It is a truism of crisis communications that you should seek to establish your relationships with key stakeholders, before a crisis occurs.  This is as true for individuals as it is for corporations.  The corollary to this truth is that, if you are arrogant, smug, conceited or just plain rude in your normal interactions with stakeholders, you can expect no sympathy during a crisis.  It is basic human nature that we tend to cheer when a jerk goes down.

This reality was clearly demonstrated in the almost gleeful tone of the media coverage surrounding the arrest of Martin Shkreli on charges of securities fraud.  Shkreli achieved fame, or rather infamy, as the CEO of the biotech firm Turing Pharmaceuticals, when he raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per dose.  Daraprim is used to treat infections in people with weak immune systems and has been around for over 60 years.

The Daraprim price increase was made without warning and was roundly criticized by healthcare and public health officials, patient advocacy groups and several presidential candidates.  In the media the move was positioned as an extreme example of corporate greed.

In his public statements Shkreli was utterly unapologetic regarding his decision on the price increase and stuck to the basic argument that he raised the price because he could.  Further, when the editor of a biotech industry newsletter asked about the price increase via Twitter, Shkreli responded by calling the editor a ‘moron’.  Clearly, this is not good media relations practice, nor the best way to endear yourself to the media as a group.

With his recent arrest, a wide range of media have devoted significant space to covering the case and detailing the charges filed against Shkreli.  The editor who he labeled a moron has used his Twitter account to get a little payback by posting: “About the only profession Martin Shkreli will have left now is as a rap music producer with street cred. Hmmm.”

It is not terribly difficult to engage in activities that help establish a good reputation and a positive image (for either an organization or an individual).  These include being courteous and professional in your communications, both internal and external.  Making the effort to develop relations with the media that are based on mutual respect and seeking to answer media questions in a forthright and serious manner.  Showing empathy for stakeholders over whom you may have power and engaging in appropriate CSR and/or philanthropic activities that are relevant to your mission.  These actions yield benefits during normal times in terms of increased stakeholder trust and employee morale, and they can be critical in taking the edge of initial stakeholder reactions during a crisis.

Just to be clear, being a ‘nice guy’ will not make a crisis go away or lead to universally positive media coverage during a crisis.  It will increase the chances that the media and other stakeholders will give you the benefit of the doubt in the immediate aftermath of a crisis and that coverage will be balanced and fact-based rather than accusatory.

The breathing room provided by a positive reputation will give the crisis communications team the time needed to put together and distribute the organization’s side of the story and this will ideally achieve a fair balance to the information available to stakeholders.

In the case of Martin Shkreli, when he had power and position he choose the path of arrogance and confrontation with the media and others.  Now that he has been brought low by regulatory authorities, those that are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt are thin on the ground.  Regardless of how his case in the courts turns out, the court of public opinion has already convicted Shkreli and he has no one to blame but himself.

Top 5 takeaways:

• It is vital to establish positive relations with media and other stakeholders before a crisis situation develops
• Creating a positive corporate reputation should be an element in any crisis preparedness program
• Good media relations and a positive reputation can improve the odds that during a crisis the media will give the organization time to share its side of the story before making negative editorial comments
• Executives who come across as arrogant in relations with the media risk particularly negative coverage during a crisis
• If an executive, or an organization, has a negative reputation among media and other stakeholders there may be a ‘rush to judgment’ in the event of a crisis

 

Public Relations is a high stress job, as anyone who has worked in the field can testify.  That said, the stress level is known and successful professionals have developed coping mechanisms to deal with the day-to-day madness.  The stress associated with major crisis communications programs takes thing to an entirely new level that can have serious implications for individual and organizational effectiveness.

As public relations practitioners we generally look at crisis management and crisis communications from a technical perspective.  How do we structure our communications, position our clients, manage or control the message and move back to the status quo ante as quickly as possible.  Our focus is on establishing reputational capital prior to a crisis situation, crisis planning and preparation, media and crisis training, issues monitoring and all of the associated activities and skills in the crisis communications playbook.  What is often not discussed is the human element to crisis management and commutations.  The impact that stress has on the communications team, spokespeople and executive management is not usually discussed as part of the crisis planning process.

The cause of this omission is not clear, though it could be that stress is considered a given and that there is nothing that can be done about it.  Alternatively, there could be wishful thinking that the stress of the situation will increase focus and lead to greater efficacy among the members of the crisis team.  Whatever the reason, the impact of stress on the crisis communications team should be taken into consideration and to the extent possible mitigated.

Contrary to popular belief, and corporate mythology, stress is not a good thing.  It does not improve performance of any type and in fact lead to a general degradation of physical, psychological and cognitive abilities.  Of particular significance for crisis communications teams, the stress of a crisis can have a serious negative impact on judgment and decision-making, and as such should be monitored closely.

In his groundbreaking work on the internal biochemical changes that result from stress Hans Selye (1956) developed his General Adaptation Syndrome, a three-stage process that moves from alarm to resistance and eventually leads to exhaustion.  In their work on studying the impact of crises on leaders Wiegele et. al. (1985) define stress as the “negative affect, anxiety, fear, and/or bio physiological change which develops as the internal response of an individual to an external load placed upon him/her by an international crisis….”

There are a number of particularly important reactions to stress that most people experience to varying degrees.  When confronted with stress individuals tend to lose the ability to perceive peripheral information, they experience a narrowing of consciousness as they focus all of their attention on what they  perceive to be the crisis at hand, and tune out other aspects of the environment (Schager, 2009).

There has been a significant amount of research that has documented that stress adversely affects intellectual functioning including analytical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making.  It also tends to make people more rigid in their thinking and reactive in their decision-making.

Finally, there is the emotional toll that stress takes on an individual.  The greater the level of stress the more overwhelmed by emotion they will become, and consequently
the less able they will be to operate in a mature and rational manner.  Even at moderate levels of stress an individual may find it difficult to contain their emotions which can negatively impact team dynamics.  Possible reactions include anger, lack of patience, hyper-sensitivity and silence, among others.

While the impacts of stress on human functioning have become more widely recognized and understood this knowledge has generally not been incorporated into private sector crisis communications planning.  Considering the fact that most public relations personnel generally do not have significant experience in crisis-induced stress situations, this omission in planning is particularly dangerous.  It is also unnecessary.

Many professions and organizations have recognized the negative impact that crisis induced stress has on decision-making and other cognitive functions, and have developed a range of tools and techniques to address the problem. The law enforcement, medical, aerospace, military and emergency response sectors have all put in place systems to mitigate the impact of stress on functioning during a crisis.  A key aspect of these systems is regular and realistic training to both routinize crisis response procedures and desensitize the individual team members to stress.

There is no reason way crisis communications teams cannot employ the same type of realistic, scenario-based training simulations that are designed to induce a stress reaction from crisis team members.  While this type of training may not be pleasant, it does help people better understand themselves and their possible reactions to stress.  This insight coupled with regular training and the creation of a well thought-out and flexible crisis plan can mitigate the worst of the negative impacts of stress on the members of the crisis team.

Top Five Takeaways

• High levels of stress impairs physical, psychological and cognitive abilities
• Many individuals experience difficulty making rational, fact-based decisions while under stress
• The impact of crisis induced stress on members of the crisis management team is often ignored by communications staff and senior management
• The crisis plans of most private sector organizations have not incorporated the impact of stress on the functioning of the crisis team
• Crisis training should be realistic enough to induce a stress reaction in order to prepare team members for an actual crisis situation

References

George, Alexander L. “The Impact of Crisis-Induced Stress on Decision Making,” in The Medical Implications Of Nuclear War, 1986.

Schager, Bengt.  “Stress and Human Functioning,” Marine Profile Sweden AB. 2009.

Selye, H. Stress of Life. McGraw-Hill. 1956.

Wiegele, Thomas C., Gordon Hilton, Kent Layne Oots, Susan V. Kisiel.  Leaders Under Stress: A Psychophysiological Analysis of International Crises.  Duke University Press. 1985.