New Paragraph

Crisis Communications
March 24, 2020

The recent international events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic have shown local, national and world leaders communicating with the people across their areas of responsibility in a variety of styles and levels of expertise. Some have been good, some awful and some rather ho-hum. As effective communication is paramount to successful leadership, and inspirational leadership is critical to organizational success, I have watched this unfold – particularly across Canada and the United States, with keen interest. Leadership will most often make or break groups of all types (i.e. teams, companies, societies) and leaders cannot succeed without communicating effectively.


In my view, the acceptance – or not, of the messaging of any political leader, often comes down to three factors: the effectiveness of the content and delivery; trust in the individual; and/or the political leanings of audience members. In some instances, leaders who have not always been effective communicators have risen to the challenge in what are very ominous circumstances. Some have communicated more effectively in these tough times than they have historically done on a day to day basis. That hasn’t necessarily developed avid feelings of confidence in those that for political or personal reasons have not trusted the leader in the past, but in some cases, even a jaded old guy like me has thought, “Not bad!” after watching and listening to “leaders” that I don’t usually have much of respect for or trust in.


If any of these political folks were turn to me and ask me for suggestions on how to lead through this challenge, and I’m quite confident they won’t, I would offer the following:

1. Lead. Leadership isn’t always easy, but in times of crisis, people are looking to their leaders to be “in-charge”. They want the leaders to guide them and to offer them the confidence that everything will be okay, by offering facts and clear direction. They are seeking comfort and in bad situations sometimes they have no one else to turn to for that but their leaders. It’s your job to go forth and actually lead.

 

2. Build and maintain trust. Trust is a fragile commodity. It is difficult to gain and can be lost in a nanosecond. It is normally developed over time, through day to day interaction, in fairly normal situations and not when the chips are down. Do all you can for the months and years prior to the disaster to build the trust of the people, then when the poop hits the proverbial fan, people are much more apt to look to you and say, “That’s my leader and we will get through this!”

 

3. Communicate regularly, consistently and honestly. People don’t want to hear farcical stories and rose-colored glasses scenarios. They want and need to hear the facts; what government is doing to get them through this mess; and what they as citizens need to do for their part. That’s why they pay you the mediocre bucks.

 

I was asked recently in an interview, “Do we always have to see the Premier or Governor or PM or President speaking on this issue?” I said “No. We need to hear from Ministers and subject matter experts too, but if there was ever a time that we need to see the leader of the province/state or country front and center, it’s now.” I likened it to when I was Commissioner. I wasn’t there to do press conferences on every drug bust or homicide, or to simply appear to shake hands and kiss babies. When bad things happened, the public and our staff needed to hear from ME. So make sure they hear from YOU.

 

4. Correct the record. When the facts change, and they often do in the fluidity of an emergency, the leaders must update the people. Don’t let what turned out to be a false statement linger and take root. Correct it and move forward.

 

5. Make decisions that are best for the people. Leaders that make and communicate decisions that are clearly in the best interests of themselves, their families or their wealthy business colleagues and not best for the average citizen, are failing their electorate. The majority of people will see through that and trust in those leaders will be lost. Make the right decisions for the right reasons.

 

6. Take responsibility for missteps. True leaders take the fall when things go bad. Even when it may well have been a subordinate official that erred, there’s no mileage in passing the blame. The general public and management team will both lose trust in you when you do. Take the hit, do damage control and move on.

 

7. Listen to experts – don’t try to be one. Any leader that thinks he or she knows everything isn’t a leader at all. Listen to those experts that truly know the business and then let them speak publicly on issues that are over your head. As Mark Twain so famously said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

8. Give credit and show empathy. It is not about you. Touting all the wonderful things you are doing non-stop and not recognizing the people that are giving their all in horrendous circumstances or the citizens that are frightened and/or suffering, makes you look like an uncaring narcissist. Is that what you want your legacy to be? Likely not, but if it is, then step down.

 

This dreadful virus is undoubtedly impacting the world and may well be a game-changer for us all for the rest of 2020 and beyond. But we will get past this, together, as a big, international team. In the mean time we must collectively keep our heads on straight. We can only hope that our elected officials provide the effective leadership we want, need and deserve to keep us moving forward on the right path. I’m confident that we will survive!

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

By Chris Lewis • June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

By Chris Lewis • February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

By Chris Lewis • January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.