Fishburn Hedges

13.10.2009

With MPs’ expenses back in the headlines, we are all watching closely for any further political fallout. Here John Williams, one of Fishburn Hedges’ founders, gives a perspective on the reputational lessons that any organisation could learn when caught in the eye of the storm.

Now that MPs are safely returning from their holidays, it is a good time to pause and reflect on the lessons of the expenses crisis for the rest of us.

The communications world has lived through a whole host of reputation crises over the years from environmental damage to human rights abuse to shareholder fraud. And we have learned some painful lessons. But not the mother of Parliaments, which has provided a rich reminder of the basic rules of good reputation management.

Rule 1: usually, it’s not the offence but how you manage it that affects how much damage is done.

Parliament was off the scale here. The response was painfully slow. The excuses were feeble: how many times did an MP say “it was within the rules”, a response which inflamed the public and worked as convincingly as that old chestnut “I was only obeying orders”. Why was the crisis so drawn out? Could Parliament not have published everyone’s expenses far sooner? Lots of unexposed MPs did publish their own, but it never became a collective strategy.

Rule 2: if you are at the heart of a crisis, ensure you have access to independent and professional advice you trust

This is not necessarily a plug for your nearest PR consultancy but whoever you have in place to advise you at the time, and especially your most senior in-house communications chief. You must already have trust and confidence in them, or you won’t listen to their advice. They will be able to plot the right course 100 times better than a beleaguered chief executive, or a Michael Martin, the outgoing Speaker, caught in the headlights.

In this respect, it was notable that one of the first moves from incoming Speaker, John Bercow, was to appoint Tim Hames, the former Times leader writer, as a special advisor and spokesman for the House of Commons.

Speaker Martin had similar support too: it will be interesting to see whether Speaker Bercow listens to his. Collectively, Parliament was hopeless at reading the mood of the nation and got their responses wrong, sometimes too little, then too much.

Only when David Cameron started to apologise clearly for his own side, and take tough actions, did there emerge some sense of control, and others followed. In a fiercely competitive arena, partisan party strategists possibly missed that this was a collective threat to them all - a clear parallel with the City over the last year.

Rule 2b: commission research, use it, believe it

The best way to read the real mood of your constituencies and stakeholders is to use third-party research. Most organisations do this. The challenge is to get it properly read and noted. But I think MPs had no idea what seething resentment was lurking under the bland entreaties of their mailbox.

Rule 3: react, but don’t overreact

An extension of rule 1. The 24/7 news cycle is real, but a dangerous quicksand. Don’t simply address the immediate issue but take a step back and look at the bigger picture. You cannot unmake a crisis. But you can move the agenda away from it.

The Sir Christopher Kelly inquiry was already set up to look at expenses. There was no need for the YouTube proposals rushed out and so obviously rushed. (And back to rule 2, why did no-one in Downing Street say, Gordon, please don’t do it?)

Rule 4: the media may not be out to get you, but to get a story their readers want to read

Media paranoia is still a staple in some boardrooms. The fact it was the Telegraph probably misdirected many left-leaning MPs but it also caught the wrath of Tories too. This was not a Tory plot, it was good journalism.

Papers may have agendas, but the best articulate and reflect the feelings of large and real strands of public opinion.

The expenses scandal, rather than being apparently a narrow self-obsessed Westminster story, was something that engaged the public and touched a nerve about the role and contribution of our elected representatives. It also opened up, awkwardly and imperfectly, a long-overdue debate about what our MPs are for.

Rule 5: this is not about PR or spin, it’s about fundamental management best practice

The bottom line is that for decades Parliament simply never addressed the issue of MPs’ pay. There was always a case to say it was not good timing, and reputationally damaging. The consequence was eventually far worse.

Rule 6: whistleblowers are useful, for big and small things

It is a desire of most organisations today to have an open, non-hierarchical culture that allows for challenge and good ideas to come from anyone.

So why did the Fees Office not spot the cumulative consequences of the claims. (To be fair, they did reject some of the more egregious, but this did not stop the MPs still submitting, it seems.) Were they fresh out of whistles? Or weren’t they listening to the member of staff before he took all the details to the Telegraph? Which brings us on to…

Rule 7: “is it ethical?” should be a daily test

It’s better expressed as “is this something I’d be embarrassed to explain to my children, or the national press?” There was no sense of self-regulation. It was a classic case of group think.

Rule 8: it really is about protecting your licence to operate

“Reputation management” always seems to have a touch of vanity about it, about polishing the brass, about gloss and glitz. But your “licence to operate”, the sheer ability to go about your business as effectively as possible, permitted and welcomed by your many stakeholders, really is damaged by reputation scandals you fail to prevent or control.

Parliament is just starting to feel the effects. Apart from an overall loss of faith in our central political institution, MPs face a debilitating level of cynicism and scepticism that has lasted for months and maybe years.

Policies, actions and statements will be seen through the prism of an alleged self-interest and greed apparently evidenced by the expenses scandal.

Rule 9: it takes strong leadership to take an organisation back into favour

At some point you have to admit internally as well as externally that your organisation goofed.

People like to hear the word “sorry” partly because it is so rarely said.

Rule 10: time heals

The Conservatives will tell you the passage of time does heal reputational damage and perceptions can soften. The nasty party is no more. But it can take a rather long time, and the cuttings and Google never go away. So the final rule…

Rule 11: prevention is better than cure

As always.