Will Brian Williams' Integrity be Regained?

The late “CBS 60 Minutes” reporter Mike Wallace once said, "If there's anything that's important to a reporter, it is integrity. It is credibility."

This truism is being reinforced as we watch “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams and the NBC News Division deal with the revelation that Williams has, at best, "misremembered" and, at worst, intentionally lied about a battlefield situation in Iraq a dozen years ago.  Integrity and credibility are surely hanging in the balance for both Williams and the NBC news team as they roll out their crisis communication strategies.

It seems that in his original reporting in 2003 Williams was more accurate than in his recounting as time moved on.  The story line moved from Williams being in a helicopter that took fire following behind a helicopter that was shot down, to being in a helicopter that was downed by enemy fire.  Veterans, particularly, have been unhappy about the embellishment.

In a Jan. 30, 2015 broadcast, Williams repeated the embellished story in his attempt to honor Command Sgt. Major Tim Terpak, who provided security for the downed helicopters.  The Terpak story was posted on “NBC Nightly News'” Facebook page.  Critics quickly came forward posting some vitriolic comments on the page, showing the special challenge social media create for crisis communicators.

Williams and the NBC team have engaged in crisis communication with mixed results.  On Feb. 4 Williams replied to the Facebook critics on the NBC page, admitting, "You are absolutely right and I was wrong. In fact, I spent much of the weekend thinking I'd gone crazy. I feel terrible about making this mistake, especially since I found my OWN WRITING about the incident from back in '08, and I was indeed on the Chinook behind the bird that took the RPG in the tail housing just above the ramp."  On the same day he made an on-air apology for "misremembering" the war incident.  But the problem didn't go away.

Williams reportedly wrote an email to the NBC news staff on Feb. 6.  He told them he would be taking a break from the anchor desk for an unspecified time.  Also on Feb. 6, NBC news president Deborah Turness announced via email to employees that there would be an internal investigation.  Other crisis communication and management tactics included Williams canceling an appearance on David Letterman's "Late Show" where, in 2013 Williams regaled Letterman with the embellished version of the Iraq story.  To directly reach perhaps the most affected public (beyond NBC news staffers), Williams did an interview with the “Stars and Stripes” newspaper, which was reported and posted in both audio and transcript format on Feb. 9. 

Then, on Feb. 10, NBC News took a dramatic and decisive move, suspending Williams for six months, without pay, pending an internal review.  Turness wrote in an internal memo, “This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian’s position.”  Chief executive of NBC Universal Steve Burke said in a statement, “By his actions, Brian has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News.  His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate.”

Within a week of Williams’ on-air confession and apology, he is in crisis limbo.  While NBC’s strong and relatively quick response will likely preserve the network news division’s integrity and credibility, it is hard to see how Williams can return to his former stature.  There have been accounts surface from members of the NBC team and soldiers who were present.  Some supported the more dramatic versions of the Williams story, but most have not.  And then there are the neuroscientists and memory experts who have been suggesting research points to the real likelihood that Williams did truly misremember.  But these hardly trump the implicit lack of faith NBC showed in their six month, unpaid suspension of Williams.

Nevertheless, if other matters of fibbing by Williams don't surface — there are rumors that his reporting in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina may be suspect as well — he may weather this storm and return to NBC news.  The mix of attempts to be open and the internal search for the facts may help Williams retain some highly visible position at NBC.  If he is exonerated in the internal investigation and the ongoing reporting by competitors he may be able to regain the lost trust over time.  Crises are dynamic, changing hour by hour.  If there are no more skeletons, Williams may, indeed, regain his integrity.  But it will take some level of exoneration and lots of time.

Sony Pictures needs a crisis communication leader

The cyberattack crisis Sony Pictures is facing is beginning to look like an onion with infinite layers.  First it was concern about the studio’s yet-to-be-released film, “The Interview.”  Then it was the embarrassing (and worse) emails, salary disclosures, and other things executives would have preferred stayed internal.  Then the studio said the film would not be released as planned on December 25.  And in between all this, actors and directors Seth Rogen and James Franco cancelled a variety of planned promotional appearances – making more news. 

Now the President of the United States says that Sony “made a mistake” by pulling the film.  But Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton says the film decision was a postponement rather than a cancellation.  On Sunday representatives for Sony reinforced this point, assuring that the movie would be seen without suggesting how or when.  This points to the primary crisis communication leadership problem here. While this crisis has begun to stretch its tentacles well beyond Sony, it began with Sony.  And Sony has made its crisis worse through its uneven and sometimes cavalier response. 

When embarrassing emails were leaked, how many of us thought “Gee, I wonder what I’ve written in thoughtless haste that would embarrass me”?  There was some sympathy for Sony.  But then the company brought lawyers in to serve notice to media including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that they’d pay a price for distributing any material they obtained through the cyberattack. This served only to highlight the content of the emails and even smacked of desperation.  And apart from some half-hearted apologies from executives, including Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal, there’s been precious little from Sony suggesting that they believe they have contributed in any way to the crisis. 

Crisis leadership is lacking.  Yes, they were hacked.  Yes the hacking was of mammoth proportions.  But then questions were asked about how the company’s security tools could have allowed this to happen.  In response Sony said, essentially, that any organization with the best cybersecurity would not have withstood this hacking.  Lawsuits are now following, filed by employees who blame the company for release of their personal data.  Citing existing policies and promising a review and remedy would have been useful in garnering more public support.  More public mea culpas from the executive suite would have also been appropriate.  Lynton shifted blame to distributors regarding the cancellation or postponement of the film’s release.  There are many ways to distribute the film.  At last those options are being acknowledged.  Lynton says they’re exploring possibilities, but that his company is not in the distribution business. It has been a chaotic response, lacking much semblance of a solid strategy. 

Crisis communication scholarship, including my own, suggests a different way.  How the public perceives the cause of a crisis has a great deal to do with how responsibility is attributed.  When Sony was the victim, responsibility for the crisis fell elsewhere.  Now Sony has allowed at least some perception of responsibility to drift back to the corporation.  It has attacked or dismissed key publics and has paid the price.  Simply put, Sony is more likely to succeed if it cultivates rather than alienates relationships with key publics.  Pre-existing relationships matter in crisis communication, but so does the tending of those relationships in the midst of a crisis.

Most would agree that this is perhaps an unprecedented cyberattack that has now been linked to North Korea, according to the FBI.  And as with any organization-threatening crisis the ground has been shifting under Sony Pictures executives mercilessly.  New facts emerge daily requiring strategic adjustment.  That’s precisely why it’s time to stop finger-pointing at the media, at North Korea, at theater owners.  Sony Pictures needs to take hold of the situation, take responsibility where appropriate, clearly lay out a way forward for “The Interview,” announce internal reviews and repercussions, and review security tools and policies.  That’s the leadership that’s needed in this crisis.  So far, it’s been missing.

A version of the post was published on the Grady College website on December 27, 2014

Compassion and competence must find a balance in the GM ignition recall crisis

“I am deeply sorry.”

It’s not often you will hear a CEO express an apology for a company failure, particularly when the company is in crisis.  The corporate lawyers will nearly always advise against an apology because, they say, it admits blame.  Not something you want to do if you think you’ll end up in court.  But that’s exactly what General Motors CEO Mary Barra did when she went before a House Subcommittee this week.  She has been engaged in full-fledged crisis communication, which serves as an ongoing case study in crisis communication tactics.

Barra, who became GM’s CEO on January 15, has been embroiled in a series of automotive recalls totaling 6.3 million cars and trucks.  But it was the 2.6 million cars recalled for an ignition defect that has resulted in 13 deaths that was the primary topic before Congress.  Many credit Marietta lawyer Lance Cooper for bringing the breadth of the GM ignition problem to light, causing the company to extensively expand its recall.  It was his work on behalf of the family of Brooke Melton, who died in 2010 when her 2005 Chevy Cobalt lost power and swerved into oncoming traffic, that got GM’s attention, experts say.

A maxim in crisis communication is this: Tell it all, tell it fast, tell the truth.  How has GM done?

Tell it all.

As Barra testified before Congress this week she said, “When we have the answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with our customers.”  While the sentiment is right, the dictum to “tell it all” seemed unsatisfied as she responded to question after question with assurances that, while she doesn’t have the answers now, they will be forthcoming following the findings of an internal investigation.  Beyond her assurances at the hearings, after her second day of Congressional grilling before the Senate Subcommittee, Barra released a statement promising to “keep Congress informed”.

But lawmakers and family members of those killed in the recalled cars accused GM of a culture of secrecy.  In fact, a front page story in the New York Times reported GM has “refused to disclose publicly the list of confirmed victims” increasing the pain and frustration of survivors.

Barra’s prepared testimony before Congress acknowledged a problem and asserted that as soon as she knew about it, it was made public.  But even the title of the testimony to the House Subcommittee, “The GM Ignition Switch Recall: Why Did it Take So Long?,” admits the second part of the maxim was missed.

Tell it fast.

It is common knowledge now that as early as 2005 GM engineers had identified and were trying to solve the ignition problem.  But no recalls or the information surrounding them were forthcoming until recently.  And company documents reveal that when a fix was found, it was determined to be too expensive.  Barra said it would have cost GM about $100 million in 2007, much more today.  But she also admitted she thought GM had been more of a “cost culture” and promised a customer-centered culture going forward.

It remains to be seen whether Barra’s GM will “tell it fast” when it comes to revealing facts from the internal investigation.

Tell the truth.

While we may not have all the information, Barra is giving the appearance of being forthright.  She may not be saying a lot, but much of what she is saying is hard – case in point being the already noted apology.  In her statement to Congress Barra said the latest round of recalls (the company recalled 1.5 million more vehicles the day before her House testimony) proved the new GM’s devotion to truth.  “We identified these issues.  We brought them forward and we are fixing them,” her statement said.  Given the internal documents that revealed the cost concerns surrounding a fix, if we learn via smoking-gun emails or the like that GM leadership withheld anything they knew, the damage to GM will deepen.

Big, established brands like General Motors are better positioned to weather crises than are smaller or newer companies.  But still, GM has a long way to go to re-establish the trust of consumers.  Finger-pointing at a past corporate culture will not work for long unless real, honest, transparent progress is made.  In her testimonies this week, Barra appeared compassionate on the one hand but seemed uninformed on the other.  For GM to recover quickly and for Barra to establish her credibility as the company’s new leader, compassion and competence will need to find a balance.

A version of this post was published on April 9, 2014 in the Marietta (GA) Daily Journal.