Search results

The article guides executives and their staff on how to respond to and manage a potential crisis as it is evolving.

The article offers three sets of questions that executives can use to help them clarify what is happening and what the appropriate response should be in the event of a potential crisis.

Every crisis is a business problem before it is a communication problem. Effective crisis response pairs smart action with smart communication.

The more candidly we articulate the problem, the more likely we are to effectively address it.

Among the many valuable insights in this article are these three: (1) Trust is the consequence of fulfilled expectations. (2) Framing decisions in light of stakeholder expectations leads to smarter choices faster, and maintains stakeholder trust. (3) Effective crisis response begins with a timely demonstration of caring.

Class action litigation has the potential to severely damage the image customers have of a company (brand), often with calamitous consequences for its strategy. Such risks increase when plaintiff's attorneys use all of the instruments of influence to embarrass and persuade large corporations to settle large lawsuits before they ever reach a courtroom. The aim of this paper is to examine this issue.

The paper offers a five‐point plan that organizations can use to pro‐actively defend themselves from aggressive litigants and thus protect their brand.

The paper finds that companies that cede the litigation communication advantage to their adversaries commit a fundamental mistake. They fail to understand the threat they face.

Corporations facing class action litigation need to understand that: it is more than a legal fight; and plaintiffs' lawyers count on corporate defendants to act (and communicate) in predictable and often counterproductive ways. Litigation (and all supporting communication) is at its core a battle for the hearts and minds of the stakeholders. It is a simultaneous public relations and political war being waged against the defendant company.

The paper shows how organizations can defend their reputation in litigation by: understanding the context of the fight; identifying the likely assault; pre‐empting their adversary; and communicating forcefully.

The author warns that when corporate leaders misunderstand and mishandle communication in a crisis, there can be existential consequences: customer loyalty can be jeopardized, market share lost to rivals, the ability to achieve key goals compromised, and perhaps a legal position undercut. The article aims to demonstrate how such pitfalls can be avoided.

The paper explains that effective communication requires mastering a discipline with two key skills – gaining a current and thorough knowledge of the expectations and needs of audience and understanding how to craft a message to achieve a desired reaction.

The author proposes and parses a working definition of communication is: “an act of will directed toward a living entity that reacts.”

Case studies of communications failures are reported.

Organizations need defenses against their charismatic leaders.

The paper provides a guide to how effective leaders communicate with stakeholders by speaking and acting only after thoroughly studying their needs and interests.

This article offers guidelines for effective crisis response.

Its thesis is: whether an organization survives a crisis with its reputation, operations, and financial condition intact is determined less by the severity of the crisis than by the timeliness and effectiveness of the response

Companies with effective crisis response saw their stock price recover quickly, and remain above their pre‐crisis price thereafter, closing an average of seven percent above their pre‐crisis price one year after the crisis.

Offers do and don't prescriptions for managing a crisis.

A consultant recognized as an authority in his field shares his experience in effective crisis management.