Month: August 2017

For all of the social media and electronica in our modern lives, human beings and human nature have not fundamentally changed. The mistakes they make—and the reasons they make them—are often the same, time and time again.

However, the way organizations mitigate damage and recover from these mistakes has had to change with the times.

First, the public’s expectations of companies and their actions have never been higher. In addition to providing jobs, performing financially and adhering to high standards of public disclosure, corporations and their leaders are expected to reflect broad social values and community purpose.

Second, it is impossible to contain crises as in the past, because bad news can now have an immediate impact on stakeholders, including competitors and capital markets.

Third, a crisis inflicts internal damage, something that is frequently overlooked. Management teams tend to focus on external pressures, failing to adequately consider the lasting damage inflicted on their own ecosystems. The values they embrace in good times need to be carefully curated in bad times.

A crisis puts organizational values to the ultimate test.

The last few decades have also seen fundamental changes in the way news is distributed and consumed. These changes affect strategic choices when an organization or individual must respond to unwelcome news.

Before the Internet, news stories did not hang around very long, nor were those stories disseminated as widely. Thus, when an individual or organization faced damaging reports, sometimes the best approach was to say very little, choosing instead to focus exclusively on key stakeholders, those who would remember the negative allegations and be concerned. For everyone else, the news would simply disappear once the coverage ended.

Once the Internet came along, audiences around the globe had access to every online news story, with Google ensuring a permanent, searchable record. This demanded a new strategy: Every news story had to have a response. Every allegation had to be answered. The record had to be set straight.

Today, we find ourselves in yet another era, one in which news comes from abundant sources—specialized news aggregators, citizen journalists, social media, online content, blogs and traditional mainstream media. Consumers who “cut the cord” and opt out of cable television do not have access to regular news programming. Instead, they choose which stories to follow and on what platforms.

Many aggregators and news platforms have distinct editorial viewpoints, and they select news that fits that view. In this new universe, consumers have less confidence in traditional journalism, people talk past each other, and the term “fake news” is bandied about. In this atmosphere, it may not always be the best strategy to respond to every reported allegation. It is frequently best to narrowcast messages, which presents the challenging task of determining which news matters and to whom.

Regardless of the many changes, above all, it is critical for organizations and their leaders to demonstrate integrity. That means taking accountability for events and outcomes when things go wrong. Long gone are the days of passing the buck, making excuses or indulging in denial. Leaders who try to dodge the consequences of their actions compromise their ability to recover trust and reputation.

The steps to post-crisis remediation are clear: own the problem, say what you’ve done to address it, pivot to the future and manage internal and, above all, external expectations at every turn.

Everyone has people in their personal and professional lives whose opinion they value more than others. A number of variables affect who carries more weight with whom.

The same is true when it comes to social media — especially in the event of a crisis.

When things go wrong, social media is a proven accelerant. It takes just seconds for words and images to spread across vast networks, building momentum with every re-tweet and “share.”

It’s natural for those on the receiving end of a sudden social media storm to feel overwhelmed. There is never a one-size-fits-all solution; context can be critical to framing an effective response.

Forty-five tweets from five people who have a limited number of followers is simply not the same as one tweet from a prominent journalist or relevant professional. For an investment company, one negative post connected to something like The Report on Business can have more effect than 50 posts from social justice activists.

It’s important for companies to consider the specific circumstances of a viral tweet. Depending on the story, social media activity from people outside of relevant circles could signal that a story is shifting beyond an organization’s pecific network to amore general audience.

The question is whether that development has a real reputational impact.

An example: In early 2016, the federal Liberal government abandoned its promise of electoral reform after months of consultations. While the media consistently reported on the issue throughout 2015, there was very little actual conversation on the topic. The government’s announcement on February 1, 2016, generated a spurt of outrage, but the story quickly died. Although there was a lot of social media activity that day (more than 44,000 shares on Facebook of one CBC story alone), those users were overwhelmingly opposed to the government in the first place. The impact faded quickly.

The same fundamentals apply to other organizations.

If there’s one rule of thumb, it is this: It’s essential to identify which groups have a material impact internally and externally, how they consume their news, and whose opinion they trust. Unfortunately, although bigger and faster, our digital networks work with the same circumstantial rules as our real-life social circles; whether or not reputations are hurt by online discussions really depends on who’s doing the talking.

Once upon a time, it mattered if you were a man or woman of your word. Personal reputation for integrity was crucial for solid standing within a community, smoothing the path forward both socially and in business.

In the age of social media, however, reputation management has been transformed into a micro-industry of apps, consultants and self-help guides. After all, if you don’t have “personal brand” do you really exist in 2017?

It’s not a frivolous question.

Amid the throngs populating Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and (especially) LinkedIn, curating a personal brand has become an essential differentiator. Standing out from the crowd contributes to workplace mobility in a “gig” economy, where an increasing number of jobs are freelance, contract and temporary. The day when people built a reputation in a small circle over a life-long career at one or two corporations in a single sector are long gone. Now, it’s all about competitive advantage.

This reality is as crucial for CEOs (who have an average tenure of under five years) as it is for other employees. Whatever your place in the food chain, the more established your credentials, the greater your opportunities.

There are three basic trends for personal brand.

1. Authenticity

2. Differentiation

3. Revelance

For CEOs specifically, strategically cultivating a positive personal profile based on these factors has become an essential long-term investment.

For example, being recognized as a thought leader can open doors with clients, government and regulators. It also provides an alternate avenue of internal communications, something that can be useful where there are a number of external-facing employees who can carry forward messages in good and bad times.

Personal brand can also contribute positively to deal flow in competitive circumstances. A leader who is trusted and known is far more likely to attract potential deals and have an edge over rivals in closing on them. By the same measure, personal brand can offer a shortcut to the boards and clubs that build the relationships that contribute materially to deal flow.

When things go wrong, the credibility and authority that stem from a well-managed personal brand are invaluable to any leader. An individual who is internally and externally known and respected has a much better chance to retain control in a crisis and direct chaos to an orderly conclusion.

That’s all the more important given the impact that social media can have on spreading—and distorting—negative news. It also has a real bottom-line value because it can save millions of dollars in market value and limit the ability of competitors to permanently capitalize on any bad news.

In short, the return on investing in personal brand yields a significant dividend.

IF YOU DON’T HAVE A “PERSONAL BRAND” DO YOU REALLY EXIST IN 2017?

The election of Justin Trudeau’s government in October of 2015 brought hope to Canadian progressives. After years of fiscal austerity, a tough stance on justice issues, and a passive approach to the environment, a Liberal government promised to reverse course.

The new Trudeau government had ambitious plans for electoral reform, stringent environmental regulation, increased program spending and a heightened focus on indigenous issues.

It was a moment of liberal ascendancy in North America: U.S. President Barack Obama’s rapport with Trudeau was noticeably warmer than that of all but a handful of their predecessors.

According to pundits, the election was the dawn of an era in which liberal ideals on the environment, foreign policy and the social safety net would be focused.Then came the election of Donald Trump.

All new governments struggle to make the transition from Opposition rhetoric and campaign promise to the grinding reality of governing. Governments that have momentum in the first two years also often find themselves slowed significantly as they shift to campaign promises that are more challenging to implement than the quick wins.

But the unexpected ascendance of U.S. President Donald Trump has forced the Trudeau government to significantly change its course—and to modify its expectations.

Trump’s uncompromising support for constructing pipelines and reducing environmental regulation, as well as his brash approach to foreign relations were at odds with many of the Trudeau government’s core policies.

Nimble and responsive are not terms typically associated with the heavy machinery of government, but both the Canadian and U.S. bureaucracies have been forced to shift gears in response to the threats posed by the Trump administration.

For example, Trump’s position on NAFTA has the potential to throw Canada—and the entire continent—into economic disarray, something that would not only harm Canadians, but also compromise Trudeau’s ability to control his government’s agenda.

We have already seen a whiplash effect on a number of policy fronts, which shows that the Trudeau government understands the enormity of the challenge facing it, even if it’s not quite sure what to do about it.

The government began to shift the tone and nuance around policy and rhetoric as quickly as possible. Statements that would position Trudeau adamantly against Trump were revised, leading to a more restrained Canadian presence on the international stage. The most recent federal budget committed to ramping up military spending to closer to the two per cent of GDP demanded by Trump for all NATO nations. Trudeau has also been careful to publicly position his government as a partner and ally of the Trump administration, avoiding the critical or standoffish attitudes adopted by other U.S. allies.

On the environmental front, Trump’s administration has abruptly forced the Trudeau government’s hand on a number of issues. Obama’s stance against the Keystone XL pipeline rendered the Canadian government’s position moot, but Trump’s revival of the project put the Liberal government firmly back in the crosshairs of environmentalists. The government’s support of pipeline development has brought criticism from environmentalists, but it has kept Canada on the same side as the Trump administration.

The government has also shuffled its highest-profile players into roles that focus on the relationship with the United States, shifting focus away from other domestic policy changes.

Mid-mandate shifts are a natural occurrence in government. Trump’s election, however, made this shift more of a jolt.

In what is by now a familiar refrain, voters in the United Kingdom have unceremoniously bucked the received wisdom of the pundit and media class.

Only a year after a pro-Brexit referendum result that few expected, it may have seemed ill-advised to con dently predict the results of a snap election called by Prime Minister Theresa May for June 8. But the general media consensus was that May and the Conservatives would be returned with an increased and stable majority that would allow her to navigate the U.K.’s exit from the European Union without much trouble—a result that would also end Jeremy Corbyn’s much-panned political career as leader of the Labour Party.

Instead, it turned out that the Conservative Party lost its slim parliamentary majority, and while the party retains government, May has been greatly weakened. Corbyn, who had been roundly mocked and left for dead by media and many in his own party, is now positioned to
play an in uential role in a hung Parliament.

What this means for the Brexit process remains to be seen. Hung parliaments are not known for their stability, and the U.K.
faces a potentially turbulent exit from the European Union. At one time, May had an opportunity to oversee a Brexit with stability and con dence, but she now faces a more challenging balancing act.

May must now try to keep her minority government alive, which won’t be easy. She faces the challenge of wooing the support of opposition parties that are themselves divided on the Brexit issue.

Even her own party is divided: some Tories are pushing for a hard Brexit that could signi cantly harm the U.K. economy, while others favour remaining a part of the EU. May’s weakened position was on full display following the election, when she brought Brexit hard-liner Michael Gove back into cabinet to appease those forces in her government.

With the EU continuing to ex its muscle, intimating publicly that Brexit would not be made easy for the U.K., it’s not a promising sign that the country looks more internally divided than ever.

The relative peace in the U.K. that followed the Brexit vote has been disrupted, and things look as if they will become only more raucous in the future.