Tag Archives: reputation

opinion and insights

100 sides to every story: more perspectives on forced transparency

2 Comments

I’ve heard that there are usually three sides to every story:  yours, mine and the truth.  I’m starting to believe that axiom is changing.  Today, there are probably 100 sides to every story. 

Blame it on rise of social networks, citizen broadcasting and, now, the forced disclosures of copious and raw information proffered through WikiLeaks and its copycats.   Since every person and institution carries a bias, everyone has a competing claim to what they view as truth as all of this information gets publicly dissected. 

This is not necessarily good or bad.  It does raise challenges.

As I stated in my original post on WikiLeaks, we can only begin to scratch the surface on effects and implications for businesses.  As predicted, spinoff sites are already propagating and the leading contender, OpenLeaks, is rumored to launch on Monday.  Therefore, since I already opened this Pandora’s Box with my first post, I thought I’d follow up with more perspectives and implications from the best articles I’ve read since last week:

  • This article from The New York Times highlights the U.S. Justice Department’s efforts to determine if Assange encouraged or helped Pfc. Manning to gain access to the classified data.  This would make Assange a conspirator and would fundamentally undermine his position as “one who simply provides the vehicle for leakers.”  Corporate communicators would be unwise to think a prosecution here will provide a respite.  The copycat sites will likely render WikiLeaks and Assange as merely a footnote.
  • Reason magazine raises two possible outcomes of forced disclosures.  It opines that some companies will keep fewer secrets and behave more carefully, or some will “…try harder not to be caught.”  I don’t like the author’s implication that companies are only shadowy, reckless, or both.  I think one other possible outcome is missing:  that companies and individuals may exhibit more caution with all written, digital transmissions.  It will take time, but the pendulum can swing back on this.  All history is cyclical – there’s no reason to believe that our networked world will always remain as candid and open as it is today.  I also think that “digital fingerprinting” will make electronic communications (and leak sources) less anonymous, which will lead to less leaks.  This article from The New York Times raises several other reasons that future secrets may be kept WikiSafe. Continue reading 100 sides to every story: more perspectives on forced transparency →
crisis response

Toyota vs. ABC News’ Sensationalism

3 Comments

Earlier this week, I moderated an interactive crisis management workshop on behalf of PRSA Charlotte.  We explored top crisis management observations from 2010 and then held an interactive discussion on BP/Deepwater Horizon disaster and on the Toyota recalls.  (These links provide you with summary points shared with the PRSA members.)

We ran short on time and needed to truncate an important part of the Toyota recall case.  The quick summary raised a few eyebrows in the room and we didn’t have time to explore some of the media sensationalism felt by Toyota.  As a promise made to those members and as interesting reading for the rest, I’d like to summarize that here:

  • By early February, there were swelling reports that “unintended acceleration” was occuring in some Toyota models.  Some believed this was caused by software.  This led to some sensational media coverage, leaving Toyota owners believing in “ghosts in the machine.”
  • On Feb. 22, ABC News’ chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, aired a segment where he interviewed David Gilbert, a professor of automotive technology at Southern Illinois University.  Here’s the segment:

Continue reading Toyota vs. ABC News’ Sensationalism →

opinion and insights

Implications of WikiLeaks’ forced transparency

16 Comments

Overexposure to sunlight“Sunshine is a great disinfectant,” transparency advocates love to quip.  It’s a solid metaphor.  However, in my opinion, when the folks at WikiLeaks force transparency, we’re talking about a lot more than sunshine.  We’re talking about being bound in the desert sun against one’s will. 

Last week’s WikiLeaks disclosures of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables sent ripples through nearly every corner of government, media, business and elsewhere.  Just wait until the next batch of disclosures occur.  We know that corporate leaks are coming.  Businesses had better be ready.

Implications of future WikiLeaks disclosures (as well as the eventual copycats it will spawn) are far reaching.  It’s probably far too soon to have a firm handle on all of the effects.  Thus, what follows are initial thoughts on implications based on some of the best perspectives I’ve read so far (many of which are captured through links throughout.) 

 

Unchecked power.  Forbes’ Andy Greenberg provides a great verse from his interview with WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange: 

Like informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.

In my view, that’s what makes WikiLeaks especially dangerous.  It’s not a static repository server where people dump secret documents.  Assange and his team have the sole power to hit “publish” or to ignore what they receive.  Only they know when that button will be pushed.   There are many moral hazards here:

  • WikiLeaks can move markets.  What is to stop WikiLeaks team members – or friends-of-friends – from shorting stocks a day or two before a major leak?
  • WikiLeaks is not accountable.  Assange is shadowy; the people who work for him have yet to cast even a shadow.  If their informational IEDs do cause undue harm, what happens?  They shrug?  One writer in The Economist calls the recent release a “poor editorial decision” and recommends “an ethical review board.”  Was the decision editorial?  By what measures would a review board hold this group accountable?  Who watches the Watchmen?
  • Who died and made Assange boss?  In this interview with Time magazine, Assange asserts:  “…It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it’s our goal to achieve a more just society.”  Should one person or organization have the power to damage governments or corporations based on a singular view of what is and is not just?
  • WikiLeaks is not omnipotent.  It believes the latest cable disclosures did not harm soldiers.  Some disagree and believe the leaks have done major damage, such as The Washington Post’s columnist Charles Krauthammer.  Example:

Take just one revelation among hundreds: The Yemeni president and deputy prime minister are quoted as saying that they’re letting the United States bomb al-Qaeda in their country, while claiming that the bombing is the government’s doing. Well, that cover is pretty well blown. And given the unpopularity of the Sanaa government’s tenuous cooperation with us in the war against al-Qaeda, this will undoubtedly limit our freedom of action against its Yemeni branch, identified by the CIA as the most urgent terrorist threat to U.S. security.

  • By design, WikiLeaks enjoys very crafty legal protection.  Assange’s servers are housed in very specific areas of the world, according to The Economist, in order to create “a legal structure that allows him to answer only to his own conscience.”  What other person or organization enjoys that level of power?
  • What if the information WikiLeaks doesn’t post gets used inappropriately?  Let’s not forget that the people at WikiLeaks have raw documents that they (sometimes) redact or choose not to publish.  What if WikiLeaks gets hacked?  What if someone at WikiLeaks sells or uses that data inappropriately, perhaps for nefarious purposes?  How do these hazards remain in check?

  Continue reading Implications of WikiLeaks’ forced transparency →

crisis response, opinion and insights

Qantas: 54 alarms (and three cheers)

2 Comments

Earlier this month, I posted some thoughts on key social networking crisis management lessons that may – or may not – emanate from the Qantas A380 emergency landing.  To my knowledge, many of the posed questions have not been addressed on that part of the crisis response.  So let’s continue to set those social media questions aside.

However, let’s not overlook some of the real-world lessons from the situation.   For example, this AP story provides a harrowing account of what the crew faced in the cockpit.  Key excerpts:

“The amount of failures is unprecedented,” said Richard Woodward, a fellow Qantas A380 pilot who has spoken to all five pilots. “There is probably a one in 100 million chance to have all that go wrong.”

But it did.

Engine pieces sliced electric cables and hydraulic lines in the wing. Would the pilots still be able to fly the seven-story-tall plane?

The wing’s forward spar — one of the beams that attaches it to the plane — was damaged as well. And the wing’s two fuel tanks were punctured. As fuel leaked out, a growing imbalance was created between the left and right sides of the plane, Woodward said.

The electrical power problems prevented the pilots from pumping fuel forward from tanks in the tail. The plane became tail heavy.

That may have posed the greatest risk, safety experts said. If the plane got too far out of balance, the Singapore-to-Sydney jetliner would lose lift, stall and crash.

And then there was that incredible stream of computer messages, 54 in all, alerting the pilots to system failures or warning of impending failures.

And now, the important part:

Continue reading Qantas: 54 alarms (and three cheers) →

"Three Tough Q's" Interview Series

Three Tough Q’s: Hilka Klinkenberg

5 Comments

Perhaps you’ve heard that the Chevy Nova once lacked sales in Latin America companies because the automobile’s name translates to “doesn’t go” in Spanish?  Although that story isn’t really true – it’s an iconic example of the perils of remaining ignorant of cultural sensitivities when doing business across borders. 

When companies face more serious cross-border crises, there’s usually a lot more than lost sales on the line.  Thus, I remain amazed at how many multinational businesses do not incorporate “cultural risk management” into their ongoing issues and crisis management programs. 

Understanding and addressing cultural risk is the realm of Hilka Klinkenberg, who is one of the senior members of the Global Coaching & Consulting Group.   

 Hilka and I connected back in 1994 when we explored whether she can lead a workshop at one of the Ketchum global director meetings.  Over the years, we’ve shared thoughts on client crisis situations that involve many a cultural faux pas.  We recently re-connected and Hilka has graciously agreed to address these Three Tough Q’s:

 

Q1:  Do multinational organizations need to “press their hands against the hot stove” before taking cultural risk management seriously?

No.  However, that seems to be the preferred modus operandi.  Cultural risk avoidance should be incorporated into the enterprise risk management of any large or small organization doing business outside its national boundaries.

Cultural risk arises when individuals or organizations are unaware of the basic values intrinsic in other cultures.  Consequences range from mild insults that can affect the tenor of a relationship – to possible imprisonment and huge financial losses.  Cultural crises can affect a global company’s product development and production, legal and political issues, human resources and relocation, marketing and advertising.  And, in today’s virtual world, any flashpoint can go viral in an instant. Continue reading Three Tough Q’s: Hilka Klinkenberg →