I have this idea for a new software application for corporate email and text messaging programs: Simply put, it stops you from writing stupid things that will come back to haunt you, either in the courtroom or in the court of public opinion.
Sort of like how Gmail nudges you when you forget to attach a file, except in my app, the message asks:
You just wrote something really foolish that may expose your company to legal liability or public ridicule. Send anyway?
I am reminded of this while watching the scandal now erupting around New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Emails and text messages released Wednesday pretty definitively link one of his top aides to a traffic jam in Fort Lee, N.J., in September 2013. The tie-up appears to have been engineered as political payback against Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor, who refused to cross party lines and endorse Christie in the 2013 New Jersey gubernatorial election.
“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,’’ Christie’s deputy chief of staff wrote in August to David Wildstein, a longtime friend of the governor and a top appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge. And about a month later, Wildstein ordered closed two of three traffic lanes connecting Fort Lee to Manhattan. The mother of all traffic jams ensued.
The emails and texts uncovered by the media contradict Christie’s vehement statements on the closures, where he denied that they were retribution and said his staff was not involved. And they appear to underscore what has been a common negative refrain regarding Christie’s personality and his method of operation: that he is, in the end, just a big ol’ bully.
Though we are in the realm of politics, I have no doubt that these are the types of exchanges that send chills down the spines of general counsel and senior public relations practitioners across the land, since they (and I) have seen them all too often in the corporate context.
I see at least two lessons from the Christie fracas for anyone in the midst of a corporate crisis. First, communication response rules are very different when you are confronting negative publicity that reinforces existing perceptions. Bluntly put, the public will cut you some slack during a crisis if they think it is an aberration—just an isolated mistake—rather than evidence of business as usual. We all accept that bad things sometimes happen in even the best of organizations, and will forgive, so long as the organization (a) admits the mistake; (b) accepts responsibility; (c) figures out what went wrong; and (d) explains the changes that will be made to ensure it won’t happen again. See for example, Amazon’s recent response to shipping delays as a good example of how a company responds when it has a positive balance in the “Credibility Bank.”
Engage in the same negative behavior over and over? Well, then you’ve confirmed negative perceptions that already exist in the mind of the public—and probably cemented these perceptions permanently. We no longer assume it is a mistake; rather, we suspect there is something wrong with the culture of the organization that allows such behavior to occur with impunity.
Years ago, for example, my company was involved in public relations counseling for a national restaurant chain that was being threatened with a lawsuit by several employees for racial discrimination. An investigation had uncovered that certain employees of the company had clearly done some things wrong, so we worked with them to admit that mistakes had been made, and pledge to make changes to ensure such problems wouldn’t happen again. They were able to settle the matter amicably and quite reasonably. Their reputation survived intact.
About a year later, they called again. There was another case about to be filed on similar grounds. While the legal basis of the case was highly questionable, in reviewing the new facts it became clear that the company’s message of change hadn’t been entirely sincere. Little had been done to follow through in that intervening year and rectify some real problems.
What is the best way, we were asked, to resolve the matter without creating a media firestorm that would quickly spread nationally and damage the restaurant’s reputation forever?
My answer: Get the correct spelling of the plaintiff’s name for the settlement check … and write it quickly, before the story takes off.
Here’s the point for Governor Christie as well as GCs and business executives: There are some problems that lie deep at the heart of an organization that can’t be solved with spin. In those circumstances, deeper, more substantive changes are required to ensure that, over the long-term, both reality and perceptions are changed.
And while the heads have started to roll in the Christie administration, this most recent event comes on the heels of repeated stories of bullying behavior by his administration. A ceremonial denial and firing or two just won’t cut it. If the culture that allows members of an organization to feel comfortable sending such emails doesn’t change, the public’s willingness to forgive will surely evaporate. And, in Christie’s case, likely his dreams for higher office as well.
Which brings me to my second lesson, regarding the emails and texts themselves. It amazes me the extent to which otherwise smart people put stupid things in electronic communication—the types of things that come back to haunt them in the courtroom and in the public arena, after the discovery process in litigation or as a result of a governmental investigation that brings these misguided missives to life.
Consider, as just one example, the Apple e-book litigation, in which emails explicitly suggesting that the defendants conspired to set the price of e-books ultimately led to a disastrous verdict in the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. Someday, we will all learn to abide by a version of what, in the employment law context, famed labor lawyer Ronald Green of Epstein Becker & Green used to call his “kid sister” test: never put anything in email or text that you would be afraid to have your wife, daughter or kid sister see.
In the meantime, I’ll keep working on my software.
