Delayed Action Allows Informed Response (1992)

When confronted with a crisis situation, particularly when you're unfamiliar with the problem, common sense should ten you to the most obvious things: get smart, put yourself in the other party's shoes, and perhaps do nothing...if action might create more problems than you already face. Consider the following scenarios: You are a public relations firm account executive. Your firm has been asked to advise a client, with whom you have never worked, in one of these crisis situations. How would you approach the problem? * The outside agitator: After years of relatively peaceful labor relations, a young, inexperienced union local, representing a small percentage of your client's employees and led by an outside consultant with a reputation as an agitator, has accused the client of refusing to negotiate and has filed a suit with the National Labor Relations Board. The consultant is trying to stir up the media and focus public pressure on the client. So far, his efforts have not been overly successful. One newspaper has written a brief, mildly critical article and several individuals have written letters to your client's management. However, your client's board of directors is incensed and embarrassed because the union's consultant is misleading both the media and the public. One board member is particularly irate because he is the president of a major union and doesn't like being accused by another union of refusing to negotiate. He and other board members want to embark on a major public relations campaign to get out the facts. For example, the union and management have been in continuing negotiations for about 11 months. However, management had made a final offer. You have been asked to recommend steps to tell their story. * Alleged discrimination: A national organization of handicapped people has filed suit against a company, alleging discrimination against one of their members. The suit is based on an incident that was staged to provide the basis for negative publicity and the legal action. The real focus of the incident staged by the group was not your client, but the federal government. The group hopes to pressure the government into developing and applying more stringent regulations covering treatment of handicapped people. The client expects the group to use its upcoming national convention in the company's headquarters city as the basis for additional incidents and more negative publicity. You have been asked on short notice to provide counseling and direction. * Migrant workers: The client, a nationally known food manufacturer, has been called by a network television evening news program with a request to visit the company's agricultural locations. The TV reporter is particularly interested in the living conditions provided by the company for migrant workers and their families. The client suspects that the genesis for the reporter's interest came from a national union official with whom the company has had some problems. While the company is not ashamed of the worker camps which the reporter wants to visit, there is the possibility the public will gain the wrong impression from uncontrolled and out-of-context television coverage. The company also recognizes that denying access to the reporter may kindle his curiosity and result in even more unpleasant coverage. The client has asked for advice on how to handle the situation. Get smart Three common threads run through each of these situations. In each case, you do not know the client, and are not familiar with the background of the situation. Second, a third party, with its own priorities, is involved. And third, there are complex factors that must be dealt with. A wrong recommendation will not only cause problems for the client, but will reflect badly on your ability as a public relations practitioner. Before you can provide meaningful recommendations, you must understand both the background of the situation and the scope and dimension of the client's position. …