BP Improves Their Rhetoric

I wrote a post last week taking BP to task for the heartless CYA language in the giant ads they were taking out in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.  I lamented that there wasn't even a hint of human compassion, that they were taking responsibility in the most mealy mouth way possible, and that the dull march through the facts conveyed that will they were taking steps to stop the leak and clean-up the mess, their cold corporate heart wasn't in it.  I made a comment that it seemed to be written by lawyers, not caring people. On second thought, that is unfair to lawyers as many have far for common-sense and humanity than the narrowly focused and emotionally tone deaf people who wrote those ads.

I was taken to task on this blog and at Psychology Today where I reposted my BP comments for,among other things, being naive to expect anything else.  One reader chastised me here:

"Of course BP's language is legalistic, with every public word chosen carefully. There will be lawsuits, and lawyers will scrutinize their every utterance over the last century for ammo. Would you really expect any public admission of culpability from them as the vultures are gathering?"

Comments like above one are, in my view, correct in that we would expect them to be careful about what they say because of all the lawsuits.  But to me -- and this is a difference between a good lawyer and a bad one, by the way --a  good lawyer and the leaders they advise balance litigation concerns with other business issues, such as the hits in the press and stock market the firm is taking and (to be crass) what will enable the current management survive the firestorm of blame.  As I said in my last post, there are plenty of examples of leaders and firms that have effectively struck this balance and I reject the argument that purely legalistic language or even the absolute best language to protect the company during future litigation is always the business decision.  Indeed, I believe that BP's numerous indications of arrogance and coldness have attracted and motivated more vultures and the legalistic language, finger-pointing, and dull language have made things worse. 

While I will refrain from commenting on the reality of what they are doing (it is hard to know, and frankly, I remain unimpressed based on the disputed and twisted facts I do encounter about BP).  But I do give them credit for finally getting the compassion thing right and other elements required to come across as actual caring human beings in their big ad today in The New York Times. 

The new headline is "We Will Make This Right"   Compare it to the old headline in the ad last week, which sounded like a dull corporate memo from a cold-hearted creep: "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response" -- it did not even say whose response.  In the new ad, while I bet their more narrow-minded lawyers are squirming at the language, there are statements that suggest compassion, accepting responsibility for fixing things in less mealy-mouthed language, and a commitment to pay for it (well, they may sue others to get the others, but saying that taxpayers won't pay for the clean-up is smart if it is true).  Examples include "Stopping the leak will be a major step, but only start.  We know our responsibility goes much further."   And although they stop short of quite admitting blame, we finally see some compassion here;  "The spill and hardship endured by Gulf families and businesses should never have happened."   And they end well:  "You expect us to make this right. We will." 

Note that I am being very careful to withhold judgment about the reality here, and the fact that it has taken BP many weeks to use language that suggests a hint of humanity suggests to me that this is not their first instinct.  But better late than never, at least from a PR standpoint.

Also, there is another message beyond the humanity that comes through in this ad that is quite consistent with research on effective leadership when the shit hits the fan: They are talking about things they have done and will do to take control of the situation -- one of the topics I discuss in chapter 2 of Good Boss, Bad Boss, which is on how the best bosses persuade others they are in charge. If you are in a leadership position, a big part of your job is convincing people that you are wrestling to get control over even difficult events and are making progress -- that there is a link between what you and your people are doing and good things that are happening and that will happen.  BP started-out pointing so many fingers at others that they didn't seem to quite grasp this point, but seem to be slowly getting it as well. Of course, if they never stop the leak, their credibility will evaporate, but it does seem like their sustained period of failure to do so may have finally taught them to express some compassion and wisdom --- or to be more cynical, perhaps they are so desperate that they are pretending to be caring and compassionate as a last resort!

There is a lesson here for every leader who ever gets into a PR mess.  If your lawyers are only thinking of future litigation and don't grasp its importance relative to other business risks, beware of their advice. Specialists of any stripe can be dangerous when they see events only from the perspective of their narrow expertise, be they engineers, HR people, PR people, or lawyers.  But I believe lawyers are especially prone to causing such problems because they are often especially adept at arguing their point of view and trashing others.  This can be a great quality, but only when used with proper precautions and in the context of the larger business decision.

If you are convinced by your persuasive lawyers to use legalistic and vague language, and talk like heartless people who don't care about anyone but yourselves and who are bent on pointing fingers at everyone else, it may help with the litigation down the road.  But in the intervening years, you may be fired, your organization may decline or die, and in fact, by the time those lawsuits are contested, you or your company may have ran out of money to pay your lawyers -- and pay the claims against your company.   Again, a great lawyer is crucial under such conditions, but the great ones see beyond their narrow area of expertise.

Comments

[Will Lichtig]

Bob,

The medical profession and their lawyers used to adopt the same approach of "deny and defend." Recently, however, some institutions have adopted a more humanistic approach that centers on acknowledging mistakes and apologizing to the patients and their families! Surprisingly, they have found that this is not only the right thing to do, but that it also has resulted in reduced legal costs and financial exposure for the harm caused.

A discussion of this approach can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/18apology.html?pagewanted=all.

As a lawyer who spends that vast majority of my time advocating for change in the construction industry (http://enr.construction.com/people/AOE-Gallery/newsmakers/080114/080114-15.asp), I understand the uphill nature of convincing more traditional colleagues to re-examine their view of "risk" and client service. The fact that it is uphill is no reason to abandon the hike!