Why is speaking to employees during a crisis so difficult?
When a company is mired in controversy, it needs every friend it can get. Employees are likely to be supportive in these situations, but companies seldom do much to engage them. Chief executives offer up a variety of objections. Here are the five most common ones – and why they don’t hold up.
I spoke recently to a client who has problems in all directions – regulatory probes, lawsuits, weak revenue growth and a falling stock price that is delighting the cadre of short-sellers who’ve been quick to seize on every misstep by the company.
As we discussed a strategy, the CEO was open to speaking with investors and the media, but he resisted greater communication with employees. His objections came down to the following:
“We’ve never done it before.”
It can be unsettling to do something new, but that’s often exactly what’s needed in a crisis. And nothing signals a fresh approach like departing from past habits. The simple act of reaching out to employees can be more powerful than the message.
“It might add to our legal risk.”
It’s certainly true that saying anything publicly carries some legal risk. But if you’re careful about what you say (and have lawyers look it over in advance) the risk is greatly diminished. The goal in a crisis isn’t to minimize your legal risk – it’s to see that your business survives. You don’t want to be cavalier about legal risk, but it does no good to win the legal contest but lose your business.
“It won’t have a noticeable impact.”
The impact of employee communication can be much greater than most people realize. Consider a company with 50,000 employees. If each one had a brief conversation on the crisis issue with just five people – family at a picnic or buddies at the soccer field – that would be 250,000 first-hand contacts. That’s a pretty good start.
Now consider if those people in turn had five conversations. That would boost the impressions by another 1.25 million. That’s the power of the network effect, the same thing that drives social media.
That figure is well behind the New York Times, which reaches about 4 million people, through its print editions and online, but it’s roughly on par with the reach of regional newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle (1.5 million). (See the helpful Pew Research Institute’s 2013 State of the Media report for more interesting data.)
When you consider that people trust information received from peers over information from other sources, like newspapers, the benefits of employee communication start to add up.
“It will draw attention to bad news.”
This objection assumes that employees aren’t following the news. They are, and often in great detail. If management remains distant, employees’ views will be shaped by people who are being critical of the company’s actions.
“Employees already know our story.”
Many companies address employees on a variety of subjects – new products, industry trends, regulation and recent acquisitions, for example. But little of that bears on the issues that are present a crisis. For that, a company needs new messages, delivered by credible senior officials.
This CEO isn’t alone, of course. Communicating to employees during a crisis is well down on the list for most CEOs. Sure, a news release will be posted on a website or sent in an email, but that’s usually about it.
It might only be self-preservation, but employees are generally supportive of their employers when bad things happen. They’re willing to listen, give the benefit of the doubt and even speak up when the company is attacked. Provided the company takes responsibility and moves quickly to address the problem, employees will be effective advocates for the company and can play an essential role in rebuilding trust.
Every employee has dozens of encounters each day with customers, prospects, and vendors, as well as a wide network of friends, family and acquaintances who buy the company’s products and shape its reputation. They can be a powerful asset during a crisis.