Recently I read an article that posed this question,
“Why is a seven-hundred-year old company not well-known and celebrated as an exemplar of corporate resilience?”1
The company in question is called Stora Enso – and while they may have a case, the recent events with “News of the World” prove that age of an entity is not really an indicator of the current degree of resilience.
In fact, this is further evidence to support the primary role that culture plays in establishing and sustaining organisational resilience.
In the case of the ‘News’ it seems to be an unethical culture which diminshed their resilience, or perhaps just another case of arrogance and complacency from a market leader.
It has also been interesting to note that there appears to have been little value placed on the age of the ‘News of the World’ title by the News Limited Crisis Managers. When the fallout from the tabloid crisis threatened to derail their acquisition of the the BSkyB Television network then the 168 year-old newspaper became expendable.
With the emerging story about payments to the Police and the links into the government, this story still seems to have a long way to run. It will also be interesting to follow the story if only to see how far up the corporate ladder executives become expendable to the Crisis Managers.
I am looking forward to reading the reviews of this situation by various Crisis Management commentators to see how they rank the performance.
Too often we overlook the fact that habits, and culture, can work in both positive and negative ways. Consider my application of the ‘Six Habits’ I sourced from the article referenced below;
- Resilient organisations actively tend to their environment
- Success can make you overconfident, nobody can take you down
- The article actually suggests part of the problem “too little transperancy. No moral compass”
- Resilient organisations prepare themselves and their employees for disruptions
- Some organsiation do not prepare their employees, but they do have plans
- I have consulted to companies who have contingecy plans to shut down a business unit in the event of a disaster. I know there were not discussed internally with staff.
- Who knows, perhaps abandoning News of the World was a pre-arranged contingency if things got too hot
- Resilient organisation build in flexability
- again, dumping the newspaper to protect the Sky TV acquisition shows that News Ltd can be flexible
- the purpose is not the continuity of a single business unit, or publication, the the returns generated by the ultimate holding company.
- Resilient organizations strengthen and extend their communications networks – internally and externally
- Clearly they excelled in this category, links into Scotland Yard and Number 10.
- Resilient organizations encourage innovation and experimentation
- Get the story, the end justifies the means
- Phone hacking is innovative – we need to be clear on the ethics of our innovations
- Resilient organizations cultivate a culture with clearly shared purpose and values
- It seems that this was shared, but it was the value of arrogance and the purpose was to get the scoop’ at any cost.
Culture is about the way we do things here – it is driven by the tone from the top.
That is why the culture of resilience has to start from the top level and filter down, it cannot be established from the middle or bottom.
New post from Crisis Management expert Jonathan Bernstein advocating similar theme – need to check culture as a crisis prevention measure. http://bernsteincrisismanagement.blogspot.com/2011/07/culture-crisis.html
Ken, thanks for your comments on the closure of News of the World. I especially appreciated your comment about “Some organsiation do not prepare their employees, but they do have plans”.
However, I am wondering if the News of the World prepared their employees for redundancy when demonstrating their ability to be a truly resilient flexible organization by “dumping” the newspaper (and their employees) “to protect the Sky TV acquisition? Surely, as you suggested earlier in your article there appears that scant signs of a moral compass.
I wonder if the now redundant employees feel that the “end justifiies the means”.
No decision is easy. However, part of resiliency is consideration for all the stakeholders involved which hopefully includes those who have given their innovation, creativity, time and energy to the organization.
Thanks for joining the discussion Ruth.
I am not sure I would agree with your point here, and if I have misunderstood your position, please correct me.
Being resilient is an attribute we hope to demonstrate when the need arises. Having a ‘moral compass’ should influence the way we act and conduct our business on a daily basis.
Bad or evil entities can be resilient. There are academic studies about the resilience of Drug Cartels ( http://www.paulchabot.com/PDF/PaulChabotDissertationMar272008.pdf ), anecdotally we see the same in terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda.
Agreed that we should look after our employees so they will hopefully feel loyalty to the company in a crisis. Not sure that we need to provide for the needs of all stakeholders – at times these may compete.
News International and News Corp are the entities that we need to study here. NOTW was a commodity to be dumped, and when you dump an operating entity you dump many of the staff as well. The Sky deal was subsequently dumped. The behaviour and narrative of News Corp has fundamentally changed in the past few days.
These guys are showing us what it really means to have adaptive capacity and astute situational awareness. Two of the core essentials for resilience.
Ken, thanks so much for taking the time to comment. A difference of perspective is always an invitation to broaden our views.
You’re right resilience knows no moral boundary. We really don’t need an academic study to understand the tenacious nature of individuals who have decided not to add positively to life.
The only point I was attempting to make is that resilience is not only about adaptability. It is also about considering the ramifications of our actions while we respond to the shifting sands of life.
Once again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Take care and have a fabulous and resilient week.
Ruth
My policy is to engage in dialog (and broaden my views) with all who comment, after all, why else do we write these blogs?
I think we are in agreement here, and your point about considering the implications, short and long-term of our actions – is a key to resilience. In the past I have often written about this in terms of networks and connections up and down the value chain.
It seems an important learning from the News saga is also that we need to understand the implications of our day-by-day behaviours on these relationships.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter posted in a similar vein today – http://blogs.hbr.org/kanter/2011/07/rupert-murdoch-and-the-news-ab.html
And also well said by the analogy on your own blog Ruth, “we need to help our neighbours grow good corn”.
Thank you for dropping by and enabling me to discover your work.