Good news: crisis management is actually not an oxymoron

Despite daily headlines suggesting otherwise, it can be heartening to learn that crisis management is actually not an oxymoron. In fact, it is possible to not just survive a crisis but to emerge stronger as an organisation simply due to the way the crisis was handled. Why? Because the effectiveness of the response is the largest single determining factor in the impact of a crisis on the reputation of an institution and how quickly, if ever, it recovers.

This is great news. It means that you and your team are not helpless in the face of a crisis and that, through effective and proactive management, it is possible to significantly limit the impact of the issue or event, strengthen your leadership team’s credibility and burnish the reputation of your institution.

Doing so, however, requires a renewed recognition of the importance of reputational risk, an understanding of how to protect it and – importantly – a realignment of management culture and process that links decision-making to institutional values.

Don’t abandon your values

Reputational risk occurs when there is a significant disconnect between an organisation’s actions and decisions and the expectations of its stakeholders. What this boils down to is, essentially, the application of values – has the institution acted in a way that is consistent with a general understanding of the values of the institution?

These values may be explicit or inferred over time, but in every instance, it is the seeming abandonment of values at a time of crisis that causes reputational damage.

Simple enough, right? We’re all familiar with wisdom bandied about during crises – ‘tell the truth’, ‘be transparent’, ‘apologise and demonstrate empathy’, ‘get ahead of the issue’ or simply ‘live your values’. While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of this advice, these truisms belie the complexity and competing values that are not the exception but the rule that confronts institutions in crisis.

Even when we are able to rise above the prosaic – legal liability, financial concerns or even the worry about setting precedents that may create other issues down the line – when faced with bad choice A or bad choice B, our institutions’ values themselves can seem contradictory.

For example, how do we decide between the value of freedom of speech or academic freedom when juxtaposed against the values of diversity, equity and inclusion? And how do we evaluate the perspective of different stakeholders such as older and typically more conservative alumni and a younger and likely more liberal student body when deciding what ‘the right’ response can or should be?

It is exactly this ambiguity that defines a crisis. In addition to a physical or reputational threat and urgency to respond far faster than universities are typically comfortable doing, there is fundamental uncertainty. After all, if the decision was clear, it wouldn’t be a crisis in the first place.

Decision-making rules

The challenge in a crisis is:

• How can we make good decisions when only presented with poor choices?

• How should we balance competing values and institutional priorities?

• How do we distinguish between values and pressure? Just because one stakeholder group is vehemently against a particular decision does not mean that they represent the values of the institution.

In these fraught situations, there are a number of effective decision-making rules to which we can turn, including:

• Recognising that crises do not occur in a vacuum. Context is vital to incorporate into decision-making – understanding what else is going on and how the current issue could impact the broader strategic goals of the institution is key.

• Clearly defining the potential impacts and consequences of an event or issue. Relying on optimism and assuming a best-case scenario (it is not as bad as it seems, people aren’t really going to find out, it will blow over) risks leading to a reactive and typically insufficient response.

• Focusing on critical stakeholders – who does this issue or event really impact? Develop a strategy that puts the most impacted at the centre of your decision-making.

• Defining metrics to truly measure the situation – it is way too easy to both under- and overreact to social media posts or calls, particularly from parents or donors. Agree to a set of metrics that will help you evaluate both the underlying risk and the effectiveness of your response.

• Ensuring a robust and consistent decision-making process is in place that allows you to truly weigh the benefits, risks, dependencies and supporting communications required for each strategic option.

With the right team, a culture that supports the sharing of dissonant points of view, and a process that enables the team to move beyond the react-respond mode to truly identifying and proactively managing potential impacts and consequences, it is absolutely possible to respond effectively to a crisis and in a way that leaves your institution stronger than it was prior to the incident.

Simon Barker is the managing partner of Blue Moon Consulting Group, a crisis management firm that specialises in higher education. He has supported university leadership in their response to protests, academic scandal, sexual assault, natural disasters, data breaches and workplace violence along with a range of social, financial and ethical issues. Barker’s book, Preventing Crisis at Your University: The playbook for protecting your institution’s reputation is available from Johns Hopkins University Press.