Workshops aimed at strengthening competencies in operational and management teams to respond promptly and effectively to rapidly igniting events, with high negative impact and notoriety, and involvement of broad stakeholder groups.

In formats of two hours or one day, the following contents are addressed:

• Understanding crises: nature and dynamics, decision-making processes (underestimation, paralysis, overreaction, and escalation), the double effect of time in increasing damage and reducing control capacity, value destruction on multiple fronts, and reputational damage.

• Containment techniques: supported by the Strategic Crisis Management Dashboard © and the Trust Radar; two tools that allow concentrating all possible energy quickly – perhaps in no more than two hours – to lower the temperature of the situation and contain the expansive damage of the crisis.

• Communication: understanding the logic of the media and journalists, how audiences form their opinion or are induced to it, defining the desired perception (explicitly, “how would we like tomorrow’s press headline to appear?”), communication pyramid, recall rate, framing and positioning through key messages, repetition and progression of them, social media interface.

• Spokespersons: interviewee profile, techniques for various formats (television interview, radio, live, recorded, press conference, impromptu interview, public call, panel presence), aggressive or permissive interviewer, personal appearance, diction and clarity, communication style, emphasis and message reiteration, emotional connection and empathy, body language, usual phrases that work, spokesperson evaluation.

• Management sequence and hierarchical link: key to organizing the situation assessment and ordering decision-making, as well as defining competencies and roles among the hierarchical levels of the group.

Exercises developed from a case personalized to the organization, hypothetical but with a high degree of realism, forcing participating teams to respond to a situation of explosive deployment, great negative impact, in a highly complex environment, with multiple actors involved, growing pressure, escalation, diverse perceptions, scarce time, incomplete information, confusion, unforeseen adversaries, unexpected evolution of events, counter-orders, and eventual effects of decisions different from what was expected. The exercise incorporates an interview segment with various spokespersons, integrating media training.

For the design of the simulation, a series of individual interviews are conducted with some members of the organization to gather inputs and identify potential vulnerability flanks. None of the workshop participants know the characteristics of the simulation in advance.

The dynamics allow evaluating key aspects through quadrants of strengths and weaknesses of the teams in the areas of reaction sequence, time use and multitasking, internal and external communication, resilience, internal alignment, empathy, adaptation to unpredictables, and leadership.

Aimed at establishing in advance the configuration of the organization in Crisis Committee mode, so that it can channel the enormous energy required to face a rapidly expanding crisis quickly and effectively.

It does not constitute a procedure for responding to emergencies or field contingencies or operational continuity, but it is articulated with them when certain critical events – arising from own activities or not – escalate and involve authorities, press, networks, activists, unions, communities, suppliers, customers, partners and require immediate and determined containment, concentrating the greatest energy of the organization ordered by the highest level of hierarchical decision.

The procedure is the result of a standardized scheme designed by the consultant that adjusts and adapts to the nature of the business, structure, environmental conditions, risk matrix, and management styles. Its design is nourished by the aforementioned crisis management workshop, so the combination of both services is recommended.

The main contents of the procedure are:

• Crisis Committee

o Composition
o Rapid call mechanism
o Role of its members in crisis and pre-crisis

• Situation levels

o General criteria
o Safety
o Operational interruption
o Social protests
o Political, regulatory, or judicial front
o Media intensity

• Committee operational sequence

o Identification
o Options
o Decision
o Implementation
o Reevaluation

• Crisis Management Dashboard ©

o Objectives to protect and sacrifice
o Positioning options
o Containment plan
o Communication plan
o Trust radar

• Complementary tools and advice

o Control center (war room)
o Procedure vs. energy
o Strategy vs. execution
o Option cost vs. effectiveness
o Problem understanding
o Orientation vs. focus
o Performance vs. communication
o Advice to spokespersons
o Regulation vs. compliance
o Profile vs. image
o Rumor management
o Perception gaps
o Rejection vs. damage
o Actor segmentation
o Materiality
o Social support projects
o Risk control format

Its usual extension is about 40 slides in powerpoint format, to give the document a visually graphic and executive character. The consultant accompanies and guides the process of incorporating and adapting the components so that, maintaining its format and without exceeding it, it can functionally fit into the client’s existing procedures.

Beyond the crises that a company or organization may individually face, there are those that involve entire sectors associated this time with the very nature of the activity, even when it is carried out with all the required permits and licenses and rigorously complying with them.

Framed in new dynamics of trends, preferences, activism, empowerment, fashion, post-truth, polarization, populism, ideologies, influencers, references, regulations, and social causes enhanced by networks and even artificial intelligence, organized interest groups question the “social legitimacy” of an entire sector for accusations such as pollution, habitat alteration, cultural changes, health damage, animal abuse, discrimination, stimulation of consumerism, or economic distortion, to name a few.

No business sector is free from this threat: banking, insurance, telecommunications, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, livestock, fishing, forestry, infrastructure, concessions, mining, energy, transportation, hospitals, retail, entertainment, show business, cinema, museums, gastronomy, food, beverages, tobacco, alcohol, tourism, computing, social platforms, etc.

Each of these sectors confesses to feeling overregulated and misunderstood.

These attacks on the social legitimacy of the sector denounce the impacts of the activity itself. Despite being legally permitted and operating in order, they accuse them of generating intolerable impacts that end up affecting the reputation of the entire category, determining radical regulatory changes that completely alter the operating or growth conditions, or even threatening its existence.

Knowing the reputational vulnerabilities of the different sectors, the varied – and often skillful – questioning strategies adopted by interest groups and the defensive tactics of those who suffer them, it is possible to broaden the perspective and design positioning strategies for neutralization, weakening, containment, confinement, diversion, or dilution, thus protecting the sector’s reputation and viability.