When any organisation makes a sharp U-turn on a corporate policy or pronouncement – often with a ‘We’re sorry for any offence…’ – analysts of the risk management game commonly see evidence of a) ill-considered decision-making or b) unexpected stakeholder backlash.
Both of the above – bad decisions or unanticipated reactions – often betray a deep flaw. The flaw relates to a company’s inability to identify and gauge potentially damaging risks and threats, and the dearth of sound processes for effectively triaging any related perils.
I mean, did the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra really not know that pianist Jayson Gillham would play a composition inspired (its writer publicly states on his website) by the experience of journalists in Gaza? Was there no advance awareness or nous that this was an issues management red flag-in-waiting? Gillham then underscored the score by adding his more personal condemnations of journalist fatalities in Gaza, sparking some stakeholder outrage.
First, here’s a big caveat: this article doesn’t seek to point score on the terminal and baneful tragedy seen throughout the Israel vs. Hamas war, but instead focuses on the principles of corporate risk management.
In issues and crisis management, if brands don’t have contingencies to cope with potentially contentious issues, then criticism and negative publicity can follow. As we saw in this case, the adverse PR arising was needlessly self-fuelled.
Risk management is (mistakenly) thought to really only apply to those ‘nasty brands’ who are easily vilified for their acclaimed abuses over consumer rights, the environment, executive remuneration, excess profitability, price-gouging, and the like.
Nice brands – like arts organisations – who ostensibly provide enjoyable or esoteric products and services perhaps don’t feel as much of a need to get risk-ready. However, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra’s Chopin and changin’ (see what I did there?) of its stance on a pianist making a non-arts comment, suggests that the acuity of their management’s first decision to cancel the maestro and the subsequent backlash arising, appears more rash than righteous.
Issues management is best not only done at the eleventh hour, nor seemingly on an unsustainable whim.
Issuing a strong and censorial statement only to rescind it hours later, commonly demonstrates uncertainty rather than stakeholder-attuned flexibility. Fitfulness is not a great indicator of the quality of issues triage, governance frameworks nor a risk register.
Because social media agitation deepens and widens the array of potential pitfalls for profit and non-profit organisations alike, the need for robust risk management protocols is more mandatory than ever. Conducting rigorous business impact analysis, compiling and maintaining quarterly risk registers, monitoring media narratives, researching stakeholder sentiment and running crisis simulations are just some of the ways companies work to protect themselves against off-the-cuff and ill-considered decisions that cause and fuel mini-crises.
As I put my tuppence-worth in type, however, a possible realisation hits me: What if this was MSO’s tactical play all along? To issue a stern wigging, apologise profusely, issue a sincere ‘welcome back’ then apologise yet again?
Forget flip-flops, this is fricken fantastic! You park your core ethos and mission, and endlessly chide and apologise for anything and everything anyone has an issue with! It’s like having your reputational cake and eating it, too!
Again, study the tactics. They scolded the pianist and apologised for the error of his ways; which pleased the initial complainants. Subsequently, they apologised for the error of their ways and, so, placated those who were outraged by the management’s original decision to chasten Jayson!
Two big calls, two ardent apologies, a welcome back into the musical fold (somewhere down-the-line) and everyone’s now happy, right?
Well, clearly not some demoralised internal stakeholders (oh bugger; we forgot about them!) and MSO staff musicians – who then jumped in to pass a vote of no confidence in the managerial mishandling of this and other medleys! Other MSO collaborators then also criticised the MSO’s fumbling of the issue and pulled out of their shows in solidarity with Gillham and the ensemble.
This whole performance seems to be experiencing an extended run where the plump dame hasn’t yet started – far less finished – warbling.
Will the company and executives who steered the corporate response to an issue that was turned into a reputation crisis, survive and thrive? If so, the MSO might just have inspired – if not written – a whole new score on how to handle crises.
Then all of us armchair conductors or critics will have nothing left to say except ‘well played’, I guess?
