Strategies of Hope

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
                                                                                                              --Winston Churchill

Challenges can be wonderful opportunities for growth and success.  They can also be catalysts of impending failure.  On the road to one or the other, people often act or react in ways given to emotion or discipline when faced with personal or professional difficulties. 

A common human condition is to hope for the best.  I would not suggest that is not good.  But hoping for the best without planning for the worst is usually flawed.  As is often and correctly said in many circles, hope is not a strategy.  Yet in many crises there is no apparent planning for the worst case scenario.  Too many boards, corporation or company executives, business owners, or even line managers rely on strategies of hope to see them through, e.g. I hope that does not happen to me, I hope we find our way out of this, I hope the government bails us out...you get the idea.  In my experience, this mode of thinking is a recipe for failure. 

As a career military man for more than thirty years, I grew up with modern western acceptance of the Latin adage Si vis pacem, para bellum ... "If you wish for peace, prepare for war."  This notion has guided our Nation in its national security direction for years both as a prescription for deterrence and as a solution for results our Presidents have applied many times.  As a fighter pilot, I had to plan for the worst and be prepared at all times for catastrophe like my aircraft catches fire, my plane loses an engine, I have a total electrical failure, I've lost control of the aircraft, I've been hit--I have had all of these and more in the air.  And yet I not only survived but thrived.  

This did not happen by accident or even extraordinary skill on my part but because of a mindset, training and set of rules that got me through those challenges.

 

In aviation, we built a culture of managing risk.  There is no doubt flying jet fighters on and off aircraft carriers at sea in all conditions or going into battle is risky business.  We even adopted a formal system for addressing this known as Operational Risk Management, or ORM, with principles that also apply in business.  But even in a risk managed environment things still go wrong.

As a military pilot, Naval Aviator, I participated in my share of investigating aircraft mishaps to determine what went wrong and made recommendations to prevent future like occurrences.  In every case, and those of many others, we found a chain of events that led up to the a mishap that if had been broken in almost any link of that chain would have prevented the accident.  But few can recognize one of those links without prior planning, practice and recognition--training.

The same thinking applies to everything in life I have found.  Whether a business decision, a crisis, a risky opportunity, personal or professional issue, even a drive to the store, the mindset is the same. That is:

1.   Acknowledge  [the risk]
2.  Think  [how to avoid]
3.  Plan  [for the unexpected, e.g. don't ever be surprised]
4.  Practice  [even if only thinking it through for muscle memory]
5.  Recognize  [the indicators that tell you something could or is about to happen]. 


It works.  I used it as a military professional, in my personal life, and now in business.  To get to this mindset, concrete steps have to be taken.

Here's what works:

1.  Acknowledge crisis management as a cultural facet of life; incorporate it into your organization--make everyone believe in it and not just relegated to a few

2.  Pick a team and team leader to be the instant response force--the first responders; don't leave it to your PR or legal experts

3.  Have cogent steps -- certainly the initial steps -- ingrained in the team to take action, e.g. ORM is one method and I have detailed others - see 3 Steps to Handling Adversity.
Note - ORM is best suited to pre-crisis planning and training than after the problem has hit

4.  Practice the team in responding to various worst case scenarios; apply lessons learned from the sessions to pre-planned response and improved tactics

Strategies of hope are known losers.  

Some argue luck has an element that has to be accounted for as well. That constantly reminds me of the well-told tale of Gary Player, the professional golfer, at a tournament. Once heckled by someone in the gallery "lucky shot Gary!" he reportedly said to his caddie "yeah, the more I practice the luckier I get."

Crisis management must be part of your culture and organizations.  If not, well, just look at the huge number of examples around us where it isn't and luck did not fall in favor of hope; then ask yourself would you ever want to be where he, she, or they are?

The fix -- hope for the best, but plan for the worst.   

Social Media - Curse, Cause or Blessing?

Last week I provided media training to a professional football team. These are high-end athletes and coaches, many champions, who deal with high pressure situations both professional and personal on a regular basis. But it is interesting to note that most operate off the field at the same level as the rest of us and some either forget or disregard their celebrity status which makes them vulnerable to media exploitation, particularly via social media. Their celebrated issues are instructive to all of us.

What I have found common to almost everyone whether professional athletes, business people, or just plain folk trying to enjoy the pursuits of happiness, is that we now have to indulge the new world of social media. It is also interesting to note the differences of how social media is viewed by the different generations and how each seem to be dealing with it. In my world today are the Greatest Generation, the Silents, the Boomers (including me), the Gen Xers, the Millennials, and now Gen Z. For me the most fascinating are the Z-ers…those born into the world of the internet who, as psychologists are describing it, will almost be totally driven by the internet and its applications.


This brings me to my main point: like it or not we have to get in tune with social media because even if we don’t use it, those around us do and increasingly will. It is now commonplace to see cell phones with terrific audio and video capabilities being held up at almost any event. Moreover, there is no way to yet control how or where this type of media is used or its product delivered. Days were when some of us could count on having control or knowing the controls for what got on television. No more.

With the advent of YouTube and a slew of others anyone can post a video, with sound, that captures whatever a person’s agenda wants it to be that can — and often does — go viral on the internet and some of it even make it to mainstream media. Furthermore, with this technology comes a group of people with more anonymity, less empathy and a posture of being critically judgmental of others. It’s no longer about who has an axe to grind but more about ‘how can I embarrass someone else.’

The effect of all this is how it impacts our reputations. Irrespective of the legal issues of any situation, there is now the ever-present ‘perception’ of what someone else thinks of us…and much of it lies beyond our control. This is a new element of crisis management—reputation management.

Note—there is enough concern about this new phenomenon that some states are or have put laws into effect that make it illegal to record policemen in the official performance of their duties. But for the rest of us whether professional athletes giving post-game/practice press availabilities, company managers meeting with employees, by-standers to a startling event, or an individual with a painful or embarrassing problem...

...we are vulnerable to exploitation by people you may not know much less their motivation to “expose you.”



So, what to do about it?   Here are 4 Key Points:


#1 - It’s better to understand it than fight it, ignore it, or complain about it.

The best way to understand it is to use it. New applications and websites are popping up all the time. Even some news bureaus are mining the internet for posted individual stories or videos that become news sources or leads. Common ones today include YouTube, Flickr, Twitter or Facebook. While much is being debated in terms of “net neutrality” and “internet privacy” little is being done about it. So until those landmark lawsuits put limits on it, YOU have to figure it out. Too old or technically challenged? Don’t worry, get one of your young kids or grandkids to show you; they’re experts at it already.


#2 - Always assume someone is recording you regardless of where you are or what you are doing.

I tell clients whether they are executives or athletes that someone is always watching them. Some of them are measuring words or actions and deciding whether they agree or like it or not. Some of them are recording all of it. Even when you don’t see any kind of device that doesn’t mean your voice isn’t being recorded on someone’s PDA or cell phone out of sight. Forget the legality of it. How many gaffs have we witnessed on the internet and news of people, including prominent figures, who thought they were “off mic” or out of view?


#3 - I was once counseled that I could think anything I wanted but I would be held accountable for every word I uttered.

What is most important about talking aloud, regardless the audience or instrument, e.g. the phone, is that it’s more important than ever to recognize and believe that your words can be used against you later. The greatest temptation we routinely give in to is one or more of our emotions—like anger or revenge. Speaking one’s mind used to be thought of as a strength. But now it’s harder to find where that really does any of us any good. The important lesson to be used is to think through what you’re going to say before you say it and apply the ‘headline litmus test’—that is, can you stand to read it as a headline of a newspaper, or banner of a TV news story or subject of a viral internet audio/video piece? If the answer is ‘no’ then don’t say it. Easy to say, hard to do. But if you don’t heed it, well, good luck with the regret.


#4 - If you say something you regret or have audio/video posted you did not release, or wanted released, in most cases you have to respond.

In a few cases, staying out of sight and not talking works well. But regardless the legal aspects, you have a small window to respond and shape public perception of YOU. Once you wait too long — usually hoping the issue blows over — the public perception is usually set and you have a long, hard uphill fight to change it. The court of public opinion is quick to judge, less tolerant or forgiving than a court of law, and expects people to defend themselves or “they must be guilty.”

Bottom Line:  Social media is here to stay. 

A new generation is arriving knowing only a world with the internet and it likely will be the center of their lives. I use it now for business and expect to be using more of it including giving lectures to younger folks in bite size parcels they will view on their handheld devices and prefer that to going to a lecture hall or even joining a video conference or web based seminar.

For some, social media is a curse. For others it’s a cause unto itself. And for others still, it’s a blessing for reasons including the avoidance of personal contact. 

So...where are YOU on this scale?

What's Going On?

It’s happened again. Another successful large corporation lost its CEO. 

We recently witnessed British Petroleum’s CEO stepping down in the aftermath of the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, we hear the CEO of Hewlett Packard is stepping down even after initial allegations were disproved.  What’s going on?

A better question executives need to ask themselves is “what’s not going on?” In both these cases, it appears the C-suite and controlling boards were not prepared for a major problem, took prompt [if not rash] re-action, and are now being second guessed as to whether they were right.

The reportings in the media are predictable, they “follow the news.” Almost uniformly now we also note when asked for comment, these affected corporations decline to do so. As the fabled Walter Cronkite used to say, “that’s the way it is.” For those reporting the news I think I agree. But for those making the news I observe otherwise.

CBS News gave a subjective report of BP’s removal of Tony Hayward and Bloomberg News gave an initial breaking news account of HP’s Mark Hurd leaving and a business perspective of the fallout. What they did not report was any strategic message put out from either company. In my research this was likely because none was put out. Missed opportunities.

What is also not apparent yet in either of these successful companies is a strategic view of how to deal with crises. Note in this CBS report there is no mention from anyone in BP of “what happens next.”   Similarly, in this Bloomberg story...nada from HP.

What should have happened in both cases — and applies in nearly all situations — is the one most responsible should determine what an endstate of the crisis should look like. Take for example, BP. Would it not have been better that the company leadership determined it wanted BP to be the most publically respected oil company on the planet coming out of this spill crisis? That simple goal would likely have changed many public appearances, responses and releases that are now almost only viewed negatively by the public not to mention a ruined career and sullied corporate reputation.

There are always at least two audiences to placate when things go wrong:

#1 - The throng of attorneys concerning themselves with attendant legal issues.

AND

#2 - The public where reputations are maintained or lost by actions and messages or lack thereof.

In HP’s case, Bloomberg did a good job noting the fallout of the stepdown affecting shareholders, investors and value and alluding to complications for the new acquisition. Missing was any strategic message from the company to allay fears and calm investors, employees and the markets. It would also have been better for the Board’s decision to have been couched for the intention of strengthening HP’s position by upgrading its leadership where no perceived misconduct would be tolerated. The objective, to make good—better.

I have to ask ’what’s going on?’ when I do not see responsible leaders anticipating there will be a significant crisis coming, seeing opportunity from the challenge, linking key messages to actions to be taken. I assume there is no process in work to reverse engineer steps to get from this low point to the objective—the desired endstate. People are always looking for credible, cogent messages and the actions that go with them. Note - they have to be matched. So why not give it to them? This comes only, in my experience, from crisis planning and simultaneous execution or, crisis management.

I believe the reasons for not seeing this today are several:

• Today’s senior executives are younger with less experience than predecessors. 
• Part of this also has to be the paradox of power, e.g. that which got people into their positions of power is not what they rely on to use power. 
• Another reason has to be the [over?] reliance on lawyers and concerns of potential legal issues. 
• But the biggest, in my view, is the lack of crisis experience and/or belief that “waiting it out” to some degree will make it better instead of proactively being prepared with a methodology for crises. 

The last point requires a planning capability that usually does not come from a crisis communications plan on the shelf or legal advice from the firm you hired. As fast as news travels today determines how quickly one gets behind with little chance of catching up—just ask Tony Hayward or Mark Hurd. The new norm is ‘crisis of the day’ and not the exceptions.

Here are several take-aways worth leaving you with:

# 1 - Bad news does not get better with time—crisis demands immediate response

# 2 - Something bad is going to happen to you, your company, or one of your principals—you just don’t get to pick the ‘what' or ’when’

#3 - “Hope” is not a valid strategy—crisis management is a must

#4 - You cannot hide from the media, of any kind—so use it to help turn challenges into opportunities

#5 - You have a very small window of opportunity for reputation management which can suffer long before legal entanglements take hold—practice how to deal with crisis in everything you do

#6 - If you are not an expert in dealing with crises you had better have one at your elbow—in any event, be ready for the inevitable

It Can Happen to You

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I was thrust in front of the Pentagon press pool reluctantly giving briefings of what was happening in Afghanistan. When I left my job in 2002 for another assignment I told myself “no more interviews.” That was changed as we went to war in Iraq in 2003.

I have since realized that finding oneself in crisis situations or dealing with the media (sometimes the same thing), now including the ubiquitous social media, is not only becoming more prevalent it is actually the new norm in the post-9/11 world. The data is just too great to ignore.

As I described in earlier posts, I decided I wanted to add value for others as I was aided during my military service. I now consult in this arena of crisis management which includes strategic problem solving and dealing with the media. And for me personally, I am still being called upon for what I advise on.

Case in point, I was recently asked by a producer to give an interview for a Canadian television pilot—North of 49, A Guide to the Rest of Your Life. The show’s title is a play on words given it refers to the geographic reality that most of Canada lies north of the 49th parallel of latitude, the targeted age of the show’s subjects and audience is 50 or over (that captures me), and segments involving the second halves of peoples’ lives, in my case, my new career after being retired from the military. The show is about the 5 W’s—Who, What, Where, When, Why—of transitioning in mid-life that includes health, finance, career changes, and more.

I used all of my experience in agreeing to do this interview including negotiating my participation, describing the limits I would operate within, talk only about what I knew…you know, the stuff I wrote about previously. When it came time for shooting the interview I worked hard to stay in my lane, avoid unnecessary controversy, and describe things I knew rather than opine or deal in conjecture. In other words, I tried not to be a poor subject.

I also noted the show’s producer used significantly less material that what I observed being shot. But the result is a segment called Person of the Week that both the producer and I am happy with. And, as is the reality of the post-9/11 world where social media supplements and sometimes supplants the news cycle and television schedule, this interview is on YouTube.

This really is another object lesson in practicing what is preached because it happened to me (again) and it can happen to you…and someday will.

So the lesson as a question is, are YOU ready?

On or Off the Record?

There are several ways to do interviews with a reporter or reporters: you can be “on the record” where your name is attributed and usually quotes or first person audio/video are used; you can provide a “backgrounder” that is usually requested by media for more detailed information than they would use in a time sensitive story and is on the record

OR

you can be an “unnamed source” which reporters would prefer not to use but do given the value of the information they get; and you can be “off the record” wherein whatever you say cannot be attributed back to you.

But are you really safe in going “off the record” and is it a good idea?

Sometimes a potential interview subject will want to talk only “off the record” or during an interview declare “this is off the record” (believing that it cannot be used) to skirt touchy issues. In my experience this is usually when an individual wants to get something off his or her chest but is not willing to allow his or her name to be used due to concern for privacy, job security, discipline, violating policy, or just wants anonymity for personal reasons, e.g. avoidance of confrontation, fearful, etc.  Regardless of the reason, the premise is the information you have can not be attributed back to you.

I submit that this is bad practice and should be avoided by almost everyone for a couple of reasons...

The reporter wants you on the record because it adds credibility to his or her story to have an attributed—and verifiable—source; being “off the record” or an “unidentified source” does not guarantee you any real protection. The reporter may not want to burn sources for their own reputation or potential future work with you but if the information is important enough to the story, you will get burned. And if you want to be off the record or “cannot use my name” because of your worry of being an attributed source, then simply do not do the interview.

But it is notable that more unnamed and off the record interviews are happening. I am willing to bet that most on the bus with General Stan McCrystal and the Rolling Stone magazine reporter believed they were “off the record.” Many are also turning to social media to vent their issues and concerns because it is so easy to remain anonymous. Or are you?

Many believe they are shielded from being named by just saying “off the record” or remain anonymous by using a ficticious name in social media. Until better legal safeguards are put in place and enforced, I believe we are more vulnerable than ever. Evidence of this includes the likes of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or “SLAPPs”, the Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier or “CIPAV”, and the un-empathetic tech savvy geeks (not used in the pejorative sense here) posting anonymous viral outings that are becoming commonplace, much less the criminal minds.

So, unless you have good legal advice always at hand I recommend doing two SIMPLE (emphasis added) things:

#1 - Be careful in the words you choose to use.

“It’s so simple to be wise—just think of something stupid to say and say the opposite.”

                                                                                                       - Sam Levenson

#2 - Stay “on the record” and just do not talk about things you do not wanted attributed to you.

“Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.” 
                                                     - Winston Churchill

Going “off the record” is tantamount to ‘going off the ranch.’  You just do not want to do it because once you are ‘off’ you really do not know where you are. For sure you will not like it if “it” gets back as being from you.

Takeaway:  It is NOT a good idea and it is NOT safe to be “off the record.”

How to Negotiate with the Media

The recent furor surrounding the Rolling Stone magazine profile of the Afghanistan war U.S. military commander and subsequent change of leaders by the President is instructive on many levels. However, this post is not about the merits of whether the interview should have been granted, or whether it was a good reason for leadership change, or even if the article exposed valid concerns regarding the war. This post is about the imperative for anyone to negotiate the terms and limits of an interview with the media prior to granting it.

Believe me, I speak from experience, if you give an interview that is not previously negotiated for terms or limits you will NOT be in control—the reporter will—and you may be very unhappy with its outcome.

To be clear, this is also not advice about giving a media availability or press conference but participating in an interview that is usually one-on-one though many of the steps can be germane.

Below is my simple 5 Step Process for How to Negotiate with the Media:


Step #1 – You may have friends who are reporters but a reporter interviewing you is not your friend.

Reporters have jobs to do and are often assigned by editors or producers to stories, sometimes ones they would prefer not to do. Reporters have specific things they are expected to get including information and/or imagery and they are under tight timelines, especially television and radio reporters. They do not have time to waste; they have to get their story, have them edited and approved, and make deadlines.

Reporters are most often pleasant people, even friendly, because they know in dealing with people, defenses will be up when they call and they need your help. But they are not your friends regardless of how they come across to you. They must get their story and you may or may not be part of that or the subject of it—in any case, you are a means to an end for them.

Whether acknowledged or not, every interview is taken with an agenda by the reporter. Sometimes it is “to get at the truth” or “find out the other side [of an issue]” and sometimes it is even nefarious. But it is never open ended or objective because human beings by nature want closure and are subjective. Any individual, company or organization must believe this before giving an interview.

This is not to say that if one does not submit to an interview everything will work out fine or the story will be dropped. The issue is how important to the story is YOUR input. You need to find this out.

There is a common misperception that reporters will not negotiate any kind of terms or limits on anything regarding their interviews. I have heard responsible people relate “they are going to write what they want anyway so why should I get caught up in it.” This is a mistake because while true for some reporters, most professionals will negotiate with you as it is important for them in getting the story and negotiating makes it easier for you both. The ones that will not negotiate do not get interviews with me. Most of the time it will be important for you to contribute to the story by granting an interview but do not believe the reporter is your friend during this process regardless of how pleasant he or she is.


Step #2 – You need to know what the story is going to be about and what your role in it is expected to be.

While reporters will rarely, if ever, give you their questions in advance they will almost always tell you what they are working on. You need to know this because you do not want to be part of any story that is not something you are intimately familiar with or work around. “Stay in your lane” is what all bosses want, as should you.

Going on the record about something out of your lane is courting disaster including potential of dismissal or lawsuit. Therefore, you must find out what the story is about and what the reporter wants from you. The only way to do this is to find out in advance of agreeing to grant the interview.

Step #3 – You must dictate the terms and limits of the interview.

If you do not state up front what you will and will not talk about or allow — e.g. define the limits — then the reporter is free to do so. I believe this was the case in the Rolling Stone interview. This is not the reporter’s fault or devious ploy, it is a business rule.

And, you must dictate the time limit or else it could go on for days as it did for General McChrystal and his aides with this reporter on board a bus. You should always allow only a short time for an interview if only for the reason to keep yourself from going on.

Get to your points as fast as you can in as few words as possible once being interviewed. But set the limits in advance.


Step #4 – Always assume you are being recorded even when negotiating.

I was told early that if I can see a camera it can see me. If ever you see a pen and pad, a camera, microphone, recorder, or you are on the telephone, irrespective of what anyone says, you must assume that you are being recorded.

There are plenty of “off camera” gaffs on YouTube which attest to that. The little red lights on the front of cameras do not mean a thing to you; they can be turned off while the camera rolls. Even if the camera is not on you it will still pick up your voice. And though you must give your permission or be warned for a phone conversation to be recorded that does not mean it still will not be when you are called. Reporters need accurate notes and small digital pocket size recorders are just too convenient to do without.


Step #5 – Always treat reporters with respect.

Being a “tough guy” with a reporter or trying to put one in his or her place may feel emotionally satisfying at the time but usually backfires. How do you like being talked down to in any environment or situation?

Reporters are people too and have an important role in our society—getting us information—whether we appreciate it or not. So, if not acknowledging this, treating every reporter with respect at least puts you on the best possible footing for a better outcome than acting otherwise. Reporters certainly know how to treat you unfairly if they want to—do not give them an undue reason. Instead, think of what you want readers or viewers to think of your responses and not the reporter’s questions. If ever you do meet a particularly nasty reporter or one who is asking particularly nasty questions you can always, politely, end the interview. Always treat them with respect.

So, how does one negotiate with a reporter? Simple…just take or return their phone call and ask the questions noted above. Then assert what you will and will not talk about. Include what is off limits and put a time limit on the interview. It is a reality that reporters will inevitably ask what they want even if it violates the limits you put down. But it is also within your power to answer only what you agreed to beforehand or should. That keeps you in control and a good reporter will respect you for it. When you negotiate this in advance, neither of you will be surprised.

Sooner or later you will find yourself being asked to grant an interview. Most of the time it will not be for a ‘feel good’ piece. The reporter found you because of a lead, your position or known expertise, or awareness inside the story being developed for the news. You must decide whether to grant the interview or not but dismissing the opportunity without knowing the reason for the story could end up with a poor, or worse, story than if you had. When you find out what the story is in advance and what your part in it is, you are now empowered to make an informed decision.

So, your mindset should always be “maybe” but not before you negotiate with the reporter. This puts YOU in control and not the reporter.

There are a few more things to consider in negotiating with a reporter for an interview but these are the main ones, the most important 5 steps, from my experience. And, for the sake of simplicity, I like to do things that do not exceed the number of fingers on a hand.

*BOTTOM LINE:  Never agree to grant an interview with a reporter without negotiating the terms and limits of what you will do.

A Differentiator

When faced with crises, one of the first and most prevalent questions
executives ask themselves is “what should I do?” 

Many crisis communications professionals have a stock bank of answers including the crisis communications pre-plan, emergency meeting of managers, checklists, public relations firm on standby, etc. Often companies or their executives turn to prominent law firms that have a multitude of resident or contract expertise.

I would not discount any of these but in my experience I discovered that usually one individual was most helpful in the midst of a crushing problem. In my case, it was the use of a mentor that was provided for me by my parent organization—a third party not in my company but with vast experience in dealing with similar kinds of issues having been there before and done that. In nearly every major challenge I faced, I found great value in having someone to bounce ideas off of and get cogent advice. It was exactly what I needed to get unfrozen and moving in the right direction fast. This person — and there were more than one as I dealt with a number of challenges — became a differentiator, someone I could confide in, who maintained my confidentialty, and who made a positive difference.

At first it was hard to accept this third party since I was the executive in charge—the person responsible and accountable for what happened and what came next. I did not want others to see I was using some outsider to help figure out the solution to our problem. Besides, how could an outsider know more about my business and my problem than me or one of my colleagues? And being in charge meant I was the one who was expected to come up with the answers. The potential jealousies were an unfounded concern I later learned.

I subsequently learned what a ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ meant for former presidents and had even observed this in practice. What I also learned was how practical it was to have a differentiator available when things got really tough. The number of challenges I faced as a senior military commander and the value added of this individual made me feel that I would like to give back this gained expertise if given the chance.

Added to this experience I gained was also the processes in dealing with crises that make the difference between success and failure or getting out in front of the problem or chasing it—just look at the recent oil spill fiasco. Since retiring from the military and taking stock of my passions, my interests and seeing opportunity, I have turned to making this my life’s work. I want to give back some of the good that I benefited from. It is extremely rewarding and goes far beyond what I would expect to have and do in the corporate structure.

The real challenge in this field is two-fold:

1)  When does an executive realize he needs a differentiator and how does he find one that works for him or her—call it the right chemistry; and...

2)  How does someone with this skill set network exposure to those in need?

I have come to a conclusion that, as in most everything in life, networking among people is key but I also appreciate and admire the firms that put ‘A-Teams’ together for a client’s use. One-stop shopping for legal, public relations, advocacy (lobbying), and crisis management advisors is a superb resource worthy for any company, corporation or executive facing undaunting and time-sensitive crises. Having a team with this array of expertise will often differentiate outcomes by any metric be they financial, reputation, or even survival.

I appreciated having access to a differentiator—someone who had been there and done it before and possessed the experience and processes to create opportunity out of challenges—to create success out of crisis.