The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.-Martin Luther King Jr.
*****
I wanted to look outside of the industry today, and see what I could learn from other companies or organizations that are going through crisis. Specifically, organizations that have typically been looked at as solid performers and highly dependable. I talk about Toyota a lot on this blog, and Kaizen is an immensely inspirational concept here. Tiger Woods and the Secret Service are also leaders in their industries, and have been held up to a high standard as well. What they all have in common is that they have all faced ‘problems’ that have negatively impacted their reputations.
What I wanted to highlight with all cases, is that the actions of the CEO or leaders of these organizations during times of crisis, is absolutely vital. And in all cases, minus maybe the Secret Service, these groups are taking some serious hits because the leaders are not doing enough to either apologize or to make amends for the actions of their organizations. Perception is everything, and all of these groups listed below are taking some big hits for their actions, or lack there of.
So what can we learn from them? Well for Toyota and Tiger Woods, the verdict is still out. But at the very least, we can deduct that the media and public want some honesty and they want some apologies for not living up to their ideals. The public has a vision of what these companies are supposed to be, and it is up to those companies to live up to that image. After all, these guys did not start off with bad reputations and in fact have sterling reputations. These two companies have mad a lot of money off of that reputation, so it is up to them to do what they can to live up to it.
It’s the same with the Secret Service, but Mr. Sullivan had to answer to congress for the actions of the Secret Service and the Secret Service does not work for profit. But they do work for the tax payers and the President, and they are accountable. With the Iraqi shoe incident under President Bush, and with the Salahi incident with President Obama, these two incidents were very public embarrassments that the USSS had to deal with. There were some in the media that were calling for Mr. Sullivan’s resignation even. Although I think some public trust has been diminished with these incidents, for the most part, the USSS has recovered and are out of the limelight. What took the edge off, in my opinion, was Mr. Sullivan getting out front about it all and taking full blame.
Which begs the question? Why wasn’t there dismissals or reprimands for this incident? I suspect that because this is government, that firing people or reprimands are just ‘too stern’ and harsh for the Secret Service. Firing some folks would have added some action to the apology given, but in today’s touchy feely government, probably too extreme.
Or maybe it was because Mr. Sullivan was up front and took the blame right off the bat, that the public really didn’t apply the pressure necessary to force a punishment? He is still in that position, and still tasked with the protection of the President. I also don’t see a push for his removal from any kind of massive outrage from the taxpayers.
So what can we learn from this? Having some humility in the face of crisis, is something that leaders need think about when it comes to dealing with the public. Of course you also want to be a source of strength and stability for your company, but you also want to show that you care what the public thinks.
Maybe all of these groups got too comfortable with their position, and maybe bleeding a little was good for them?Maybe the leaders will get humble again, and try to redeem themselves? A lot depends upon the leader, and how they deal with crisis, and this industry certainly has had it’s fair share of that. Learning from other companies, and how they deal with crisis, is an excellent idea if you care about ‘being prepared’ for future incidents. Interesting stuff, and I would like to hear what you guys think are the lessons learned? –Matt
—————————————————————–
Toyota and Tiger Woods: Kindred spirits
By Alex Taylor III
February 11, 2010
NEW YORK (Fortune) — The question is being raised more and more: Can Toyota recover its reputation?
There is no simple answer. The automaker once enjoyed exceptional renown. In addition to being the largest and most profitable auto company on the planet, Toyota was the most studied and copied. Its production system became a benchmark and a model for competitors to emulate around the world.
On top of that, Toyota was known for always putting the customer first, hence its passion for building cars with the highest quality and reliability. The automaker obsessively studied car buyers to find out what they wanted and then provided it for them. It became a leader in new vehicle segments like crossovers, and new technologies like gas-electric hybrids.
But when a crisis arose in the form of complaints about unintended acceleration, Toyota didn’t know what to do. Rather than make a forthright statement about the problem, its history, and its proposed solution, the automaker responded with obfuscation, delay, blame-shifting, and denial.
Not until last August, when a Lexus driven by an off-duty California highway patrolman rolled over and burst into flames, killing the driver and three members of his family, did the issue reach widespread public awareness. And when the time came to apportion responsibility for the incident and outline a new direction for the company, top Japanese executives were nowhere to be seen. When president Akio Toyoda first came forward to take responsibility and promise solutions, he seemed to do so with reluctance.
Compare that to the Tiger Woods scandal. Like Toyota, Woods had a reputation for excellence that far exceeded other golfers.
Like Toyota, Woods was widely emulated for his faultless behavior and superb sportsmanship.
Like Toyota, Woods initially put out a story about his wife, a golf club, and the shattered windows of his SUV that bore little relation to reality.
Like Toyota, the news about Woods’ missteps was allowed to trickle out day by day without being effectively refuted.
Like Toyota, Woods refused to make a public appearance to apologize for his misdeeds (and still hasn’t), preferring to issue press releases instead.
And like Toyota, Woods promised to mend his ways, without offering any convincing evidence of exactly how he will do that.
Just as Toyota has seen sales crumble and its used car values plummet, Woods has been abandoned by his corporate sponsors and shunned by other golfers.
Does this mean that Tiger and Toyota have seen their reputations permanently destroyed? Witnessed the domination of their respective enterprises ended? Are about to be permanently consigned to the ranks of the disgraced and the second-rate?
The betting here is that the answer to all three questions is “no.”
Tiger Woods remains one of the best golfers in history, and assuming he can regain his form and start to win again, his fans will return.
The American public has a short memory, an inclination to forgive, and a willingness to extend second-chances. History is full of examples. After declaring he was leaving politics in 1962, Richard Nixon came back and was elected president in 1968. There have lately been reports that Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in disgrace as governor of New York two years ago, is considering a comeback of his own, thanks to an understanding electorate.
The same is true with Toyota, although the reasoning is more economic and less emotional.
American customers want to buy cars they like, and if they decide they still like Toyotas, they will continue to buy them. Ford was rattled by the Explorer-Firestone tire crisis in 2001, but it eventually recovered because the Explorer was a popular SUV.
Rehabilitation comes down to dollars and cents. If Toyota can convince shoppers that it still offers a strong value, then they will find their way to Toyota dealers.
The critical ingredient that is still missing from the rehabilitation of both Tiger and Toyota is that convincing personal apology. Tiger hasn’t been seen in public since the night of the accident and needs to make a believable account of his behavior along with a statement of his determination to change.
Likewise, Toyota president Akio Toyoda, as well as his management team, must make a complete explanation of their response to unintended acceleration and answer a comprehensive set of questions from outside experts. Only then will its slate be wiped clean, and Toyota will be free to begin the long process of rebuilding its reputation.
Story here.
——————————————————————
USSS head takes heat for breakdownBy Nia-Malika HendersonNovember 27, 2009 08:38 PM EST
For the second time in just under a year, U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan is answering difficult questions about the security of the president.It was under his watch that an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at President George W. Bush during a press conference in December 2008. And now, Sullivan, who became director in May of 2006, is under scrutiny for a security breach that allowed two uninvited guests into the White House where they shook hands with President Obama before a State Dinner.Friday he released a statement taking full responsibility for the incident, and saying that the Secret Service is “deeply concerned and embarrassed by the circumstances surrounding the State Dinner on Tuesday, November 24.”The White House ordered a full review of the breach involving Michaele and Tareq Salahi, reality show wannabes who talked their way into the exclusive black tie event.Ralph Basham, the former director of the Secret Service who recommended Sullivan for the post, said his successor “has a very good reputation and is a career law enforcement agent.”“When I left the Secret Service, I recommended to Bush that Mark was the right person to replace me as director and I still stand by that,” Basham said. “But certainly it’s going to reflect poorly on Mark because he is the director. But the issue is that there were procedures that were in place and they weren’t followed.”Sullivan has been with the Secret Service since 1983, including a four-year assignment with the Presidential Protective Division that began in 1991. In 2005 he was awarded a Distinguished Presidential Rank Award.Basham, who is now a principal at Command Consulting Group, said Secret Service requires that an agent at a checkpoint who receives a guest who is not on the list must check with the White House.“The Secret Service doesn’t invite guests to the White House, the White House invites guests to the White House. But that individual agent apparently made a unilateral decision that that person doesn’t look like a threat and let’s not cause a back up in processing with the others in line,” Basham, who isn’t directly familiar with the investigation, suggested. “I’m not sure how you deal with that problem other than making it clear that there are severe consequences if you elect to disregard procedures.”In his statement Sullivan said that the Secret Service processed more than 1.2 million visitors last year at the White House, and protected 10,000 sites for the president, vice president and others.“Even with these successes, we need to be right 100% of the time. While we have protocols in place to address these situations, we must ensure that they are followed each and every time,” Sullivan said in the statement. “As our investigation continues, appropriate measures have been taken to ensure this is not repeated.”
Story here.