Redrawing the Boundaries Weakens Crisis Response

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why the Weiner Response is Failing

Unfortunately, we have another soon-to-be-classic example of what not to do in a crisis situation. When reports surfaced that lewd photos from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account were sent to a Seattle woman, the congressman claimed his account was hacked. High profile hacking was in the news – Sony, Citi, RSA, Lockheed-Martin – so what better way to build a credible sounding story? Thus, the first crisis boundary was built.

That dike was breached quickly when questions arose: If such a violation occurred, then why didn’t he call the Capitol Police? Why couldn’t he say with “certitude” that the pictures were not of him? And, was conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s claim that he had more pictures really true?

So, the crisis boundary was pushed back and a second wall went up. Surely an admission would be the last stand. It would all be over when Rep. Weiner confirmed that he sent the photos, and that he was sorry, stupid and scared. Right?

Wrong. There were, indeed, additional photos (some pornographic) sent to more women, and there was a three-year history of “sexting.” And, now, more questions: Was government property used to carry on these activities? Was he conducting himself this way from his Capitol Hill office? What resources and who else might have been involved in covering up his carrying on?

Now he must push the boundary out yet again trying, in his way, to encircle where the next shoe might drop. He’s been calling colleagues directly to explain himself, beg forgiveness and to build some level of support. But, as the circle grows, the wall becomes harder to maintain, the perimeter more difficult to patrol and the imprint on all of his constituents more enduring.

Is he so different from some other high power, high profile politicians, entertainers or businessmen? No, but that’s hardly an excuse. We may be getting increasingly numb to these shenanigans but, for now, our sensibilities demand some sort of appropriate closure.

The bottom lines? He said he’d answer questions, then he wouldn’t, then he would again. He changed his story. He lied. He’s been behind the news, never ahead of it. And what is he left with? A shredded reputation. A seemingly endless supply of material for comedians. Calls for an ethics investigation by the House of Representatives. Demands for his resignation. Chances for his dream job – to be mayor of the City of New York – potentially dashed. Abandonment by friends and colleagues. A wife who has kept silent. The centerpiece of a new case study for the field of crisis communication.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Why Donald Trump Would Get an F (in my class)

The Donald is Not The Researcher

This article is not about politics; it's about veracity and logic. (Yes, it's sad that these words together - politics with veracity and logic - should seem so oxymoronic.)

One of the courses I teach at NYU is Research Process & Methodology for students in the M.S. program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication. An objective is to help them prepare a comprehensive proposal for their thesis projects. After they complete their degree, a few may go further into the research realm. But I'm satisfied if they leave with the tools and confidence to be competent purchasers and evaluators of research.

We're nearly at the end of the semester, and I like to remind students of the original objectives and discuss whether or not we have reached them. That's when Mr. Trump popped into my head. With his rise in the political polls tied to his investigation into the president's birthplace, just what kind of purchaser and evaluator of research is he?

As a purchaser, he hired "people" who were deployed to Hawaii to determine if a birth certificate (the "certificate of live birth" in that state) existed or was altered. On one occasion after another, he told the world, "You're not going to believe what I'm hearing" and "I'm hearing that it's missing." 

I wonder if his research team will get paid now that the state has released copies of the certificate from the official bound volume of documents at the president's request.

As an evaluator, he ignored previously released certified documents, hospital birth announcements, and a mountain of facts from the government of Hawaii and investigators from the news media. As of this writing, he still has not given his blessing to the "long form" certificate of live birth that he sought so doggedly these last few weeks.

Of course, I couldn't have fired Mr. Trump if he were in my class. However, based on his performance and disregard for the research process and ethics, he would have received an F.

With his F, though, he's still one clever guy. As the citizenship issue dies down (but kept alive at some level, I'm sure), Trump is ramping up the next crusade - the president's grades and whether he truly earned his way into Columbia and Harvard. By finding new platforms to question the credibility and legitimacy of the president, he remains in the spotlight - whether it's for political gain or TV ratings. If there were a class on self-promotion, he'd get an A.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

How "Camelot Wisdom" Can Address Our Political and Budget Woes

Politicians Should Take Some Lessons from King Arthur's Leadership and Communication Style

The failure we see in the statehouses and in Congress starts with an inability to listen and understand. It was clear to King Arthur that having the ability to comprehend other people, their circumstances, and their environments was not only nice and good, but important in other ways, too. He learned that one could achieve a huge competitive advantage. What better way to know your adversaries? And who do people want to vote for, fight for, or work for? Most often it’s the person who takes an interest in them, recognizes their motivation, and feels their pains and successes.






Just about everyone clamors for some understanding. But this cuts both ways: we want to be understood by others, and others want us to understand them. Yet, we may be losing our collective capacity to understand on an emotional level as some recent studies have shown. Perhaps this is one reason why the “my way or the highway” method of negotiation has become so popular. The belief of many politicians that even a 50 percent-plus-one victory gives them some sort of clear and unassailable mandate is another reason why we can’t move past gridlock. We can’t take a step forward when the first position is to dig-in-your-heals.

This was similar to how Arthur behaved initially in his mission to unite England at a time of competing kings and threats from abroad. Might for Right was his grand strategy: he invented the Round Table to channel the energy of the knights away from fighting toward the enforcement of a new order. Over time, however, it turned out to be a failed policy. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, Arthur said to Lancelot, “…when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too.” He had the sense to see the flaws and began the process of moving, “groping,” toward a newer, better foundation: Equal Justice.

We’d all like to get things right the first time and politicians are no different. Though it’s certainly the most desirous way of operating, it’s hardly the most common. Sometimes the imperfect thing is the only thing to do. Whatever axiom you want to use—half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good”—incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.

Like the uncertainty felt by corporations and interest groups of today, Arthur created a conundrum for the class of nobles in his attempt to change civilization. They weren’t sure if he represented a threat to their positions and wealth or an opportunity to enhance them. And like all threats and opportunities, he had to deal with the rational as well as the emotional sides of the issue. Protecting self-interest, maintaining tradition, helping your fellow man, and doing what’s best for the greatest number of people all had to be balanced. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method and he knew it. He admitted his mistake. That’s the first step in re-railing a strategy: identify the strengths and weaknesses—what should be kept, modified or jettisoned. Acting in the best tradition of the modern innovator and entrepreneur, Arthur took a risk. He went forward with a plan, though there were imperfections 
and gaps in understanding all of the potential issues.


The ability to sustain an effort is frequently underappreciated. Because incremental advances are hard to discern, we often see anxious leaders swapping out one set of strategies and tactics for a new set too soon; they don’t allow enough time for their plans to mature. With enough patience (and the appropriate resources), we know that all the baby steps can add up to become a completed marathon. Rarely do we see or accomplish all or nothing; compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. The two steps forward/one step back process frustrated and even depressed King Arthur but making progress and leaving improvements behind is what’s important.





There are, of course, times when one can (or must) reach the finish line in one bold move. But this “Camelot wisdom” should remind our leaders that the Holy Grail they seek isn’t at the end of this day or the next week but after a long journey of give and take.

You can read more in Camelot, Inc. Leadership and Management Lessons from King Arthur and the Round Table, www.camelotinc.com.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Endorsements for Camelot, Inc.

Camelot, Inc. provides a most thoughtful framework for thinking through some of today's biggest business leadership challenges. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Brian T. Gladden, Senior Vice President and CFO, Dell Computer and former President, GE Plastics

The dos and don'ts in Camelot, Inc. highlight the enduring characteristics of protecting and building personal and corporate reputation. Oestreicher has found a compelling way to teach us as much what to do as what not to do.

John Doorley, Academic Director, graduate program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication, New York University and co-author of Reputation Management

Oestreicher’s book goes well beyond the depiction of King Arthur and his court. The complicated relationships between leader and managers, the balance between personal and work lives, and the conflict between idealism and pragmatism are as much a part of today’s business world as they were in medieval England.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman

Camelot, Inc. is a remarkable ‘mining’ of lessons from the Arthurian legends. Oestreicher has found timeless prescriptions for achieving excellence in leadership.

L. Patrick Gage, Ph.D., enGage Biotech Consulting, former president, Genetics Institute and Wyeth Research

As a child, my introduction to human drama in literature was through the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable. Truly everything you need to know about human values is found in these tales. Paul Oestreicher recognizes that these tales hold timeless lessons for leaders as he brings the reader inside the Roundtable.

Greg Simon, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Policy, Pfizer and former chief domestic policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Camelot, Inc. gets to the heart of the mentoring role in growing and sustaining enterprises—both large and small. In our increasingly “virtual” business and social environment, Paul Oestreicher shows how critical mentoring is to passing along core values to the next generation of leaders.

Victor R. Budnick, Managing Director, Ironwood Capital and Lead Venture Mentor, Yale Enterprise Institute

You can see more information about the book and order at www.camelotinc.com.

Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Roundtable

An Excerpt from the Introduction

What lessons about management and leadership can an ancient king and court bring to us in the 21st century? Can the trials and tribulations of people so removed from us in time and custom truly be relevant in modern corporations, organizations, or governments?

If one thinks of texts and stories even more ancient than those of King Arthur, the answer is obvious. People continue to draw important meaning from the stone tablets, scrolls, and books of the past. Indeed, there are many for whom ancient ways and teachings enhance their well-being and guide their daily lives. The Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote (before the time of Arthur, in the second century), “If you have seen the present then you have seen everything—as it has been since the beginning, as it will be forever.”

So it is with the stories of King Arthur. Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings—personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. Those enduring qualities and complexities of human nature, told and retold in story, song, and scripture, have given us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

In Camelot, Inc. we glean management and leadership insights from Arthur’s evolution from the awkward and out-of-place squire derisively called the Wart to impatient student to compassionate king to tired ruler. We’ll start at a time when Arthur found a mentor (rather, when the mentor found him) and observe how he learned, how he developed his leadership philosophy and his vehicle for communications, what it took to excel, how he created a vision and mission, and then how a failure to confront issues led to his decline.

It’s not just that these royal life-cycle transitions so closely track the rise and fall of modern managers and leaders. Arthur will help us to deal with some of today’s most pressing leadership issues: knowledge retention, developing coherent plans and proposals, building internal and external advocacy, communicating and negotiating, team building, maintaining ethical standards, innovating, ensuring flexibility, moving from vision to execution, and succession planning.

Much of what we hear and what we come to accept as fact or truth has been termed “conventional wisdom.” Here, we have Camelot Wisdom. Camelot, Inc. will not be a history lesson, but I will use history to illustrate the dos and don’ts critical to our success as learners and leaders.

Camelot, Inc., Praeger Publishers. Available February 15, 2011. Please visit www.camelotinc.com for more information.

Cats and Dogs - It's Raining Opinion

A Bad Survey Results in Bad Reporting

Today, The New York Times published "Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming," a story based on a new survey from George Mason University that concludes there are "tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue [climate change]: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters."

In brief, only about half of the 571 TV weathercasters surveyed believed global warming has occurred, fewer than a third thought it was "caused mostly by human activity" and more than a quarter agree with the statement that "global warming is a scam." Here are some important under-appreciated facts:

Climate scientists and meteorologists are like cats and dogs, apples and oranges. College degrees versus graduate training and research. Predicting the weather tomorrow versus studying decades of data.

Not all TV meteorologists are created equally. Half don't have degrees in meteorology -- they simply report the weather. Sadly they are often the de facto local science expert because 94 percent of TV stations don't have a full time science reporter. Thus, misinformation and junk science can be easily perpetuated.

Politics forms the backdrop, not the science. I hate this but, as I've said before, the facts sometimes don't matter (Do the Facts Matter? Of Course They Do, Of Course They Don't). There's 130 years worth of information to conclude that CO2, driven up by human activity, is linked to climate change. Unfortunately, those now famous emails from a British group that allegedly tried to suppress some climate data have given climate change deniers a new reason to cast suspicion and doubt on the collective work of the field. It is also notable (and not reported in the NYT story) that 37.9 percent of the survey respondents identified themselves as somewhat or very conservative, 35.1 as moderate, and 27.3 as somewhat or very liberal (1.6 didn't know).

I really don't care where one stands on the political question -- my friends stretch across the spectrum -- as long as there is an open mind and a respect for the facts. But it would interesting to see how the survey might have changed if 1) political leanings were neutralized and 2) sorted by true expertise in the field/years of education. The bottom line is that The New York Times may be making a mountain out of a mole hill by elevating the visibility of a flawed survey.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Gaining Higher Ground by First Finding the Low

Treating the Cause, Not the Symptoms, of Pharmaceutical Industry Reputation

When confronted with a problem or an issue, we look for the root cause, the scene of the crime, Patient Zero. In the case of healthcare industry reputation, however, it seems that executives and consultants have a hard time finding that lowest common denominator. Though the pharmaceutical industry has suffered from behavioral, communication and performance missteps that have lowered reputation, it is low health literacy among consumers and the decline of science journalism that are fundamental to this problem.

Many millions have been spent on advertising campaigns to communicate the value of medicines and the cost of product R&D. Attempts have been made to showcase the role of industry research in modern medical breakthroughs. Disease awareness campaigns have been launched to help people better respond to symptomatic cues and get help. A conciliatory face has been unmasked as concessions on discounts and rebates were recently made during negotiations on healthcare reform.

It does not appear, however, that the “kitchen sink” approach to corporate reputation management is working. According to the yearly Harris poll of public attitudes toward different industry sectors, pharmaceutical companies have roughly the same score as cable companies and automobile manufacturers. The “good job minus bad job” number was nine (with supermarkets leading at 86 and tobacco trailing at -32).¹ Last year the number was 15 (with supermarkets at 84 and tobacco companies at -43).²

In the annual Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient survey of the 60 most visible companies, however, the pharmaceutical sector posted its highest reputation scores in five years – up to 31 percent in 2008 from 26 percent in 2007.³ The optimist might say that the upswing in public sentiment is proof that the varied messages and good works of the industry are finally penetrating the gloom. Yet, the cynic might say that it’s all relative; the self-inflicted wounds of other industries make pharmaceuticals look good by comparison. For example, the financial services fell into the reputation cellar with the tobacco industry, both at 11 percent. The auto industry suffered the largest decline (22 percent) in the survey's history. And, remember, 31 percent good for pharma means 69 percent not good.

Wherever the numbers are, they need to be higher. Bolstering industry reputation means generating more trust among the stakeholders. We can go a long way in enhancing the relationship with key stakeholders by delivering on healthcare promises. That is, better outcomes for patients. Generating better outcomes is heavily dependent on appropriate utilization which, in turn, relies on better health judgment.

Better health judgment starts with consumers and the need for them to be more knowledgeable about healthcare. Dropping information – even crucial or compelling data – onto the heads of an unprepared public, or expecting a response to another “call to action,” is unproductive and unrealistic.

In response to these issues and obstacles, the healthcare industry should get behind a massive, sustained effort to enhance health and science literacy.

Of course, having a more knowledgeable public will not guarantee an enhanced corporate reputation. It must be earned. The self-inflicted wounds – the reputation-killing missteps and misdeeds – need to stop.

But, putting that critical issue aside, without an ability to evaluate the facts and evidence, the important health and science issues of the day – stem cells, healthcare reform, research funding, vaccine programs – will continue to be misconstrued and remain political footballs.

When it comes to managing one’s health or the health of one’s family, most people don’t have enough knowledge to evaluate a medical product claim or even formulate the right questions to ask a healthcare provider. This all makes the public an easy target for purveyors of alternative medicines and bogus devices.

This growing problem drew widespread attention when Newsweek put Oprah Winfrey on its cover with the title, “Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures & You”.⁴ To be sure, Oprah has made tremendous contributions to her viewers and to noble causes across the world. But when she give a platform to physicians like Christiane Northrup who has used Tarot cards to diagnose illness, or celebrities like Suzanne Somers who apply, ingest and inject unapproved products in an attempt to stay young, viewers see an endorsement of potentially dangerous treatments and interventions.

Jenny McCarthy, another guest of the show, has used the very unfortunate story of her son to create fear and confusion around vaccines. Indeed, compared to parents of vaccinated children in the U.S., significantly more parents of unvaccinated children believe that vaccine efficacy and safety are low (58% vs. 17%, 60% vs. 15%). Also, significantly more parents of unvaccinated children believe their kids have a low susceptibility to diseases (58% vs. 15%).⁵

Following the Newsweek article and sharp condemnation by the mainstream medical community, Oprah released a statement saying “I trust viewers, and know that they are smart and discerning enough to seek out medical opinions to determine what may be best…” Trust isn’t the issue, however. It’s whether or not viewers have the ability to differentiate real science from junk science, medical myths from medical facts.

This inability to filter information holds true for the fastest growing sector of media – new or social media. Some commentators have heralded the arrival of “citizen journalists” to fill the void left by the dwindling professional corps. Sorry. Although bloggers help to generate much needed discussion, citizen journalism does not equal journalism. And, with the “viral” nature of the web, every anecdote, half-truth or falsehood has the potential to be perceived as fact, as real news.

Indeed, we need more pros to sift a growing mass of information. Professional health and science journalists must help to communicate the progress and the failures, and to differentiate the facts and evidence from the frauds and junk science. Unfortunately, we’ve seen surveys confirm what we already know about the state of health and science journalism over the past few months. It’s a shrinking, wounded profession. We know the symptoms – they’ve been well documented. Like the global economy, journalism needs a recovery plan.

A recent editorial in the journal Nature recognized that “scientists can do little to stop this bloodletting” though they can at least “help ensure that reporting about science continues to be both informed and accurate.”⁶ In addition, it was suggested that “the scientific community should work with journalism schools and professional societies to ensure that journalism programmes include some grounding on what science is and how the process of experiment, review and publication actually works.”

In another piece in the same issue, Toby Murcott wrote that science journalists must be more engaged – more a part of the action. They can’t simply massage a press release for their particular readership. He compares science journalism to the clergy, “taking information from a source of authority” and translating it for the congregation.⁷ He contrasts this with political journalists who, with a knowledge base on par with those who they monitor and interview, engage in an active exchange.

Physicians have a role in this, too. With inaccurate details or story angles developed for shock value, patients can be spooked out of taking their medications or seeking medical attention. Indeed, “communicating” was the first word on the first page in the first article of the first issue (of 2009) of the New England Journal of Medicine.⁸ Susan Dentzer wrote that “Whether they realize it or not, journalists reporting on health care developments deliver public health messages that can influence the behavior of clinicians and patients.” Unfortunately, many journalists “consider themselves poorly trained to understand medical studies and statistics.”

Yes, the quality of reporting and the training of journalists must be bolstered. A survey released this year by the Association of Health Care Journalists and the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 43 percent of respondents said training opportunities had declined.⁹

But addressing this one facet is not enough. Journalism is a business and, thus, a business case needs to be made in order to save (and expand) health and science journalism. The bottom line is that demand is low. Certainly, there’s no dearth of interesting material. It’s just a simple truth that a dreadfully large portion of the audience lacks the background and understanding to feel engaged in the subject areas. In a survey of more than 19,000 U.S. adults, only 11 percent where found to be "proficient" in their health literacy.¹⁰ This is where the recovery must begin.

The stakes are high and not just for the employment of journalists. Remember the first trial involving the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx® in 2005? The jury awarded $253 million to the plaintiff. Why? The science went right over the heads of the jury. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal a juror said, “We didn’t know what the heck they were talking about.”¹¹ Jon D. Miller, director, Center for Biomedical Communications, Northwestern University Medical School told The New York Times that “People’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.”¹²

Industry support for a long-term effort targeted at raising health and science literacy could lead to an increased public understanding and appetite for health and science information, news outlets being repopulated with professional journalists to help carry information forward, and a higher and wider industry reputation. Let’s spread intellectual curiosity, and use the marketing and partnering expertise of the industry to achieve these essential goals.

1. The Harris Poll^®, August 18, 2009.
2. The Harris Poll^®, August 7, 2008.
3. Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient^TM (RQ) survey, June 23, 2008.
4. Kosova, Weston and Wingert, Pat. Newsweek, June 8, 2009, pp. 54-62.
5. Omer, Saad B. et al. Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, New England Journal of Medicine 2009, vol. 360, no.19, pp. 1981-1988.
6. Nature, vol. 459, no. 7250, p. 1033.
7. Murcott, Toby. Science Journalism: Toppling the Priesthood, Nature, vol. 459, no. 7250, pp. 1054, 1055.
8. Dentzer, Susan. Communicating Medical News – Pitfalls of Health Care Journalism, New England Journal of Medicine, 2009, vol. 360 no. 15, pp.1477-1479.
9. Kaiser Family Foundation, The State of Health Journalism in the U.S., publication #7869, March 2009.
10. National Center for Education Statistics, The Health Literacy of America’s Adults, publication #2006483, September 2006.
11. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1, August 22, 2005.
12. The New York Times, p. F3, August 30, 2005.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.