before releasing footage to the media or public?
32. What research and considerations have you made and integrated into your policies concerning privacy of the videos, as it relates to the public?
33. Have these policies been vetted by your legal/public affairs team?
34. Is it necessary in your state for you to redact (or visually blur) video frames of innocent bystanders, minors or witnesses?
35. Do you need to purchase and have staff trained on how to do manual frame-by-frame redaction/blurring?
36. Do you have the in-house resources and/or do you need a consultant as part of your review team to make sure the hardware fits your community’s specific needs?
37. Will the vendor agree to allow you to run a minimum test and trial of the equipment for 30-90 days or longer with larger purchases of cameras?
38. Have you investigated available grants at the state and federal level?

It will be necessary for your department to plan and conduct a “test-trial” of the hardware using table-top and field exercises to assess the audio/video quality of the equipment and to “test” your policies, procedures and communications and crisis plans under different environmental and work conditions. These exercises should be inclusive from the moment of 911 dispatch to resolution of the event.

Finally, it is essential that you collaborate with your public affairs officer and your crisis communications manager to develop, implement and test an inclusive and comprehensive communications plan to engage the media and public during your trial.

This exercise should include not only the traditional media (newspapers, radio and television); it also should include a well-defined and executable social media plan that at a minimum includes Facebook and Twitter. The use of exercise platforms such as offered by Nusura (www.nusura.com) can be helpful at this phase.

Remember the general public is divided between those that are concerned about privacy implications of body cameras and those that demand their use by police departments to increase accountability.  Therefore, it is critically important that you demonstrate transparency and openness in all communications associated with the purchase and use of your body cameras and let the public and media know how you will address any issues that may develop from their use.

If you have questions or need assistance in developing a crisis communications plan please visit www.ldarrylarmstrong.com for free resource materials.

We are available to assist 24/7/365 by calling 1.888.340.2006.

Your feedback and comments are appreciated.

L. Darryl Armstrong PhD

L. Darryl ARMSTRONG and Associates

Behavioral Public Relations LLC

1.888.340.2006

www.ldarrylarmstrong.com

drdarryl@aol.com

Do you want to become a respected crisis manager? If so, keep reading.

Do you want to become a respected crisis manager?  If so, keep reading.

By Dr. L. Darryl Armstrong APR CCMC CAMT

www.ldarrylarmstrong.com

1.888.340.2006

In 1973 on my second week at work, I had to manage an alleged “kidnapping” crisis. News stations from as far away as Nashville and Evansville convened on the front-steps of the trailer where my office was. For more than 8-hours, we were the center of regional attention by every news media organization in a 100-mile radius, and, of course, by our community and our customers. Newspaper, radio and television stations were camped out waiting for my every word.  That may sound exciting, but believe me it was not.

My employer and I survived that crisis and learned from it. The experience that I gained shaped the way that I have handled a crisis situation ever since. At that time, I worked for a large federal agency: today my firm works with small businesses, large corporations, universities and government agencies.  Our job is to ensure that they have adequate plans to handle any crisis in advance.  In order to do this, they must have trained and respected crisis managers within the organization.

It seems as if it were only yesterday that we were all engaged in learning how to deal with a 24-hour news cycle. Today, it makes no difference if you are a “Mom and Pop” convenience store or a Fortune 50 company.  When a crisis occurs, you become the focus of the news and social media, and of your employees, customers and the community. You become a 24-hour news story. How you handle a crisis makes the difference in whether you resume work and prosper, or ultimately are perceived negatively in the public’s opinion.  Being perceived negatively is not a good thing and can lead to litigation or even bankruptcy.

With the onset of citizen journalists, social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube, the proliferation of blogs and smartphones, innuendoes, gaffes and just out and out blunders can achieve viral status in minutes. Don’t believe me? Just ask Vice President Joe Biden!!! Remember when he said, “This is a f#@%ing big deal” in describing Obamacare?

Protecting your brand and reputation in a global environment requires a multifaceted strategic plan of action that starts within the organization and is executed before brand/reputation damaging occurs.

The proverbial “seat at the table”

How many of us who have worked in management have wanted, and often fought for, that “proverbial seat at the management table?”  Having to fight for a seat as a crisis manager may seem ironic these days since all polls show that that the public wants executives, managers, and especially government officials to be more transparent and more engaged.  The public expects officials to have communication and crisis management skills, and they want them to actively seek communications and crisis management counsel.

Although most recently the President has said that “…there is not a smidgen of scandal…” in his administration, the polls show that his own behavior has not served him well as a crisis manager.

President Barack Obama and his administration would be wise to follow the advice and counsel of one of his often mentioned heroes, President Abraham Lincoln. “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

I have always counseled that when you make a mistake and you know you have, simply own up to it; be contrite and humble, apologize, and be very clear that you are doing so.

Then immediately commit to fixing that mistake. The public, be they the American people or your customers or clients, will respect you for such behavior and will most likely be more forgiving.

A study that the public relations firm SpencerStuart and Weber-Shandwick conducted in 2010 found that “whether management says so or not, when a crisis occurs, management is expecting corporate communications crisis managers to be proactive internally, to coordinate key stakeholders, and to develop and implement a communications plan.”

In the more progressive organizations, crisis managers within the communications group have begun to rise in the ranks to executive positions. Some companies even have their own Corporate Communications Officer (CCO). These communication executives, who often serve as the organization’s crisis managers, must understand the business and its financial operations. They must serve as confidants, coaches and cheerleaders.

As Renee T. Walker, an Accredited Public Relations (APR) professional says in The Strategist Summer 2012, “…being adept at each of these roles can help crisis managers manage the often competing agendas of the executive team.”

No, mam it is not just about the facts

Just because we may have the “facts” as best we know them during a crisis, and we can manage the media to some degree, it does not mean we have the management or the public’s support. Knowing the “facts” also does not necessarily demonstrate transparency or promote integrity and social responsibility.  We might have a “seat at the table” as far as the public and management is concerned; however, we have yet “to win their trust.”

It is one thing to say, as the current Presidential administration has said for more than 6-years, that “we are the most open and transparent administration ever”. It is another thing entirely to actually exhibit the behaviors that back up the rhetoric.

The public will expect you to “walk your talk.” This is where a veteran and experienced crisis manager and communicator within the organization becomes exceptionally valuable. Such veterans understand the importance of navigating their way through the “court of public opinion”, while staying out of the “court of law.” By doing this, they protect their organization’s reputation/brand while managing potential litigation.

As one of my colleagues who is currently the Director of Public Relations at one of the nation’s largest utility once said, “…this requires a delicate balance and the ability to work with a legal team as well as the communications team.” Such an experienced crisis manager/communicator is greatly coveted for their knowledge and experience. This knowledge and experience will enable them to address the potential impacts on revenue, stock value, reputation, competition, market share, and executive compensation.

When in doubt, go on the offense

Invariably, when a threat is perceived or an attack on the organization occurs, our organizations and their executive leadership either want to stand and fight (we will sue the bastards) or run away from the situation.

In behavioral psychology, we simply refer to this as the “fight or flight” response, the throwback behavior to our early days as cavemen. We see this all the time.  Our organizations either “ignore the issue,” hoping it will go away, or aggressively attack the accuser to deflect the issue.  Resorting to the time honored and terribly ineffective “no comment” invariably makes the organization appear guilty as charged!

Failing to feed the media the information or ignoring the situation by not commenting just increases the public’s interest and objections.  All of these responses ultimately result in heightening the negative reputation/brand and in preventing the organization’s voice from being heard in the media and marketplace.

Sadly, many of our friends who are lawyers don’t understand that it is important to “manage the court of public opinion”, even if the organization is likely to end up in the “court of law.” When you don’t manager the court of public opinion, you can and often do lose in the court of law! I have often advised my clients to “do the right thing” because when the public sees you trying to do so, they will be more understanding and lenient in their judgment.

Ms. Walker says that a well-planned and well-executed offense enables the organization to insulate its reputation/brand.  This offense will support its future litigation strategy, demonstrate its values, and show compassion and empathy along with integrity in the media as well as in the court of public opinion.

Remember that “kidnapping” that I handled in 1973?

My organization came out of the media spectacle and the crisis with the respect of the public because we immediately stepped to the plate with a thoughtfully tailored offense:

1. We reassured the public that, “we were cooperating with all the law enforcement agencies to ensure the incident was resolved as quickly as possible.”
2. The safety of the victim, the alleged kidnappers, our customers and employees were of paramount importance to us and would not be compromised.
3. We understood and empathized with the parents of the victim and assured them we would reunite them as soon as possible “once the situation was under control.”
4. We assured the media that “we would be open and transparent and forthcoming with verifiable information as soon as we could”, and we asked them to not speculate or use information other than that provided by us since it could place the victim and the investigation in jeopardy. They did honor this request by the way because we “walked our talk.”
5. We updated the media (and therefore the public) every 60-minutes, even if we had no further details.

“The Art of War”

‘Every battle is won or lost before it is ever fought,” said Sun Tzu author of The Art of War. Organizations with a well thought out and executed internal/ external plan of action, as well as  a communications protocol for a crisis situation, will ultimately successfully manage the crisis. However, just having a plan is not enough. You must develop a mutual trust with the executives and leadership before you can successfully, as the crisis manager and communicator, direct the response of the organization during the crisis.

Tenet – something accepted as important truth: an established fundamental belief.

 There are seven basic tenets that a crisis manager and communicator must follow in order to help an organization successfully survive a crisis:

1. You must become “a coveted advisor.”  A coveted advisor understands the organization from many different perspectives.  He or she must  understand the culture and strategic alliances within human resources, the legal team, operations, supply, transportation, and others.  Only then will he be able to ensure that they can help management navigate their way to the end of a crisis. A coveted advisor provides good counsel before, during and after the crisis and has developed sufficient rapport and respect to “speak the truth even when it hurts.”
2. You must know those people who can “influence the situation.” Within any organization there are those people who can exert significant influence during a crisis due to their title, their position, their skills of persuasion or simply because they are “natural born leaders.” To be a successful crisis manager, you must know who these people are, how they operate and what motivates them.
3. 3.       You must build “strategic alliances.” You need to know the more influential people within the organization, and you must also build mutual trust, respect and relationships with them. A strong support system and informational, intelligence gathering network is essential to be successful in handling a crisis.
4. 4.       You must become “partners with your legal team.” A strong, respectful and supportive relationship between the communications and legal team can literally be a game changer when building strategy during a crisis.
5. 5.       You must “understand the rules of engagement.” Before engaging in the management of a crisis, you must understand how and who within an organization makes the decisions. Who shares information? Who secrets information? What is the reward and penalty system for each? What are the organization’s values? Once you understand these rules, you stand a better chance of successfully managing the crisis.
6. 6.       You must implement a “positive and affirmative response strategy.” The going always gets rough with emotions running high during a crisis. The exceptional crisis manager will always maintain composure and objectivity, make careful decisions, and always consider the short and long term implications of those decisions. Managing that always-delicate balance between the legal and communications teams is also imperative. It is always important to help your executives understand what the media is doing, what the media’s needs are, and what the “media speak” is really all about, in terms they can understand.
7. 7.       You must ensure that “expectations are realistic and aligned with outcomes.” Crises are challenging. The expectations of your management must be realistic and based on the circumstances of the crisis. Those expectations must be directly aligned with the organization’s strategic priorities, basic tenets, values and philosophies.

Ms. Walker notes that often the right response in a crisis will seem counterintuitive to the leadership team. However, if you have become a coveted and respected crisis manager, you will have come to know and understand the influencers within the organization, and you will have built strategic alliances with them.  Then and only then will the leadership team heed your advice and counsel.

To paraphrase President Abraham Lincoln, during a crisis is not the time to try and fool any of the people.

END

 Sources: www.ldarrylarmstrong.com; The Strategist Summer 2012

Dr. L. Darryl Armstrong is a crisis and emergency communications and management consultant. He can be reached at drdarryl@aol.com or 1.888.340.2006. Dr. Armstrong is available for speaking engagements and conducts training workshops. Visit his website at www.ldarrylarmstrong.com where you can find even more free resources including the FREE white paper The 11 Steps in Crisis Communications.

TOTAL SCREEN RECORDER – A software we can highly recommend

A SOFTWARE WE CAN HIGHLY RECOMMEND –

We present our “Golden Eagle Award” for a quality product

As a consultant in the field of crisis and emergency planning and management, a field where we build, develop and record numerous webinars, training and e-learning packages and videos, I am always looking for easier and better ways to develop videos and webinars.

I have searched and used a number of software packages over the years; recently when I had the time to do additional research for an “easy to use product” to capture webinars on screen I happened upon “Total Screen Recorder – Gold Version” available at http://www.totalscreenrecorder.com/

From the outset, I came to the opinion this would always be my first choice for future use. Here is why:

Ease of download and installation
High quality product from the results it provided us from the first use
Remarkably easy to use
Convenience
The options of fixed screen size, full screen
Ability to adjust playback rates
The variety of five output formats
The reasonable price
Totally hassle free screen captures

Simply, as video producers and developers of training, we all have the need to capture the content of our computer screens at some point. With Total Screen Recorder you can create creative and excellent video examples or demonstrations for our own applications. As a crisis and emergency planner, I am now able to rapidly capture breaking news and videos to use in our training programs.

Total Screen Recorder is a compact and affordable screen capture tool that enables you to record the content of your screen, or its specific areas into video files with soundtracks for subsequent playback and distribution.

We especially like that Total Screen Recorder supports 5 capture modes, AVI/WMV/SWF/FLV output with configurable A/V codecs, sneak mode operation, automatic recording at Windows startup, recording timers, hotkeys, recording of the mouse cursor and has plenty of other handy features.

Total Screen Recorder allows you to capture webcam video streams in AIM, ICQ, MSN/Yahoo Messenger, as well as streams from TV cards and web pages. Simply, every video or presentation you see on your screen can be captured quickly and easily!

Total Screen Recorder is an inexpensive, very powerful and flexible solution for screen capturing.

Preparing tutorials and e-learning series can be a time consuming activity specifically when you need to make step by step e-learning modules. Although written tutorials are acceptable when supplemented by video showing/telling all the steps you will it appeals to a broader and more visually-based audience.

Total Screen Recorder helps you to make professional e-learnings by capturing videos. The software has simple, easy to use features. When you start you have a small screen that allows you to set the configurations you choose.

To start, you will define the region that you want to capture; you can select whole screen, or any particular area of the screen.

You then set the configurations for the audio by selecting the audio device and related settings. Make the selection for the video and audio aspects for the captured file with the provided features ‘Encoder’.

Select the Hotkey to Start, Stop and Resume the capturing of video.

Enable or disable the Timer features, if you choose.

Select your file name and set the destination for saving the movie file that has been captured.

You can also hide the program when the recording is going on and the program goes to the system tray for easy access.

We are not computer geniuses and yet we were able to literally install and record our first video in less than 15-minutes!

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest we would Total Screen Recorder a 5-plus! We highly recommend this software. Congratulations to the developers, we will look forward to future software from your company.

L. Darryl Armstrong PhD APR CCM CAMT
Accredited Public Relations
Certified Crisis Management
Certified Aggression Management Trainer

1.888.340.2006
Cell 270.619.3803
http://www.ldarrylarmstrong.com
ldarrylarmstrong@gmail.com

L. Darryl ARMSTRONG and Associates
Behavioral Public Relations LLC
455 Hillside Trail, Eddyville, KY 42038
3 Moore Avenue Upstairs/Back Apt. Tybee Island, Ga. 31328

FAU and Rutgers – How Not to Handle a Crisis

Organizations faced with crises such as the recent ones at universities can and should use a “holding statement.” This is a tool that allows the organization a brief limited amount of time to assemble the parties involved, gather the facts and determine as much about the evolving crisis as possible all within a few hours prior to making another public statement. 

Strategic communications planning and mind-mapping messages could have in both of these situations provided a more comprehensive and “common sense” approach to the situation had they been conducted in advance. In cases, the universities’ “punishment” evolved and changed as more facts of the case were discovered, or more “heat” was placed on them by the media, alumni, the community and state officials.

In the Florida situation the professor, who is now on administrative leave for his protection now says that he is a devout Christian, that he never told anyone to actually “stomp” on a picture of Jesus and that the student “threatened him” at the end of the class session and the student and others who witnessed this event should have been separately interviewed (crisis investigation) for their sides of the story prior to making or announcing any decisions about “punishment.” If this investigation occurred it is hard to discern from the punishment, which has been reversed and from the statements from the university during the evolving crisis.

This investigatory approach provides the best information available from those interviews to the President and Dean, who ultimately must make the decisions. By the way, we have yet to hear anything one way or another from the FAU President.

The latest information from the professor is that he “took this exercise from an instructor’s manual,” yet this nugget of information comes weeks later in a follow-up article. Such information as his devoutness toward Christianity, his use of this manual, and the alleged threat against him by the student could have been revealed in a crisis investigation.

A good reporter following this story would most assuredly ask: “Why a picture of Jesus and not Buddha or Mohammed or Joseph Smith, for that matter?” So, this question also should have been a part of the interview process.

The lessons learned from such behaviors as this is not that hard to decipher: intercultural courses, which are potentially controversial in this day and time anyway should be thoroughly reviewed in advance by the crisis team as to what exercises will be used The findings from this analysis should be a part of the strategic crisis communications planning and mind-map messaging process in crisis planning at the university, especially if such a potentially controversial exercise will be conducted.

It also would be prudent to advise all the students before engaging such an exercise that they can opt out and suffer no consequences from that decision. Neither of these tactics curtails academic freedom, at least not in my book as a former adjunct professor.

Yes, such an approach requires a crisis management team to be engaged, advised, informed and willing to take the time to explore all such possible crises during advance crisis planning yet the outcome can be significantly beneficial to all parties.

As it is, FAU suffers now from a major crisis miss step and continues to be national news with the infamous Bill O’Reilly and his producers at Fox News touting their success at getting this issued resolved.

Whether they did or not, when a university hits the national news with such an issue it can’t mean anything but continuing problems, bad PR and public perception until it is resolved or some other university comes up with another crisis.

Now, about that holding statement. An empowered, thoughtful and experienced crisis management team would most likely issue immediately a “holding statement” such as this:

“We have just learned of this issue as of (insert time) today. We are thoroughly investigating this situation including interviewing all parties identified to ensure we have a complete understanding of the facts of the situation before making a decision on how we will handle this. The student’s and professor’s accounting of the situation along with others, who may have witnessed the incident, will be taken into account in any decision we make. I am sure that you can understand that we want to understand as much about this situation as possible and that you will be patient with us. We will be issuing a statement this afternoon at (insert time) when we expect to provide you a more detailed and further update. Thank you.”

At the very least, this “common sense” response makes it clear that the university is serious about getting an investigation underway quickly, gathering the necessary facts, and seeing all sides are considered in making any decisions.

This statement should go out immediately to the traditional and social media and posted prominently on the university’s web site.

It might even behoove the University’s President at this late date to step forward and acknowledge that the situation was not handled well and that the university has learned the following lessons (and then articulate them). Frankly, it wouldn’t hurt for the President to apologize to all parties and the public even now. If I were a regent at this University I would be insisting on this.

The public, students, parents, the community and the alumni can be forgiving when a statement is sincere and humble and well intentioned.

Just as Ward Churchill made the University of Colorado infamous for the wrong reasons; FAU now has some claim to such fame.

Rutgers

In the situation at Rutgers, the university officials obviously thought that a few games suspension and a fine would satisfy everyone. I hope all athletic directors and coaches that watched this tragedy unfold and how the poor handling of the crises led to the coach’s firing learn something valuable from this incident.

Perhaps, prior to the Jerry Sandusky fiasco at Penn State and the massive hue and outcry by the public over bullying, a university could get away with this type of “punishment” — not any more.

Mike Rice’s verbal and physical abuse of his players is fully documented on video tape. It can’t be denied or excused. Punishing such behavior by game suspension and a monetary fine simply won’t sit well with any parent and for that matter should not sit well with any of the players. There is no way other to see this behavior than “bullying” by a person in a position of authority.

As this situation evolves, we will provide further details and analysis, suffice it to say at this juncture, Rutgers officials the handling of this crisis is another textbook example of what not to do. The above information on using a holding statement to get a crisis investigation underway applies here.

www.ldarrylarmstrong.com

Another University Fails in Crisis Management 101 – Rutgers Fires Coach – Only After the Heat is Turned Up!!!

T’is the season, it must be for universities to be creating their own crises and failing to use some common sense!

The Rutgers coach is outed as abusive and the University officials decide to “suspend and fine” him. Now, after “pressure” he’s outta there.

First, we have a professor telling a student to “stomp on a picture of Jesus,” interesting that it wasn’t  a picture of Buddha or Mohammed; and now, a physically and verbally abusive coach and in both cases I am sure the schools some how must have thought they would escape outrage?

In both cases, basic crisis management has been ignored.

These are developing stories and we will give you a complete analysis of what each school did right and where they went terribly wrong in a future post.  Read more here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/03/sport/rutgers-video-attack/?hpt=hp_c2

Mind-mapping crisis messages – The Situation Assessment – Article 3 in a series

Mind-mapping crisis messages – The Situation Assessment – Article 3 in a series

This is a series of articles that will help you understand the seven stages of a crisis and how to mind-map crisis messages. This process when done appropriately and successfully will ensure you will succeed in planning your messages before a crisis and better understand how you can use mind-mapping during and after a crisis. Article 3 in a series  …

What is a mind-map and how do they help communicators develop crisis messages?

Mind-mapping messages is simply a systematic way to develop clear, concise, easy to understand and deliver crisis messages in advance of the crisis occurring, as well as during and after the crisis. The goal of such messages is to simplify often technical or complex situations and ensure a speedy delivery of the message to the right audience at the right time. Mind-mapping your messages can be done prior to, during and after the crisis has occurred.

¡  There are seven phases to understand underlying information needs necessary to mind-map messages

¡  1. Advance warning or advance intel

¡  2. Situation assessment

¡  3. Communicating the response

¡  4. Operational management

¡  5. Resolution and path forward prevention

¡  6. Business continuity – recovery

¡  7. Lessons learned  – recalibrations

This article deals with the second phase – the situation assessment. When the crisis hits, and invariably they do at the least opportune time and typically not during work hours, the crisis and emergency management team assembles to assess the risk and do a situation assessment. It is during this phase that the emergency operations plan is activated.

Communications during this phase is typically between team members and observers in the field providing first hand information whenever possible from the scene. Social media such as Twitter and You Tube along with SMS texting can enhance the gathering of the field reports and intel when properly used.

Smart phones now enable us to not just communicate by voice; we can now send video and photos instantly back to the command and control center for quick assessment. I-pads and similar tablets allow the field observer to write quick reports while documenting in photos and video the situation.

During this phase, it is important to monitor social media: Facebook, twitter and YouTube channels to see what is coming in from various other sources and when needed correct mis-information. Although command and control under the NIMS way of business finds it foreign to engage such technology as a rule the social media platforms are valuable resources for intel, other site observers and can be used to shape the messages that are going out instanteously.

It is important at this stage to do the best situation assessment possible to ensure that when briefing executives, administrators and management that you have as complete an understanding of the situation as possible.

Although many organizations tend to take a standardized and even a blanket approach to communications at this stage, we suggest that careful thought be given to the chains of command, the audiences and the priority in which information is shared. The last thing that you want your university president to do is hear about a crisis situation on the main stream or social media before you have informed her.

Informing and giving notice to your local law enforcement and first responders, campus security and other officials in the call down list calls for as much clarity and completeness as possible when assessing the situation.

All your audiences, including the traditional media, will understand if you have to make corrections in the opening hours of the crisis, however when informing the various required audiences state clearly what can be verified and what can’t. Use social media as another intel source and gather as much information as possible as quickly as you can.

Next: Communicating the response

www.ldarrylarmstrong.com

When a University Creates a Crisis – “Stomping on a Picture of Jesus”

When a University Creates a Crisis – “Stomping on a Picture of Jesus”

Crisis planning and management – when you create the crisis you have to resolve it quickly. We will continue to follow this story and provide an analysis.. Developing story …UNIVERSITY APOLOGIZES, REVERSES COURSE ON PUNISHING STUDENT WHO REFUSED TO STOMP ON ‘JESUS’ SIGN

The odd story about Ryan Rotela, a junior at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), and his claim that he was suspended from a class for refusing to stomp on a sign that had Jesus’ name on it, quickly spread across the nation. While the school issued an official apology over the bizarre debacle, questions still surround the incident, as the professor at the center of it, Dr. Deandre Poole, has been silent on the matter.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/26/university-apologizes-reverses-course-on-punishing-student-who-refused-to-stomp-on-jesus-sign/