I was surprised at a breakfast club meeting a few days after the Utah mine collapse to hear a friend condemn mine owner Bob Murray. I thought Mr. Murray handled his news conferences perfectly, but what do I know?
Mr. Murray, or his adivsors, managed this tragedy by the numbers:
1. Send the top guy out to speak.
2. Speak with knowledge.
3. Speak with true empathy.
4. Tell the truth as it was known at the time.
I'll stop here, because that's the point in time of my discussion with my friend Allan. I really wanted to know why he felt that way, because his opinion is what counts, not my "expert" opinion. I felt a learning opportunity coming on.
Allan thought Bob Murray was crude in his speech and was a defensive know-it-all.
Without a doubt, Mr. Murray is a man of the people. He grew up in the mines, not in a board room. So his speech pattern tended to the vernacul ar. That wasn't a turnoff for me. I appreciated his genuine approach. I was, however, a bit wary of his declaration that the collapse was caused by a "seismic event" rather than the "cut and retreat" mining method, even as geologists were insisting otherwise. Was he setting the stage to protect himself from lawsuits? Maybe. But I believe HE believed wholeheartedly what he was saying. Because he sounded so sincere, even to my cynical ear.
I'm from the south where we still say Ma'am and Sir, and refrain from calling someone by his or her first name until invited to do so. (Or at least my generation does. I'm still snatching baseball caps off my grandsons when we enter a building.)
There was also that testy interchange with Rep. Nancy Pelosi during a congressional hearing in which he pointed out the obvious, that Ms. Pelosi had never been in a mine. That doesn't make her ignorant of the facts, but it certainly gave a bit more credibility to Mr. Murray's testimony. An d his combative personality was in full array. Mr. Murray's self-confident, take charge approach seemed more bullying in that exchange than it did at the mine.
I just did a gut check with Allan to see whether his opinion has changed in the intervening week. Nope. He still thinks someone more polished, such as myself, should have been doing the speaking. Well, thanks, Allan, for the vote of confidence in me. It's great to have a friend and personal cheerleader!
But I disagree. Mr. Murray continued to give at least twice-daily news conferences and individual interviews. His attitude of concern for the miners and their families never wavered. Neither did his belief in seismic events. As time has passed it's obvious that all of this is taking a physical toll on the man. He's no spring chicken, yet there he was leading reporters into the mine so they could see for themselves what the rescuers were doing.
That one action may prove to be the most important th ing he did. He put reporters in the middle of the story, not reporting on the periphery or having to "find" stories tell. The reporters obviously bonded with Mr. Murray.
When the time was right, Mr. Murray brought in outside experts to do the speaking. Perfect timing. Perfect chorus to what Mr. Murray had been saying.
The other praiseworthy action by Mr. Murray was that he always spoke to the families before the news media. He put them first. Putting the victims first is key. Thank you, Jim Lukaszewski, for pointing that out to me. (Any true student of crisis communications will want to Google Jim. He's one of the most prolific and pragmatic in the field.)
Tell me, y'all, what you think about all this. (Remember, I'm from the south, and there is no word that adequately substitutes for y'all.) Do you agree with Allan, or with me? Or parts of both?
Mr. Murray, or his adivsors, managed this tragedy by the numbers:
1. Send the top guy out to speak.
2. Speak with knowledge.
3. Speak with true empathy.
4. Tell the truth as it was known at the time.
I'll stop here, because that's the point in time of my discussion with my friend Allan. I really wanted to know why he felt that way, because his opinion is what counts, not my "expert" opinion. I felt a learning opportunity coming on.
Allan thought Bob Murray was crude in his speech and was a defensive know-it-all.
Without a doubt, Mr. Murray is a man of the people. He grew up in the mines, not in a board room. So his speech pattern tended to the vernacul ar. That wasn't a turnoff for me. I appreciated his genuine approach. I was, however, a bit wary of his declaration that the collapse was caused by a "seismic event" rather than the "cut and retreat" mining method, even as geologists were insisting otherwise. Was he setting the stage to protect himself from lawsuits? Maybe. But I believe HE believed wholeheartedly what he was saying. Because he sounded so sincere, even to my cynical ear.
I'm from the south where we still say Ma'am and Sir, and refrain from calling someone by his or her first name until invited to do so. (Or at least my generation does. I'm still snatching baseball caps off my grandsons when we enter a building.)
There was also that testy interchange with Rep. Nancy Pelosi during a congressional hearing in which he pointed out the obvious, that Ms. Pelosi had never been in a mine. That doesn't make her ignorant of the facts, but it certainly gave a bit more credibility to Mr. Murray's testimony. An d his combative personality was in full array. Mr. Murray's self-confident, take charge approach seemed more bullying in that exchange than it did at the mine.
I just did a gut check with Allan to see whether his opinion has changed in the intervening week. Nope. He still thinks someone more polished, such as myself, should have been doing the speaking. Well, thanks, Allan, for the vote of confidence in me. It's great to have a friend and personal cheerleader!
But I disagree. Mr. Murray continued to give at least twice-daily news conferences and individual interviews. His attitude of concern for the miners and their families never wavered. Neither did his belief in seismic events. As time has passed it's obvious that all of this is taking a physical toll on the man. He's no spring chicken, yet there he was leading reporters into the mine so they could see for themselves what the rescuers were doing.
That one action may prove to be the most important th ing he did. He put reporters in the middle of the story, not reporting on the periphery or having to "find" stories tell. The reporters obviously bonded with Mr. Murray.
When the time was right, Mr. Murray brought in outside experts to do the speaking. Perfect timing. Perfect chorus to what Mr. Murray had been saying.
The other praiseworthy action by Mr. Murray was that he always spoke to the families before the news media. He put them first. Putting the victims first is key. Thank you, Jim Lukaszewski, for pointing that out to me. (Any true student of crisis communications will want to Google Jim. He's one of the most prolific and pragmatic in the field.)
Tell me, y'all, what you think about all this. (Remember, I'm from the south, and there is no word that adequately substitutes for y'all.) Do you agree with Allan, or with me? Or parts of both?
