After institutional scandal: Image repair or…?

Last week, Harvard University announced it would no longer make public “statements of empathy” on events or issues that are not immediately related to their own organization. I suspect this is a wise move and one that many organizations should also consider.

But of greater import to many is how organizations respond and speak about events or issues due to scandalous behavior by the institution or its leaders? In some ways it is easy to make statements of empathy about issues that do not pertain to your own actions. But how do you speak about things that you have been accused of doing or allowing to be done? This is the real knife-edge of many organizations–especially religious organizations.

Image repair?

One of the most common institutional responses is to begin image or reputation repair.

• We are saddened to learn that…
• We are investigating…
• We are committed to our values of…

In essence, the company is asking you to trust that they will handle the problem, respond well to it, and continue to be the organization that you expected them to be. A friend of mine once called this “success theatre” when an organization was telling staff members that everything was under control when it was clear to everyone that it was not.

Instead of image repair…do actual repair of damage done.

I would suggest that image repair misses the main point and is not something that should be pursued directly. A better goal is to repair the damage done and allow that to shape the mind of those who are watching how the organization handles the problem. Image repair is the fruit of repairing the damage done by the organization and not the reverse.

An organization has public trust because it acts in trustworthy ways and not because it leads a campaign to convince people they should be trusted. So, what are some better ways an organization can repair the damage.

1. Always speak the truth. Even when you can’t say everything you know, you can speak the truth when you do speak. Shading truth, minimizing damage will always catch up to the organization. Speaking truth lets victims know you are not trying to cover up or hide what has happened. If your organization is faith-based, don’t use spiritual language to cover over what has happened. This often happens when leaders try to allay fears of employees and the public. It almost always backfires.
2. Choose transparency over liability protection. Pursue transparency. Who is overseeing the investigation? Who has been retained to consult? Who will receive calls and messages about additional harms and who does that person report to? Make those names and connections visible to all. When evidence is clear that some leaders knew (or should have known) about bad behaviors by others, take responsibility and say so clearly. Don’t just blame the fall guy. Be willing to repeat the narrative about how the organization did not live up to its values. Don’t set a date for when you will “move on.”
3. Make sacrificial efforts to repair damage done to victims, without limiting their right to speak about their experiences. Invite those harmed to help craft care plans and public statements whenever possible.
4. Submit to experts who aren’t going to make public statements affirming you. Too often organizations reach out to people whose own integrity will be a boost to the organization. It is fine that the person the institution wants help from has expertise and is known for their work. But, this person should not be making statements nor should their name be used to prop up the reputation of the company. When you submit to experts helping you manage the damage repair and the learning needed, assume a position of humility.

What other elements of repair might an institution make when they are responding to problem behaviors or unintended harm caused by staff? Feel free to leave ideas in the comments.