|
|
Virginia Tech Shootings: Crisis Magnifies the Significance of Small Weaknesses By Bruce T. Blythe The administration of Virginia Tech is widely under attack for allegedly not responding appropriately in the aftermath of the mass shootings on campus. They did have some ingredients for crisis response in place, such as a published protocol for crisis notification and lockdown procedures. However, these rudimentary measures are only serving as fodder for critics of the administration’s inadequate response of not following their own crisis procedures. Clearly, Virginia Tech was not prepared for a crisis of this magnitude. Many seemingly small insignificant weaknesses in their crisis preparedness suddenly have been magnified into the worldwide spotlight. Administrators are now finding themselves on the defensive and appear not to be in control of their own crisis. So, what were the steps that Virginia Tech should have taken? What should they do now to gain control of their crisis? Crisis Containment: The first step of any crisis leader is to take immediate actions to contain the crisis and anticipate how it could escalate in severity. In working with executives in Strategic Crisis Leadership, I continue to ask two important questions related to the immediate aftermath of an unexpected, high-consequence crisis: (1) How can this crisis escalate in severity; and (2) What needs to be done to contain the crisis to prevent further damage? Once the initial shooting occurred on Virginia Tech’s campus, the administration needed to look beyond the obvious crisis and emergency response issues. It is the job of a good crisis leader to anticipate what could go wrong next. Crisis containment and response is active. As we know from experience, over response during the uncertain early aftermath is better than under response. Once it has been confirmed that the emergency responders are doing their jobs, it is the job of the crisis leader to step back and anticipate what the crisis is beyond the obvious, what could potentially occur to make this situation worse, and what needs to start and stop immediately to minimize further damage. Crisis Leadership: Obviously, this crisis was not on the leader’s to-do list for the day. This is not daily leadership. It is leadership that is highly visible, with high consequences, and to be executed with insufficient time and information. One strategy to increase effectiveness of the leader who is unexpectedly under fire is to write it down. List out the facts (verified and unverified), what are the concerns and issues that can be anticipated, and what needs to be done to address these issues. Research has shown that writing during crises increases clarity and improves decision-making. If we analyze the response of Virginia Tech administrators, we can readily see miscalculations that lead to escalating an already horrible situation. Defining Decisions: The following “defining decisions” were made by Virginia Tech crisis leaders during the crisis containment phase that possibly allowed this situation to go from a two person killing to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Now what? What should the university do now, even though damage to their reputation is harmed from the shooting and additionally from the inadequate crisis response? I fall back on the “Be, Know, Do” model that I borrowed from the U.S. Army in developing a model for Strategic Crisis Leadership. Be: What kind of persons should Virginia Tech administrators be during the crisis aftermath? We know from research at the Center for Risk Communications that the single most important ingredient of crisis messaging in “high concern” situations is the effective expression and demonstration of “caring.” They need to demonstrate openly in every way they can that they truly care at a heartfelt level. Dick Hyde, Hill & Knowlton’s crisis public relations sage of many decades, reports that the police officer was unable to effectively show his heartfelt caring in the press conference. We all know that internally he must have cared deeply. But, in crisis management, “caring” is not a feeling. Caring, instead, is a set of overt behaviors and messages that lead impacted stakeholders to believe that you care about their needs and concerns. It is critical that leaders and spokespersons get in touch with their deepest sense of caring and compassion and figure out a way to convey it in a credible manner. Rudy Giuliani did it following 9/11. These administrators owe it to the school’s reputation to get immediate coaching in how best to demonstrate personal caring. Know: It is critical that administrators identify a “vision” for appropriate crisis resolution. They need to identify the crisis beyond the obvious. The obvious crisis is the harm done to students, faculty and families as a result of the shooting. The less obvious crisis that needs to be managed is the damaged reputation and brand of the school. This vision must be condensed into no more than three key messages, with each message containing no more than a dozen words. We again know from research at the Center for Risk Communications that people in high concern situations don’t hear, understand or retain messages that go beyond three key concepts, or involve more than a dozen words each to express. The key is for Virginia Tech to share their well-thought-out vision repeatedly and then effectively execute their plan. Do: No crisis management is any better than its communication. This involves effective two-way communication to and from all impacted stakeholders. Messaging needs to be tailored to address the needs and concerns of each stakeholder group. Beyond crisis counseling, administrators need to allow people to feel heard and understood. Town hall meetings are not recommended, since they could quickly explode out of hand. Instead, private focus and feedback groups could be held with stakeholders such as students, parents, faculty and families. Administrators need to find as many appropriate ways as possible to give and receive timely and high-quality communications. A multidisciplinary crisis recovery committee should be started immediately with both internal representatives and external crisis specialists. Administrators need feedback and best ideas for how to respond from this point forward. Re-entry into a new normal should be a purposeful and well-thought-out process. A crisis recovery committee could help guide that process. Jonathan Bernstein, nationally known crisis Public Relations specialist, summed it up in saying that the response of Virginia Tech administrators appeared to show a basic lack of crisis preparedness. The incident was predictable, in that shootings have occurred previously in several school settings. However, crisis response appeared to be inadequately planned, trained and rehearsed. As a result, administrators are now on the defensive. Lesson learned? Adequate crisis preparedness is the single greatest correlate with success crisis response. Even now, as they should have done from the beginning, crisis responders at Virginia Tech should assume the worst, respond accordingly and hope for the best.
Companies Offering Notification Services
|
