This Crisis Media Training workshop focuses on the need for successful interaction with the media. After completing our training, your employees will have the skills necessary to confidently and correctly manage media contacts.
We pride ourselves on offering fully customized media training workshops depending on your industry.Tips For Developing A Successful Emergency/Crisis Management Program
SEO in Public Relations Crisis Management
Turnaround Specialists: Hiring a Crisis Management Leader
Strategies Behind Crisis Management
Crisis Management - How to Survive a "Disaster"
Turning Brand Crisis Management Occurrences Into Public Relation Bonanzas
Control on the Media - Crisis Management
Crisis Media Management Planning
The Best Way For a CEO to Deliver a Crisis Management Speech
World Class Corporate Crisis Media Management and Communications Teams
The Worst Case Scenario - Crisis Management Issues
Understanding Crisis Management KPIs
Crisis Management - What Happens When It's All Over?
Steps For Designing a Crisis Management Plan
Brand Under Fire - Crisis Management for Individuals
Crisis Management Tools For Remote Workers
Crisis Management - Are You Prepared?
Characteristics of Successful Crisis Management
Free Yourself From Crisis Management
25 More Crisis Management Lessons Learned
Effective Crisis Management of Major Incidents
Crisis Management - Expert Strategies For Turnarounds and Liquidations
Crisis Management Measures - Reduce Risks and Prevent Crisis
The Importance of Public Relations and Crisis Management Planning To Your Business
Corporate Crisis Management Tools
Crisis Management - Will You Survive This Day?
Crisis Management Planning - What's Happening Where We Work?
Crisis Training Seminars
A Crisis can happen to any
organization, at any time. We specialize in preparing people
to manage a crisis while communicating effectively with the media. For more information please call or email us.
In-crisis decision
making: participate or
fail
The penultimate article in Dennis Hamilton’s ongoing series about crisis management looks at how to get maximum attendance at training events and exercises.
Continuing with our responses to questions and comments regarding the information series, ‘In-crisis Decision Making’; a common problem for organizations is getting members of their crisis management or crisis response teams to actually show up for scheduled education and training sessions.
In the previous article (Practice makes perfect) we discussed the critical requirement for a crisis management continuing education and training program (CET program) and the types of sessions necessary to not only enhance the teams’ overall response capability but to develop and facilitate sessions that would help drive their desire to participate.
One of the more common reasons for non-participation is the internalized opinion that ‘I know my job and what must be done in a crisis; so why attend training’. The basic failure here is that some people simply don’t understand ‘why’ education and training is so vital. ‘Team training’ is just that, enhancement of the team’s capability to respond to and manage a crisis or threatening situation; it’s not just about their individual education and training.
For crisis management to be effective the team must function as a cohesive unit (a well-oiled machine), recognizing the strength and limitations of other team members, establishing and understanding expectations of themselves and others, and sharing knowledge, ideas and opinions to drive alternatives to make the ultimate ‘correct’ team decisions.
There are always excuses for not attending; about the only one I haven’t heard is that ‘my dog ate the training schedule’; but I’m sure someone has used it. Sure, if a person is ill or has a personal family emergency, these are unpreventable and acceptable reasons for missing a session. Beyond that however, it is usually self-imposed rationale that is used to avoid participation.
There are ways and means to get them there, but before we can actually address the problem, we have to understand why this problem exists in the first place. The primary reasons include;
There is no consequence if they don’t,
Crisis management policy and standards do not require their participation,
Existing education and training sessions are not challenging, exciting or even ‘fun’,
Team members’ line managers do not understand the importance of the crisis management program and therefore importance of ‘all’ team member participation,
They are the wrong people to be on the team.
Impact when they don’t participate
In many cases, those team members who do not participate simply do not understand the impact their non-participation has on the team’s capability to be successful in an actual crisis.
The impact is significant and far-reaching as it:
Lowers the probability of a successful or even acceptable response in an actual crisis,
Alienates missing team members, seriously damaging any level of team cohesion,
Weakens the overall capability (in terms of knowledge, skills and experience) of the crisis response team,
Management expectations of the crisis response team (CRT) do not change even though the teams’ expectations of itself have lessened,
Diminishes the quality of the training sessions or results in failed exercises due to missing knowledge and skills,
Negatively alters the participation attitudes of other CRT members; it can easily become endemic,
Diminishes general attitudes towards and appreciation of the organization’s crisis management program – everyone sees non-participation,
Is simply not fair to everyone else who regularly and purposefully commits their time and energy to the crisis management program.
Changing attitudes and behavior
My first thought, in terms of correcting the attitudes of no-shows, had something to do with a small baseball bat. Then of course that would require you having a baseball ‘team’. Reality is that a ‘team’, regardless of its purpose (i.e. a baseball team or a management team) is completely interdependent on every member of that team or it will never be a winner; it will never succeed.
I want to go back to the baseball bat idea for a moment. Sometimes it takes a jolt to make people realize the impact they are having on their team by not participating. While a smack on the head is not a great motivational move, their attention can be had by the actions you take when team members fail to attend these vital sessions. Below are some thoughts of how to ‘smack’ without going to jail.
1. Share the plan schedule and results
There are four steps to be taken to establish a basis on which to address the problem of non-participation.
Ensure all team members fully understand the importance of the CET program and the impact they will have on the ‘team’ if they opt out of those sessions.
Ensure direct line managers of all team members have an understanding of the role and critical importance of the crisis response team and that their department / function is an integral component of that team. Further, provide a brief overview of your CET program and discuss the absolute need for all members to participate in all sessions. You don’t want to hear back later that a person’s manager said ‘I didn’t realize it was critical or mandatory to participate in the CET program’.
Make sure executive management have an appreciation of the CET program and how critical it is to obtain full participation in order to maintain the organization’s capability to respond to and manage a crisis situation.
Prepare a list of existing CRT members (primary and designated backups). Ask executive management to vet the makeup of the CRT; they will be more than willing to share their opinion as to who they think should be representing the respective ‘utility’ group on the team (based on skills, experience and knowledge only). With executive input, even if nothing changes, the CRT becomes ‘their’ team. It also reinforces the importance of crisis management and the key role the CRT will have in a crisis situation. Additionally, members of the CRT receive a recognition and respect that may very well be the determining factor that influences their ongoing CET program participation.
By going through the above process, you will have created an expectation on the part of executive management that all members of the CRT do in fact fully participate in the crisis management CET program; political motivation at its best!
On an ongoing basis, you have now created a forum on which to publicize participation and, of course, non-participation by all team members.
2. Operationally, it’s simple and within the bounds of political etiquette
Each year when you create your ‘schedule’ for the CET Program sessions and when changes are made, publicize the plan to team members’ line managers and the executive management team. Don’t forget to include a brief overview of the type of session planned.
Remind all primary and designated backup team members at least monthly of upcoming sessions and, of equal importance, ensure team members’ line managers are informed as well. Confirm, reconfirm, and then reconfirm again that all CET program sessions are entered into each team members’ personal schedule.
Once your session is concluded, issue a brief update to all team members, team member line managers and your executive management team; including objectives of the session, a synopsis of the session and very importantly, who attended and who did not. For those who did not attend for reasons of illness or a family emergency note that behind their name.
This subtle ‘smack’ will resonate with the absent team member(s) and more importantly with his / her line manager and the ‘executive’ responsible for that function within the organization. No one likes internal bad press for any reason. This political nudge will definitely improve on attendance at the next session.
3. Additional thoughts
Facilitate a relatively short team workshop (where hopefully all will attend) focused on the necessity of team member participation. As a component of the workshop incorporate a series of small exercises that heighten the need for the active participation of all skill sets and the knowledge base of all team members. This type of interaction and interdependence will reinforce the contribution and participation of every member of the team. A discussion around your scheduled CET program should include a reminder of the importance and full participation and the responsibility of every team member to take part. Remind the team about step two above; it will help.
Since all CET program sessions include both primary and designated backup team members, don’t allow any team member to send a substitution to any session; particularly an administrative assistant who has been given the assignment to take notes and report back to the actual team member. Not only is this a waste of an administrative assistant’s time, it provides absolutely no value to the team member or the team as a whole.
Every primary member of your crisis response team should understand that if their designated backup has been attending the sessions of the CET program and the primary has not; there is a strong possibility that it will be the designated backup who is asked to participate on the CRT when an actual crisis occurs; team chemistry must be maintained.
The CRT team leader should have a quiet discussion with any no show, but especially repeat offenders; expressing that while you understand pressures of a person’s job can be overwhelming, there is a critical need for full participation at all CET program sessions.
If you are fortunate enough to have multiple people in your organization with similar skills to a no-show member of your team, you always have the option of asking that person to resign their role on the crisis response team. This approach would save-face and accomplish the ultimate goal of having the most capable CRT attainable.
Don’t forget the obvious; sometimes we just need to remind people the reason they were asked to be on the CRT to begin with; a successful gentle nudge is far better than the motivational ‘smack’.
This document should be read by every member of your crisis response team; sending multiple copies to those who are repeat no-shows!!! Perhaps they will view this as a wake-up call.
I recognize that all organizations don’t have the luxury of having more than one person who has the skills and knowledge necessary for every discipline required on the CRT; basically you are stuck with those individuals even if they are regular no-shows. It does mean however, you must try harder; have the best CET program you can and apply every motivational means available to you to get them and keep them involved.
Don’t be concerned about taking corrective action. Keep in mind that if you tolerated no-shows for your CET program and in an actual crisis the team failed in meeting its obligations in a timely manner, the post crisis assessment will clearly point out that a cohesive and organized response was not applied. There may be a determination that the program knowledge level was not sufficient; with an influencing factor being CET program non-participation. This hindsight analysis is far too late if someone lost their life or was seriously injured due to the inaction, slow action or wrong action on the part of the crisis response team.
Source: Dennis C. Hamilton link
The penultimate article in Dennis Hamilton’s ongoing series about crisis management looks at how to get maximum attendance at training events and exercises.
Continuing with our responses to questions and comments regarding the information series, ‘In-crisis Decision Making’; a common problem for organizations is getting members of their crisis management or crisis response teams to actually show up for scheduled education and training sessions.
In the previous article (Practice makes perfect) we discussed the critical requirement for a crisis management continuing education and training program (CET program) and the types of sessions necessary to not only enhance the teams’ overall response capability but to develop and facilitate sessions that would help drive their desire to participate.
One of the more common reasons for non-participation is the internalized opinion that ‘I know my job and what must be done in a crisis; so why attend training’. The basic failure here is that some people simply don’t understand ‘why’ education and training is so vital. ‘Team training’ is just that, enhancement of the team’s capability to respond to and manage a crisis or threatening situation; it’s not just about their individual education and training.
For crisis management to be effective the team must function as a cohesive unit (a well-oiled machine), recognizing the strength and limitations of other team members, establishing and understanding expectations of themselves and others, and sharing knowledge, ideas and opinions to drive alternatives to make the ultimate ‘correct’ team decisions.
There are always excuses for not attending; about the only one I haven’t heard is that ‘my dog ate the training schedule’; but I’m sure someone has used it. Sure, if a person is ill or has a personal family emergency, these are unpreventable and acceptable reasons for missing a session. Beyond that however, it is usually self-imposed rationale that is used to avoid participation.
There are ways and means to get them there, but before we can actually address the problem, we have to understand why this problem exists in the first place. The primary reasons include;
There is no consequence if they don’t,
Crisis management policy and standards do not require their participation,
Existing education and training sessions are not challenging, exciting or even ‘fun’,
Team members’ line managers do not understand the importance of the crisis management program and therefore importance of ‘all’ team member participation,
They are the wrong people to be on the team.
Impact when they don’t participate
In many cases, those team members who do not participate simply do not understand the impact their non-participation has on the team’s capability to be successful in an actual crisis.
The impact is significant and far-reaching as it:
Lowers the probability of a successful or even acceptable response in an actual crisis,
Alienates missing team members, seriously damaging any level of team cohesion,
Weakens the overall capability (in terms of knowledge, skills and experience) of the crisis response team,
Management expectations of the crisis response team (CRT) do not change even though the teams’ expectations of itself have lessened,
Diminishes the quality of the training sessions or results in failed exercises due to missing knowledge and skills,
Negatively alters the participation attitudes of other CRT members; it can easily become endemic,
Diminishes general attitudes towards and appreciation of the organization’s crisis management program – everyone sees non-participation,
Is simply not fair to everyone else who regularly and purposefully commits their time and energy to the crisis management program.
Changing attitudes and behavior
My first thought, in terms of correcting the attitudes of no-shows, had something to do with a small baseball bat. Then of course that would require you having a baseball ‘team’. Reality is that a ‘team’, regardless of its purpose (i.e. a baseball team or a management team) is completely interdependent on every member of that team or it will never be a winner; it will never succeed.
I want to go back to the baseball bat idea for a moment. Sometimes it takes a jolt to make people realize the impact they are having on their team by not participating. While a smack on the head is not a great motivational move, their attention can be had by the actions you take when team members fail to attend these vital sessions. Below are some thoughts of how to ‘smack’ without going to jail.
1. Share the plan schedule and results
There are four steps to be taken to establish a basis on which to address the problem of non-participation.
Ensure all team members fully understand the importance of the CET program and the impact they will have on the ‘team’ if they opt out of those sessions.
Ensure direct line managers of all team members have an understanding of the role and critical importance of the crisis response team and that their department / function is an integral component of that team. Further, provide a brief overview of your CET program and discuss the absolute need for all members to participate in all sessions. You don’t want to hear back later that a person’s manager said ‘I didn’t realize it was critical or mandatory to participate in the CET program’.
Make sure executive management have an appreciation of the CET program and how critical it is to obtain full participation in order to maintain the organization’s capability to respond to and manage a crisis situation.
Prepare a list of existing CRT members (primary and designated backups). Ask executive management to vet the makeup of the CRT; they will be more than willing to share their opinion as to who they think should be representing the respective ‘utility’ group on the team (based on skills, experience and knowledge only). With executive input, even if nothing changes, the CRT becomes ‘their’ team. It also reinforces the importance of crisis management and the key role the CRT will have in a crisis situation. Additionally, members of the CRT receive a recognition and respect that may very well be the determining factor that influences their ongoing CET program participation.
By going through the above process, you will have created an expectation on the part of executive management that all members of the CRT do in fact fully participate in the crisis management CET program; political motivation at its best!
On an ongoing basis, you have now created a forum on which to publicize participation and, of course, non-participation by all team members.
2. Operationally, it’s simple and within the bounds of political etiquette
Each year when you create your ‘schedule’ for the CET Program sessions and when changes are made, publicize the plan to team members’ line managers and the executive management team. Don’t forget to include a brief overview of the type of session planned.
Remind all primary and designated backup team members at least monthly of upcoming sessions and, of equal importance, ensure team members’ line managers are informed as well. Confirm, reconfirm, and then reconfirm again that all CET program sessions are entered into each team members’ personal schedule.
Once your session is concluded, issue a brief update to all team members, team member line managers and your executive management team; including objectives of the session, a synopsis of the session and very importantly, who attended and who did not. For those who did not attend for reasons of illness or a family emergency note that behind their name.
This subtle ‘smack’ will resonate with the absent team member(s) and more importantly with his / her line manager and the ‘executive’ responsible for that function within the organization. No one likes internal bad press for any reason. This political nudge will definitely improve on attendance at the next session.
3. Additional thoughts
Facilitate a relatively short team workshop (where hopefully all will attend) focused on the necessity of team member participation. As a component of the workshop incorporate a series of small exercises that heighten the need for the active participation of all skill sets and the knowledge base of all team members. This type of interaction and interdependence will reinforce the contribution and participation of every member of the team. A discussion around your scheduled CET program should include a reminder of the importance and full participation and the responsibility of every team member to take part. Remind the team about step two above; it will help.
Since all CET program sessions include both primary and designated backup team members, don’t allow any team member to send a substitution to any session; particularly an administrative assistant who has been given the assignment to take notes and report back to the actual team member. Not only is this a waste of an administrative assistant’s time, it provides absolutely no value to the team member or the team as a whole.
Every primary member of your crisis response team should understand that if their designated backup has been attending the sessions of the CET program and the primary has not; there is a strong possibility that it will be the designated backup who is asked to participate on the CRT when an actual crisis occurs; team chemistry must be maintained.
The CRT team leader should have a quiet discussion with any no show, but especially repeat offenders; expressing that while you understand pressures of a person’s job can be overwhelming, there is a critical need for full participation at all CET program sessions.
If you are fortunate enough to have multiple people in your organization with similar skills to a no-show member of your team, you always have the option of asking that person to resign their role on the crisis response team. This approach would save-face and accomplish the ultimate goal of having the most capable CRT attainable.
Don’t forget the obvious; sometimes we just need to remind people the reason they were asked to be on the CRT to begin with; a successful gentle nudge is far better than the motivational ‘smack’.
This document should be read by every member of your crisis response team; sending multiple copies to those who are repeat no-shows!!! Perhaps they will view this as a wake-up call.
I recognize that all organizations don’t have the luxury of having more than one person who has the skills and knowledge necessary for every discipline required on the CRT; basically you are stuck with those individuals even if they are regular no-shows. It does mean however, you must try harder; have the best CET program you can and apply every motivational means available to you to get them and keep them involved.
Don’t be concerned about taking corrective action. Keep in mind that if you tolerated no-shows for your CET program and in an actual crisis the team failed in meeting its obligations in a timely manner, the post crisis assessment will clearly point out that a cohesive and organized response was not applied. There may be a determination that the program knowledge level was not sufficient; with an influencing factor being CET program non-participation. This hindsight analysis is far too late if someone lost their life or was seriously injured due to the inaction, slow action or wrong action on the part of the crisis response team.
Source: Dennis C. Hamilton link