Vote
Whilst things on the PR side have gone quieter around the Deepwater Horizon gulf spill, we did witness a flurry of gaffe’s all round as the seriousness of the spill suddenly dawned on leaders and politicians alike. Tony Hayward was singled out for a number of unfortunate statements and actions which appeared like manna for a media and public looking for a ‘lynching’. Was this fair?
The problem with high profile disasters of a corporate making is that many people and organizations climb onto the bandwagon with perfect hindsight and analyse the decisions post-event. Leaders need to be aware of this and ensure that they act SWIFTLY, DECISIVELY and with EMPATHY and HUMILITY. They will become the sacrificial lamb on the altar of anger unless they build a base of support and sympathy from people. It is always best to act with HONESTY and OPENESS - there is nothing wrong with saying “we don’t know yet , but are working 24/7 with best experts to find out”. Overestimating vs underestimating the magnitude carries risks either way - but if people and the environment are involved we would rather overestimate the potential damage and over react, than see estimates change upwards at regular intervals and worse still at the pressure of others who are more correct that our own experts. Public messaging must help maintain a leaders credibiltiy. Without credibility it is impossible for a leader to lead. Being consistantly wrong destroys credibility.
Tony Hayward tried it seems (surely he was not so insensitive to public feeling) to play the pressurised leader having a rough time - his now infamous “I would like my life back.” comment can be rationalised as the inner (and probably honest) feelings of a man under pressure for a long period and with a situation that was going from bad to worse - however in this disaster so many people, animals, and organizations were suffering and going to suffer for a long period, that it becomes expected of the leader (who represents the cause of the disaster for them) to suffer along (and for as long as they suffer).
Then to go sailing for relaxation - no matter how we argue the need to relax and recover to remain at the top of the issue one cannot be seen to be having fun before the problem has been brought under control - A good leader will understand that the optics of actions will be seen in the context of the issue being addressed and through the lens of the impacted. What a leader must understand is that in situations like this is “ it is not about me”!
The local BP management reportedly resented Tony Hayward arriving to help and appearing to sideline them in the leadership stakes (this cuts both ways - shows them as not capable, yet did screen them from the high profile fallout) - By stepping in at the wrong moment and wrong level, local leadership could well have been seen to appear incompetent and disempowered and resulted in Tony Hayward being both the visual local leader and the high level stakeholder negotiator at the same time - this gives the company no space or time within which to manage the situation. Would a US leader have incurred the same wrath of President and people? We think the magnitude of the problem created a need for Tony Hayward to step in, but would it not have been better for both the CEO and the Chairman of BP to join in and bolster the local embattled leadership showing BP (British) support for the beleaguered BP US leadership. It seems that Tony Hayward may have ridden to the rescue, poorly briefed and ill-prepared for the real situation on the ground.
The lesson for us here is around timing and packaging of the actions. If one stands back BP did appear to take strong action on the ground (albeit with a bit of political pressure), but how it came across was poor and coupled with a view they were doing positive spin media spend rather than using all money to protect people and the environment and therefore it created a media hype, unfortunately all negative.