Larry D. Lauer

In past posts I differentiated between “normal” and crisis times when it comes to making judgments about how leaders should respond. So was it wise for President Obama to say he wished that Sony would have consulted him before cancelling the film about the assassination of the North Korean President? What was the benefit of inserting himself in this way at this complex moment in time?

In addition to saying Sony should not have cancelled the opening of this movie on Christmas day because of our national belief in freedom of speech, Obama further added that he regarded the North Korean hacking as “vandalism” and not an act of terrorism.

Would it not have been better at this initial moment in the crisis to empathize with Sony’s difficult position and to avoid confusing a very uncertain situation? After all, Sony was responding to theater owners who were legitimately concerned about local crazies using the situation for their own purposes. And further more, maybe Sony was assessing their original “strategic” judgment about releasing this particular satire on Christmas day in a year when ISIS threats could very likely stimulate local sympathizers.

My judgment is that Obama’s critical remarks at this time merely insured more confusion, put Sony on the defensive, handed media pundits a field day, and stimulated angry responses from adversaries in congress about whether it was “vandalism” or terrorism.”

After empathizing with Sony at the initial time of crisis, and adding a firm commitment to find and punish the hackers, would it not have been better to wait a few days for Sony to decide when and how it would release the movie before saying any more? Then Obama could  “own” the moment, take the offensive, support Sony’s decision, and reiterate the nation’s  commitment to freedom of speech. This would also be the perfect time to define the concept of “satire” for the rest of the world, and to make a more careful statement about how the U.S. intends to respond.

It is true that during a crisis a leader needs to sound and look decisive. But in this particular case Obama also needed to avoid making matters more complicated, confusing and polarized.  Adding to the clutter as he did was not helpful.

Read Full Post »

For the past two weeks the demonstrations and accompanying violence in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting of a young black male has concentrated the world’s attention on just how much tension exists in many of our cities. And now we have still other police brutality issues in the news, including one on the streets of New York. This is causing a number of international adversaries around the world to point out that while we like to preach human rights issues we have some serious ones of our own.

A recent blog post of mine discussed where a president should be located during a crisis in order to exercise effective leadership. Different crises bring different expectations. Should he stay at the White House? Should he go to the site of the crisis? Or should he locate somewhere else?

A panel of journalists on Face the Nation Sunday discussed whether or not President Obama should go to Ferguson to facilitate a community conversation in order to heal the wounds. John Heilemann of Bloomberg Politics, argued strongly that Obama should go there because only he has the credibility to help bridge the gap and find some common ground. And besides, since he is in his final years as president he need not worry about political consequences. He is free to focus totally on understanding the issue and finding ways forward.

Michael Crowley of Time Magazine, however, pointed out that attempting productive dialogue in a setting where all the facts are still not clear could very quickly become counterproductive. Opinions about what actually happened would no doubt become and remain the focus.

Crowley suggested that Obama should find a city that could serve as a model for how such police-community relationships are already being discussed and improved. In such a place he could lead a constructive community conversation while bringing his personal experiences and insights to bear on the topic. In such a setting, the focus can be on coming to understand all the ramifications of this complex issue and how it can be addressed in cities everywhere.

In crisis management you always try to know all the dimensions of the issue at hand and all the details of exactly what happened before you make any comment. The reality, however, is that each crisis has its unique aspects, and you are likely to encounter new facts as the story unfolds. Since the case in Ferguson still has facts under contention I favor Crowley’s approach. By working with a city already addressing the larger issue Obama can bring insights and experiences to this topic that others cannot. He simply should not miss this opportunity to handle this in a constructive and positive way.

In this context, 24/7 television might actually turn its attention away from the drama of street violence and business burnings to feature the dramatic human interest stories on all sides of this very complex issue.

Read Full Post »

I continue to be asked about the wisdom of Obama’s communication approach. Last week I offered much of my thinking about leadership communication in general, both in “normal” and crisis times. But a question came up this week about the president’s reaffirming over and over that there will never be American “boots on the ground” in Iraq.

My experience suggests that at times of crisis it is rarely helpful to announce what you are not going to do. This limits future options, introduces a negative tone, invites your critics to respond with all kinds of opinions, and gives adversaries valuable information for their tactical planning.

It usually is best to simply say, “Here are my objectives, and this is what we intend to do.” When questioned about more details, it also usually works just fine to repeat your objectives and add that you are fully prepared with action options when the situation calls for them. But it is premature to talk about alternatives now, and you will not do so.

It’s also fine, and sometimes essential, to explain why this approach is necessary in this situation. Explanation of “why” is often pecisely what’s missing. And when issues of legislative participation are involved, it’s helpful to add that those “needing to know” have, and will continue to be briefed in a classified and confidential manner. And here again, an explanation of  “why” is often missing. The media already knows why, to be sure, But they won’t report it unless the wording is in a newsmaker’s statement.

With respect to Obama, the phrase “boots on the ground” is another one that has different meanings for different people. Special forces, advisors, trainers, etc. are already on the ground, and they could get drawn into actual fighting at any moment. Military advisors get nervous about their credibility in situations like this. Disagreements surface, and the administration publicly appears in turmoil. This should never happen.

It seems that Obama may be trying to rationalize his current actions in light of his campaign promises. But in a crisis situation, all bets are off. The need to act decisively trumps the need to justify past statements. That was then, this is now. Once again, explaining this is important. Most people will understand.

He may also be thinking that if he lets countries with reasons to have boots on the ground believe that he is actually willing do it, they will just wait for him to act. But the US deals with those counties privately, and so White House public statements could be a bit more ambiguous.

No doubt, managing all this every day is extremely difficult in a 24/7 news environment. But telling an enemy specifically what he is not going to do, and giving critics at home daily opportunities to generate obstructive noise, is something Obama and his staff should be working harder to avoid.

Read Full Post »