When your organization faces a crisis, anything that helps to manage uncertainty can reduce reputational risk. That’s why we urge clients to have in place a crisis communications plan to help navigate the vicissitudes that characterize crises.
For years, large corporations, institutions and organizations have focused on minimizing and mitigating reputation risk, and their executive teams have developed crisis and incident response plans. These often include a communications component to promote effective communications with internal and external audiences — and the media. Smaller entities (particularly closely held businesses, those with a single location, and those with fewer than 500 employees) typically don’t have such plans. As a result, they often don’t handle crisis communications as well.
But smaller businesses often do have individual policies or procedures that would be components of that larger plan, including phone and email chains, organizational charts, social media platforms and others. Many of these can be relied on to help speed up the time it takes to respond to the various challenges crises bring. Among the most important of these tools is a business continuity plan that includes settled and agreed-upon leadership succession protocols.
Small business leaders who face crises that threaten their organization’s reputation — even its continued existence — are painfully familiar with the frustrating drag on decision-making the lack of these resources cause. Having a business continuity plan in place often enables an organization in crisis to quickly make decisions, move forward and act with less internal strife.
Here’s why.
Crises often call into question leadership effectiveness, ethics, and credibility. If a C-suite executive is accused of wrongdoing, enabling or accepting a hostile work environment, or ignoring claims of harassment, it may be necessary to temporarily remove or replace her during an investigation. Being able to quickly name an interim executive sends a clear message to stakeholders and the public that the organization will be in good hands and stay on track, despite having to deal with the crisis.
Assuming the prior named successor is not herself tainted by the crisis, she will likely be seen as worthy of regard, loyalty and trust from internal stakeholders. Public communications that reference a smooth executive transition can be a particularly effective tool in deflecting the kinds of criticism that can threaten an organization’s long-term viability.
For similar reasons, we almost always advise crisis clients against having their CEO serve as spokesperson. Crises are often fluid, and what’s known about the situation tends to shift and reveal itself in bits and pieces. Early statements about the situation may ultimately prove factually incorrect (e.g., “the accusation is entirely false”, “the individual accused of wrongdoing no longer has a role at the organization”, “HR was never made aware of the complaints”, etc.).
When that happens, the individual who issued those statements loses credibility among stakeholders and with the media.
When that individual is also the CEO or the de facto leader, no one else in the organization will be perceived to have sufficient authority and credibility to acknowledge the error and correct the inaccurate information. Audiences for the updated message can’t be faulted for feeling misled or for hearing the “correct” information with skepticism. The person at the top cannot simply say she was mistaken or misinformed without fostering additional criticism. “The buck stops at the top” philosophy is too well embedded in the public consciousness for it to be otherwise. Not replacing that individual with an accepted, planned-for successor often sustains and intensifies the crisis, contributes to further suspicion, can lead to accusations of a coverup, and invites additional media scrutiny.
Organizations with succession plans at the ready before a crisis hits benefit from having time on their side. They can immediately invoke the plan, replace the tainted leader — if only while an internal investigation is conducted — and retain or quickly regain credibility.
