Assignment #3
Page 53
Chapter Four— Should We Tell the Truth? The Varieties of Truth and Telling the Truth
''. . . salacious tales of sex, murder, and corruption date back to the founding of the republic. What is[ Getlin's emphasis] new, however, are the scope and intensity [emphasis
added] of these media spectacles. America has entered
C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 0 . A M A C O M .
A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r ,
e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV AN: 50485 ; Mitroff, Ian I..; Managing Crises Before They Happen : What Every Executive and Manager Needs to Know About Crisis Management Account: s8862125.main.ehost
Page 54
what some observers are calling an Age of Permanent Scandal—an era when marathon stories like ClintonLewinsky and the Simpson murder are beamed into homes twentyfour
hours a day, for months and even years at a time.
''... Scandal, with apologies to Karl Marx, may be the opiate of the people.
"[As Michael Kinsley put it:] 'It began with the Gulf War, because fifteen minutes after it was over, nobody remembered it,' he said. 'The war begat O.J., and O.J. begat Monica.
These stories create an adrenaline rush that wears off— and we're all addicted. We need another fix.' "
Josh Getlin, "Suffering Scandal Fatigue" Los Angeles Times 1
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 55
The task of CM would be relatively easy if the general framework that was presented in the previous chapter was all that one needed to manage major crises
effectively. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. As the preface to this book indicated, questions of individual and organizational character are paramount. For this
reason, a general framework for CM, while necessary, is not sufficient. In addition, one must confront questions of character at both the individual and the
organizational level.
Telling the Truth
Even a cursory review of the Tylenol crisis presented in Chapter Two shows that telling the truth played a major role in its handling. Indeed, telling the truth plays a
major role in all crises. Consider, for instance, the following three potential, if not actual, crisis situations.
Episode One
In opposition to nearly all of her basic values, and over her strong objections, a young woman is being heavily pres
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 56
sured by her boss to design a Web site that is highly offensive to her and to her coworkers. A highpaying client has commissioned the firm to design a Web site
featuring lewd and degrading images of women. Although her boss does not like the project, given the firm's extremely precarious financial situation, he feels that he
has no choice but to accept it. (Even though the young woman believes strongly in ''free speech," this is not enough to persuade her that she is the one in particular
who needs to defend it in this particular instance. The guarantee of free speech does not compel a private person or party to enact it in every case. It merely means
that the government shall make or pass no laws restricting free speech. What a particular person or private company does is part of their management policy, not an
edict of government.)
Episode Two
The loan committee of a major U.S. bank, made up of its top executives, is conducting its monthly review of major loan applications. One in particular is especially
promising. All of the numbers and financial analyses indicate that it promises to deliver extremely high rates of return at an exceptionally low risk. The committee is
therefore strongly predisposed to grant the loan. At literally the eleventh hour, one of the committee members asks casually, "By the way, what is the business?"
Someone digs through a thick pile of papers, and after what seems like an eternity, announces with noticeable distress in his voice, "Oh my God, it's pornography!"
Episode Three
Charges of impeachment against a sitting U.S. President are successfully voted out of the U.S. House of Representatives for only the second time in American history.
The President is charged with lying under oath with regard to an illicit
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 57
sexual affair with a White House intern half his age. The sordid details are made public by the office of the independent prosecutor a few short months after the
President went on television, stared directly into the cameras, and stated angrily, ''I did not have sex with that woman!" Later, he is forced to admit that he did indeed
have sex with "that woman." His admission fails to satisfy the political opposition, who successfully vote through charges of impeachment, even though they eventually
fail to garner the required votes in the U.S. Senate to force the President's eventual removal from office. Nonetheless, the Office of the President is seriously tarnished,
along with nearly all of the institutions involved, including the Congress, the Office of the Independent Prosecutor, and the news media.
Individual members of Congress are also forced to resign after Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler, reveals sordid details about their past. As
a result, more than one political commentator makes the shrewd and wry observation that, "For all practical purposes, Larry Flynt and Hustler are running the
country, i.e., setting the political agenda!"
What Do These Three Episodes Have in Common?
Besides illicit sex, which for sizable numbers of Americans is apparently no longer a sin, what do these three episodes have in common? They span the spectrum of
situations in which telling, or not telling, the truth plays a major role.
The first episode involves the potential commission of an act for which the chances are almost virtually certain that it will lead to the compromise or the eventual
distortion of the truth. The first episode thus involves a person being strongly pressured to do something for which she will undoubtedly later be greatly embarrassed.
It is also highly likely that the
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 58
person doing the pressuring will also be embarrassed, and hence, will engage in a further distortion of the truth.
The second episode involves the case where a group of senior executives are actually deciding whether to do something that is almost guaranteed to turn into
something highly embarrassing both to them and to their institution. The third episode involves a situation where an individual has already committed an embarrassing
act, and furthermore, has already lied about it.
At some point in our lives all of us will face compromising situations. They most likely will involve not simply ''telling the truth" but "sticking up for
one's basic values" under the most difficult and trying situations.
Although obviously very few of us will ever be top executives of a bank or a major institution, let alone President of the United States, at some point in our lives all of
us will face compromising situations. Although these situations will differ from the three opening episodes, they most likely will involve not simply "telling the truth" but
"sticking up for one's basic values" under the most difficult and trying of situations. Even though the particular circumstances of each episode are different, each has the
potential to cause significant and longlasting damage to the individual's personal reputation, to stain their character indelibly, as well as cause irreparable harm to their
institutions.
In the first episode the potential for selfdeception— in effect, lying to oneself—is especially high. This is particularly the case where one has convinced oneself that
"there are
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 59
no other choices or alternatives that are available.'' This is not only potentially true of the young woman's boss, but even of the young woman herself. This is also the
case with the young woman's colleagues, since the pressure to go along with the group, to be a "team player," is always great, especially in times of financial distress.
In effect, the young woman is being pressured to lie to herself, and by doing so, to go directly against some of her most basic values. The situation is made even more
difficult by the fact that in general she likes her job, her colleagues, and even her boss. In addition, this was the very first time that she had ever been asked to do
something inappropriate.
It was only after repeatedly saying "No!" to her boss and being threatened with the loss of her job that she finally hit upon a viable course of action. She said that she
would produce the Web site, but only under one condition. Upon its completion, she would show the site to her boss's daughter, his wife, and his mother. The boss's
reaction was instantaneous. The contract was canceled immediately, and the whole incident was never mentioned again.
In the case of the bank, upon learning that the exact nature of the business was "legal" pornography (it did not involve the sexual exploitation of children or acts of
violence against women), one of the senior officers asked the central, and hence, damning question, "Do we want to be known as the Porn Bank? Surely not!" This
one question was enough to completely outweigh all of the projected profits. In effect, the consideration became as follows: "How does it profit a bank if it makes all
the money in the world but in the process loses its most precious thing, its venerable reputation and character? Similarly, what profit will the executives of the bank
have if in the process they lose their most prized and privileged possession as well? How much money does it take to sell one's reputation and soul?"
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 60
The third episode is potentially the most interesting as well as the most important of all. This is not merely because it involves the President of the United States—
although undeniably this is a strong factor—but rather because over the course of our lives, everyone is guaranteed to do at least one thing that if it were to come to
light, its revelation would cause severe humiliation, guilt, and shame.
There is also another consideration that makes the third episode or situation especially pertinent in today's world. It shows how far we are from truly learning the
critical lessons of CM.
What Crisis Management Has to Teach
As I pointed out in Chapters One and Two, CM is the study of why humancaused crises occur, and what, if anything, can be done to prevent them, or keep them
from becoming worse once they have occurred. Unlike natural disasters, humancaused crises, such as Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Mad Cow Disease, or the
bribery scandals that have rocked the International Olympic Committee, do not need to happen. They are neither inevitable nor ordained.
In contrast with natural disasters over which we often have little control, humancaused crises result because of improper human actions or inactions. Thus, in principle,
they are preventable. For this very reason, the public is often rightly outraged when they occur. True, we can be outraged against Mother Nature for the occurrence of
an earthquake or a typhoon, but it is not the same kind of rage we feel when, say, contemplating the tragic explosion of the space shuttle Challenger and the resulting
loss of seven lives.
Information technologies, such as email, television, and the news media, play a significant part in the occurrence of
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 61
major crises, as well as in their subsequent management. Public exposure for socalled private behavior can create a megacrisis. However, information technologies
are also responsible for something far more significant.
Because of the explosive growth of information technologies and their intrusion into every nook and cranny of our lives, in effect, there are no secrets
anymore— none, period!
Modern information technologies have radically altered the basic nature of privacy and secrecy in modern societies. 2 As a result, they have rewritten one of the
fundamental, underlying rules of society. In a word, because of the explosive growth of information technologies and their intrusion into every nook and cranny of our
lives, in effect, there are no secrets anymore—none, period!
Technology in general, and television in particular, have altered our lives profoundly in ways we are just beginning to comprehend. 3 Technology has invaded the once
''backstage," private lives of persons and institutions to such a degree that, for all practical purposes, everything is now "up front and personal" for all the world to see.
As a result, there are no secrets in the strict sense anymore because there are no hard, firm boundaries anymore between public and private acts or spaces.
For instance, consider the case of Rodney King, the motorist whose severe beating by the Los Angeles police was captured on tape and then subsequently played
over and over again on television worldwide. One of the most important aspects of this particular case has received virtually no attention: The widespread use of
camcorders by ordinary citizens
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 62
Today, the world is so interconnected in space and time that any event around the globe can potentially affect other events in ways of which we are
only dimly aware.
has turned everyone into potential investigative reporters! The invention and distribution of camcorders has not only allowed people to record pictures of their personal
friends and families, but it has also allowed them to record events once open only to professional photographers, news reporters, or documentary film makers. Thus,
how the police once behaved ''backstage" in the relative comfort, security, and privacy (i.e., bounded, secluded space) of the station house, or on isolated streets, is
no longer exempt from widespread public scrutiny. Backstage events (private space) have now become frontstage revelations. Indeed, they are now the subject of
primetime news shows around the world.
Peter Schwartz, president of the Global Business Network, has pointed out that humanrights organizations are even distributing free video cameras to the citizens in
countries with poor records of humanrights violations so that they can film the incriminating acts by their governments and send them directly to CNN! 4
If an event is dramatic enough, then it can become news anywhere and at any time. In addition, events that happen anywhere can affect other seemingly unrelated
events anywhere in the world. Chernobyl is a perfect example. It took approximately two weeks for the nuclear cloud of radiation from Chernobyl to encircle the
globe and physically contaminate salmon off the coast of the state of Washington. However, it took less than half a day for the grain markets in Chicago to react
sharply to the catastrophe. If the breadbasket of the
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 63
former Soviet Union was knocked out of commission for a hundred years due to the dangerous radiation released by Chernobyl, then the market for future grain
prices in Chicago was affected dramatically. The end result is that ''business time and space" are now free from the moorings of "physical time and space."
Today, the world is so interconnected in space and time that any event around the globe can potentially affect other events in ways of which we are only dimly aware.
In light of this fundamental alteration of ordinary space and time, as well as the sheer uncertainty of knowing which improbable events out of thousands will connect to
affect our lives, organizations, and world, how do we manage institutions?
Some thirty years ago, Alvin Toffler astutely observed that we were suffering from "future shock," a phrase he introduced into the language. 5 Essentially, future shock
is the growing inability to function normally because of the rapid speedup and highly stressful overload of events. What Toffler did not foresee, and is thus still unable to
explain even in his most recent book, Power Shift, is that future shock is itself being exacerbated by a complementary complicating force, which can be called
Boundary Shock. As a result, the effects on people that he foresaw are even more intense.
The point of all of this is that in today's world, it is truly the height of folly to believe that what one says and does behind closed doors, or in private settings, will remain
there. The constant 24hoursaday, 365daysayear craving for news—everything everywhere is local news—has created a media monster whose appetite is
voracious. What every public figure says is potentially Page One news in the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or Washington Post, or a
lead story on CNN or the "Six O'clock Action News." It is the height of arrogance and foolishness to think otherwise.
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 64
The Johari Window
There is a simple framework that is typically discussed in beginning college courses in group behavior. This framework is extremely helpful in understanding what is so
different about today's world. After the first names of its inventors, Joe and Harry, it is known as the Johari Window (see Exhibit 41). 6
The Johari Window says in effect that it takes at least two people to know any one person fully. Look at the two rows in Exhibit 41. The ''Known" row indicates
what a person knows about himself or herself. The "Unknown" row indicates what a person does not know or is unaware of about himself or herself. Thus, the
"Unknown" row is meant to stand for all of those things that a person is ignorant about, not conscious of, or is unable to see from the vantage point of others.
Next, look at the two vertical columns in the exhibit. The "Known" column indicates what others directly know or can
Exhibit 41
The Johari Window
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 65
find out about a person. On the other hand, the ''Unknown" column stands for what they do not know about a person or cannot easily find out, if at all.
Now consider the four cells of Exhibit 41. Cell 1 stands for the "Public Domain." It represents all those things that you know about yourself and that others know
about you as well. It thus represents the case of public or shared information. Cell 2, on the other hand, represents what you know about yourself, but what others do
not know. It thus represents the "Hidden Domain." Cell 3 represents all of those things that you, as well as others, do not know. It is rightly called the "Mysterious
Domain." Finally, Cell 4 represents what others know about you, but what you do not know about yourself. It is thus aptly called the "Blind Domain."
With the incessant rise of the tabloid media, its intrusion into every nook and cranny of our lives, the veritable explosion of exploitative talk shows where apparently
untold numbers of people are willing to shamelessly reveal their darkest secrets, the "hidden" domain has for all practical purposes vanished from modern life. That is
to say, the odds are almost one hundred percent that at some point in time the contents of the "hidden" domain will be exposed. If this weren't bad enough, then the
constant blare of the media has also greatly increased the odds that the contents of the "mysterious" domain will be ruthlessly exposed as well. Thus, once again, for all
practical purposes, the "hidden" side of life has virtually disappeared. Public knowledge of the "mysterious" side has essentially increased to the point where virtually
anything of consequence can and will be known about us, especially those in public life.
This raises issues and concerns that have not been present to the same degree ever before in human history. It is now no longer a matter of whether the worst, the
darkest secrets, will
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 66
It is now no longer a matter of whether the worst, the darkest secrets, will be found out and revealed about a person, but rather how soon and under
which circumstances, and finally, who will reveal them.
be found out and revealed about a person, but rather how soon and under which circumstances, and finally, who will reveal them. If this is indeed the new order of
things, then the question becomes, ''At the first hint that the worst will be exposed about you, how much, if anything, should you say or reveal about yourself?" Notice
that it is no longer a matter of whether you will tell the worst and the "whole truth" about yourself, but only when and under what circumstances you will tell freely or
be forced to tell.
What Ought One to Do?
The question whether one should reveal completely the deepest and darkest truths about oneself is not the kind of question that can be answered with a yes or no,
since these are not simple black or white issues. Nonetheless, one can still lay out the general kinds of considerations that everyone is well advised to take into account
in fashioning the kind of response that is best suited for the particular circumstances they face.
As an important way of shedding light on the issue of truth telling, I'm going to beg the readers' indulgence and ask them to imagine Niccolo Machiavelli as a Crisis
Consultant for today's "Princes" of business. I can hear Machiavelli saying:
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 67
Machiavelli: Don't you realize that the best way to gain the upper hand over your enemies is by controlling the worst about yourself, by releasing it on
your terms and thereby becoming ''saved again" in the eyes of the public? Don't you realize that the thing that will confound your enemies the most, put
them completely off guard, is the very fact that you are willing to reveal the darkest, innermost secrets about your checkered past? Don't you realize that
this is exactly the thing that they are most afraid to do about themselves?
By getting the worst out about yourself, you will have preempted them. You will have also issued a supreme challenge for them to do exactly the same. And
if one thing is true about humankind, it is that one does not wish to do anything that is risky or reckless. Therefore, dear Prince, I advise you to act as
boldly as possible. I urge you to do the exact opposite of the socalled best advice of your trusted advisors.
I know that what I am advising you now is the exact opposite of what I have counseled you to do in the past. Then, I advised you to gain power and to hold
it by whatever means possible. I urged you to act with deceit, cunning, and to employ lying. However, I now realize, and you must too, that these things no
longer work in today's world. Now you must confound your enemies with frank and brutal honesty. Trust me. If you do, you will win by different means
that are adapted to the spirit of the age. Remember, dear Prince, what those who have not followed my advice have been forced to do:
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 68
In the very end, they have been forced to admit and to say the very things that they said they would never do in the beginning, that is, come completely
clean! President Clinton! Need I say more?
In terms of Exhibit 42, the position that Machiavelli has been arguing is represented by Cell 2, or the ''Preemptive Strike" strategy. However, with a little reflection,
one can see that depending on the particular details of a situation, Machiavelli could easily argue for any of the strategies represented by the four cells of Exhibit 42.
For instance, Machiavelli could argue that if a powerful person knows the truth about someone, then sooner or later one will be "forced to tell the truth." Nonetheless,
given the good corporate lawyer that he
Exibit 42
Telling the Truth
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 69
is, Machiavelli would still argue, ''Don't reveal/tell the truth about yourself until you are forced to do so. Anything else is extremely foolish."
On the other hand, Machiavelli could also argue that even if someone powerful knows the unsavory truth about a person, deny or "stonewall it" as long as possible.
Finally, Machiavelli could even argue the position that as long as those in powerful positions don't know the unsavory truth about a person, then one is well advised to
"play the odds" in denying the truth.
Depending upon the circumstances, it is possible to employ all of the strategies indicated in Exhibit 42. For instance, one could argue that as the Monica Lewinsky
scandal unfolded, President Clinton not only played out all of the strategies in the exhibit, but he shifted between them as the circumstances changed. In this particular
case, Machiavelli could even claim victory, because by playing the strategy outlined in Cell 4, the President in a very real sense ended up "winning." It could even be
argued that President Clinton's accusers ended up losing as much as, if not more than, he did. For this reason, Machiavelli could well contend that he or she who
forces another person to tell the unsavory truth had better be prepared to have "equally unsavory truths" revealed about himself or herself!
Since no single crisis advisor is ever likely to cover all the bases, I can also easily imagine three other important historic characters as prominent advisors: Sigmund
Freud, Mahatma Ghandi, and William James. Each of these characters captures different considerations in fashioning a response that is appropriate for each individual
and the details of their particular situation. At this particular point in the discussion, I can well imagine that our other three "crisis advisors" are no longer able to contain
themselves. Indeed, they would probably blurt out almost in unison something as follows:
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 70
ALL: The thing that we find most detestable about your position, Machiavelli, is the unsavory ethical principle that underlies it. Since you rarely state it
yourself, we're going to have to extract it ourselves. For instance, take Cell 2 of your Exhibit 42 as an illustration. Here is the ''grand ethical principle"
that underlies your position:
If and only if no one currently knows the "unsavory truth" about a person, but nonetheless there exists the strong possibility that at least one other person
will "know" it, then and only then ought one to tell the "complete and awful truth" about oneself!
They continue:
ALL: We are quite well aware that you don't think much of ethics. The only ethics that you do think well of, if you think of it at all, are those notions that
are based on considerations of survival and power. But even on your very own terms, your position is precarious. You are advising someone to come clean
only because it will supposedly preempt one's adversaries. By doing so, you ignore your own insights regarding the nature of what has changed precisely in
today's world. You advise one to enact a preemptive strike when the chances are very high that the truth will be found out. But if this is the case, why then
wouldn't people also ultimately find out the strategy that you have recommended, i.e., a "Preemptive Strike"? That is, if there are indeed few, if any,
precious secrets left in today's world, then why should your own rea
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 71
soning regarding what to do in a crisis situation be any less secret?
Isn't your strategy like the Ford Pinto crisis? The executives involved never counted on the fact that their strategy of opting to pay the settlement costs of
those killed in a rearend collision due to the faulty design of the Pinto's gas tank would be found out. They didn't count on the fact that it would become
widespread public knowledge that Ford's executives considered it cheaper to pay the insurance costs for the small percentage of lives that would be lost
rather than redesigning the car. When the public did find out, then this caused ''additional costs" that they had not counted on. In short, you are not
calculating the "full costs" of your own strategy.
Our three crises consultants continue:
ALL: Machiavelli, your recommendations are— you have admitted as much yourself—merely a new form of deception that amounts to deceiving people by
telling the truth! However, the fundamental flaw in this reasoning is this: What is to prevent the public from learning of this form of deception? How many
cycles of deception do you think you can engage in before you will be found out?
The worst thing about your strategy, Machiavelli, and why it will really not work, is that it will not stop the underlying dynamics that made a person
engage in embarrassing behavior in the first place. Above all, this is why your
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 72
strategy really is doomed to fail. It fails to treat, and thereby to halt, the underlying disease. Indeed, it merely perpetuates it. In this sense, you are one of
the biggest coconspirators or enablers of dysfunctional processes around!
At this point, our three crisis consultants begin to diverge and to speak in their own separate voices.
Freud: Machiavelli, you are the one that is naive. You delude yourself, as many do, into believing that one can win merely by exercising conscious, rational
thinking, i.e., strategizing. You fail to understand that conscious, rational thinking is only the small tip of the huge iceberg that constitutes the full mind or
psyche. To put it differently, rational thinking is often at the ''complete mercy" of the strongest unconscious impulses. To put it in crude terms, President
Clinton didn't get into trouble because of his brains, but rather, because of his lack of impulse control. I advise telling the truth because it is the only viable
means of healing a person's psyche.
You fail to grasp an essential point about the psyche. There is always "another person" who "knows" the truth about a person. That "other person" is your
unconscious. If you block out completely the message of this internal voice, if you exhibit no guilt whatsoever with regard to your actions, then in effect
you are or have become a sociopath, for the only kind of person that can do this successfully is a sociopath. You fail to grasp the true meaning of ethics. To
be ethical is to do the "right things" and to tell
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 73
the truth when no one is there to know what one has done except the inner voice of one's conscience.
Ghandi: I advise telling the truth because it is the only means of healing one's soul.
William James: Your trouble, Machiavelli, is that you substitute simpleminded tables and gimmicks for systemic, i.e., expansive thinking. You truly fail to
think ''outside of the boxes."
Our three advisors are adamant and have become quite heated. They almost shout with one voice what they would have advised the President to have done from the
very beginning:
ALL: If we had been advising President Clinton, then early on we would have urged him to say something like the following:
I'm taking the unprecedented action of speaking to you tonight in order to admit that I have a problem. It's akin to alcoholism. As a result, I have decided
to seek professional treatment while I am in office.
Like many senior executives with major corporations who are in treatment for their alcoholism, my problem does not affect my ability to perform my
duties effectively. I believe that by seeking treatment I can render one of the greatest legacies to the Presidency.
No longer can anyone who seeks or serves in
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 74
this office do so without the constant scrutiny that comes with it. In saying this, I am not complaining about the situation. I am merely stating a fact.
Therefore, the question is no longer whether any of us is flawed, but whether we honestly acknowledge our flaws and are willing to work on them. I will not
discuss with the public the nature of the treatment I am seeking nor my progress on my problem. I leave it to the American people to judge whether they
are willing to have a person who is less than perfect serve them while he or she is willing to undergo treatment.
ALL: Of course, in the beginning, we would have had no sure way of knowing whether President Clinton was guilty of sexual misconduct. However, from
what we know of his past, 7 we wouldn't be surprised if he were because it unfortunately fits the pattern of Adult Children of Alcoholics, or ACOAs.
ACOAs learn early in life to function in crisis situations because that is their daily reality. Even worse, they often only feel alive in crisis situations. When
life is running smoothly, they feel discomfort for they only know how to function in a crisis. As a result, they unconsciously have to create crises for
themselves. Why else would an otherwise intelligent and rational person jeopardize their high position? But that's precisely the point! The inability to
control impulses is not solely a matter of rational thinking.
We have learned painfully in the business arena
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 75
that if a person admits to alcoholism and is willing to seek serious treatment, then this is no longer cause for his or her dismissal. If one refuses to admit
one has a problem, or to seek treatment, then that is another issue.
Are we now willing to extend the same acceptance and understanding to those who hold the highest office in our land?
Notice carefully that the scenario we have outlined applies whether the President had been forced to resign from office or not. He could still cement his
place in history by leaving on a higher note of openness and honesty.
We proclaim as a nation that we constantly want leaders who are straight with us and have high character. But are we willing to accept that high
character does not mean one who is free from all defects, but instead has the strength to admit one's defects?
William James: I have one more comment to make. It is meant to be perfectly outrageous. Are we finally willing to consider replacing the ''Office of the
Independent Prosecutor" with that of the "Office of the Independent Therapist?"
Closing Remarks
Although they certainly don't call it by that name, the news media directly employ a variant of the Johari Window. One of the first questions that they invariably raise
with regard to any crisis is, "When did you know about the particular situation,
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 76
and if you knew about it, why didn't you do something about it then? And, if you didn't know about it, why didn't you?'' Either way, one is in deep trouble.
"When did you know about the particular situation, and if you knew about it, why didn't you do something about it then? And, if you didn't know
about it, why didn't you?"
The first and the second episodes at the beginning of this chapter illustrate another fundamental point with respect to all crises. In virtually every crisis situation, there is
always at least one other person internal to, or inside, an organization who "knows for sure" about what is going on far in advance of the external public. There is
always a "Linda Tripp" behind the scenes just waiting to gum up the works. It is not only parties external to an institution who will ultimately find out the truth, but they
will find out precisely because there are always internal confidants or disgruntled employees who know what is going on.
In the end, the sixtyfour trillion dollar question is, "We say we want honest leaders who can tell us the truth, but how much truth are we prepared to hear? How much
can we bear?"
As is so often the case, our best poets have a deeper understanding of the human condition than our best social scientists. In one of his most shrewd observations
about humankind the great poet T. S. Eliot observed: "Humankind cannot bear much reality."
Human truths come in an incredible variety of shapes and forms. There are ugly truths, beautiful truths, trivial as well as important ones, comforting truths, and
disturbing truths as
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 77
well. There are even, as modern physics has shown us, strange truths (black holes, chaos theory). The most important truths are those that are ethical and spiritual.
These are the ones that give us the strength to face the unpleasant and to change.
For this reason, Ghandi could well contend that the ''other person" who "knows" the truth about a person is not just that person's inner conscious, or superego as
Freud put it; in a more profound sense, it is the "spiritual other" that is one of the deepest aspects of all human beings. 8 Indeed, it is precisely this "spiritual other" that
makes all of us human. In this regard, there is always an "other" who needs to be taken into account.
It is also important to note that Machiavelli represents the ethics of "survival"; as such, it is a minimalist ethics. That is, one should always do the "bare minimum and
nothing more." On the other hand, in terms of ethics our other three advisors are "maximizers" in the sense that they are concerned with the greatest development of the
social, ethical, and spiritual sides of human beings and societies. 9 In addition, they also represent different points along the spectrum regarding whether or not to tell
the truth, and how much of the truth to tell. Indeed, they are of special interest for precisely this reason. In effect, they stake out various points along the spectrum.
It is also vitally important to note that even Freud does not and in fact never would advise one to completely shed all of one's clothing in public. Freud recognizes
explicitly that it is not necessarily in the best interests of a person to tell every dark and revealing secret about one's person. If anything, Freud calls for the cultivation of
a very special relationship between two people, the therapist and the person who is the object of therapy. This is done so that acting together they can discover the
truth about a person, and hence, discuss what indeed should be revealed to others.
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 78
To Freud we also owe the insight that people will invent the most elaborate fictions, and concoct the most incredible stories, to convince themselves of the ''truth" of
their fictions. In this sense, the biggest delusion of all is that one can indeed "know" things about one's self without any need of others. In other words, both "knowing"
and the "truth" are only obtained through community, and at the very least, through the cultivation of a deep friendship with at least one other person. "Knowledge" and
the "truth" are not the properties of a single mind in isolation and removed from others.
When, how much, and what kinds of truth does one tell?
After all is said and done, the point still stands that in today's world, there are precious few secrets anymore. Thus, the primary question still remains: "When, how
much, and what kinds of truth does one tell?"
No matter what the crisis situation, I always advise my clients to tell as much of the truth about themselves as they are able and willing to tell. I next ask them to take
the additional step and tell a bit more, and a bit more, etc. Only after both of us are satisfied that they have indeed told "enough" of the truth to ensure that the crisis will
not be perpetuated any further can they finally stop. In short, how much "truth" do I tell my clients to reveal about themselves? More than they can stand to bear, but,
unfortunately, not what the world wants to hear and to gloat over!
Finally, this chapter has deliberately employed the device of using four historical figures as theoretical crisis advisors, since they explicitly meet one of the most
important needs of CM, i.e., the need for involving very different kinds of "voices." Indeed, they can be considered as very different from the usual stakeholders that
are considered in most CM
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Page 79
planning efforts. It is precisely the conversation and interplay between these different kinds of advisors that is the most needed, and unfortunately the element most
often missing, from current CM efforts.
Strategy List for Chapter Four
• Examine the situation thoroughly.
• Avoid selfdeception.
• Acknowledge responsibility for your product and actions.
• Realize that there are no secrets in the modern world.
• Use the Johari Window to analyze what you know about yourself and to help develop your potential.
• Realize that taking the initiative by telling the truth allows you to control who reveals the truth, in what circumstances, and when it is revealed.
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/31/2020 5:15 PM via FLORIDA INTL UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use