訂閱

多平臺閱讀

微信訂閱

雜志

申請紙刊贈閱

訂閱每日電郵

移動應用

領導力

通用汽車的危機管理有什么經驗?波音又是如何犯錯的?

Ellen Florian 2019年06月19日

想要處理好涉及人員傷亡的企業危機,一個重要原則是要表現出關心。

想要處理好涉及人員傷亡的企業危機,一個重要原則是要表現出關心。然而在埃塞俄比亞航空公司的302航班發生墜機事故80天后,波音公司的董事長兼首席執行官丹尼斯·米倫伯格才嚴肅道歉,此時距獅航的610航班失事已經達5個月之久,兩次事故航班的機型都是737 MAX飛機,共導致346人喪生。

“我親自向遇難者的家人致歉了。”他向哥倫比亞廣播公司《晚間新聞》的主播諾拉·奧唐奈說道,這是自從兩起事故發生以來他首次接受采訪。“我們為空難感到難過,對事故表示歉意。我們對兩起空難造成的傷亡很遺憾,這一點永遠不會改變,將銘記于心。可以告訴你,空難也直接影響到了作為波音公司領導的我,那段時間很難過。”

米倫伯格還承認,MCAS軟件并未正確地安裝啟用,溝通也未妥當執行,MCAS是737 MAX飛機安裝的最新飛行控制系統,曾經導致兩架失事飛機的機頭不受控地下壓。米倫伯格在采訪中的發言無疑是朝著正確方向邁出的一步,但回應得太晚了,而且很平淡。波音還是可能成為商學院分析危機公關時給出的錯誤案例。

“采訪中應該表達感情,或者說是熱情,尤其想控制損失時更該如此。”公關公司Strategic Vision PR Group的首席執行官、媒體關系和危機溝通專家戴維·約翰遜說道,“他看起來過于冷靜,而且回避了一些問題。”

舉例來說,奧唐奈曾經問道:“你能想象機上的乘客有多害怕嗎?”米倫伯格回答道:“我們對事故進行了全方位檢查,不是為了推卸責任或歸咎于人,只是想弄清真相。”

“他回答這個問題應該帶著體貼的態度。”約翰遜說道,“他應該說:‘根本無法想象,我都不敢去想。我能夠理解遇難者家人的悲痛。’”

米倫伯格在回答聽說第二起墜機事故怎么想時,也可以用另一種模板回答:“這次事故打擊到公司的核心。我在波音工作了34年,一直都在努力制造安全的產品。我們立刻叫停,評估形勢,并立即采取行動改進,最后危機會鞏固公司的核心價值。”

危機應對的金科玉律

企業總會遇到危機,而企業應對危機的方式會在公眾眼中形成持續的印象。1982年強生泰諾污染在芝加哥導致7人中毒死亡,隨后大規模召回產品,強生的處理方式可以說是危機管理的典范。應對極差的案例則有,在2010年墨西哥灣鉆井平臺爆炸奪去11人的生命之后,英國石油的首席執行官唐熙華成為媒體關注的焦點,他說了很多不合時宜的話,包括極欠考慮地抱怨“我想過以前平靜的日子”。

在737 MAX危機發生以后,波音多次應對失當,影響了原本可靠的聲譽,也損害了乘客對飛機的信心。“危機溝通的關鍵是先發制人。”約翰遜說道,“波音本該立即宣布停飛737 MAX,直到找出問題。”但據《紐約時報》報道,在3月10日埃塞俄比亞航班墜毀后,各國航空部門紛紛下令停飛737 MAX,米倫伯格卻直接找美國總統特朗普保證飛機安全。一天以后,隨著壓力變得越來越大,波音才決定出于“多加小心”考慮,向美國聯邦航空局建議暫時停飛737 MAX。

在第二次墜機事故約一個月后,米倫伯格錄制了一段道歉視頻,并提到在大多數墜機事件中都會發生的“一連串事件”,看起來像是推卸波音和MCAS系統在墜機事件中負有的責任。在幾周后召開的年度股東大會上,他重申飛行員應該負責任,表示飛行員沒有“完全遵循”某些程序。他還說道,“在基本設計和方法驗證方面沒有發現技術上存在失誤或漏洞。”

在幾天后發表的一份聲明中,波音則大改口風,承認在獅航航班墜機一年多前就知道MCAS軟件存在差錯風險。聲明還稱,波音公司直到獅航航班墜毀后才告知了美國聯邦航空局。值得注意的是,波音聲稱公司高層領導直到第一次事故發生后才了解到相關差錯。

3A原則

與此形成對比的是,在2014年通用汽車的點火開關缺陷導致100多人死亡后,公司的首席執行官瑪麗·巴拉作出了坦率的回應。她沒有利用框定有限責任的法律策略自我保護,而是承擔起責任,向利益相關者誠懇道歉并巧妙溝通,不僅親自上門拜訪,還聘請了“9·11”受害者賠償基金的負責人肯·范伯格負責處理受害者賠償事宜。她還聘請了一名獨立調查員,解雇了丑聞相關人員。

“承認(acknowledge)、道歉(apologize)和行動(act),這是做好危機管理的基礎之一。”通用汽車負責點火開關問題和凡士通輪胎召回問題的危機溝通策略師杰夫·埃勒說道。他補充道:“(米倫伯格)親自出面道歉就非常有趣,說明這位首席執行官已經別無選擇了。”

理查德·布蘭森也是深諳危機管理之道的企業領袖。2014年,維珍銀河公司的航天飛機在莫哈韋沙漠爆炸,導致一名試飛員死亡,另一名飛行員重傷。之后,布蘭森親身趕往墜機現場,滿懷同情地針對悲劇進行了面對面的溝通。

美聯航的一名乘客去年被拖下飛機,該公司的首席執行官奧斯卡·穆尼奧茲最初反應很糟糕——他稱之為“令人沮喪的事件”,并表示會支持員工。但在公眾憤怒情緒爆發之后,穆尼奧茲迅速改變立場。“任何人都不應該遭受如此虐待。” 他發表聲明說道,“選擇正確的路永遠不會太晚。”他還在接受美國廣播公司采訪時表示“羞愧”。

如今,波音想在航空公司和乘客心目中重建信譽任務艱巨,第一步是讓737 MAX飛機復飛。何時能實現?可能沒有最初估計那么快。今年5月下旬,美國聯邦航空局的代理局長丹尼爾·埃爾韋爾在沃思堡與全球民航當局進行了會談,他拒絕透露737 MAX具體將在何時復飛,只是說:“如果需要一年時間才能充分證明可以解除禁飛命令,那就等一年吧。”最近,美聯航將737 MAX航班的停飛時間延長到了8月初。穆尼奧茲在近日接受CNBC采訪時表示,即使737 MAX復飛,也無法“假設人們能接受,也無法假設人們可以克服心理障礙”。這意味著在應對危機方面,米倫伯格還有很長的路要走:“我們都知道,不管要贏得還是贏回公眾信任,都需要一些時間。”(財富中文網)

譯者:艾倫

審校:夏林

An important tenet of managing a corporate crisis that involves loss of human life is to show that you care. Eighty days after the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, coming five months after the doomed Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing’s Chairman and CEO Dennis Muilenburg made a serious attempt to show personal contrition for the loss of the 346 lives aboard both 737 MAX aircraft.

“I do personally apologize to the families,” he told CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell in his first interview since the two tragedies. “We feel terrible about these accidents, and we apologize for what happened. We are sorry for the loss of lives in both accidents, and that will never change. That will always be with us. I can tell you it affects me directly as a leader of this company. It’s very difficult.”

Muilenburg also admitted that implementation of the MCAS software—the new flight control system in the 737 MAX that erroneously pushed the nose of both aircraft down—was not done correctly and that communication on that problem was not what it should have been. Muilenburg’s statements in the interview are undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but the response is late—and tepid. And it will likely do nothing to keep the company from becoming a business school case study in what not to do in a crisis.

“One of the things you want during an interview, especially when you’re trying to do damage control is express emotion, express passion,” says media relations and crisis communications expert David Johnson, CEO of Strategic Vision PR Group. “He seemed overly clinical. He skirted some of her questions.”

Case in point: O’Donnell asked, “Can you imagine how terrifying that was for the people on board?” Muilenburg’s response,” We examine every dimension of these accidents. Not to try to attribute fault or point fingers, but it’s to understand end-to-end what happened.”

“That should have been a thoughtful question for him,” says Johnson. “He should have said, ‘It’s unimaginable, I cannot even think about it. My heart goes out to the family members.’”

Another bit of Muilenburg’s boilerplate was his response to the question about what went through his mind when he heard about the second plane crash: “This gets to the core of who we are as a company. You know, I’ve been at Boeing for 34 years. I spent a career working on safe products. We pause, we assess the situation, we immediately began to take actions on what we could do to improve and in the end this reinforces our values as a company.”

Crisis Gold Standard

Crises are bound to happen in corporations. It’s the response to the crisis that forms lasting public perceptions about the character of a company. The gold standard in crisis management is Johnson & Johnson’s 1982 massive product recall after Tylenol tampering in Chicago poisoned seven people to death. Toward the other end of the spectrum: A 2010 rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that took 11 lives and put BP’s CEO Tony Hayward under the glare of media scrutiny. He uttered a number of gaffes including the famously thoughtless “I want my life back” remark.

Boeing’s numerous missteps after the 737 MAX crisis have damaged its solid reputation and harmed passenger confidence in the plane. “The key to crisis communications is being proactive,” says Johnson “What Boeing should have done right away is announce that they were grounding the 737 Max until they could find out what the problem was.” But as aviation authorities across the world were grounding the MAX after the March 10 Ethiopian crash, Muilenburg appealed directly to President Trump about the safety of the aircraft, according to the NYT. A day later, under increasing pressure, the company decided to recommend to the FAA the temporary suspension of the fleet out of an “abundance of caution.”

Approximately a month after the second crash, Muilenburg recorded an apology video that also references a “chain of events” he said happens in most crashes, which seemed to deflect full accountability away from Boeing and the part the MCAS system played in the crash. He reiterated pilot blame a few weeks later at the annual shareholders meeting when he said some procedures were not “completely followed.” He also said the company hasn’t “seen a technical slip or gap in terms of the fundamental design and certification of the approach.”

Then several days later, Boeing issued a very different statement, admitting that the company knew more than a year before the Lion Air crash that there was a mistake in the software. The statement also says Boeing informed the FAA only after the Lion Air crash. And notably, this admission makes a point of stating that senior company leadership only became aware of the error after the first accident.

The Triple AAAs

Weigh all that against GM CEO Mary Barra’s up-front response to the 2014 ignition switch defects that claimed more than 100 lives. She didn’t circle the wagons around a legal strategy that would limit liability. She took responsibility. She apologized, communicated deftly to stakeholders, visited family members, hired Ken Feinberg, who oversaw the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to handle victim compensation at GM. She also hired an independent investigator, and fired people linked to the scandal.

“One of the foundations of good crisis management is acknowledge, apologize and act,” says crisis communications strategist Jeff Eller, who worked on the GM ignition switch issue as well as the Firestone tire recall. He adds: “[Muilenburg’s] personal apology is pretty interesting because it tells me it’s reached a point where the CEO doesn’t have much of a choice but to do that.”

Another leader who understands how to act in crisis: Richard Branson. After the 2014 explosion of a Virgin Glactic space plane in the Mojave Desert that killed a test pilot and seriously injured another, Branson struck the right tone by traveling to the scene of the crash and communicating personally and sympathetically about the human tragedy.

And though United Continental CEO Oscar Munoz, botched his initial response to the passenger being dragged off a flight last year—he called it an “upsetting event” and told employees he stood behind them—Munoz quickly reversed course after public outrage. “No one should ever be mistreated this way,” he said in a statement. “It’s never too late to do the right thing.” He also expressed feeling “shame” in an ABC News interview.

Reestablishing credibility with airlines and passengers is a monumental task for Boeing. The first step is getting the planes off the ground. When will that happen? Not as soon as originally thought. After a meeting in Fort Worth at the end of May with global civil aviation authorities, acting FAA chief Daniel Ellwell declined to give a timetable: “If it takes a year to find everything we need to give us confidence to lift the order, then so be it.” United recently extended flight cancellations for their 737 MAX planes until early August. Even once the plane flies, the airline will not “assume everyone will want to fly or assume that everyone will get over it,” said Munoz recently to CNBC. Which means Muilenberg still has a long road ahead in managing this crisis: “We know it will take some time to earn and re-earn that public confidence.”

我來點評

  最新文章

最新文章:

500強情報中心

財富專欄

重庆百变王牌开奖直播