THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL HANDLED THIS OPENLY AND “OILY”
Last year, one of my students did a paper and presentation on the importance of transparency in the midst of a business crisis. In his discussion of crisis management, he cited two examples, the first the Exxon Valdez spill and the second Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol recall a few years ago. It was an outstanding paper that made that compared the way the two companies handled their difficult situation. Simply put Johnson & Johnson handled their difficulties openly and efficiently, whereas Exxon stonewalled and tried to control the story. Today, we have confidence in Tylenol and Exxon remains the horrible example used when the topic of crisis management or corporate responsibility.
What could have been learned from these two examples by British Petroleum and the Obama Administration? The lesson to learn is to be pro-active. You must act and look like you are acting with a sense of urgency. You have to convince the public that everything that can be done is being done and will be done. You have to get out in front of public opinion and you have to show respect for the victims.
We have to remember that was an accident and accidents happen and have impact on our lives. I am sure that BP and their affiliated companies would have preferred this had never happened. So making these companies out to be heartless capitalists, who wanted to destroy the environment. Rational people believe this, in fact the only people who do are those in the environmental lobby and their lemmings and of course any politician who thinks he can pick up a few votes.
BP started off well, we saw executives come before the cameras and say all the right things, but unfortunately they underestimated the problem. Obviously, so did the administration, no real leadership was apparent from the White House, other than the usual rhetoric that has become a trademark of this Administration, “all show, no go.”
BP should have been candid with the American people and tried every that was possible. There should have been explanations of why some options were or were not possible. BP did not continue to be transparent.
The Administration, from the beginning postured and treated the situation as a problem that was totally the responsibility of BP. Basically, their problem, they can deal with it. The President was detached and continued his posturing. He talked a lot but said and did very little; this too, has become a trademark of this administration. We got the “huff and puff” and the usual incompetent or inappropriate response. Mr. Obama can not hope to manage a crisis when he isn’t able to recognize a crisis. He doesn't see our dependence on foreign oil as a defense issue and he doesn't view the threat of terrorism as a crisis.
Questions for the American people should be: why didn’t he put the full resources of the Federal government into play? Why did he wait so long to visit the sight? Why has his administration hindered possible solutions with government red tape? Why did he wait so long to meet with the families who lost their loved one in this tragedy? How could he be so out of touch that he has likened this situation to 9/11? Why has he felt that it was necessary to trash BP to the extent that the British government felt that it had become an attack, not only on their corporations, but also on their "national identity." It was construed as so insulting that President Obama had to call David Cameron to assure him that his scathing comments about 'British Petroleum' had 'nothing to do with national identity,' This as been reported in the British press.
Mr. Obama is an intelligent man but it seems that his mouth does not check in with his brain at time, when you add this to a staff that just doesn’t get it at all, you have trouble. Mr. Obama needs to get his head in the game and realize that leadership, real leadership is not just stepping in front of a teleprompter and pointing a finger.
