Logos team blog posts

Humility: A Competitive Advantage for Leaders

, , , , , , ,

How humility helped win trust in the case of Bobby Kennedy

America lost one of its greatest leaders on June 5, 1968. Fifty years later, when the current administration is treating politics as a zero-sum game that turns people against each other, this leader and the humility he embodied is missed more than ever – a leader who made joint success possible by bringing out harmony and faith among all and whose humble leadership style is the antidote to today’s toxic political atmosphere.

I studied charisma and humility in my master’s thesis, which looked at how the two factors of the presidential candidates influence the election results. This blog post is the second in a series of blog posts where I analyze how humility functions as a valuable asset for some of the world’s greatest leaders. The first post was on Alibaba’s founder and former CEO Jack Ma. This one is on Bobby Kennedy.

Bobby played a pivotal role in the New Frontier of America, in fighting for civil rights and social justice during a moment of national crisis (the racial violence and the assassinations of his brother JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., and later his own in the 60s). Despite possible presumptions or colorful images people might have upon hearing his last name, Robert F. Kennedy, for many people even to this day, was remembered as a humble and moral leader who has come to embody “the Democratic Party’s lost dream.”

(Robert F. Kennedy campaigns in Detroit, May 1968.  Andrew Sacks—Getty Images)

 

Trust and Leadership

 

As of September 11, 2018, president Trump’s average approval rating was 38 percent, according to eight polling entities, down from his previous average approval rating of 41 percent. For comparison’s purpose, the then-president Bill Clinton’s approval ratings in September of 1994 hovered between 39 and 51.

Aside from the dwindling approval polling, the Trump administration has set the record in American modern history for administration turnover, according to NBC news. The result of a New York Times analysis of 21 top White House and cabinet positions back to President Bill Clinton shows how unusual the rampant turnover is through the first 14 months of a presidency.

A more direct demonstration of the deterioration of public trust in the current government is data collected by Pew Research Center since 1958, which shows the public trust plumped from 77 percent in 1964 to 18 percent at the end of 2017, and from 19 percent in October 2015 (the last data collected before Trump took office) to 18 percent at the end of 2017.

 

Trust is one of the most important measurement tools of leadership effectiveness. A leader without trust is like a ship captain without a helm, unequipped to lead or steer.

The fatal consequences of losing trust can be seen in both business and the political arena. On October 16, 2018, the court approved a settlement between Tesla CEO and chairman Elon Musk and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Charges of fraud were brought against Musk by the SEC over his “false and misleading tweet” in August, claiming that he had secured the funding of taking Tesla private at $420 per share – a substantial premium to its then trading price. On October 8, following the fraud charges on September 29, Tesla stock closed at the lowest low since March 2017, dropping 66 points since in just a week. Musk will step down as chairman of Tesla within 45 days and pay $20 million in fines from his personal funds.

Aside from hurting a company’s ability to raise capital, loss of trust in leadership can also harm a company’s strategic focus, employee morale and productivity, and demand for the company’s goods or services.

What Elon Musk and President Trump have in common is a lack is of humility, an underrated but transforming quality that helped Bobby Kennedy win the hearts and minds of people with diverse backgrounds. Trust in the Trump administration and for Tesla might have been preserved, if the leaders had possessed a dollop of humility.

Now that the important connection between trust and effective leadership has been established, the ways in which humility helped Bobby Kennedy win trust, and therefore succeed as a leader can be explored.

Bobby and Humility

 

In my master’s thesis, I define humility as “a virtue allowing people to have an accurate self-assessment and think less of themselves.” People who possess humility demonstrate it in different ways.

For Bobby, the most distinctive way he embodied humility was through his profound compassion, a capacity to listen, recognize and empathize with his fellow human being. “He felt the same empathy for white working men and women that he felt for Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans,” columnist Jack Newfield once observed. “He thought of cops, waitresses, construction workers and firefighters as his people.”

Bobby’s compassion came from the victimhood and discrimination he experienced growing up. Despite coming from the one of the richest families at that time, Bobby and his family were constantly the social outcasts due to their Irish Catholic identities – the reason why they ended up moving out of Boston. As a child, Bobby’s identity was heavily influenced by rejection he experienced from his father. The least favored Kennedy son’s generous and quiet personality was deemed to be a sign of weakness by his father.

Bobby’s older brother John F. Kennedy, affectionately known as Jack, who became the 35th President of the United States, gained a greater appreciation for his little brother around 1950, when he hired Bobby to manage his first Senate campaign. Bobby thereafter played a key role in Jack’s campaigns for the Senate and presidency. Jack charmed people with his big smile and lighthearted personality, while other more unpleasant jobs fell to Bobby. “I don’t have to think about organization. I just show up,” Jack once said. Their partnership worked well.

It was the night of the West Virginia primary of the 1960 election. Jack Kennedy wanted to be somewhere else because he thought he was going to lose. It turned out to be a big win. Bobby, who was seen as the tough brother of Jack throughout the contest, started to forge character of his own. In Charleston, where it had been raining all day, Bobby headed off to the wet streets to offer his respects to the race’s loser, Hubert Humphrey. “Everybody walked backwards, and there was a path from the door to the other side of the room where Hubert and Muriel were standing. I’ll never forget that walk if I live to be a hundred,” Joseph Rauh, a Humphrey supporter recalled. (Chris Matthews, 2017)

Humility also became a defining trait of Bobby’s policy ideas and management style, throughout his time as U.S. attorney general, New York state Senator, and while campaigning for presidency.

In the Justice Department, one of his regular routines was to tour the floors, introducing himself, but also stopping to listen. “He’d ask for only five minutes of their time, but he always wound up staying longer to learn more,” remembered by John Seigenthaler, Bobby’s administrative assistant. It was those small things that made the men and women working for him believe he would always support them as needed. Bobby therefore built a team, loyal to him, and loyal to each other. (Matthews, 2017)

Beginning in 1960, Bobby was one of the earliest Democrats, at that time, who openly supported Martin Luther King Jr. on civil rights movement. His efforts – a call to the Georgia judge to secure Dr. King’s release in 1960 and combating segregations in Birmingham in 1963 – all sent a clear message to the civil right activists that he was on their side. However, his efforts and remarks were met with objections and even humiliations. “I’ve seen you guys stand around and do nothing more than take notes while we’re being beaten,” Jerome Smith, one of the core activists said. Smith also openly declared that he’d never fight for his country. Bobby was furious. Yet with days passing, he found his way to understand. “I guess if I were in his shoes, if I’d gone through what he’s gone through, I might feel differently about this country,” He told one of his loyalists, and went on doing what he believed right – championing for those who were “not yet free.” (Mathews, 2017)

By the time of his run for president, Bobby had already won the hearts and minds of the people he devoted to. He secured 86% of the black vote in the Indiana primary. (LaFeber, 2005) Later, he declared the victory in California primary and addressed his supporter at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, with his last words echoing, “If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us. We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America.”

Bobby also won the trust from those who distrusted or hated the Kennedys at the beginning. “Early on I thought he was just a young rich kid, you know, trying to make to the politics,” says Paul Schrade, who later became a major advisor in Bobby’s presidential campaign. Schrade recalled in a Netflix documentary, “he turned into one of the most sincere persons involved in human values, and trying to do the right thing.”

Humility did not make Bobby any less effective as a strategist, as he always had been for his brother Jack in those back rooms of the White House. It instead helped him in forming his own personality when he had to run for office for himself after Jack’s assassination. The Bobby Kennedy whom people remember was the one who “seemed to carry the whole world’s suffering on him,” and who would give a busboy a firm “two-handed shake”. It was that Bobby whom people connected with, followed, and believed. “He seemed uniquely capable of preaching a message of reconciliation in a country violently torn at the seams in 1968,” commented by Politico Magazine. The MSNBC host and longtime political observer Christ Matthews writes, “what thrilled his supporters and scared the hell out of his opponents was that, they believed he’d do exactly what he said he would do.”

(New York City. 1966. Portrait of Robert KENNEDY in his apartment. Source: Netflix)

Conclusion: Lessons for Leaders

 

Humility, as well as compassion, embedded in it, fosters trust in leadership by creating an environment where those around them feel safe and motivated to communicate and to contribute, which in return, further strengthens the connections between the leaders and their followers. Additionally, humility helps leaders win trust by demonstrating the genuine gesture to their people that “I’m with you, and your well-being is part of the equation.” On the other hand, according to Forbes, “if they feel that you do what is best for yourself as opposed to what is good for everyone, they will have a hard time trusting you.”

Acuteness, toughness, and tenacity are qualities that come naturally to any successful leader. But these are not enough. Great leaders lead with humility, through which trust is born. Humility urges leaders to check the ego at the door and start to think about people around them. Who are they? What do they need? Are they happy or suffering? Are they taken care of? If those questions cannot be answered, simply start with reaching out and listening.

No leader can accomplish greatness alone. Humility is the competitive advantage for leaders in recognizing their limits and getting others to fight for or with them. Bobby Kennedy eloquently captured this in one of his most remembered address paying tribute to his late brother at the 1964 Democratic convention, which I deem to be a good ending for this article that will hopefully linger within whomever is reading this for a while, “No matter what talent an individual possesses, what energy he might have, no matter how much integrity and honesty he might have, if he is by himself – and particularly a political figure – he can accomplish very little.”

/by

Agony of Decision Now Available as Audio Book

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership Press is pleased to announce that The Agony of Decision: Mental Readiness and Leadership in a Crisis is now available as an audio book.

The Agony of Decision was published in July, 2017.  In June, 2018 it was named one of the “51 Best Crisis Management Books of All Time” by Book Authority, the leading resource for nonfiction book recommendations. The book was named #2 of 51 on the list.

Image Source: Book Authority

 

Audio Edition on Audible, Amazon, and iTunes

The Audio Book edition of The Agony of Decision was published in October, 2018 and is available on all the leading audio book platforms.

You can order it on Audible here.

 

You can order it on Amazon here.

And you can order it on iTunes via your iTunes app.

The audio book edition was narrated by Andy Waits.

Logos Institute For Crisis Management and Executive Leadership Press

The Agony of Decision is the first book published under the Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership Press imprint as well as the first book in the Logos Institute Best Practices Series.

The series provides conceptual frameworks that help make sense of complicated issues by incorporating case studies, actionable tools, tips, and techniques that help leaders make smart choices and build competitive advantage when it matters most.

The Agony of Decision is about the specific ability leaders need in order to maintain reputation, trust, confidence, financial and operational strength, and competitive advantage in a crisis. This ability is mental readiness which comprises 1) emotional discipline, or the self-control needed to execute necessary but difficult choices, 2) deep knowledge, or an understanding of the patterns that show what works and what doesn’t work in a crisis, and 3) intellectual rigor, or the ability to make smart choices by asking the right questions at the right time.

The Agony of Decision was written by Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership executive director Helio Fred Garcia. He is also the author of three prior books:

 

#  #  #

 

 

/by

A Lesson in Listening: What can be learned from the NFL’s response to Colin Kaepernick and #TakeAKnee

A hallmark of effective leadership and crisis response is the ability to learn from others’ mistakes without directly experiencing the pain from those mistakes to learn the lesson. Nike’s latest ad campaign returns to the fore a simmering issue regarding the National Football League (NFL) and its senior leaders’ response to former San Francisco 49ers’ quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who began kneeling (hence #TakeAKnee) during the singing of the national anthem at the start of NFL games in the 2016 season to protest racial inequality and police brutality against people of color. A handful of other players joined him in the demonstrations, drawing much public attention some of which included ire from fans toward Kaepernick for bringing sociopolitical issues onto the field. The NFL leaders did not issue a unified response on the matter at the time, in effect allowing tension and toxicity to fester. The only official statement from the NFL came in May of this year, nearly two years after #TakeAKnee began, from commissioner Roger Goodell; the statement mandates players on the field must stand for the national anthem or be fined for failing to comply, and players who wish not to stand for the anthem must do so off the field.

Kaepernick’s social activism has potentially cost him his career as a professional athlete, something Nike, the NFL’s official apparel sponsor and a global influencer in the sports world, not-so-subtly references in the new ad. Kaepernick has been a free agent since March 2017 and is currently suing the NFL for colluding to keep him off the field because of his social activism. The NFL leaders’ inadequate response to Kaepernick and the broader issues he raises, is ripe with important lessons on how leaders can better protect and even enhance their organizations by listening and responding constructively to criticism.

Nike’s latest ad featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick is suing the NFL for colluding to keep him off the field because of his efforts as a social activist.

It is essential to clarify that Colin Kaepernick’s #TakeAKnee protest is against racial inequality in the United States embodied in part by police brutality against people of color, and not against the NFL directly. Kaepernick implicated his employer however, by using NFL football games as the medium to demonstrate his protests. On one side, there are arguments that the NFL is not responsible for addressing racial inequality and the singing of the national anthem during NFL football games is an inappropriate medium for such demonstrations. On another side, there are arguments that because African American men comprise the overwhelming majority of NFL players, the NFL as a whole and its leaders should demonstrably express care. Their players – and by default, African American men, are perhaps one of the NFL’s most important stakeholder groups; there would be no NFL without its players. Issues affecting players by extension affect NFL leadership.

Kaepernick and a teammate kneeling in protest during the national anthem during a 2016-2017 NFL season game.

Nike endorsing Kaepernick with its new ad only escalates controversy for the NFL at a time when it is facing a collusion lawsuit from Kaepernick that is advancing in light of sufficient evidence. The NFL finds itself at the center of a conversation it does not want to be a part of, but now has no choice to fully confront. As of this writing, the NFL has issued a milquetoast statement in response to the Nike/Kaepernick ad, saying in part “the social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.” Had this statement been issued in 2016 it may have been sufficient coupled with the attention and action it promises, but as of today it is not enough. The NFL’s leaders could have (and almost certainly now realize, should have) made different choices at the onset of #TakeAKnee.

Below are three guiding principles that can help leaders to not only diminish the harmful effects of reputational firestorms, but to protect and perhaps even strengthen their organizations’ reputations in times of public controversy:

Listen. Employees are becoming increasingly vocal when it comes to expressing dissent against their employers’ actions (see Google’s latest drama with employee pushback for just one example of many). This may draw eyerolls, including from leaders who protest “I don’t have time to listen to their whining!” The eye-rollers ought to consider two things. First, that employee pushback is what gave us the 40-hour work week, weekends, and fair wages. Second, is it possible for an organization to deliver effectively on its promises to shareholders and/or customers without the trust and support of its employees? No, it is not. It is for this reason that employees are arguably an organization’s most important stakeholder group. So, leaders should listen to their employees’ serious and consequential concerns (read: not every single one; that is what HR is for). Again, taking into account the racial demographics of NFL players, the specific issues Kaepernick was and is calling attention to, coupled with the amount of national attention his protests were getting, it was shortsighted and ultimately self-harmful for the NFL’s leaders to not listen to their employees’ concerns.

Compromise. The NFL’s leaders and its players have many shared interests, an obvious one being the healthy continuation and advancement of the sport; if this objective is not achieved, both groups are out of jobs. The healthy continuation and advancement of the sport could include minimizing distractions to games, in part by keeping sociopolitical issues off the playing field. It could also include actively addressing (off the field, to not distract from games) serious sociopolitical issues that affect the wellbeing of a majority of the NFL’s employees. One way this could take form is in the NFL giving substantial donations to relevant causes, like Black Lives Matter; another is for the NFL to give their players outlets to tackle these issues in ways that do not impact the games themselves, by partnering with organizations, or starting its own, devoted to addressing these problems.

Follow through. Whatever is achieved through listening and compromising must be tangibly followed through on, otherwise it is a waste of time. One need only look at Google’s aforementioned latest fiasco with employee pushback to see how harmful listening and compromising without follow through can be; Google employees protested in March against the company’s work with the Department of Defense to enhance the accuracy of drone strikes using AI, stating the project’s objective is antithetical to Google’s values. Google’s leaders compromised by pledging not to renew the contract with the DoD once it expires in 2019. Google CEO Sundar Pichai also published a blog post listing four uses of AI Google will not pursue. Two months after this list was published, it came to employees’ attention that senior leaders approved a secret project that directly implicates the four uses the CEO himself listed. Follow through is everything because without it, listening and compromise are nothing.

It is possible had Roger Goodell and other NFL leaders met with Colin Kaepernick and other players in a timely manner to discuss their concerns that Goodell would have saved his organization a lot of difficulty. To be clear, Goodell invited Kaepernick for a one-on-one discussion in October 2017, more than a year after #TakeAKnee began and after Kaepernick filed a colluding grievance against the league. Goodell may even have been able to do the NFL a lot of good, by advancing its corporate social responsibility efforts, and its reputation, by responding to issues relevant to its players and by extension the organization. But for that to happen, the first step is for leaders to listen.

/by

Yinnan Shen Guest Lectures in NYU’s Master Program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication

, , , , , ,

On July 21, Logos Institute for Crisis Management & Executive Leadership fellow Yinnan Shen guest-lectured in an advanced elective crisis communication taught by Logos Institute executive director Helio Fred Garcia, in NYU’s master of science program Public Relations and Corporate Communication.

Yinnan spent 50 minutes sharing with students her research on the neuroscience of emotion and decision-making. She began the discussion by introducing how learning about the people’s emotional forces can be significant in communication and public relations, in terms of changing the public’s feelings, thoughts, and actions.

The lecture covered three parts, first clinical studies conducted by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, second the Somatic Marker Hypothesis proposed by Damasio as a result of the clinical studies, and finally the neuroscience of emotion and how emotion and reasoning work together as an integral system in the decision-making process. Yinnan closed the session by discussing Cola-Cola’s failure of launching New Coke in 1985, and other otherwise successful Coca-Cola campaigns. The case studies served as real-life examples of how neglecting the emotional forces in stakeholder’s decision-making process can cause businesses self-inflicted harm, and at the same time, lose the competitive advantage of harnessing the power of emotion.

Yinnan was one of Helio Fred Garcia’s students in this elective course two years ago. She graduated from the NYU program in May 2017 with her capstone (thesis) exploring How Presidential Candidates’ Charisma and Humility Can Influence the Election Results in America, advised by Helio Fred Garcia.

How humility can work as a competitive advantage for leaders and how neuroscience can be applied to the art of leading and communicating are Yinnan’s top research interests at Logos Institute.

/by

Logos Institute Presented Crisis Communication Boot Camp to National Investor Relations Institute

, , , , , , ,

On July 12, Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership executive director Helio Fred Garcia and Institute fellows Adam Tiouririne and Holly Helstrom led a one-day crisis communication boot camp in partnership with the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI).

The boot camp drew investor and public relations professionals from all over the U.S. and from a wide range of industries, including entertainment and aerospace defense. With 12 participants with such varied backgrounds, this lent itself to a day full of enriched discussion and debate.

The session began with participants being asked to reflect on their learning objectives for the day, as well as their greatest concerns respective to their organizations’ crisis preparedness. From there, Helio Fred Garcia covered the essential principles of effective crisis response, as well as case studies that bring these principles to life, including the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and United Airlines/Dr. Dao crisis. Adam went on to explain the significant connections between language and emotional response and led the group through an in-class exercise where they got to develop crisis response plans for their respective organizations. Holly finished up the day covering the importance of striking the appropriate tone in crisis communication, especially when dealing with social media-related crises.

The participants walked away with fresh perspectives on what a crisis actually is, a deeper understanding of the rigor essential to effective crisis response, and greater confidence in their abilities to plan for and respond effectively to crises. Logos Institute also shared at the end of the session many best practices tools and templates for participants to download for free on logosconsulting.net. The tools are systematizations of best practices that created by Logos Institute from years of academic study and real-world practices.

NIRI is the largest investor relations association in the world with more than 3,300 members worldwide; it is a professional association for corporate officers and investor relations consultants who are responsible for communication among corporate management, shareholders, securities analysts and other constituents within the financial community.

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership stands at the intersection of scholarship and practice, providing both rigorous analysis and practical application of key crisis principles.

/by

Agony of Decision Named One of the Best Crisis Management Books of All Time

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Agony of Decision, written by Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership executive director Helio Fred Garcia, recently received recognition for being one of the “51 Best Crisis Management Books of All Time” by Book Authority, the leading resource for nonfiction book recommendations. The Agony of Decision earned the number two spot on the list of 51 books.

Image Source: Book Authority

Book Authority ratings are calculated using a sophisticated algorithm, taking into account signals such as:

  • Public mentions of the book
  • Recommendations, ratings and reviews
  • Analyzing user behavior and sentiment
  • Sales history and velocity
  • Book age, information and editions

Book Authority has been featured on CNN, Forbes, and Inc. and serves millions of book recommendations monthly.

 

Additionally, Book Authority awarded The Agony of Decision   a badge of recognition for being one of the Best New Crisis Management Books of 2018.

The Agony of Decision is available as in both paperback and Kindle e-book editions, here.

Image source: Twitter

 

Logos Institute For Crisis Management and Executive Leadership Press

The Agony of Decision is the first book published under the Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership Press imprint as well as the first book in the Logos Institute Best Practices Series.

The series provides conceptual frameworks that help make sense of complicated issues by incorporating case studies, actionable tools, tips, and techniques that help leaders make smart choices and build competitive advantage when it matters most.

The Agony of Decision is about the specific ability leaders need in order to maintain reputation, trust, confidence, financial and operational strength, and competitive advantage in a crisis. This ability is mental readiness which comprises 1) emotional discipline, or the self-control needed to execute necessary but difficult choices, 2) deep knowledge, or an understanding of the patterns that show what works and what doesn’t work in a crisis, and 3) intellectual rigor, or the ability to make smart choices by asking the right questions at the right time.

Since the book’s publication in July 2017, Garcia has spoken with more than 15 organizations and their leaders about The Agony of Decision and the valuable lessons within its pages. Some of these organizations include New York University’s Stern School of Business, University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, U.S. Defense Information School, U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command, and National Investor Relations Institute, Public Relations Society of America. Garcia has also discussed concepts from The Agony of Decision in interviews with NASDAQ, CNBC’s Power Lunch, Canada Television News, Canada’s CBC News, and on the five-star rated podcast Women Worldwide aired on C-Suite Radio.

Logos Institute Thought Leadership

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership stands at the intersection of scholarship and practice, providing rigorous analysis and practical application of key leadership principles.

Institute fellows publish their insights on the Logos Institute blog in addition to pursuing thought leadership avenues beyond the Institute and its publishing imprint. All Logos Institute fellows teach at leading graduate, law, and professional schools, either as members of the faculty or as regularly-scheduled guest speakers.

Adam Tiouririne served as the language analyst for Bloomberg Politics’ coverage of the 2016 U.S. presidential election; from the first primary debates to the convention speeches and inauguration day, he analyzed candidates’ every word for millions of readers worldwide. Kristin Johnson, who spent nearly a decade in escalating roles of global PR agencies before joining Logos Consulting Group, is the co-author of a forthcoming book to be published by Routledge that demystifies the PR agency experience to help those new to the PR industry grow in their careers and as leaders.

Garcia also has a forthcoming book he is co-authoring with John Doorley, the fourth edition of Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication. The fourth edition will feature contributions from Johnson and Logos Institute fellow Holly Helstrom.

Garcia is also the author of The Power of Communication, published in 2012 by Pearson. The book builds on the U.S. Marine Corps’ legendary publication Warfighting, and shows how to apply the Corps’ proven leadership and strategy doctrine to all forms of public communication — and achieve truly extraordinary results.

/by

Dodging the Lasso: What to Do When Your Organization Gets Roped into Controversy

Candy and immigration policy. Racism and sleep medication. What do these things have in common with each other? On the surface, nothing. But that can change in a few choice keystrokes on social media, leaving real potential for significant reputational harm. Just ask the leaders at Skittles (owned by consumer goods giant Mars, Inc.), and global biopharmaceutical company Sanofi, who found themselves facing the same precarious problem: what to do when a key brand name or product is analogized to, blamed for, or otherwise commandeered by a controversial person connecting it to an equally controversial or sensitive topic? To really make it interesting what if the derogatory, false, or misleading claims are posted on platforms where they can be viewed and shared by millions of people (read: the organization’s stakeholders) in minutes? What to do, indeed.

Social media’s ability to simultaneously destroy (fake news) and empower (#TimesUp, #BlackLivesMatter) is no secret. Given the ubiquity of our devices and how easily accessible these platforms are, it is no surprise social media has become a highly popular medium for people to air their grievances, especially if those grievances involve a powerful organization.

A 2015 study conducted by Edison Research and Jay Baer on the behavioral patterns of U.S. consumers found those who are more active on social media (e.g., daily users versus weekly users) are more likely to be frequent complainers, with Facebook overwhelmingly being the platform of choice for dissatisfied consumers to log their complaints. A separate 2015 poll of 2,000 U.K. consumers found that more than half of respondents who had used social media for customer service preferred it to more traditional platforms like call centers.

There are pros and cons to the dynamic created by social media between everyday individuals, who now have a platform to be heard, and large, powerful organizations, who are more pressured than ever to listen. On the upside, it incentivizes organizations to do the right thing and restores a level of power to people that have traditionally been marginalized. On the downside, we are seeing with growing frequency organizations (and individuals) get roped into the burning spotlight of controversy by no fault of their own. That is, more and more organizations’ reputations are being put at risk on the world’s stage despite not actively having done anything wrong. Two cases in point:

  1. Skittles and Donald Trump Jr., September 2016 Donald Trump Jr., son of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, tweeted the below to his 2.8 million followers equating Syrian refugees to a bag of poisoned Skittles. The implication for Skittles in this case was having the brand name attached to a controversial figure as well as a highly controversial and sensitive issue in the U.S., being immigration policy, which has nothing to do with candy.

    Image source: Twitter

  2. Sanofi and Roseanne Barr, May 2018 In the very early morning hours of May 29 actress Roseanne Barr tweeted a highly offensive and racially insensitive comment in the comments thread of a conservative blog’s tweet. As a result of the tweet, ABC cancelled Roseanne, the hit series she co-founded and starred in. Prior to her inflammatory tweet, the series had been renewed for a second season after returning to TV in January 2018 following a two-decade hiatus. Roseanne continued tweeting following the show’s cancellation and attempted to place blame for her racist comment on the fact she was on Ambien at the time. Sanofi-owned Ambien is the number one prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. and is known to cause strange side effects including anxiety, delusional thoughts, and aggressive behavior.

    Image source: Twitter

In each case, the organizations responded and did so with cool rationale and brevity, much to the admiration and fanfare of their stakeholders. Take a look below to see how exactly Mars, Inc. and Sanofi successfully dodged the lasso of tangential controversy.

Image source: Twitter

 

Image source: Twitter

So, what can companies and their leaders learn from the responses from Mars, Inc. and Sanofi?

Respond appropriately. If the people your organization cares about are expressing concern, doubt, or a desire to hear from your organization, then a response is necessary. Put yourself in your customers’, shareholders’, or employees’ shoes; would you expect to hear from your organization, given the situation? If the answer is yes, your organization needs to respond to your reasonable stakeholders and address their concerns. Notice Mars, Inc. and Sanofi did not respond directly to (or even mention) the unreasonable person or party who made the inflammatory comments in the first place; doing so would be counterintuitive because it legitimizes the claim, to a degree.      

Fight fire with water. In the real world, real fires are put out with water. And so it goes with choking the social-media-fanned flames of irrationality and misplaced outrage. Water is to reason as fire is to unreasonableness. Both Mars, Inc. and Sanofi employed reasoning so genius in its simplicity and obviousness that it succeeded in distancing the organizations from their detractors and their ludicrous comments, while also taking the wind out of their bizarre claims’ sails. In a crisis, organizations must prioritize their reasonable stakeholders and their expectations. And the good thing about reasonable people is they respond well to reason. Use it.

Keep it brief. To quote Shakespeare, one of the greatest wordsmiths of all time, brevity is the soul of wit. Wit can be defined as reasoning power or mental soundness. By keeping their responses brief, Mars, Inc. and Sanofi not only demonstrated their organizations’ strategic intelligence but also their emotional discipline in not allowing nonsensical comments to distract them or needlessly tarnish their reputations.

/by

Logos Institute Partners with PRSA to Deliver Master Class on Crisis Communication

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership executive director Helio Fred Garcia and Institute fellows Adam Tiouririne and Holly Helstrom delivered a two-day master class on crisis communication in partnership with the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).

The master class was an expansion of a six-week online certificate course that was also curated by Logos and offered through PRSA that was an introduction to the foundational principles of crisis response. More than 200 communication professionals participated in the online course, an appetite that was also reflected for the waitlisted two-day master class.

Online certificate program offered by Logos Institute and PRSA

More than 30 middle and senior level communication professionals traveled to Chicago for the two-day immersion class, with some traveling from as far as California and Barbados to attend. Over the course of the two days, participants explored in greater depth the foundational principles of effective crisis response including the importance of appropriate decision criteria, timeliness, and mental readiness in crisis as well as how these principles apply to social media-related crises.

Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership executive director Helio Fred Garcia welcoming participants

Participants also learned about the elements of an effective apology, how to craft a well-structured stand-by statement, and how to achieve operational readiness in a crisis. In order to earn the certificate of completion participants were required to develop a crisis response plan including a stand-by statement for a crisis they determined as most significant to their respective organizations.

Logos Institute fellow Adam Tiouririne presenting on the impact of language

 

Logos Institute fellow Holly Helstrom presenting on social media and effective crisis response

In addition to walking away with a tangible work product, participants also received a free copy of Helio Fred Garcia’s book The Agony of Decision.  Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership has conducted webinars, seminars, and workshops for PRSA for more than 15 years.

 

 

 

 

 

/by

Logos Institute Opens Its Doors to Celebrate 2018 Graduates

For the fourth year running, on Thursday May 17th Logos Institute for Crisis Management and Executive Leadership opened its doors in celebration of the class of 2018 graduates and their academic achievements. More than 100 guests were in attendance, including friends, family, and members of the academic community.

The celebration was largely in honor of students graduating this year with their Master of Science degree in public relations and corporate communication (PRCC) from New York University’s School of Professional Studies, Division of Programs in Business. Many Logos Institute members are involved with the program as professors, guest lecturers, and advisors.

Helio Fred Garcia and Kristin Johnson are both professors in the program, teaching elective courses on crisis communication and PR consulting, respectively. Garcia has taught in the program for 13 years since he co-founded it in 2005, with Professor John Doorley. Professor Johnson, who is also an alumna of the program, just finished her eighth semester teaching. Both professors have advised many students over the years on their capstones (theses), with Professor Garcia advising three students from this year’s graduating class. Logos Institute fellows Holly Helstrom, Adam Tiouririne, and Iris Wenting Xue have guest-lectured in the program as well.  

Professor Johnson and Professor Garcia

At this year’s event Professor Garcia was presented with a heartfelt gift in commemoration of his 30th year of teaching at NYU; students and colleagues in attendance wrote messages in a journal of gratitude and appreciation for Garcia’s excellence as a teacher, mentor, and friend.

You can see the formal ceremony at the reception here.

 

 

Long-Standing Relationship with NYU

Logos Institute team members teach at many academic institutions and for many corporate clients, in different capacities. However, Logos has a special relationship with New York University dating back to 1988, when Helio Fred Garcia, Executive Director of Logos Institute, first joined the faculty in NYU’s  School of Professional Studies, where he still teaches today. For the past 15 years he has also been an adjunct professor of management in NYU’s Stern School of Business Executive MBA program, where he teaches an elective in crisis management and where in 2016 he was designated Executive MBA Great Professor.

The PRCC program at NYU was co-founded in 2005 by Helio Fred Garcia, and John Doorley, now a Visiting Associate Professor at Elon University. Garcia has taught consecutive semesters since the program’s inception. He received the Dean’s award for teaching excellence last year, an honor also bestowed to him in 1990.

/by

Logos President Discusses Elon Musk, Leadership, and Temperament on CNBC Power Lunch

, , , , , , , ,

Logos Consulting Group president Helio Fred Garcia was interviewed on CNBC’s Power Lunch on Thursday, May 3, 2018, on the implications of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s intemperate comments on an earnings call with investors the previous day.

In that call, among other things, Mr. Musk responded to an analyst’s question about future capital requirements with the comment,

“Excuse me. Next. Boring bonehead questions are not cool,”

That and similar statements caused Business Insider senior transportation correspondent Matthew DeBord to write,

“I’ve listened to a lot of earnings calls with automakers and more than my fair share of Tesla calls presided over by CEO Elon Musk with a mixture of cheerleading and contempt. On Wednesday night, after Tesla reported its first-quarter results, I was treated to easily the most bizarre Muskian performance yet.”

In the aftermath, CNBC Power Lunch invited Garcia to come on the air and offer an analysis of the leadership issues at play.

He was asked by co-anchor Tyler Mathison whether Mr. Musk should hire a top operational executive.  Garcia replied,

“What we saw yesterday was a symptom of a bigger problem. And that is, a tendency of brilliant people to assume that brilliance is enough, where temperament is a necessary ingredient to being an effective leader.

We see that with many companies that are founded by brilliant people who have an inspiring vision and who create disruptive companies, But there comes a point in the life of the company where that isn’t enough. We are seeing that with Mr. Musk.”

Asked whether we’re at that point with Tesla, Garcia responded,

“We are certainly seeing repetitions of the same symptoms, And the symptoms suggest a temperament that doesn’t take seriously the burdens that a leader needs to undertake to run a complicated company after a certain point.

We saw that, for example, with Mr. Jobs in his first incarnation at Apple. We saw that just last month with Mark Zuckerberg when there was a need for leadership in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal but we got a technocrat. We need a good combination of inspiration and temperament and what we’re seeing now is an over-weighting of the inspiration and brilliance and an under-weighting of the temperament.”

Co-anchor Sara Eisen noted that some investors love Tesla because of Mr. Musk and his vision, and others hate Tesla for lack of attention to important operational issues. She asked, which is more important.  Garcia responded,

“It has to be a blend.  We’re actually seeing the same phenomenon in the political environment as well. Not to talk about politics, but we see the same symptoms. Where we need the right blend of temperament and vision. And one of the challenges with some of the smartest people in the room is they tend to not respect the people whom they consider to less smart than they. As a result we get derisive language toward a stakeholder group that is critically important for the success of the company, be it investors, or employees, or regulators, or others.

And we saw a similar response to a question to the President last week, when he said ‘That’s a stupid question.’ The derision shown to people who have legitimate concerns is what’s going to lead to loss of trust

You can see the whole interview here:

Musk’s temperament not right to be CEO: Expert from CNBC.

In addition to his client work through Logos Consulting Group Garcia is an adjunct professor of management at NYU’s Stern School of Business Executive MBA program, where he teaches crisis management. He also teaches crisis communication in NYU’s School of Professional Studies MS in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.  He is also an adjunct associate professor in Columbia University’s Fu Foundation School of Engineering, where he teaches crisis management, ethics, and leadership in the Professional Development and Leadership Program.

Garcia is the author most recently of The Agony of Decision: Mental Readiness and Leadership in a Crisis, available in both paperback and as an e-book from Kindle here.

/by