Hoops to jump through, hurdles to jump over, walls to scale – whatever physical activity they are compared to, problems and crises are bound to be encountered in every business.  They are accepted as part of the natural cycle of operations, but the ways in which companies approach them are not always effectual and rarely take into account contemporary developments.

The existence of social media, whether blamed or acclaimed for problems, cannot and should not be overlooked by companies.  Employee presence in the social spheres means that any news, positive or negative, could easily spread like a wildfire.  Kelly Dyer, senior editor at Melcrum, sees this as a motivating factor as to why companies should use the various tweets and status updates available through the World Wide Web to their benefit.  She believes that these tools, while allowing for the quick and effective dissemination of information, can also dispel harmful rumours about the organization.

Dyer exemplifies the stance that social media is not an end in itself, but rather a possible tool leading toward desired objectives.  It is a tool that is only as effectual as its user and thus companies should keep in mind some pointers when dealing with social media.  First and foremost, banning them is not the optimal solution.  The idea is to be proactive and not sit idly until something big happens.  Through face-to-face interaction, newsletters, email contact, or other methods of communication, employees are more likely to be well-informed and less likely to jump on a company bashing bandwagon if a crisis results in external public critique.

Paula Casin of Cut Through Communications and Oliver Schmidt of C4CS further advocate the need to address any questions as early as possible.  There is nothing worse than having an army of employees who are unaware of the basic questions of who, what, when and where.  Particularly in light of the tougher economic times, employees will desperately seek answers and if the company itself doesn’t provide them, it is likely that their sources may be biased and unreliable.  Worse yet, the faulty information could cause rebellion. Fortunately, the trend can be reversed as long as the links of communication are maintained.  In fact, Casin even believes that the complaining that often occurs in the social sphere shouldn’t be seen as strictly detrimental.  Instead, it may be a resource just waiting to be tapped into, one which could give some constructive insight as to the internal mood and allow for the addressing of certain problems employees are encountering while these are still manageable and before anyone blows a lid. 

By being proactive, companies have a higher chance of ensuring that employees do not turn against them.  To the tune of a big happy (more or less) family, internal critics have the potential to become external defenders.   They behave as a sort of safety net, particularly when a crisis is external and gains widespread attention either across the sector or the media, ready in advance to reverse negative trends by means of communication.

Read Paula Casin’s “The impact of social media in a crisis” here; and 

Paul Scmidt’s “10-point guide to effective employee communication during a company crisis” here.