4 ms·

Always looks worse when you keep denying, denying just to turn around and admit it later. Why is this such a common way to handle these situations?

by throw03172019 7y ago

summitsummit 7y ago
Likely because it’s not worse. Facebook does this and I’m betting the know what they’re doing beter than your impression that it “always looks worse”
- andr0x 7y ago
  Ha, if only you were really betting, I'd love to bet the opposite side of this. Nothing about how Facebook has been handling its recent crises would lead me to conclude that they 'know what they're doing' in regards to public relations.
MegaButts 7y ago
This is a guess, but maybe because CEOs are just trying to stall until they can secure a previously agreed upon exit package? Since prosecuting CEOs is so rare these days (here is a great book on that subject https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives-ebook/dp/B06XBZFQR2 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute...) it is in their best interest to just deny to avoid culpability.
- atonse 7y ago
  Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We see again and again that in spite of these kinds of disasters and callous disregard and fraud, CEOs don't actually get punished, instead are rewarded with massive exit packages.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    Whilst the lack of prosecution of CEOs is disconcerting, I don't think it is fair to say that CEOs come out of a scandal better because of their exit package. Sure, its a nice sum of money, but I think most CEOs still prefer not having the money and the scandal not happening. That is not to say that current repercussions are enough, just that it is currently not net beneficial to have a scandal. Notably, with the current low levels of repercussions, it might still be net beneficial to risk a scandal though.
    - MegaButts 7y ago
      We're not discussing whether or not a scandal is good. We're discussing how a CEO behaves after a scandal has already been unveiled.
    - atonse 7y ago
      Correct. I assure you, at no point in any of these board rooms, are CEOs saying "let's not do that, it might land me in prison" – they're probably just saying "let's not do that because it'll depress the share price by 5%" – but in the case of Boeing and other similar companies, the "let's not do that" part is something that can result in deaths.
joeyrideout 7y ago
Good public relations (PR) is not intuitive. The best practice when it comes to bad news is Robert Dilenschneider's advice to "tell it all and tell it fast", but companies are often hesitant to do so for legal and political reasons. EDIT: To elaborate, getting ahead of an unfolding story is difficult even for experienced PR people. One misplaced word may be taken out of context or even used as admission of guilt in an ongoing investigation. This is generally why PR folks default to true generalities, e.g. "we care about our customers' safety" or "what happened is terrible and should be prevented from happening again". My knowledge of PR is limited to the book "When the Headline Is You" which I highly recommend. It gives a great perspective on how companies manage themselves in the public light.
- petilon 7y ago
  >The best practice when it comes to bad news is Robert Dilenschneider's advice to "tell it all and tell it fast" When it comes to disclosing hacks, standard practice is to disclose a small hack first then disclose that the hack was "worse than previously thought". Examples: https://www.slashgear.com/outlook-com-hacks-is-worse-than-microsoft-first-claimed-14573231/ https://www.slashgear.com/outlook-com-hacks-is-worse-than-mi... https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3pqqb/the-facebook-hack-is-way-worse-than-previously-thought https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3pqqb/the-facebook-hack... https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/2172796/cathay-pacific-cyberattack-far-worse-previously-thought https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/21... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_breach_bad/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_br... https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ba-hack-investigation-3611486 https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ba-hack-investigation-36... https://www.thedailybeast.com/iran-hack-worse-than-reported https://www.thedailybeast.com/iran-hack-worse-than-reported
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 7y ago
Corruption is widespread.
vl 7y ago
This is huge organization, assuming that something coherent is going on is unwarranted. Most likely people who made decision to deny didn’t even know about indicator not being installed By default in the first place.
noja 7y ago
Because it's normally better: "most" people only see the first story, then it's done, ticked off.
eitally 7y ago
Because it's hard to tell the truth when you know the first reaction will be highly negative. This comes to mind as an example of how things might have gone differently for Boeing if they'd handled this better: https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%20Johnson.htm https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%2...
throwaway55554 7y ago
You want to make it appear as though something was being hidden from the executive team so they can deny any culpability.

Always looks worse when you keep denying, denying just to turn around and admit it later. Why is this such a common way to handle these situations?

summitsummit 7y ago

Likely because it’s not worse. Facebook does this and I’m betting the know what they’re doing beter than your impression that it “always looks worse”

andr0x 7y ago
Ha, if only you were really betting, I'd love to bet the opposite side of this. Nothing about how Facebook has been handling its recent crises would lead me to conclude that they 'know what they're doing' in regards to public relations.

MegaButts 7y ago

This is a guess, but maybe because CEOs are just trying to stall until they can secure a previously agreed upon exit package? Since prosecuting CEOs is so rare these days (here is a great book on that subject https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives-ebook/dp/B06XBZFQR2 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute...) it is in their best interest to just deny to avoid culpability.

atonse 7y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. We see again and again that in spite of these kinds of disasters and callous disregard and fraud, CEOs don't actually get punished, instead are rewarded with massive exit packages.
- rocqua 7y ago
  Whilst the lack of prosecution of CEOs is disconcerting, I don't think it is fair to say that CEOs come out of a scandal better because of their exit package. Sure, its a nice sum of money, but I think most CEOs still prefer not having the money and the scandal not happening. That is not to say that current repercussions are enough, just that it is currently not net beneficial to have a scandal. Notably, with the current low levels of repercussions, it might still be net beneficial to risk a scandal though.
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    We're not discussing whether or not a scandal is good. We're discussing how a CEO behaves after a scandal has already been unveiled.
  - atonse 7y ago
    Correct. I assure you, at no point in any of these board rooms, are CEOs saying "let's not do that, it might land me in prison" – they're probably just saying "let's not do that because it'll depress the share price by 5%" – but in the case of Boeing and other similar companies, the "let's not do that" part is something that can result in deaths.

joeyrideout 7y ago

Good public relations (PR) is not intuitive. The best practice when it comes to bad news is Robert Dilenschneider's advice to "tell it all and tell it fast", but companies are often hesitant to do so for legal and political reasons. EDIT: To elaborate, getting ahead of an unfolding story is difficult even for experienced PR people. One misplaced word may be taken out of context or even used as admission of guilt in an ongoing investigation. This is generally why PR folks default to true generalities, e.g. "we care about our customers' safety" or "what happened is terrible and should be prevented from happening again". My knowledge of PR is limited to the book "When the Headline Is You" which I highly recommend. It gives a great perspective on how companies manage themselves in the public light.

petilon 7y ago
>The best practice when it comes to bad news is Robert Dilenschneider's advice to "tell it all and tell it fast" When it comes to disclosing hacks, standard practice is to disclose a small hack first then disclose that the hack was "worse than previously thought". Examples: https://www.slashgear.com/outlook-com-hacks-is-worse-than-microsoft-first-claimed-14573231/ https://www.slashgear.com/outlook-com-hacks-is-worse-than-mi... https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3pqqb/the-facebook-hack-is-way-worse-than-previously-thought https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3pqqb/the-facebook-hack... https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/2172796/cathay-pacific-cyberattack-far-worse-previously-thought https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/21... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_breach_bad/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_br... https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ba-hack-investigation-3611486 https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ba-hack-investigation-36... https://www.thedailybeast.com/iran-hack-worse-than-reported https://www.thedailybeast.com/iran-hack-worse-than-reported
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 7y ago

Corruption is widespread.

vl 7y ago

This is huge organization, assuming that something coherent is going on is unwarranted. Most likely people who made decision to deny didn’t even know about indicator not being installed By default in the first place.

noja 7y ago

Because it's normally better: "most" people only see the first story, then it's done, ticked off.

eitally 7y ago

Because it's hard to tell the truth when you know the first reaction will be highly negative. This comes to mind as an example of how things might have gone differently for Boeing if they'd handled this better: https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%20Johnson.htm https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%2...

throwaway55554 7y ago

You want to make it appear as though something was being hidden from the executive team so they can deny any culpability.