Lessons from crisis management & communications campaigns – Part 1

I just heard from a colleague that entire malls are being shut down and people are stocking up food and supplies, in California. The Coronavirus scare is getting real as the State of California has declared an emergency. For sure, this seems to be a crisis and one that we should be prepared to handle. But how does one draw the line between ‘managing’ a crisis and freaking out and creating chaos? Is there a line one can draw between these two scenarios? Let’s just focus on one aspect of this issue : How to define a crisis. I may have a few more posts on this issue, as this crisis evolves.

As Boin et al. (2005) write in their book, The Politics of Crisis Management, “It (crisis) refers to an undesirable and unexpected situation: when we talk about crisis, we usually mean that something bad is to befall a person, group, organization, culture, society, or, when we think really big, the world at large. Something must be done, urgently, to make sure that this threat will not materialize. ” They point to the crucial role of leadership in defining a crisis.

How does one know when a situation is a crisis or not? How fast should they announce it as such? Should one continue to say “It is not a big deal,” when clearly the crisis is having real consequences on people’s lives? These are not easy answers. Many of these have to do with both the information coming in, the ‘sense-making’ of that data and how the leaders choose to respond.

Just a few weeks ago, I watched this documentary titled In the absence on the (very unfortunate) and sad case of the 2014 Sewol Ferry that sank in Korea, killing over 300 people. As you can see from that particular case, the biggest failure that one can point to is the refusal of the people in charge to define it as a crisis and the failure to act, forcefully, to fix it.

Such slow and indifferent response is quite common in many situations. Leaders don’t want to cause panic or seem to rock the boat, when information comes their way, that they don’t want to hear. We are seeing such behavior in many parts of the world, with regards to the Coronavirus issue as well.

Texts from students who were on the ferry pointed out that the captain and others on the ferry asked students to ‘stay put’ and ‘not panic,’ and that everything was under control. Sounds familiar? Many of the students who sent these texts to their parents ended up drowning.

As one can see in the documentary on Sewol, even when the President’s team got involved, they were more concerned about documenting the case and showing that they were doing something rather than actually doing what was necessary to save the children trapped on the ferry.

The decision making involved, on whether one should define something as a crisis is not entirely a rational one, and there can be political dimensions to it, Boin and his co-authors remind us. In my own experience managing crises, as a former Public Affairs Manager, I have seen this play out.

So, how does one make decisions, communicate and lead, during a crisis? That will be part of the next post…

An elderly American gentleman asked me that question, just last week. And I summed it up neatly as quite simply : the struggle between those who want to keep India a secular republic (which the constitution guarantees) and those who want to turn into a Hindu nation.

This explanation captures, in my view, what this fight is about. The ruling BJP has been in power for a few years now and emerged as a power-house only after the 1990s, coinciding with India’s economic liberalization.

I recall seeing images of the national campaign to take down a centuries old mosque, Babri Masjid, which was alleged to be the birthplace of Lord Rama.

This party has led charge against ‘liberals’ and ‘secularists’, clubbing them as anti-national.

In their vision of India, anyone who is not Hindu is a second-class citizen and suspect. Muslims and Christians are on top of the list of those deemed suspect.

The state has instituted CAA, the Citizens Amendment Act along with the proposed NRC, National Registry of Citizens; this can be a deadly weapon to make illegal millions of ‘legal’ citizens of India, who were born and raised in the country.

This is not just a struggle to reclaim what it means to be Indian, it is also an effort to define ‘Hinduism,’ a term & idea that was coined by the British.

The past few weeks have been filled with conferences. I was in Mexico City for a conference organized by CEMLA on remittances in Latin America and a meeting there lead me to another conference in Miami, this time the IMTC conference.

Founded by Hugo Cuevas Mohr, the IMTC conferences are where practitioners, bankers and technology folks go. This was my first time at an IMTC conference and I was excited to attend.

Having just returned from Mexico City on a Sunday, I took the Monday evening red-eye to Miami, to reach on a Tuesday, Nov 12th. Speaking of travel bugs, this was definitely a streak of travel for me, unlike any that I had encountered.

So, what did I witness at IMTC?

Quite a lot : Insights from Hugo, who is a veteran of the money transfer industry. His grand-father had a remittances/money transfer business in Colombia and he seems to have grappled with many of the issues facing this industry from an early age.

“I rode the wave of money transfers, and here I am.” he pointed out.

There were several innovative products and companies showcasing them. The most innovative one I saw was a Maya ATM machine that helps you send remittances and also do a host of other things such as pay bills etc.

And there was a firm in Africa called Baluwo, that is billed as a ‘Partner for cash-to-goods,’ meaning you can buy someone goods, rather than send cash, remotely.

Additionally, I learnt about Transfer Wise, a company that was billed as one of the cheapest ways to send money, in terms of its model of functioning. It was the ‘modern hawala’ as one speaker pointed out.

In part 2 of this post, I’ll explain some more insights gathered from this conference.

The recent scandal with Ukraine and Mr.Trump is one of the dozens of ethical (and legal) scandals that we have seen. Scandal after scandal, it seems like the word scandal is losing its steam. However, this one has a new twist : there is a whistleblower involved.

The American legacy of whistleblowing goes far back, the days of the founding of the republic. Just seven months of signing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers passed the world’s first Whistleblower protection act. The U.S. has been a pioneer in this field, as many others.

This act was necessary to protect those government officials who were working under tyrannical bosses or unethical people, who abused the power and authority of the government – either to abuse people or to gain wrongfully from their position, and go unpunished.

As Alison Stranger points out “The whistleblowers who sought protection were 10 American sailors and marines who had reported improper behavior by the Continental Navy’s most powerful man.” This seems to be the guiding principle of why these laws were put in place and continue to exist.

Similarly, Roberta Ann Johnson writes in her book The Whistleblowers that five conditions help explain why this phenomenon exists in the U.S. : 1. Changes in bureaucracy itself 2. Wide range of laws that encourage whistleblowing 3.Federal and state whistleblower protections 4.Institutional support for whistleblowers and 5. A culture that often values whistleblowing (p.4).

Several laws such as the Ethics in Government Act of 1971, Code of Ethics for Government Service and the like were passed that encourage reporting of wrong doing and offer protections to those who do report.

While financial rewards can motivate some whistleblower – the Federal False Claims Act offers 15-25 percent of the money their whistleblowing recovers for a federal agency, many are motivated by a sense of justice and fairness at work.

While the current saga at the U.S. federal level gets sorted out, it is important to keep in mind that whistleblowers are not a nuisance or ‘spies’ but rather a necessity in our democratic society.

Without them, we may lose the moral compass that guides much of public service. We may be lost in the wilderness of corruption, redtape and nepotism.

Whistleblowers, in other words may be our new-age prophets. We better listen to what they have to say!

I received a report in my mailbox today titled ‘Race to lead’ which deals with the issue of challenges that leaders of color face, in the nonprofit sector, in the U.S.

Many of the issues highlighted in the report are quite familiar to me : lack of funding, board of directors not taking you seriously. The report adds “Nonprofit EDs/CEOs of color report more challenges in their relationships with boards of directors when the boards are predominantly white.”

The report also points to the challenge of access to support for leaders of color.

Critics may point to the self-reporting bias and a sense of victimization that leaders of color may have. I have heard this argument myself. However, there is no denying that salary data, experiences of people in leadership positions to tell us a story. And unfortunately, it is not the prettiest one.

What do you think about this report? What is your own experience in leadership – if you are a person of color?

I am teaching a course on Nonprofit Leadership this summer. This is a strange time to be talking about leadership, given that we are witnessing so much chaos around the world and those who are supposed to be ‘leading’ are doing anything but lead.

Consider the world of business, which has become the focus of much of our lives. If one takes the case of Huawei, the Chinese company that is at the heart of supposed espionage – according to the American President – there is increasing pressure on American firms to cut ties with Huawei. Political leaders are pulling the plug on collaboration, creativity and innovation, it seems. Whether Huawei is actually indulging in espionage remains to be conclusively proven, but leaders have chosen to point fingers.

In an announcement that didn’t reveal anything, Robert Mueller read out a testimony basically saying that his report was the last word. He pointed to Congress to interpret and act in ways that were in line with their mandate. In other words, he was asking people with power and authority to act as leaders.

So, what do leaders do?

They craft a vision and inspire people to move towards that vision, says Warren Bennis, in his book ‘On becoming a leader.’ This sounds simpler than it actually is.

What drives one’s vision? It is a combination of one’s values, ambitions, character traits and life experiences.

So, to have better leaders we need better value frameworks, which are more inclusive, just and equal.

Whether is it dealing with change, chaos, crises; all of one’s values come to the fore. Especially, if one is a leader, he/she is asked to define a problem and then help solve it. With a twisted logic and skewed view of the world, one can only mess things up more, rather than solve the real problem.

What we are witnessing today, in the world is not actual definition of problems, but rather twisting and framing problems to suit one’s agenda. Whether it is gun control, climate change or migration, leaders are choosing the easy path to please others. Despite overwhelming facts and evidence that humans with guns are dangerous, that climate change is real and that migration actually helps countries grow, politicians are acting in ways that limit debate on these issues. Populists are framing issues to suit their needs and are dealing in xenophobia and fear.

This, is not good leadership. It may be good salesmanship and PR, but certainly not good and enlightened leadership.