When an organisation has a reputation problem, its first instinct is often to defend itself. That is usually a mistake.
First, establish what kind of problem you have
A dissatisfied customer is not necessarily a reputational crisis.
A critical article is not necessarily a reputational crisis.
A viral social-media post may be embarrassing without being consequential.
The first task is therefore diagnosis.
Do not confuse reputation with publicity.
It can have excellent media coverage and poor customer relationships.
It can have thousands of social-media followers and weak credibility with policymakers. Reputation exists in the judgement stakeholders make about the organisation.
That judgement is shaped by experience, behaviour, leadership, evidence and communication.
Fix the thing before you try to fix the story.
If customers received faulty products, solve the product problem.
If employees were treated improperly, address the employment problem.
If inaccurate information was published, correct it.
If a safety system failed, investigate and repair it.
If leadership behaved improperly, deal with the leadership issue.
Communication cannot substitute for remediation. Boeing provides a powerful example.
Do not repeat rumours as facts.
Do not allow ten different executives to give ten different explanations.
Establish:
This does not mean waiting until every question has been answered.
It means being honest about what you know and what you do not. "Here is what we know.
Here is what we are investigating. Here is what we are doing next." is often more credible than a confident statement that later proves wrong.
That phrase is almost useless.
It sounds as though the organisation is apologising for an unfortunate weather event rather than something it may have caused.
A credible response identifies the actual consequence. If customers were stranded, say so. If employees were affected, say so.
If research participants were harmed, say so. If a community lost confidence, recognise that.
The purpose is not theatrical remorse.
It is to demonstrate that leadership understands the human and organisational consequences of the problem.
An organisation does not need to accept every accusation made against it.
But if it made a mistake, it should say so.
Defensive language often creates a second crisis.
The public may initially be angry about the original event.
It becomes angrier when the organisation appears evasive.
What happens now?
But without a remedy, communication becomes theatre.
But every serious reputational issue requires someone with enough authority to be credible.
The spokesperson must understand:
They must also be capable of speaking like a human being.
Stakeholders are rarely reassured by someone who sounds as though they are reading a legal disclaimer.
Employees may need detailed operational information.
Customers need practical answers.
Investors need to understand financial implications.
Regulators may need formal disclosure.
Journalists need accurate facts.
Communities may need direct engagement.
A strong reputation response therefore has a common factual foundation but different forms of communication for different audiences.
A company says:
"We are deeply disappointed by the situation."
But stakeholders want to know: "What happened to us?"
The response should therefore centre the affected stakeholder, not the emotional experience of the corporation.
That does not mean abandoning the organisation's interests.
It means recognising the hierarchy:
It is evidence. The objective is therefore not to "control the narrative."
That phrase gives communications too much power and organisations too little responsibility.
The objective is to make the organisation worthy of the reputation it wants.
Communication can explain that change. It cannot replace it.