The Penn State Lesson
A defining aspect of the academic environment at universities is risk aversion. Institutions have elaborate internal procedures in place to handles issues that occur and administrators as well as faculty and staff are reluctant to expose colleagues to public scrutiny, sometimes even for the most egregious of violations. The Penn State situation presents a case in point, where a veil of silence and looking the other way for years appear to have allowed violations to continue unchecked. Most members of an academic community can readily cite an example or two of faculty, staff, administrators, or the leadership in general looking the other way or lowering a veil of silence on unacceptable behaviors such as sexual harassment. In many cases, when instances of sexual harassment on the part of a faculty or staff member are reported, administrators respond by thinking first about the reputation of the institution, not the victim. For example, when a student accused a senior faculty member at a mid-sized university on the east coast of sexual harassment of an extremely serious nature, the dean of the college, following internal procedures, placed the faculty member on leave and initiated an investigation to determine the veracity of the complaint, and alerted senior administration. The investigation, led by two of the accused’s faculty colleagues, was unequivocal in its findings; even more troubling was the fact that the same faculty member had had similar complaints lodged against him four times previously. In each instance, it was determined that he had indeed behaved inappropriately with students, but in each instance, the administrator responsible had simply placed a letter of reprimand in his personnel file, chastised him for his behavior, and warned him that dire consequences would follow future violations. In response to this latest incident, the dean felt that his course of action was clear: he could not place any students under the charge of this faculty member, in or outside the classroom. He wrote up charges supported by the findings of the investigative team; these were vetted by an elected committee of the faculty member’s colleagues who recommended to the senior administrator that the faculty member be terminated. The senior administrator’s response to the recommendation made by the faculty committee, however, sought to lower the veil of silence on the investigation’s findings. Such behavior, he pointed out, had always been a part of the academy and in previous years might have been regarded merely as caddish behavior. He was not condoning such behavior but the academy, he argued, had become culturally over-reactive and over-sensitive to such things. Besides, the faculty member in question was a minority and might sue the University, scrutiny the institution could do without. Unfortunately, this senior administrator’s reaction is more typical than exceptional. Such a fundamental aversion to the risk of exposure and scrutiny from the outside dominates the thinking of many who hold positions of authority within universities. In this case, the dean refused to look the other way and place the faculty member back in the classroom, and because the elected committee of his peers unanimously recommended termination, the senior administrator’s hands were tied and he acted on the recommendation by terminating the faculty member. No law suit ensued and the faculty member acknowledged his guilt and accepted the determination as final. Had someone persisted in their exposure of seemingly abhorrent behavior at first notice, perhaps the Penn State situation might have seen a similar resolution and spared many from the agony they endured. Risk aversion takes place at all levels of academic institutions, and is especially troublesome when the individuals whose behavior is in question stand outside normal scrutiny and the ambit of internal disciplinary procedures. For example, when a Board member’s interest in and support of athletics becomes too particular with regard to an athletics team and his actions raise concern among the institution’s senior administrators, there are few procedures in place to address such behavior. In one instance, a Board member who was a regular donor to the athletics program at a small university in the northeast used his national and international contacts to help recruit students into the team, many of whom came from outside the US. His influence on the recruiting process meant that students on the team paid next-to-nothing in tuition or room and board and remained obliged to him through four years. The Board member was on campus daily, played and practiced with the team, traveled with them to conference games, and was generally very public about his patronage of players. Senior administrators joked about his interest in spending time with eighteen-year olds in the locker rooms and the special hugs and attention that these members of the team received. The Board chair, also aware of his colleague’s intense interest in the team, condemned him privately, but saw his behavior as an inconvenience at most and something best ignored. Needless to say, the behavior continued and the Board member, who had extended his tenure well beyond that allowed by the Board’s By-Laws, insisted on remaining on the Board despite calls for his departure by several women colleagues. Not even an NCAA investigation into scholarship violations by the institution, during which the investigating team singled out this Board member for an interview and focused on his influence on the recruitment of players, could curb this individual’s behavior, so secure was his protection by the Board chair. While there is nothing to indicate that this behavior is as serious as what occurred at Penn State, the real concern is the tendency to look the other way, especially in instances involving the unchecked interplay of power and dependence, the very foundation for the facilitation of misbehaviors. But senior administrators, confronted by a Board chair whose attitude appears not to have been dissimilar to that of senior leaders at Penn State, found themselves unable to remedy the situation. The problem lies, of course, in the extraordinary level of self-governance that typifies the academy. In most instances, this serves institutions well and
Fire, Facebook & Freedom of Speech
The Bel Air Volunteer Fire Department finds itself embroiled in controversy following a series of posts on Facebook. The controversy started when one of the company’s volunteers complained on his Facebook page about not receiving a discount at a near-by Sonic Drive-In Restaurant. The Fire Chief suspended three volunteer firefighters and demoted one of them shortly after being made aware of the Facebook posts. Four other members of the fire company also face possible disciplinary actions for their involvement in the incident. The controversy escalated when one of the responses to the initial post suggested the volunteers not respond to any future fires at the Sonic Restaurant. That response was later determined not to be from a member of the Bel Air Volunteer Fire Department. In a published report, the Fire Chief said he recognized the names on some of the responses as possibly being from other volunteer departments and has passed along this information to other organizations. All Harford County (MD) fire companies are volunteer organizations. According to the Fire Chief, some who have been suspended face additional disciplinary action, including termination, from the volunteer Department, which has recommended. That action will be decided at a later date by the fire company’s Board of Directors. All of the volunteers involved in the incident will also be allowed to appeal the actions taken against them. The Bel Air Volunteer Fire Department has a policy which allows members to receive discounts offered to them from local businesses. In a situation of crisis for the Bel Air Volunteer Fire Company, the Fire Chief moved into action and demonstrated the attributes of a resilient leader. When notified of the information, he thoroughly investigated to determine all of the facts. To ensure personal credibility, all information must be checked and double-checked in a timely manner for accuracy before making a decision. The Chief did that in this case. When approached by the media for comment, the Chief again followed a model of proven success for resilient leadership. First, he responded to the reporters inquiry rather than hiding behind a “no comment.” After confirming his facts, he acknowledged an incident had occurred; he stated both the short- and long-term actions and the effects he believed those actions would have in resolving the matter. Finally, he expressed his feelings about the incident when he said “… it’s hurtful to me personally and hurts the credibility of the fire and EMS service.” In addition, he praised the overall performance of the Bel Air Fire Company elsewhere in his response, specifically pointing-out their exemplary performance following a tornado which recently hit the area. When leaders respond to crisis effectively, they enable their organization to address the incident and move beyond it quickly with as little impact on the overall organization as possible. The Bel Air Volunteer Fire Department turned adversity into advantage. For more information about crisis and strategic communications, call the Fallston Group at 410.420.2001. Send email inquiries to info@fallstongroup.com.
Spirit Airlines Reverses Decision, Will Now Reimburse Veteran
Veterans groups came together on the behalf of a dying Vietnam veteran and retired Marine, Jerry Meekins. Meekins is 76 years old and a resident of Clearwater, Florida. The former Marine purchased an airline ticket with Spirit Airlines for $197 in order to visit his daughter in New Jersey. After the ticket was purchased, Jerry was diagnosed with terminal cancer of the esophagus and was ordered not to fly by his doctor. The veteran wanted a refund for his plane ticket but Spirit Airlines denied his request because of their strict “no refund” policy. After the news of the “no refund” policy hit the media, the veteran groups of America (along with many others) exploded with anger and outrage. Spirit has now reversed its decision and donated funds to the Wounded Warrior Project, but only after an incredible, negative groundswell toward Spirit. Fox News has received “hundreds of calls” from veterans across America just as mad at Spirit Airlines as Meekins. Meekins even told Fox News that, “The response of most veterans is that they are going to boycott Spirit Airlines.” He also told Fox News that the boycott could be an estimated 6 or 7 million people. This rise of anger towards the Spirit Airlines has even set-off a facebook page “Boycott Spirit Airlines,” which has dramatically spiked with “likes” (more than 41,000 now) and people talking about the veteran and against Spirit Airlines. With veterans across America furious with Spirit Airlines and multiple veteran groups such as AMVETS siding with Meekins, how can the company afford the negative media attention and even a possible boycott? The answer, they can’t. Spirit Airlines is now facing a serious crisis even though they’ve reversed their decision, but too late. Spirit Airlines’ reputation is diminishing through traditional and social media which will cause the company to lose time, money, customers, and may even cost some their careers. If there would happen to be a full scale boycott by the millions of veterans, the effect would be devastating towards Spirit Airlines because not only the veterans but the families of the veterans and friends would be boycotting as well, leaving the company with a terrible reputation and even less business. The effectiveness and timeliness of the media is a true wonder of the world today. However, in the case of Spirit Airlines, it can also be devastating for a company’s image. The key to any crisis is to be prepared before it occurs so that when it does happen adversity can be turned into advantage, with sound decision-making! For more information, please contact the Fallston Group at info@FallstonGroup.com. The Fallston Group is a crisis management and communications firm.
College Athletics…Social Media…Crisis Communications
We are all familiar with major news stories involving student athletics which brought their campuses to crisis. Recent stories include: Arkansas football coach Bobby Petrino crashing his motorcycle while riding with his girlfriend; The murder of University of Virginia lacrosse player Courtney Love by her boyfriend and men’s lacrosse player George Hughley; The child abuse charges being filed against former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky. An event doesn’t have to be national news to initiate a crisis that could negatively impact the institution’s brand. Hazing, drug/alcohol abuse, campus crime, the improper use of school facilities…all are events that can escalate into a reputation-damaging crisis. Many colleges and universities are now utilizing social media as a part of their marketing strategy, which brings an additional element into the crisis communications equation. Recently, the College Sports Information Directors of America commissioned a survey of the athletic departments to determine their position on the use of social media, especially during a crisis situation. The survey included 152 four-year institutions, the majority of which (38%) were schools with an enrollment of 1,000-4,999 students. Twenty-five percent of the schools have enrollments of more than 20,000 and 30% have enrollments of 5,000-19,999 students. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CRISIS HITS – THE RESULTS More than half of the schools participating in the survey reported having had to initiate their crisis communications plans from one-to-three times within the previous 12 months. During the same period, 43% of the institutions had potential reputation-damaging stories discussed on social media sites and 6% reported having seven or more stories of this nature occur. Are colleges and universities prepared to respond effectively when faced with an actual crisis event? Apparently not as only slightly more than 50% of the institutions in the survey reported having an active crisis communications plan in place. Of those schools with a crisis communications plan, only half included social media as an active part of the crisis response scenario. In addition, nearly 60% of the schools have no plan to monitor social media outlets as a part of their crisis communications strategy. This is despite the fact that 98% of the schools have an official athletic department page on Facebook and 96% have active Twitter accounts. HOW TO PREPARE It is not a question of whether a crisis will impact a college campus; it is a question of when. In order to effectively respond to a crisis and minimize the negative impact on an institution’s brand, there are steps that can be taken in advance which will lay the groundwork for success. Establish a crisis communications plan: The plan should include the creation of a team within the institution to lead a crisis response; Include all aspects of electronic communications: Have a plan to use the school’s existing website, create a “dark” web site which can be activated to respond to a crisis, include all of the institution’s social media accounts in the response plan; Actively monitor social media during the crisis: Social media is a two-way form of communication. An element of the crisis plan must include being responsive to social media activity and taking advantage of the ability to communicate directly to stakeholders. Social media is, many times, the way students not only find out about, but follow a crisis. Clear, concise directives should be given during a critical time of need; Confirm the facts – In any crisis situation, effective communication must be accurate. Because social media is immediate, confirm all facts before any information is distributed via traditional or social media channels. There are many more critical elements to an effective crisis communications plan. For more information about crisis and strategic communications, call the Fallston Group at 410.420.2001. The Fallston Group is a crisis management and communications company. Send email inquiries to info@fallstongroup.com.
Komen Fallout Continues
In what is becoming a classic case of crisis communications mismanagement, the Susan G. Komen Foundation continues to feel the fallout of its decision to cut off financing to Planned Parenthood. In a report on NBC’s Nightly News, reporter Lisa Myers detailed the on-going impact of the decision that was made earlier this year. You can see the NBC Story here: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/year-the-mad-men-komen-spurns-planned-par-msna19623. The Komen Foundation, known for its pink ribbons representing breast cancer survivors, raises much of its donations through local events such as the “Race for the Cure.” According to Myers, race registrations for a Fort Worth, TX event are down 40%, donations at an event in Southwest Florida were down nearly 30% and an event in Louisiana saw a decline in donations of 27%. The story also featured a major donor from New York City who has stopped supporting the Foundation. Not only is the Foundation taking a hit financially, the initial decision is also costing senior executive their jobs. The Chairman of the Board of Directors has resigned; he was replaced by a previous Chairman. In addition, three senior executives have also recently resigned citing their own “personal reasons.” All three are reported to have opposed the original decision to cease funding of Planned Parenthood by the Komen Foundation. The Foundation’s Founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, remains under pressure to resign. When not handled properly, a crisis will cost an organization time, money and customers, as exemplified in the report. For executives who are unable to effectively communicate during a time of crisis, it can cost them their job. Currently the CEO of the Foundation remains on the job, but her position is precarious, primarily due to a poor initial response and ultimate handling of the situation. As the situation continues to unfold at the Susan G. Komen Foundation, remember this: “If you don’t tell your story, someone else will. And when someone else tells your story, it won’t be the story you want to be told.” For more information about crisis and strategic communications, call the Fallston Group at 410.420.2001. Send email inquiries to info@fallstongroup.com. The Fallston Group is a crisis management and communications company.
NASCAR Benefits from Tweeting Decision
The perceived value of NASCAR driver Brad Keselowski’s Twitter account soared more than $200,000 following his track-side tweets during the 2012 Daytona 500. Just three days after the incident, Keselowski’s Twitter account had attracted more than 215,000 followers, resulting in the estimated value of the account to soar to more than $300,000. Prior to the incident, Keselowski had fewer than 30,000 Twitter followers. Keslowski and his Twitter account became news during this year’s Daytona 500 when the race was stopped due to a fire on the race track. As crews worked to extinguish the flames and repair damage to the track, drivers were forced to wait and watch. Taking advantage of the unusual circumstance, Keselowski retrieved his phone from his car and began Tweeting messages and photos. During the two hours the race was suspended, he gained more than 130,000 new followers. He later explained how the phone came to be in a car he regularly drives at more than 200 m.p.h. During the 2007 NASCAR season, Keselowski was involved in a serious accident and was taken by helicopter to a local hospital. Without a way to communicate with his family during the incident, he vowed not to let that happen again so he had his team to install a holder for a phone inside his race car. After initially considering taking action against the driver, NASCAR officials quickly realized the opportunity that was literally “at hand.” Keselowski says, “NASCAR was 100 percent behind my actions. They know I didn’t put myself, or anyone else, in jeopardy by tweeting while the car was moving. Everyone at NASCAR gets what Twitter and social media mean to the fabric of popular culture these days.” NASCAR benefited as Keselowski’s photo of the on-track fire was retweeted more than 5,000 times and his name was been mentioned more than 100,000 times on Twitter in the days after the race. He had been described as a “Twitter natural,” even before his prime-time tweets from Daytona. Last year he used the medium to break news of the condition of his injured ankle following a crash during testing outside of Atlanta. Prior to this year’s Daytona 500, Keselowski’s NASCAR Camping World Truck Series team ran a promotion that allowed thousands of his followers to get their Twitter handles on his truck for that series race at Daytona. For more information about strategic and crisis communications, call the Fallston Group at 410.420.2001. The Fallston Group is a crisis management and communications company; send email inquiries to info@fallstongroup.com.
Educational Institutions Missing a Crisis Communications Opportunity
America’s college campuses are not immune from, rather prone to crisis. A recent survey by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) reports two-thirds of the institutions studied had an adverse event appear in traditional media (print, television, radio) during the previous 12 months that could have negatively impacted the school’s reputation. The study found a similar percentage of colleges and universities dealing with potentially damaging situations were being discussed on social media sites. While the vast majority of colleges and universities (85%) report having a crisis communications plan in place, only 59% include utilizing social media as a part of those plans. That gap is a major point of exposure for institutions when immediate and effective communications are key to successfully navigating a very difficult issue. 100% of the institutions in the study had a Facebook page and more than 90% were also on Twitter and YouTube. However, only 26% of the institutions in the study required that individuals officially representing the school on that site to have any training and only 10% had an official social media presence relating to campus safety. For a university (or any organization) to respond to a situation that could negatively impact its reputation, the Fallston Group recommends the following: Immediately establish a social media monitoring system; if you don’t know what’s being said about you, you can’t respond effectively; Institute a social media policy; correctly used, social media can protect your brand and reputation; Establish a registration system for social media users; a centrally located database of “User IDs and Passwords” not only allows immediate access, but also prevents unauthorized use of your social media site; Identify a single department to serve as social media supervisor; this office should be the clearly identified center-point of all social media activity and provide guidance and consistency to other departments who actively maintain the social media sites. The real-time nature of social media is a powerful tool many colleges and universities are overlooking. A university’s social media site is the “go-to” place for information for students, faculty and the media…especially during a time of crisis. As such, it must be an integral part of any organization’s overall crisis communications plan. For more information about strategic and crisis communications, call the Fallston Group at 410.420.2001. Send email inquiries to info@fallstongroup.com. The Fallston Group is a crisis management and communications company.
Komen Entered Race it Could Not Win
A firestorm erupted when the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced it was stopping its contributions to Planned Parenthood. According to the Foundation, its original decision was based on its own bylaws which state the Foundation will not provide financial resources to organizations which are “under investigation.” As this seems like a reasonable position for an organization, which itself is a charity, why did the Foundation come under such withering fire from supporters of Planned Parenthood? In making its original announcement, the Komen Foundation failed to clearly and forthrightly articulate the reason for its decision. By not stating its position effectively regarding the investigation, the Foundation allowed others to seize control of the storyline. In fact, during initial national news reporting, Planned Parenthood was way out in front of the message curve and the Komen Foundation was nowhere to be heard. Regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not, the Foundation’s silence illustrates to the Fallston Group’s mantra – “If you don’t tell your story, someone else will. And when someone else tells your story it won’t be the story you want told.” Case and point! In giving-up the story line, the Komen Foundation also gave up the ability to stand by its original decision. Consequently, the organization has announced the rescinding of its decision and is resuming its funding to Planned Parenthood. It has also had to clarify its interpretation of its own bylaws saying the disqualifier in the future will be “criminal investigations” as the current investigation of Planned Parenthood is being conducted by Congress. It certainly seems that the Komen Foundation should’ve had a much better crisis communications strategy given the initial intent of their decision as they grossly underestimated the reaction of their stakeholder base. Planning is power; this decision barely got off the launch pad…for more information about strategic and crisis communications, contact the Fallston Group, a crisis management and communications company (info@fallstongroup.com).
Abandoning Ship; Many Leaders Have During Critical Times
The wife of Captain Francesco Schettino is now weighing-in after her husband has been accused of abandoning the Costa Concordia cruise liner off the Tuscan island. Captain Schettino’s wife claims that her husband is not the “monster” he is being made out to be and that he is nothing more than a scapegoat. “My husband is at the center of an unprecedented global media storm,” Fabiola Russo, Schettino’s wife, said in an interview released by Oggi, an Italian magazine. “I cannot think of any other naval or air tragedy in which the responsible party was treated with such violence. This is a manhunt, people are looking for a scapegoat, a monster. It’s shameful,” says Russo in the article. According to various global news sources, the Costa Concordia capsized on January 13, 2012 when it hit rocks near Italy’s Tuscan coast. Of the 4200 passengers on board, 16 were found dead so far, 17 are still missing. In addition to the loss of life, massive fuel leakage and ship debris continue to threaten the area’s wildlife, waterways and coastline. While Captain Schettino claims to have tripped into a lifeboat during the accident, many doubt the story he told – the investigation continues. Interestingly, “tripping into a lifeboat” is somewhat of a symbolic phrase as there are many who manage to save themselves, but not others, during times of crisis. The hallmarks of resilient leadership, as presented by Dr. George Everly in his book The Secrets of Resilient Leadership, include, in part: Operating with integrity Communicating effectively Engaging in decisive, optimistic leadership Taking responsibility As we now collectively look-out over the bow, we see none of the above. Our hope is that leaders will learn from the Captain’s reported action and work to save those that depend on them in the future, whether they must be rescued from a sinking ship or partnership. To learn more about how to handle crisis-oriented issues, contact the Fallston Group, a crisis communications company.
Crisis Communications Plans Paramount
Sadly, Virginia Tech once again found itself in the news recently for an on-campus shooting incident when Officer Deriek Crouse, a 4-year veteran of the school’s police department, was shot and killed while conducting a routine traffic stop on campus. The shooter was not involved in the traffic incident, but approached the officer at the scene. After killing Officer Crouse, the suspect, who was not a Virginia Tech student, fled to another on-campus parking lot where he apparently shot and killed himself. As the tragic events unfolded, Virginia Tech students, faculty and employees received a series of messages from the VT Alert system. The system distributed four alerts via text, email, and to electronic message boards in classrooms and other campus buildings within the first 90 minutes of the initial incident. Virginia Tech officials continued to use the alert system to distribute additional messages, updating the events until police declared the campus “secure” at an afternoon news conference. This was not the case in 2007 when a gunman killed 33 students on the VT campus. “It sounds like things moved very, very fast this time as opposed to the time before,” Andrew Goddard is quoted as saying. Goddard’s son was wounded in the 2007 attack and his daughter and nephew are currently students at Virginia Tech. “That doesn’t surprise me. Virginia Tech really did get the message that when bad things happen you have to act quickly.” Universities are required under the Clery Act to provide warnings in a timely manner and to report the number of crimes on campus. Ironically, the most recent shooting occurred just as Virginia Tech was appealing a $55,000 fine levied by the U.S. Department of Education in relation to the 2007 incident. The shootings at Virginia Tech and the scandals at Penn State and Syracuse Universities are high-profile cases where crisis communications skills continue to be required. In this case, Virginia Tech demonstrated its ability to act quickly, providing clear and effective communications to their communities. The failure of effective crisis communications strategies severely damaged the reputations of both Penn State and Syracuse. School administrators who are not actively implementing, developing, or carefully reviewing crisis communications plans for their campuses, are risking the reputation and goodwill of their institution; they may also be risking their job. This was the case at Penn State University where the Board of Trustees chose to remove President Graham Spanier from his position in part due to the failure of the University to effectively communicate from the beginning of the scandal. The fact is, with the proper planning and training, some of these crises may have been avoided. For more information on the Fallston Group call 410.420.2001 or send email inquiries to info@fallstongroup.com. Fallston Group LLC, a crisis communications company.
