MALAWI JUDICIARY: A Reputation in Crisis

The Malawi judiciary is facing an unprecedented reputational crisis, triggered by Alexious Kamangila's exposé of judicial misconduct. Whether the approach is right or not is a matter of another surgical exploration someday. Some consider this approach as reinforcing mindset change, the revolutionary way. Kamangila's intent, he insists, is not to damage reputations but to reclaim the judiciary's integrity. This seismic event has sparked a national conversation, eroding public trust and confidence in the institution. This too is a reputation crisis on the leadership in the establishment. Allegations of inaction have surfaced, raising questions about the leadership’s ability to enforce discipline and restore order within the system. 

The crisis continues to unfold like a slow-burning fire, fuelled by allegations of corruption, nepotism, favouritism, court files vanishing into thin air and judgments pending for over a decade. The judiciary's leadership initial silence allowed the situation to escalate, permitting the narrative to be shaped by the public. Their late (perceived) inconclusive response has already created doubt in the minds of many Malawians – most who have come forward with an avalanche of testimonies and evidence as 'victims' of the courts and the justice system (real or perceived). This reactive approach created a vacuum, enabling stakeholders to fill the information void with speculation and criticism. The public dissatisfaction with published statements, when it came out, leaves many drooling for more. Equally, the fact that parliamentary committee on legal affairs does not have certain procedures in place exposes an infantile and laissez faire approach to matters of such national significance - begging for more to be done as a nation.

Most leaders perceive crisis moments as catalyst for problems and their imminent downfall - and not as an opportunity for resetting, relearning, and creating fresh starts. This crisis presents that opportunity now, and the buck stops with the leadership in the judicial establishment. They ought to take responsibility and explain clearly and concisely how they view act of corruption in the system - real or perceived, and how they will continue galvanising not only the judiciary but the overall legal fraternity on professionalism and ethical conduct. In crisis management, this is a classic case of "issue escalation," where an organization's failure to address a problem promptly allows it to metastasize into a full-blown reputational crisis. The judiciary's long inaction has enabled the crisis to transition from a "reputation threat" to a "reputation crisis," characterized by widespread stakeholder disaffection and loss of legitimacy. It will not be surprising if this turns into a campaign with people physically on the ground – not what most would phathom given the time of the year. 

We must face reality that the judiciary will no longer ring-fence itself from scrutiny. The  leadership must recognize that its reputation is intricately linked to the public's perception of its integrity, impartiality, and effectiveness. Reputation management principles dictate that organizations must prioritize transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement during crises. I have a strong belief that the leadership in the judicial establishment holds the latitude to resolving this matter before it turns into a long-standing national campaign. To mitigate this crisis, the judiciary should adopt a ‘proactive’, ‘stakeholder-centric’ approach. This entails:

•⁠  ⁠Conducting an urgent, credible, and transparent investigation into the allegations,

with known timelines

•⁠  ⁠Communicating findings and actions taken, to stakeholders

•⁠  ⁠Implementing reforms to address systemic vulnerabilities

•⁠  ⁠Engaging stakeholders through open dialogue and participatory processes

•⁠  ⁠Demonstrating a commitment to accountability and zero tolerance for misconduct

(real or perceived)

The judiciary's leadership must acknowledge that reputation recovery requires a long-term, sustained effort. The best is to start preparing what the future looks like and allow actions that demonstrate the desire to recoup public trust and rebuild its damaged reputation. This involves fostering a culture of transparency, professionalism, and accountability, as well as investing in stakeholder relationships and communication infrastructure. 

Ultimately, the judiciary's ongoing response and actions to this crisis will determine its reputational trajectory. By embracing crisis management best practices and prioritizing stakeholder engagement, the establishment can begin to rebuild trust, restore its reputation, and reaffirm its legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

The time for action is now. Will the leadership rise to the challenge, or will the judiciary's reputation continue to spiral down the rabbit hole?

#crisiscommunication #malawi #crisismanagement #reputationmanagement #crisis #publicrelations #crisiscommunication #crisisready #staeholderengagement

The Boeing 737 MAX Crisis: Is the future certain?

The unforgiving nature of crises and the volatility of business operating environments in the modern era leaves corporations and executives fallible to reputational damaging effect of event of crisis proportion. 

Within a space of nearly 5 years, Boeing has suffered yet another blow to its reputation following another of its 737 MAX model failures.

On Friday, 5 January, a Boeing 737 MAX 9 Flight 1282, operated by Alaska Airlines was reported to have had a cabin panel blown off the plane’s fuselage, leaving a gaping hole in the plane, and depressurising the plane's cabin. Luckily enough, there was no loss of life in this incident - all 174 passengers and 6 crew members landed safely. The incident was shared on social media several times, emphasising the power and Influence of Social Media in Crisis Management.

Already grappling with financial repairs from the incidents involving a Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018, and another involving an Ethiopian Airline Flight 302 in March 2019, alongside the grounding of the plane model for long periods – the woes brought about on Boeing by 737 MAX could be the very beginning of the crumble of the corporation's competitiveness for decades.  We covered Boeing’s crisis response and approcah to crises, and how it could salvage its reputation outside the quality control, safety concerns, and technical difficulties of the plane model in our previous article Boeing 737 MAX: Navigating Its Future following the fatal incidents in 2018 and 2019.

Crises facilitate for big market share loss for brands and products. Boeing will continue to lose its market to competitors as investigations continue to occur, every now and then. Already, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ruled that the 737 MAX operated by any USA airliner or flying into the USA by a foreign operator should be, and must remain grounded. This would look like a ‘sequel’ to an 18 month grounding of the MAX plane model following the catastrophic incidents in 2018 and 2019 - once again offering competitor's confidence to engage market negotiations whilst there is a vacuum forming.

For a model that suffered massive market setbacks soon after its introduction on the market, the Boeing 737 MAX still remains a product of concern following revelations that an inspection of the model by another operator, United Airline, found that the opratator's fleet of the MAX had loose bolts. It is yet to be seen how much confidence airline operators will still have in the MAX model.

Crises not only affects reputation, financial bottom line, and market share - they also disrupt corporations operating environment, business model, and can cost corporations hefty lawsuits, and careers for its executives. For example, following the 737 MAX incident in 2019, Boeing separated the roles of Chairman and CEO, introducing David L Calhoun as non executive chairman while Dennis Muilenburg continued as CEO, and President. Muilenburg was later fired based on his perceived management of the 2018 and 2019 accidents. In addition, Boeing set up funds to pay victims' families and also made payments in related lawsuits.

Organisational reconfigurations are implemented to improve organisational performance and propel it’s competitiveness in an industry. With the recent incident demonstrates that despite management changes, there has not been significant progress at Boeing, as far as the 737 MAX model and quality control is concerned. We are yet to see if there will be any heads rolling off the chopping board. The ramification and how current CEO David L Calhoun handles the prevailing crisis may be the life saver for both Boeing as well as his own career. It is also a litmus test if he is indeed up to the task as a leader conversant in Leadership and Crises Management.

#crisiscommunication #ceo #boeing #crisismanagement #reputationmanagement #737max #crisis #publicrelations #crisis-communication #crisisready #max

Optus cyber-attack: Could they have responded any better?

The recent cyber-attack on telco giant, Optus, has revealed and continue to demonstrate that no organisation is anywhere near clear from being vulnerable to crises. It also demonstrates, just like in many other incidents, how the data market and the appetite for it, has grown.

Data has always formed the basis for big businesses’ continuity. More so in the new cyber world, big data is big money – the bigger the data a corporation holds the more competitive advantage it has in service marketing, brand positioning, and product situating. Data helps in making informed decisions and big data is good for both legitimate business, and in malicious phishing or for ransoms.

According to reports, the Optus data breach is a result of a basic security incompetence following Optus leaving possible entry points into their system, unsecure. Unfortunately, the breach has resulted in a potentially long-term reputation and credibility damage for the corporation. As we speak, data for almost 2 million of the nearly 10 million customers risked, has already found its way out , and a further 7.7 million customers impacted in one data stream or another.

Now, what does the whole incident remind us about the damaging characteristics of crises? Well, in the modern operating environment, no corporation or business is less vulnerable to crises. As such, leadership for corporations require to be crises-ready more than they had ever been decades ago. That entails having crisis conversant executives within rank and file, but also having crisis-ready guidelines that could easily spell how information is gathered and shared with the public.

When Optus announced, on 22nd September that its customer data bank had been attacked, they seemed to have taken an internal process to accompany the announcement with an assurance to its customers. For example, part of Optus’ announcement read that:

‘Information which may have been exposed includes customers’ names, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, and, for a subset of customers, addresses, ID document numbers such as driver's licence or passport numbers’

However, the coordination of information had been very problematic for Optus. It was evident the information was trickling from a disjointed source, and often incomplete. It portrayed that Optus had resolved the issue as soon as it emerged. However, that was not the case. For example, customer data had been exposed beyond what Optus initially advised. It transpired that more customer details, including Medicare details, may have been risked. Observably, it seemed Optus did not initially have a full comprehension of the depth of the crisis judging from the piece-meal communication with its customers.

The uncertain nature of crises can leave executives blurred of sense-making of what is unfolding before them. With customers still grappling for more information and alternatives for identity recovery proving slow and difficult, the amount of damage the data breach has caused to both the corporation and its individual customers is yet to be fully comprehended, and will take long to recover from. Optus will need to devise measures that minimises further harm to an already disenfranchised and uncertain customer base.

In addition, crises take a toll on organisational employees. More so on the executives, who are often the face of the corporation and brand, during crisis moments. As the Optus data breach crisis was unfolding, it was evident that the CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin was visibly tired, at times opting to communicate through recorded audio and videos. Optus failed to provide emotional and mental relief from such assault. Optus board could have done better by offering alternative spokesperson throughout the crisis communication. As soon as Federal Government issued its position statement, Optus board should have taken over the public engagement.

On a positive end, Optus response also cements the importance of information sharing and collaborating with stakeholders who are on your side. Optus collaborated with government agencies including the Police and other agencies to help the issuance of new documents such as a Drivers’ Licence and passports (which Optus has committed to pay for the renewal fees on behalf of the customer). In addition, the involvement of external Government agencies, such as Americas’ FBI, to help with the investigation within an Australian jurisdiction, informs how much importance the Federal Government has placed on the crisis and the security of its citizens’ data.

Crises affect corporations’ business returns, including its reputation and market share, among others. Optus may have scored in the operational response with its stakeholder collaboration in the crisis. However, with a disgruntled customer, continued bad media publicity, and a Federal Government still breathing down its neck for accountability and transparency, the crisis relief that Optus is seeking may be far out of its sight.

#crisismanagement #reputation #publicrelations #Optus #brandreputation #crisis #cyber