crisis communications – Paynter Communications

Legends and Leaders in Public Relations

Thanks to Brittany Thompson for profiling me in the Public Relations Society of America Cleveland Chapter’s “Legends and Leaders” feature.

http://www.prsacleveland.org/legends-leaders-barb-paynter/

Making the Case for Transparency

“Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints.”

This headline recently caught my eye: “University will sue its own student newspaper for reporting on sexual assault case.” Really? I was intrigued because I’ve helped quite a few schools share news about a staff member accused of sexual misconduct. These are difficult cases, due in part to the tricky balance between revealing enough information to protect students, while respecting the rights of employees accused of behavior that could destroy their lives.

It turns out the University of Kentucky (UK) is suing the independent student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, to avoid releasing documents related to an associate professor, James Harwood, who resigned after an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and assault. The Kernel requested both the resignation agreement and the school’s investigative documents. When UK declined to provide the records, the newspaper appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General’s office, citing the Commonwealth’s open records law. According to news reports, the Attorney General ordered UK to release the documents with any identifying information redacted. UK still refused, citing privacy concerns, and is appealing the Attorney General’s decision.

Meanwhile, the student newspaper obtained the documents through other sources and published articles detailing charges filed against Harwood by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity: two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual harassment. Harwood resigned before a disciplinary hearing was held.

I don’t pretend to know whether the University will win its appeal but it has already lost in the Court of Public Opinion by picking a fight with its own student journalists and by not presenting a reasonable justification for withholding the documents. In his statement, University President Eli Capilouto says that, “in a handful of very specific cases, we are faced with the decision of whether transparency is more important than the need to protect the privacy and dignity of individual members of our community. It is not.”

He goes on to justify the decision by citing irrelevant examples – patient information, which is legally protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and student information, which is legally protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). He also cites the importance of protecting the privacy of victims of violence, but in this case the Attorney General allowed for redacting identifying information.

Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints. They want the allegations made public so Harwood can’t simply continue his behavior at another university. That’s the dilemma for any organization faced with this choice. Protecting someone who is charged with misconduct gives the appearance of guilt by association. In the Court of Public Opinion, only those who have something to hide will cover up for an abuser.

UK is home to the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, whose mission is “to promote understanding of the First Amendment among citizens of Kentucky, to advocate for First Amendment rights in the Commonwealth and nationally, and to produce internationally recognized scholarship concerning the First Amendment and its related freedoms.” Perhaps the University’s president should pay them a visit.

Meanwhile, the Kentucky Kernel is a finalist for the Pacemaker Award, presented each year for outstanding collegiate journalism by the Associated Collegiate Press. My journalism degree is from the University of Missouri but, this year, I hope UK student journalists take home the prize.

Identifying Villains in the Panama Papers Line-Up

A lot has been and will be written about the 11 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, as journalists all over the world comb through a massive amount of information. So far, news accounts have focused on high-profile leaders from Russia, China, Argentina, Pakistan, Ukraine, Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. The prime minister of Iceland resigned after news broke that his wife had millions of dollars in offshore accounts.

The law firm, Mossack Fonseca, posted a statement and FAQ about the situation on its website, addressing what it calls the media’s “inaccurate view of the services we provide.” The statements clarify exactly how the law firm advises its clients and how its activities are regulated. They explain the difference between “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion” and the firm’s responsibility to report unlawful activity to the authorities.

“For 40 years, Mossack Fonseca has operated beyond reproach in our home country and other jurisdictions where we have operations,” the statement says.

But, from my perspective, an even bigger issue for the law firm’s long-term survival is how this information was leaked in the first place. A data breach has to be the biggest reputational risk for anyone responsible for safeguarding sensitive client information. No one has yet explained how a German newspaper got its hands on the documents, except that the original source was Mossack Fonseca. Yet, the law firm’s statement contains no apology or expression of concern for the clients whose confidential information is now public.

Relationships with attorneys and other advisors are based on trust. This leak shatters that bond of trust. How will the firm survive such an egregious breach? Other clients whose information has not yet been reported must be looking over their shoulders, wondering if – when? – reporters will be calling, ready to plaster their confidential information across the internet. How could the attorneys at Mossack Fonseca possibly reassure them? If I’m a client, I’m quickly looking for a new attorney.

So who’s the villain – the clients who followed their attorneys’ advice or the law firm? If I was giving crisis communications advice to the individuals or companies whose information is now public, I’d recommend they point the finger back at the law firm. Let Mossack Fonseca explain both how they advised their clients and how their clients’ confidential information was leaked to the media. Sure, they should deny wrongdoing if, in fact, they have done nothing wrong. But since the media’s always looking for a villain, I’d make sure they know exactly where to look.

More Lessons from the Volkswagen Cheating Scandal

Volkswagen is finally reaching out to its customers with a “goodwill package” for those who own cars equipped with the software designed to cheat emissions tests. The package, outlined in full-page newspaper ads, includes a $500 gift card, another $500 card that can be redeemed at Volkswagen dealerships, and three years’ worth of free roadside assistance. They still haven’t said how they’ll fix the emissions problem so they’re hoping this offer will buy time with customers stuck driving cars with significantly lower resale value that continue to violate emissions standards.

Many VW customers and dealers must be wondering why it took the company two months simply to apologize and ask for patience. Meanwhile, the news continues to get worse, involving many more vehicles in both the United States and Europe.

The latest revelations about problems in Europe came from a whistleblower – a company engineer who, according to news reports, alleged that employees manipulated tests for carbon dioxide emissions and fuel economy on diesel- and gasoline-fueled cars. The New York Times reported that internal investigations have been hampered by employees’ “ingrained fear of delivering bad news to superiors.”

In response, Volkswagen is offering an amnesty program for workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. (The offer does not include top management.) Of course, the company can’t protect employees from possible criminal charges, but they are promising that employees who come forward with information by the end of November will not be fired or face damage claims.

While this is unusual, it may be the only way Volkswagen can overcome a culture of secrecy and obtain the information it needs. We’ve seen this in other crisis situations, where employees knew of significant problems but did not come forward out of fear they would lose their jobs or face other repercussions. This meant top management was blind-sided by problems it might have been able to address.

Every senior executive should be concerned about a company culture that discourages employees at all levels from reporting problems. Frankly, the more layers of management a company has, the less likely it is that concerns will make their way to the top.

That’s why it’s so important for company leaders to regularly leave the executive suite and talk with hourly employees. That can take the form of periodic plant visits, town hall meetings, or random invitations for groups of employees to have coffee with the CEO. It’s also important to clearly articulate a process for employees to report concerns to risk management, compliance, human resources, or whatever department is appropriate within your organization. Anonymous reporting should always be an option, whether that’s by using old-fashioned suggestion boxes, a hotline or online channels.

Then, management must make a commitment to determine whether the concerns raised have any legitimacy. If employees don’t believe their concerns are taken seriously, they will stop voicing them.

You can’t fix a problem unless you’re aware of it. Now is a good time to remember Ben Franklin’s admonition, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Amazon vs. The New York Times, Rounds Two, Three and Four

First, the New York Times published an article exposing a brutal workplace culture at Amazon. Then, Amazon’s Senior Vice President Jay Carney pushed back with a blog post on Medium.com, accusing the Times of sloppy journalism. Another round ensued. Times’ Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet defended the reporting in a lengthy blog post, also on Medium.com, and Carney responded again.

First, the New York Times published an article exposing a brutal workplace culture at Amazon. Then, Amazon’s Senior Vice President Jay Carney pushed back with a blog post on Medium.com, accusing the Times of sloppy journalism. Another round ensued. Times’ Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet defended the reporting in a lengthy blog post, also on Medium.com, and Carney responded again.

I’m not a fan of Amazon’s response for a number of reasons – primarily, that Carney renewed interest in an article published more than two months ago. Carney also revealed what most companies would consider private personnel information about former employees quoted in the article. For example, he argued that a primary source in the story is not credible because “an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately.”

When something goes wrong – especially if the media exposes an employee or former employee’s misconduct – organizations may be tempted to reveal damaging information about that individual. Transparency is usually a good policy, but once that bridge is crossed with the media, an organization can never again insist that type of information is protected. In fact, in Amazon’s case, some have suggested Carney and company released this information to intimidate other employees – which, of course, reinforces the original narrative of a bullying culture depicted by the Times.

In spite of concerns about what Carney wrote, it’s a smart strategy to counter the Times on a public forum. We always advise clients to find ways to “go around the media” in a crisis and speak directly to critical stakeholders whether through emails and letters or social media platforms, including blog posts. It’s a good way to protect your reputation and effectively tell your organization’s side of the story without the media filter.

A Crisis of Deception at Volkswagen

Volkswagen is struggling to respond after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused the company of installing “defeat device” software on its diesel-powered vehicles to cheat emissions tests. Essentially, EPA says the cars were programmed to turn on emissions equipment during tests, then turn the equipment back off when the testing was complete. As a result, although the cars performed better on the road, they produced as much as 40 times the allowed amount of pollutants. Latest reports say 11 million diesel cars worldwide are equipped with the software used to cheat on U.S. emissions tests.

Make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted crisis. Someone within Volkswagen decided to cheat so they could sell more cars. We don’t know yet who authorized this or even who knew about it. Before resigning, CEO Martin Winterkorn said they will get to the bottom of this and “rebuild trust,” but how reassuring is that coming from a CEO whose role in the scandal is clouded with suspicion?

Let’s face it, the company was caught red-handed violating its brand promise. Many consumers drive small cars like VWs because they want to minimize the environmental impact. Now, consumers feel doubly deceived. They worry about the environmental damage they’ve caused and about the resale value of their cars. Their anger is all over social media platforms.

It will take a while to comprehend the full impact of this crisis but it’s already being compared to the BP oil spill. The lawsuits started almost immediately, with a Seattle firm filing for class-action status within hours of EPA’s announcement. The stock price fell precipitously and the CEO resigned.

Winterkorn apologized for breaking “the trust of our customers and the public.” He unfortunately said they will “reverse the damage this has caused,” but of course they can’t reverse the environmental damage. Michael Horn, chief executive of the Volkswagen Group of America, was more direct. “Our company was dishonest, with the EPA and the California Air Resources board, and with all of you and in my German words, we have totally screwed up.” But apologies are not enough.

A good reputation is built by first doing the right thing. Too many crises can be traced to people and companies claiming to be something they’re not. When the truth comes out, their apologies fall on deaf ears because they have lost credibility.

Volkswagen can’t recover from this self-inflicted damage by saying the right thing. They have to actually do the right thing.