When the Presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania provided testimony at a recent congressional hearing about antisemitism on college campuses, they demonstrated, among many other things, the ability to successfully create an organizational crisis with significant, negative fallout. In short, they failed the introductory “class” on crisis management – don’t create the crisis yourself.
There are enough crises that are outside of our control (think natural disasters, global pandemics etc.) that there is zero need to initiate one unnecessarily, however, this is exactly what happened with the testimony debacle on display. What leaders and organizations can control is the messages they communicate, and how effective they can be in delivering these messages. These are the hallmarks of impactful crisis communications, an integral part of effective crisis management. As was proven yet again with this scenario, successful crisis communications can be the difference maker.
If we adopt the Oxford English dictionary definition of a crisis – “a time of great danger, difficulty or doubt when problems must be solved or important decisions must be made”, the utter failure of these leaders becomes even more pronounced.
How could any of them believe for a moment, that wavering on a clear-cut question of whether calling for genocide of a specific group of people violates the rules or code of conduct of their university, is simply beyond comprehension. Trying to explain how it may, or may not violate their rules or conduct, was embarrassing at best, and highly concerning at worst.
Some have called for consideration of the broader context of the dialogue that preceded the direct question from Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. That’s irrelevant. In fact, it somehow reinforces the idea that context should have even been considered in their responses to the “yes/no” question in the first place. Suggesting the call for genocide was situation specific or context dependent should boggle the mind of anyone, let alone executive leaders of prestigious academic institutions. While it is true that universities need to foster a place for exchange of ideas and freedom of speech, calling for the genocide of a population does not fit squarely into either of those categories.
What’s even more surprising, is that it must be safe to assume these leaders had spent thoughtful time and careful consideration of this issue with their leadership teams, given the incredible scrutiny on college and universities in how they have been responding to the conflict in the middle east. Wasn’t the fact that they were asked to appear before Congress on this very issue, sufficient evidence that we are in a “a time of great danger, difficulty or doubt when problems must be solved or important decisions must be made” as Oxford defines a crisis.
Unsurprisingly, the global backlash has been swift, harsh and concrete. Two of the three Presidents tried to clarify their positions the next day, however, it was too late for at least one of them. Ross Stevens, CEO of Axios financial services firm, made the decision to yank a $100 million donation to the University of Pennsylvania after the institution failed to fire their President who appeared before Congress. And then the inevitable, Liz Magill resigned.
The list of organizations and individuals who have handled crises poorly is long. In the vast majority of these cases, though the organization or individual may have contributed to the crisis in some way – through bad decisions, inadequate preparation, failed processes, protocols not being followed and so on – they all found a way to amplify and exacerbate these situations with their responses to what had happened.
Communication and the way it’s delivered is a key success factor in effectively managing a crisis (so you don’t end up be the creator of said crisis!). If your message(s) or position isn’t absolutely clear and you are unable to convey these messages effectively, you are sure to join that fateful group of so many others that came before you just as these three university leaders have. The irony is painful that in a place of learning, the leaders of such places failed this basic class in reputation management so miserably.