How to Lead During a Crisis
Chapter four of Effective Crisis Communication had some good points about how leaders should act during and after a crisis. Many leaders want to stay out of the public eye and work things out without giving the public a lot of information. While this may be the easiest way to figure out what happened and how to fix it, the public gets quite angry. To me, it seemed that the book continued to stress that information should be given out to the public freely. This may seem like the best thing to do to avoid public outrage, but I think that public relations practitioners also need to be careful about how much information they give out.
Sometimes a crisis is the result of someone not doing their job or the result of the organization doing something terrible. If the organization knows about these issues and knows they are at fault, then they should come out and apologize and give the public information about what happened. Other times, the organization does not know why a crisis erupted, so given the public some information too soon may cause problems when information that may show the organization at fault comes to light. Therefore, my main concern about being totally open and honest with the public is that bad information about the organization may get out to the public before the organization can determine whether or not the information is credible and true. Once an organization has put out information which shows they may be at fault, they have to fight an uphill battle to convince the public the information is false.
I did like the examples the book gave of leaders who responded well and not so well during a crisis. These examples really illustrated what is at steak during a crisis. For example, Ford and Firestone ended a 95-year relationship over a public fight about who was to blame for cars rolling over. If one or both of the CEOs had taken the high ground and refused to fight publicly about who was to blame, they would have maintained their long relationship and the support of the public. As it was after the fact, the public lost some respect for both companies and took their business elsewhere.
The discussion of leadership styles was appropriate because sometimes people believe there is only one type of leadership style that is effective. While the authoritarian style of leadership may seem harsh when there is not a crisis, it is quite useful in the event of a crisis. When a crisis erupts, someone needs to be in charge and tell people what to do otherwise people will run around giving orders when they want and doing what they want and as a result, nothing will get done and nothing will get resolved. Different types of leadership may be effective during different types of crisis, but I think the authoritarian style of leadership works best during a crisis.
Chapter four brought up some interesting points about leaders and leadership styles during crises. It is a good chapter for all practitioner to read so that when they have to handle a crisis, they know who to pick to be a spokesperson and a leader for the public.
Sometimes a crisis is the result of someone not doing their job or the result of the organization doing something terrible. If the organization knows about these issues and knows they are at fault, then they should come out and apologize and give the public information about what happened. Other times, the organization does not know why a crisis erupted, so given the public some information too soon may cause problems when information that may show the organization at fault comes to light. Therefore, my main concern about being totally open and honest with the public is that bad information about the organization may get out to the public before the organization can determine whether or not the information is credible and true. Once an organization has put out information which shows they may be at fault, they have to fight an uphill battle to convince the public the information is false.
I did like the examples the book gave of leaders who responded well and not so well during a crisis. These examples really illustrated what is at steak during a crisis. For example, Ford and Firestone ended a 95-year relationship over a public fight about who was to blame for cars rolling over. If one or both of the CEOs had taken the high ground and refused to fight publicly about who was to blame, they would have maintained their long relationship and the support of the public. As it was after the fact, the public lost some respect for both companies and took their business elsewhere.
The discussion of leadership styles was appropriate because sometimes people believe there is only one type of leadership style that is effective. While the authoritarian style of leadership may seem harsh when there is not a crisis, it is quite useful in the event of a crisis. When a crisis erupts, someone needs to be in charge and tell people what to do otherwise people will run around giving orders when they want and doing what they want and as a result, nothing will get done and nothing will get resolved. Different types of leadership may be effective during different types of crisis, but I think the authoritarian style of leadership works best during a crisis.
Chapter four brought up some interesting points about leaders and leadership styles during crises. It is a good chapter for all practitioner to read so that when they have to handle a crisis, they know who to pick to be a spokesperson and a leader for the public.
posted by Jennifer at
3/25/2007 05:08:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home