In this new world of issues management where things move quickly and organizations are feeling the pressure from all sides, it’s important to have a process in place that not only provides guardrails for response but ensures the right people within the organization are up to speed and ready to activate on a moment’s notice. We have found that being prepared can mean different things to different people. To have an effective process, the organization’s leadership and those who need to be involved in the workflow must understand the process and play an active role in its development and refinement prior to formalization—creating a shared sense of accountability and the buy-in necessary to execute authentic, timely and appropriate responses to almost any external issue.
Step One: Identify the Type of National or Global Crisis
When creating a successful Issue Response Workflow that is not specific to business-related issues, it is critical to have a shared understanding of the type of issues/categories that may require an organizational response. In working with our clients, we have found most issues that are either a national or global crisis fit into one of the following categories:
- Political: Examples include abortion legislation, gun control, workforce strikes, marriage equality and criminal justice reform.
- U.S.-Based Social Unrest: Examples include police brutality, school or workforce shootings.
- Environmental: Examples include natural disasters (deadly earthquake or wildfire) or a pandemic.
- Geopolitical: Examples include financial depression or crisis, war, terror attack, human rights issues and cybersecurity threats.
Step Two: Set Clear Criteria for Response
When issues dominate the news cycle and are extremely personal and/or controversial, there is often a desire to weigh in and participate in the dialogue, but it can backfire. One national nonprofit we worked with received pressure from a contingent of their stakeholders to make a statement about a terror attack and the resulting escalation of a decades-long conflict in support of one side. They debated internally whether to engage and ultimately succumbed to the pressure and issued a public statement, which was high-level and did not convey any stance or opinion. They acknowledged the conflict and sympathized with all those involved—which resulted in increased anger from the stakeholders and drew unwanted media attention.
To avoid situations like this, the following tough questions should be answered before weighing in on any issue:
- Do we have a unique perspective, expertise or direct tie to the subject area?
- Does the issue directly impact the organization, staff, members and/or constituents directly?
- Will the response be seen as timely and helpful?
In the case of our client above, the answer to all three questions was “No”. If an organization cannot answer YES to question 1 or question 2 AND question 3, they should refrain from commenting publicly as it may be seen as inauthentic, opportunistic, tone deaf and/or out of touch. However, if an organization meets the criteria that doesn’t automatically pave the way for public comment—as there are a few different lenses to view the issue through—whether the organization is providing resources or direct support around an issue and/or whether it can issue a formal response without jeopardizing its credibility. Support may be in the form of supplies, personnel, money, information or resources. And factors that might impact credibility include, but are not limited to, not having enough information, it’s politically charged issue with multiple sides, and/or there is misalignment with the mission or strategic direction of the organization. If these criteria are not met, we would recommend the organization not comment and/or issue a statement internally or externally.
Step Three: Craft a Tailored and Strategic Response
There is an incorrect assumption that the only way to respond to an issue is to do so with some sort of public statement, but that is only one option. Once it is confirmed whether a response is warranted, the core team responsible for identifying and weighing potential reputational risks will determine the appropriate communications channels, develop and review key messaging and potential content, and loop in other key stakeholders, as appropriate.
A response may include, but is not limited to:
- An official press release
- A public statement
- Member/constituent communication
- Social media response
- Formal letter to leadership and priority stakeholders
A process is only as good as an organization’s ability to implement it, so be on the lookout for the next in this series, which will focus on how to engage the right people within your organization to develop a streamlined workflow and put it into action.
If you have any questions or are interested in developing a customized issue response process and workflow for your organization, feel free to reach out to me directly at jen.young@curastrategies.com.
Jen Young
Senior Vice President
CURA Strategies