As a result, how about a hypothesis that many “crises” are actually inevitable change occurring at inconvenient times? In our dynamic world, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that now is the time for organizations (and industries) to start thinking of crisis preparedness as a path to more effective change management. Said another way, the status quo is endangered in just about every sector – so it is time to get on offense to navigate into the future.  And the construct of crisis preparedness can be a very useful way to get on offense.

How to start?

Determine a crisis from a bad day

First, it’s important to distinguish between a true crisis and a bad day (or year). Managing a true crisis requires sufficient reallocation of power (decision-making) and resources to resolve a situation that may cause major damage to an asset — whether physical, financial or reputational.

Let’s use the auto industry bailout back in 2009 as a high-profile, hard-to-argue-with-the-definition of crisis. After decades of inadequate evolution in response to the changing world around them (which I see as resistance to change caused by the power of the status quo in industry), U.S. automakers found themselves bailed out and controlled by the U.S. government. They emerged and returned to private ownership, transformed into more competitive organizations in the global automobile marketplace.

Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but I’d say the Great Recession was the best thing to happen to the auto industry in a long time, and by that I refer to the competitiveness of the U.S. automakers as a group. Unfortunately, taxpayers funded at least some of this change management which was long overdue.  And thousands of workers and communities were hurt in the process.

Why a crisis is a terrible thing to waste

Paul Romer, professor of economics at Stern School of Business at New York University, is credited with the quote, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

Reflecting a bit on economic theory is instructive as a metaphor for other kinds of organizational change management. Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable, i.e., innovation. The challenge is that “rearranging resources” creates winners and losers if the total resources available stays the same.

That’s why, most of the time, it is easier for people to support organizational change or innovation if it is perceived as being funded with “new money.” Said more bluntly: Most humans only favor change if it is a change they thought of — and doesn’t involve taking resources away from themselves.

How can crisis preparedness methodology better move organizations to undertake the changes they should?

By scaring them into it.  For companies legitimately navigating turbulent times as a crisis, no scare tactics are necessary:  they are re-inventing, transforming on the fly because they must.

Used well, crisis preparedness methodology puts change into a healthy context and emboldens organizations to do things they know they must, even things that are hard to do. The auto industry was faced with such a challenge, but it took a financial crisis to trigger the power shift that led to change, not by its own self-evaluation and “crisis preparedness.” While we’re all glad to see the industry as strong global players today, where could they be if they had tackled their “bad days” on their own?

Reputations fall as fast as they are built

Warren Buffet said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” His point is still well-taken, although time cycles are considerably shorter since he said it. Reputations can now be built relatively quickly, but ruining them will always happen faster.

Done well, crisis preparedness enables an organization to navigate a situation they haven’t even contemplated — or a scenario so horrific they have consoled themselves that it is really unlikely.

On the other side of a crisis preparedness initiative, incremental changes that mitigate risk or improve an organization’s ability to survive a crisis become rational, common-sense decisions. The power of the status quo is put on notice, which we at Tunheim believe is a critical first step to dislodging it and enabling innovation.

Invest in planning for your next crisis. Learn how we can help prepare your organization to mitigate a crisis before it even happens. Contact Tunheim today.

The post Rethinking Crisis Planning: Fresh Perspective on Crisis Preparedness appeared first on Tunheim.

Nominations for the award were accepted from mid-December through mid-February. After receiving more than 70 nominations, the editorial team selected 10 honorees. The honorees will be featured in the September 22^nd Weekly Edition of the Biz Journal and celebrated at an awards event on September 14^th.

 “[Kathy] is a true business visionary who pushes everyone around her to do better, every day. She is the go-to advisor when times are difficult, a constant leader in times of change and a professional that dedicates her time, ideas and resources to better the communities in which she lives and operates in around the globe.” – Lindsay Treichel, nominator

The post Kathy Tunheim Named A 2017 Most Admired CEO appeared first on Tunheim.

There was a fascinating article in The New York Times in February (“What’s the Point of Moral Outrage?“) about a study that had been published in the journal Nature by a group of academics from Yale University and Harvard University. Using both empirical and theoretical experiments, they developed a theory about why people have evolved over time to reflect a “psychology of outrage.”

Among other observations, they looked at the phenomenon of people getting wildly upset, way out of proportion to the perceived (or real) offense.

One need only go to Twitter or Facebook to see the phenomenon in full bloom: political comments, death of humans or animals, behavior of celebrities or private citizens. Any of these instances can trigger global venting that creates new communities, mostly involving people with absolutely no connection to the incident itself.

• But toward what end, I found myself thinking: How can we turn that passion and willingness to express outrage into a willingness to do something?
• How to get people to be for something at least as easily and passionately as they can be “morally outraged” about something else?

Sometimes we’re simply talking about tweets battling for supremacy — but sometimes we’re talking about public policy and its lasting impacts on many people’s lives.

Strategic challenge: Easier to be for or against something?

We are in the business of persuasion and advocacy, so it’s not surprising that we take this rhetorical question as a strategic challenge. In a time when Facebook “likes,” “shares” and other reactions are still used by some as a measure of support, it is easy to fall into a trap of equating expressions of outrage with alignment on values or priorities.

But it IS a trap — or at the least, it is an incomplete expression of your intention. “I’m against THIS, and I am for THAT” is required to meaningfully participate in society.

So we must explore the question: Is it easier to be “against” something than it is to be “for” something?

In the American cultural context, I think the answer is yes. Our entire history has evolved around liberty and our sometimes fuzzy way of equating liberty with freedom. We are “free” to think what we want, do what we want … as long as our “freedom” doesn’t impinge on the “freedom” of someone else. Then we use laws and lawyers to work out disagreements when individual liberties clash.

In that historical context, we could be against what someone else wanted to do without having to actively work against it — as long as it didn’t clash with our “freedom.” We are “free” to express our opinion about them.

Yet our liberty has also given us the right to pursue our own hopes and dreams, the things we are for, as long as we do the hard work to pursue them. Being for something that you strongly support requires getting resources aligned to make it happen. Even if everyone agrees with you, it still needs a thoughtful approach to sharing that point of view.

Organizational challenge: When to be for something?

Outrage is not only relevant to individuals either. We hear from clients or prospects all of the time that they are against an issue or effort and want our help to advocate for their side of the issue.

Tunheim has managed many successful campaigns to defeat controversial legislation and provocative proposals. With each campaign, we encourage our clients to think long-term and find creative solutions that address the overarching problem while staying true to their organization’s goals and principles.

Is your organization rethinking its strategy about being against something? Learn more about our Advocacy Campaigns or Coalition Building.

The post Rethinking Outrage: It is More Impactful to Stand for Something appeared first on Tunheim.

During the Wednesday morning meeting, held at the Minneapolis Club, Danielson and local business and public affairs leaders discussed how the Department of Energy and federal government can better partner with the private sector to ensure innovation and U.S. competitiveness in our global marketplace.

Danielson talked about the public-private innovations already occurring in our 17 National Laboratories, including breakthroughs on battery storage, materials management and energy conservation. He stressed the importance of organizations taking advantage of and accessing programs through the labs and other governmental programs, which he found are underutilized.

Left, Nicholas Franco of U.S. Energy Services chats energy policy with David Danielson, assistant secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy in Minneapolis.

The informal meeting also allowed business leaders the opportunity to ask questions and provide advice on how the Department of Energy can best support business efforts to bring new energy technologies to market, implement the Clean Power Plan, and tackle other sustainability measures. Topics of discussion ranged from President Barack Obama’s aggressive goals, to renewable energy innovation and grid modernization, to product advances, to local, state and federal regulations regarding energy efficiency.

One common thread emerged during the discussion: The necessity to have all of the “right stakeholders” engaged around the table to make decisions that will have a sustainable impact in addressing our nation’s climate action goals.

Danielson heard first-hand the need to listen to business leaders when making policy decisions. For example, compared to other states, Minnesota and its businesses have led efforts to curb carbon emissions through inventive partnerships, like a transmission power line that is powered by hydroelectricity sourced out of state.

Leaders addressed the need for the federal government, including the Department of Energy and the EPA, to implement proposed rules that acknowledge states and organizations that are ahead of the curve in cutting carbon emissions, such as Minnesota.

Attendees included: Deb Amberg, general counsel and secretary of Allete, Inc; Margaret Anderson Kelliher, president of Minnesota High Technology Association; Cecile Bedor, executive vice president of Greater MSP; Jim Block, director of weather content for Schneider Electric; Jon Brekke, vice president of membership & energy markets for Great River Energy; Nicholas Franco, director of sustainability services at U.S. Energy Services; Ben Gerber, manager of energy/labor management policy at Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; John Hillen, CEO of Direct Source, Inc.; Bob Jacquart, owner, founder and CEO of Stormy Kromer; Pat Milan, chief creative officer at Tunheim; and Kathy Tunheim, CEO of Tunheim.

View photos from the event on Facebook.

The post Tunheim Hosts U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary to Discuss the Clean Action Plan appeared first on Tunheim.

“What makes an institution literally ‘worthy of trust’? The answer, at the core, is that if people or organizations meet our expectations over time, we conclude that they are ‘trustworthy.’ And once we’ve made that conclusion, we are even capable of overlooking periodic or momentary disappointments in performance.

Trust is not easy to establish, but once it is in place, we are loath to give up on the things we’ve anointed as trustworthy. This phenomenon explains the current struggle of so many to sort out their feelings about the trustworthiness of police departments, or the shock that has resulted from the collapse of roads or bridges in recent years (America took care of its infrastructure, we all trusted).

So what has happened to create such dramatic and widespread disappearance of trust in almost every institutional pillar in our culture?”

Read the complete commentary on StarTribune.com — and find out how leaders should navigate decision-making and strategic planning in this dynamic, complex environment.

The post Kathy Tunheim: “Dwindling trust in institutions” featured in Star Tribune appeared first on Tunheim.