All I really need to know (about managing a crisis) I learned in kindergarten

The following is an op-ed that I drafted last year when the Government was facing a ‘crisis’. Like a case study in business school, the names and background could be easily adapted to any current crisis. My ‘kindergarten’ was led by top risk executives in professional development programs that nurtured the best within CROs.

Once milk is spilt, difficult it becomes for the Government to contain it. Next comes a forced, precarious PR exercise, ever trying to contain the sopping mess. Too often a step late amid the fast evolving scenario.

For any governance structure to be effective, a healthy tension is de rigueur. Let’s say it’s the best-practice tripwire against unanticipated pitfall. Atop the corporate structure, the CEO must maintain such with the CRO and CFO. It may be well worth it, therefore, for any government or corporation to take a refresher course, especially when they are becoming guided more by social media metrics and other assorted blings.

Allow me to take the CRO’s governance perspective, as it takes up the ‘conscience’ side of corporate decision-making. This governance can be addressed from perspectives of both art and science.

The science of corporate governance is obvious. The CRO has a direct reporting line to the CEO. Industry best practices have shown that the CRO needs also a dotted-line reporting to a non-executive director on the board. This is so that if the CRO is leaned on, he has an outlet to communicate with the board another way, and thereby maintain a healthy tension.

But let’s focus on the more compelling art perspective, because the real world is never so easy. Very often, the CRO is under constant pressure to take on more and more business.

Effective CROs seem astute at understanding CEOs and CFOs and what their motivations are. What can sometimes be painful is getting one’s views and opinions across when realizing what they and you want are in conflict. The threshold for disagreeing may change based on where one is and what the situation entails. It will inevitably come to a point where the CRO must uphold his unwavering bottom-line position.

Ultimately, then, the CRO must be sagacious to escalate the matter effectively, depending on the severity and who would be the right person to change course. At times, enough to put an idea in someone else’s head and let them run with it. Other times, one must build a coalition of like-minded people, including getting support from more senior people from other parts of business.

Now, how much of this can be transposed from the business world to a political setting is not easy to say. However, an inalienable component of either scenario prevails—integrity. A lot of people have it, but often commingled with a lot of other self-perceived imperatives.

I have noticed common traits among the effective CROs I have encountered among many leading global banks: Pragmatic. Disciplined. Independent spirit. Honesty of view. Articulate. Knowledgeable. Determined. And when mixed in the right proportions, these make up integrity.

It is no secret that the CRO is not well compensated via-à-vis the business side. It boils down to those having a natural affinity towards this (sometimes thankless) role despite less compensation. Their currency is an inner satisfaction with doing what’s principled.

Any leader, corporate or government, needs someone very close who will be his conscience. If that someone’s integrity is respected, the governance relationship is maintained. This is how best to avoid any spilt milk.