AEJMC Archives

AEJMC Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave AEJMC
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: AEJ 96 LuongoE PR Effect of Chief Executive Officers' misdeeds on companies
From: Elliott Parker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:AEJMC Conference Papers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:58:56 EST
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (660 lines)


          The Effect of Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds
          on the Companies they Represent:
          a Case Study of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.
          and Helmsley Corporation
 
          Student Paper:
          Erica Luongo
          Current Address: 323 Mary Lyndon
          The University of Georgia at Athens
          Athens, Ga. 30602
          Telephone: (706) 357-0120
          E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
          Permanent Address: 100 Bickerstaff Road
          Clemmons, North Carolina 27012
          Telephone: (910) 766-9645
           The Effect of Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds on the Companies
they Represent: a Case Study of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. and Helmsley
Corporation
 
          Abstract
          Companies are known by their leaders' deeds. This study focuses on the
effects of leaders' misdeeds on the companies they represent. The study examines
Michael Milken with Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., and Leona Helmsley with
Helmsley Corporation and evaluates their crisis management plans. This study
found that corporate figures misdeeds have profound negative impact on
companies and suggests guidelines for effective crisis management. These
findings have repercussions for businesses, public relations practitioners and
policy makers.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 2
          Topic Statement and Justification
                "Business crises put corporate reputations and survival to the test"
(Herrero & Pratt, p.25). Crises can occur because of unplanned events, problems
with a product, or wrongdoing of the key corporate figure. This paper focuses on
the latter: how the actions of prominent central figures affect the companies
they are associated with. It also will suggest a positive course of action that
companies can use should misdeeds of a key figure occur.
                These figures are usually the chief executive officers of the
corporation and are often in the spotlight. Their names and faces are frequently
recognized by the average consumer. The key spokesperson is recognized through
the actions of the company, and the company is known by the deeds of its
leaders. The two reputations are interrelated.
                A key figure can bring a company out of despair but similarly their
misdeeds can wreck havoc on a company with whom they are heavily associated. The
public tends to view a corporation as being only as good as its leaders.  When
these leaders fail, often their businesses do also.
                 Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 3
                Therefore, what happens when the primary spokesperson(s) participates
in illegal, immoral, or unethical practices or his reputation is called into
question? How does this affect the corporation's reputation and customer
loyalty? It is necessary to find out what effect and to what extent central
figures actions'
          have on the reputations of the companies they represent and, also, the
best way to handle their indiscretions to protect public opinion of the
organization.
                This research is important on a practical level because if public
relations practitioners know what influence a key spokesperson plays in relation
to the company's image, they will be better able to monitor the central figure's
reputation and improve corporate image.  If companies do nothing when these
incidents occur, their businesses will flounder. By looking at the effect that
leaders' unethical actions have, the way the company's public relations
responded and what effect their responses had, this study will suggest a "how
to" plan that companies can use when faced with leaders' indiscretions in order
to stabilize and improve public opinion of their organization.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 4
          Literature Review
                Many studies have been done on crisis management and what companies
should do in the face of adversity, but none have examined crises caused by
wrongdoing of the chief executive officer. The only mention of the key corporate
figures is what they can do to aid in the public relations process, for example
by way of being a spokesperson.  The assumption of these studies is that the
primary figures have had nothing to do with the onset of the crisis and that
they are only being called in to add credibility.
                As no similar studies have been done, the literature review will
reflect crises that have occurred and what was done to handle them. These crises
provide insight because they show different ways of handling crises and which
proved effective.
                The first of these studies does involve the role of executives in the
company but does so indirectly. Hearit (1994) examines the incidents that
occurred at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo and outlines three objectives in any
crisis situation. Different crises and situations mandate different approaches.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 5
                In June of 1987, two Chrysler Corporation executives were accused of
driving cars without odometers and claiming that these cars were new. Over
60,000 cars were driven, some up to 400
          miles. Chairman Lee Iacocca attacked the situation head on with the
stance that it was not an illegal practice and used the phrase "test program" to
lessen the claim. A fine line exists between passivity and attacking an issue in
such a way that
          heightens the problem (Hearit, 1994). Iacocca stated that the company
made a mistake and offered to replace the damaged cars (Hearit, 1994).
                The Toshiba Corporation was charged with marketing
          top-secret equipment to the Soviets in 1987, closing the United States
edge over them. This action raised issues of national security and was estimated
to cost the United States 30 billion dollars. For this reason, the Senate
proposed a two- to five-year ban on all company merchandise. "The export-control
chief of the Commerce Department, Paul Freedenberg, called the illegal sale 'the
most damaging(technology transfer) of the postwar era'"(Hearit, 1994).
                Toshiba addressed an apologia(a statement that offers a counter
attack on the situation)(Hearit, 1994). Their main focus
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 6
          was that it was a branch of Toshiba, Toshiba Machine Company (TMC),
that was the guilty party. In doing this, Toshiba claimed lack of knowledge.
They apologized for "wrongdoing" but did not address the specific
charges(Hearit, 1994).
                "Deceptive advertising" was the charge against the Volvo Corporation
in 1990. They showed monster trucks riding over Volvo cars and causing no damage
while smashing the competition's car. What the company failed to tell the public
was that this was a dramatization of a re-enactment and that the cars had been
fortified with steel and wood prior to the filming. Their response was admitting
that they should have labeled the advertisement a dramatization but they
lessened the impact by
          saying that they recreated an event that had truly occurred. Denying
of "intent" often reduces the severity of the incident (Hearit, 1994).
                Hearit outlines three objectives for public relations crisis
management. First, the company should offer an opposing story to the charges of
"wrongdoing." Second, a statement of regret with minimal responsibility should
be circulated. Third, the company should try to remove the association of the
event with the company's name (Hearit, 1994). Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds
7
                The opposing story, or apologia, is best accomplished by using a
strategic name, perhaps that of the company chairman or president, together with
a list of events to put the crisis in order. Apologias seek to salvage corporate
images (Hearit, 1994). The statement of regret's purpose is to express sorrow
while downplaying the company's participation in the wrongdoing. When an
organization does not acknowledge liability, the company stock holds stable
(Hearit, 1994). A company can either confess limited accountability or can evade
responsibility but they should say that the problem has been corrected and that
a repeat episode will not occur (Hearit, 1994). Achieving dissociation with the
event is the third goal. A firm can accomplish this in three ways: an
opinion/knowledge dissociation, and individual/group dissociation, an
act/essence dissociation, or a combination of these. An opinion/knowledge
dissociation states that the talk about the circumstances of the event is simply
opinions (as in the Chrysler situation). In big organizations, a firm may choose
          to use the individual/group dissociation as Toshiba did by utilizing
scapegoats (Hearit, 1994). The act/essence dissociation confesses to the "evil"
act but claims this deed is atypical of
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 8
          the corporation at large. Volvo did this as it denied bad intent and
showcased past good works (Hearit, 1994).
                As stated by Hearit, the main point in crises is to try to manipulate
terms used to depict events in order to show the incident in the most favorable
light. Severe crises may result in fines and bannings, but the approach an
organization takes can dramatically affect the severity of the incident (Hearit,
1994).
                The following three studies do not deal with the executives of the
company but are included to show different strategies for handling crises.
Stevenson (1992) looks at the conflict over charges of Sears' auto mechanics
committing repair fraud such as repairing perfectly good parts, overcharging for
work, and charging for work never done. Undercover plainclothesmen visited six
Sears auto mechanics and found that they were suggesting unnecessary repairs
(Stevenson, 1992).
                Stevenson states that two responses to a crisis exist. A company can
either deal with the conflict head-on or hide and shift the blame. Sears' first
response was the latter, claiming that these accusations were false and
"politically motivated" by the state of California. Their primary spokespersons
were
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 9
          lawyers, and they decided not to conduct a press conference. They
dealt with this event by handling it on a person-to-person basis
          instead of addressing the widespread magnitude of the problem
(Stevenson, 1992).
                This reactive (passive) stance lowered the public's trust in them and
estranged consumers. After realizing that this approach was having negative
repercussions, Sears became more involved by issuing a letter from Chairman
Edward A. Brennan. At this point, it was too late to recover from much of the
accrued damage. The initial response to a problem is crucial to the public's
opinion of the event (Stevenson, 1994).
                Wilkenson (1991) shows how Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Tylenol,
went above and beyond the call of duty to restore faith in their consumers. In
1982, four women, two men, and a 12-year-old girl died of cyanide poisoning.
Tylenol capsules laced with cyanide were the culprit (Wilkerson, 1991).
                Johnson & Johnson responded by immediately recalling Tylenol capsules
and introducing tamper-resistant tablets, the first in the market. They took a
misfortune and turned it into a cutting-edge invention (Wilkerson, 1991). Prompt
handling of the crisis caused Tylenol sales to remain stable (Stevenson, 1992)
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 10
                Johnson & Johnson's final effort to restore public opinion in the
company and successfully put the event behind them involved paying a set amount
of money to the victims' families. The specific sum was not given but it was
stated that a certain portion of this money would go toward putting the victims'
children through college (Wilkerson, 1991). Even after all the
          tragedy, Johnson & Johnson emerged a hero and Tylenol remains a
household name.
                Greenberg & Shell (1993) recount a similar scare by Pepsi Cola.
Charges that syringes and other dangerous objects had been inserted in Pepsi
cans created quite a stir. The Pepsi Company decided not to recall the product,
an unusual move, until they were sure it had been tampered with. The public,
however, was not consoled by knowing that there was more than one specific
production location which made it unlikely that a national scam would take
place. The plant where it did occur was uncooperative, and the media hit upon
this and heightened the problem. The Pepsi Cola Company knew they had to quell
the public's fears in order to retain customer alliance (Greenberg & Shell,
1993).
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 11
                Pepsi's plan consisted of having one spokesperson, Craig E.
Weatherup, who spoke on "Larry King Live," "The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour," and
"Nightline."  Pepsi made a wise decision to rely on the respected Federal Drug
Administration's(FDA) advisement.  Pepsi did not respond right away but when
they did, it had a vast impact. For three consecutive days, Pepsi produced
separate Video News Releases(VNR's) which showed production procedures and
"supposed tampering."  These VNR's reached a vast audience of 365 million
viewers (Greenberg & Shell, 1993).  Adding to the public's relief was that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation pursued the case and arrested 20 people for
false claims (Greenberg & Shell, 1993). Pepsi, however, did not stop here. They
launched a very successful advertising campaign to help combat the problem. The
Pepsi Cola Company ran an ad in 12 national newspapers saying "Pepsi is pleased
to announce...nothing" (Greenberg & Shell, 1993). The ad went on to discuss how
allegations were untrue. Then, it proceeded to tell of Pepsi's upcoming plans.
                Pepsi Cola's vice president of public affairs, Rebecca Madeira said
"(a) crisis can only be in your control if you cooperate with the media, invite
them in, and furnish them with  Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 12
          facts. Your only defense when your company is on trial is to be a
participant in that trial" (Greenberg & Shell, 1993).
                As shown, crises occur in many different companies but it is the way
companies choose to respond that affects their future outcomes. It seems
reasonable to expect that this is also true in crises caused by the chief
executive officer's misdeeds.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 13
          Theoretical Rationale
                Herrero & Pratt (1995) suggest a theory for crisis management. They
believe that "image is perceptual reality" (Herrero & Pratt, 1995). Herrero &
Pratt do not specify what they mean by this statement but the researcher
interprets it to mean that what the public views the company as, they believe it
is. This can have both negative and positive connotations. For example, if the
public perceives that a company is not  responding to a crisis even if they are
taking drastic measures, the negative image that the company is unresponsive
will become "reality" to the public. In contrast, if the company conveys their
concern to the public, even while they are not concerned, the public will hold
the positive image of responsiveness as "reality" until otherwise learned. This
thought suggests that  companies have some degree of control over the outcome of
their crises. If a company presents a concerned and responsive image and follows
through with it, they may be "perceived" in a more positive light.
                In "How to Manage a Crisis Before-or Whenever-It Hits", the authors
state that many disasters have early warning signs and that it is the ignoring
of these signs that precipitate trouble.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 14
          For example, in the 1992 McDonald's incident the company knew the
coffee being served was too hot but failure to act on this created bad burns on
a woman's groin area and a $640,000 lawsuit. Similarly, Intel(1994) knew that
their computers contained an
          error-prone chip but did nothing about it until it was brought out in
the media(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
                Herrero and Pratt state that some crises can be avoided even before
they occur if a company plans properly and addresses potential problems early
on. This is labeled "crisis abortion." The problem becomes a full-blown cycle
once a crisis occurs. However, some crises (ie. natural disasters) are
inevitable and for this reason, a company should have a thought-out crisis
management plan ready to enact when situations occur. Herrero & Pratt assert
that long-term crisis communications are more effective than short-term
communications(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
                Herrero and Pratt suggest a four-phase crisis management model. The
model is based on two facets: every disaster has a formidable "life cycle," and
to evade negative press a company should participate in "socially responsible
activities"(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
                 Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 15
                The first phase is called issues management. In this stage, a company
evaluates and plans for any upcoming potential problems by looking at issues in
the community and the effects these issues have on the organization. For
example, McDonald's could have looked at customers' concerns of safety and
predicted what problems might occur on this issue. Also, the firm chooses a
communication strategy to thwart crises. This strategy's main goal is
crisis-prevention. This phase is important because "Long-term crisis
communication strategies deal with publics in a less
          volatile environment and attract little or no negative media coverage"
(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
                The next stage is planning-prevention. Having a proactive policy,
forming a crisis management team, designating a media spokesperson, and looking
at how one would implement a crisis plan are the steps in this stage. It is at
this point that companies identify impending problems and their possible
outcomes. In this stage, McDonald's could have paid more attention to the fact
that customers previously complained of too hot coffee (Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
They could have speculated that this may eventually cause a problem. Stages one
and two take a proactive stance (when the crisis is brewing) whereas stages
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 16
          three and four are often reactive (once the crisis has occurred)
(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
                Phase three is the actual crisis. This is where the lady received
groin burns -- the action itself. It becomes necessary to tell the public what
is presently being done to correct the problem, and thus, getting this message
out in a timely manner is imperative. Oftentimes, companies are too late and
public opinion is already decided (Herrero & Pratt, 1995). A company should
constantly be evaluating the crisis response. Organizations need to make sure
all audiences, internal and external, are receiving up-to-date information about
the corrective actions being taken(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
                The final stage in this ongoing process is the post-crisis.
          The firm must continue to regulate the concern and keep the media
aware of any new developments. Organizations can use the feedback they receive
to benefit them in the future. They ask questions such as "Was our plan
effective?" and "Did we get the message out clearly?" Also important is the
formation of long-term communications tactics to lesson the damage produced by
the incident. Herrero & Pratt declare that "the end of one crisis is usually the
beginning of another"(Herrero & Pratt, 1995).
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 17
                This model can be applied to a crisis involving a prominent person
identified with the company in a similar fashion. First, a company could look at
issues that might come up involving their chief executive officers. If the key
figures have had bad publicity in the past or sensitive subjects associated with
them, the company can address these issues and have the leaders engage in
"socially responsible activities." By looking at these issues in advance, the
company may be able to resolve a potential problem before it starts.
                Second, the company needs to have a proactive policy, a crisis
management team, a media spokesperson, and strategies ready for implementation
as previously discussed. This planning-prevention can be used in the same
fashion for crises caused by chief executive officers' misdeeds as those caused
by product problems.
                In the third stage, the company needs to inform both its internal and
external audiences what has occurred and what is going to happen to the key
figure. In crises dealing with
          leaders' misdeeds, it is still very important to be upfront with the
media and other audiences.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 18
                Lastly, a company could keep the public and internal audiences
informed of any new developments or actions taken by or against the key figure
in the future to show their concern.
                Herrero & Pratt's four-phase model of crisis management considers
many aspects and is very effective. The only thing that it does not consider is
the company's reputation before the onset of the crisis. An organization's
beginning reputation could have an effect on how the company is perceived during
and after the crisis. This study, however, will look only at prominent cases
where the company's reputations were good before the scandals. This study will
use Herrero & Pratt's theory to examine case studies to see what strategies of
the four-phase model the companies used and which they disregarded, to look at
the outcome of their crises and to derive conclusions.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 19
          Statement of Hypotheses and Methodology
                Herrero & Pratt suggested a four-phase crisis management model and
gave examples to illustrate it that dealt with problems associated with a
product. The general research question here is whether and how this crisis
management model also pertains to crises caused by the wrongdoing of the key
corporate figure.
                Specific research questions addressed here are: Are companies able to
regain their standing in the community and how is public opinion affected?  If
companies confronted with misdeeds of their key corporate figures employ Herrero
& Pratt's crisis management model, will they be successful?
                The emphasis of this study is two-fold. First, the researcher will
examine two cases in depth where key corporate figures were associated with a
company and engaged in wrongdoing: Michael Milken with Drexel Burnham Lambert,
Inc., and Leona Helmsley with Helmsley Corporation. The researcher will
scrutinize the prominent newspaper and magazine articles written during and
after their trials to see what actually happened and the results of their
actions. The researcher is, also, going to try to contact individuals who were
employed at the time of the
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 20
          crises and gain an inside perspective on what it was like, what
actions were taken, and how they feel the incidents affected the company.
                Second, the researcher will look to see if any of the steps in
Herrero & Pratt's model were used and if so, what kind of
          effect they had. Did the company have a crisis management policy ready
to enact? Did they respond to the crisis in time?
                The researcher will report the conclusions of what occurred and what
the outcomes were in the two case studies and will then interpret the findings
in an effort to develop some "how to" guidelines for future reference by
analyzing the data.
                The potential criticisms of this study are 1) limited number of case
studies, 2) the selection of the case studies, and 3) generalization of the
findings.
                The first question asked of the methodology might be "Why examine
only two case studies?" The researcher's response to this is that to really get
an understanding of what occurred, she will need to become an expert on the
cases and study them in great depth. Because of limited time, the researcher is
forced to choose between getting a general idea of several cases or focusing
intently on two cases. The researcher believes that
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 21
          focusing intently on two studies will yield far better results and
more accurate information.
                Another criticism of the methodology might be "Why were these two
cases chosen?" These cases were chosen for several reasons. First, they are
well-known and are familiar to many people. Second, both were very successful
companies that at one time had a great business and reputation going for them.
With everything else in place and a high standing before the incidents, one can
be sure that whatever effects and outcomes occurred were results of the misdeeds
and not other factors.
          Finally, both incidents occurred in the last decade, so they show
present thinking and mind set.
                Lastly, one may doubt that the findings of this study can be
generalized to other case studies.  However, all crises contain similar elements
and have repeatable patterns. Herrero & Pratt assert that certain stages exist
in crises. Also, the steps in the model if followed seem to yield consistently
better outcomes showing that crises are somewhat predictable in pattern and that
handling them in a particular fashion seems to yield more positive and stable
results. For this reason, the researcher asserts that the findings of this study
will be useful and
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 22
          applicable to other crises. The researcher understands that no two
circumstances are identical but feels that knowing how certain crises happened,
what actions occurred and what the results were will provide a substantial base
of knowledge for understanding and handling future crises.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 23
          Results
                Michael Milken, associated with Drexel Burnham Lambert, remains the
"biggest securities-fraud case in history" (Gotschall, 1991). Milken, described
as personable, self-effacing, and down-to-earth by one of his employees, was a
junk bond genius for Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. (Gotschall, 1991). Milken was
responsible for building up the company with his infamous junk bond (high yield
securities) investing. Valued at $13 billion at one time, he constructed a $200
billion market in junk bonds (Gotschall, 1991). "Milken helped raise billions of
dollars for upstart companies in the 1980's--including Turner Broadcasting, MCI
and Tele-Communications Inc.--that were struggling to get financing then but
have become multibillion-dollar leaders in their industries" (Abrahms, 1995).
                However, his investing was not above board. Milken was charged with
exploiting the industry through intricate partnerships making the market appear
"healthier" than it really was. He was also accused of misleading clients
(Bates, 1990).
                "He took insider-information and used it in the bond market," said
Daniel Scannel, financial consultant for Smith-
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 24
          Barney.  Scannel describes two kinds of bonds - "AAA" bonds, which
have the highest rating, and junk bonds, which are the lowest form of bonds and
explains that the bond market reacts opposite to the stock market.
                Scannel says that Milken found that junk bonds do comply with market
indicators, unlike "AAA" bonds and came up with the
          plan to use inside information to make money. He received information
indicators of when bonds were likely to drop. He would then sell them to
individuals and collect their money, but often these bonds would fail.  Milken
took a perfectly good system and tainted it with a breach of information
(Scannel, Thurs., March 7, 1996).
                Milken was charged with 98 criminal charges and chose to plead guilty
to six securities fraud violations (Mahr, 1990). In November of 1990, Milken was
sentenced to 10 years in prison and served two (Abrahms, 1995). He was
prohibited from ever working again in the securities industry and had to put in
many hours of community service (Paltrow, 1992). Milken has since paid over $600
million in restitution to the government and his victims (Bates, James, 1990).
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 25
                What kind of public relations did Milken choose to employ? First, he
decided to publish a coffee-table book explaining junk bonds with the help of
writers from Robinson Lake Public Relations Firm. They also arranged "snapshot"
photos of him with the underprivileged and handicapped children. Milken donated
more money to causes such as the Girl Scouts of America, the Jewish National
Fund, and the City University of New York (Gotschall, 1991).
                Despite public relations attempts, Milken and Drexel Burnham
Lambert's reputation could not be salvaged. How did the actions of one key
figure affect the company? The company has now disintegrated (Gotschall, 1991).
Milken has faced several civil
          lawsuits. Among these is a lawsuit by Columbia Savings & Loan for $1.5
billion (Bates, 1990).
                Scannel believes that Milken is currently a private advisor of hedge
funds to the wealthy, even though he has been banned from the industry. The
hedge funds are large funds, often hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. By
having Milken oversee these funds, rich individuals can get around some of the
Security Exchange Commissions'(SEC) regulations (Scannel,  Thurs., March 7,
1996).
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 26
                Perhaps one of the most famous examples of all times is Leona
Helmsley and Helmsley Corporation. In August of 1989, Helmsley was sentenced on
33 accounts of tax evasion and mail fraud. As copartner of Helmsley Hotels, she
wrote off many huge personal expenses as business items. Examples of such items
include "a $45,000 birthday present for Harry Helmsley, altered $3 million in
invoices for renovation work, and clothes which were recorded as uniforms"
(Jordan, 1989). Her copartner and husband was deemed incompetent to stand trial.
"Leona Helmsley and the defendants convicted in the federal case face more than
100 years in prison and a maximum of $7 million in fines" (Jordan, 1989).
                Helmsley was not the only one left with a damaged reputation. Due to
her scandal, her accountants' reputations were called into question (Scherer,
1989).
                The actions of Helmsley greatly affected the future of the real
estate property she was associated with. The real estate was
          in trouble before the scandal due to overpricing but after such
negative publicity, revenues plummeted and top executives resigned (Grant,
1989). The company is still in existence but the scandal had a significant
negative impact.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 27
                The researcher tried to contact individuals that were around and
involved in the companies at the time of the scandals to verify the happenings
and public relations strategies utilized. For Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., she
first called information in New York City, the previous location of company
headquarters, only to find that there was no longer a listing for this company.
She then called information in Washington, D.C. to try to track down Robinson
Lake Public Relations Firm, one of the major firms associated with Milken during
the scandal.  There were also no listings for this name. A few related names
were listed and the researcher contacted them to no avail - they were not
connected with Robinson Lake Public Relations Firm.
                As for contacts for Helmsley Corporation and Leona Helmsley, the
researcher called New York City information. Helmsley Corporation was not
listed, so she called the Helmsley Carlton Count Hotel and received the number
for Corporate Headquarters.  Upon calling corporate headquarters, she spoke with
one of the chief executive officers. When the researcher stated what she was
doing and asked for information, she was told that they could not release that
information and the only way to possibly attain it
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 28
          was to submit a written request to Leona Helmsley, herself, at their
headquarters (where she currently has an office) explaining
          the information sought as it could not be released without her
permission. After submitting a written request, it would then go before the
review board and the researcher would receive a response as to whether the
information could be released or not and what the content of information would
be. This process is time-consuming and due to the time constraints of the study,
this data could not be obtained. The researcher, however, was fascinated by the
high level of confidentiality regarding the information on the sentencing and
public relations strategies employed.
                How did Milken and Helmsley use public relations strategies as a
means for recovery? One can assess their actions using Herrero & Pratt's
four-phase crisis management plan.
                The articles looked at suggested that Milken was responsible for any
public relations strategies used rather than Drexel Burnham Lambert implementing
any. Milken did use long-term communications such as engaging in "socially
responsible activities" (snapshot photos with children and charity donations)
and increased these after public declaration of his misdeeds.
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 29
          However, the company probably did not anticipate a potential scandal
by one of its top employees.
                As for the second stage of planning-prevention, it does not seem that
the company had a policy ready for enactment. When the crisis actually hit
(stage 3), Milken did hire a public relations team, Robinson Lake Public
Relations Firm, to help him. He, also, decided to publish a book to let the
public know what the junk
          bonds were about but as of 1991, it still had not been published
(Gotschall, 1991). Drexel Burnham Lambert and Milken did little to inform the
public of what was being done.
                The fourth stage, or post-crisis, was virtually ignored by Drexel
Burnham Lambert and Milken. As for their handling of the crisis, it was
unsuccessful as evidenced by the disintegration of the company.
                The researcher was unable to find any public relations strategies
implemented by Drexel Burnham Lambert itself. It seems in this case study, had
the company been more involved, used Herrero & Pratt's model and kept the public
informed of what it was doing to correct the situation, the company would have
been much more successful and possibly still exist. The researcher feels that
their lack of action caused the organization's
           Chief Executive Officers Misdeeds 30
          downfall.     If they had used Herrero & Pratt's model, the organization
could have countered some of the negative press with positive actions and shown
remorse which could have possibly raised public opinion of the institution.
                In the Helmsley case study, the researcher was unable to find any
public relations strategies used. Strategies may have been used but if so, they
were not presented and publicly known. Not having any easily-visible strategies
was not effective. In this case study, it appears that using Herrero & Pratt's
model could conceivably have been helpful to reduce negative public opinion of
the company.
                Based on these two case studies, the hypothesis that key corporate
figures engaged in wrongdoing would greatly negatively affect the companies
associated with them was supported.  The hypothesis that companies that used
Herrero & Pratt's model would lesson the negative impact of the incident could
not be shown as the two companies did not use this model of crisis management.
One could infer slight support for the model due to the findings that the
corporations did not use the model and did not fare well but this information is
not substantial enough to derive a conclusion either way. In the future, the
researcher would
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 31
          suggest finding case studies that utilized this model before examining
them to provide a more accurate assessment.
                The researcher realizes the limitations of this study: Not being
around during the crisis, not being able to get the inside information on what
strategies were actually used, and not using case studies that clearly employed
Herrero & Pratt's model. She is basing her conclusions on the evidence presented
in the media and the unfavorable outcomes of the scandals. She feels that as in
any crisis, it is imperative to have a thought-out plan and that Herrero &
Pratt's model provides a good framework to follow.
 
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 32
          Discussion
                This study seems to suggest that having a public relations crisis
management plan is mandatory for companies and that not acting is not a viable
option amidst crises. Without these models and plans, it seems that
organizations are bound to flounder. This study seems to suggest that this not
only applies to crises caused by product-or event-based problems but also to
problems generated by key corporate figures' misdeeds. In the two case studies
presented, neither had an effective or complete plan and neither fared well. It
appears to the researcher that an effective plan could be the same as those used
for product-or event-based crises.
                This study also appears to show that the misdeeds of chief executive
officers do indeed have a profound negative effect on the companies they
represent. Drexel Burnham Lambert was not able to recover while Helmsley
Corporation did but with significant negative repercussions.
                This information is important to businesses as it suggests that
companies need to keep a close eye on the actions of their chief executive
officers and for possible scandals relating to
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 33
          them.  They can remember that key figures are not above scandal.
Companies can also promote the public opinion of their key figures by having
them engage in "socially responsible activities."  They might want to issue a
reasonable set of checks and balances on key corporate figures that will not
hurt employee morale and trust and could make these checks and balances
publicly-known. These actions should protect and build the reputation and public
opinion of companies and secure public trust.
                Public relations practitioners can use this information to make sure
that when they are faced with similar situations, they take action and do not
turn away from crises. They can go ahead and plan now for crises by constructing
a crisis management plan and assessing what they would do if a similar situation
occurred. They can also learn to address problems in an effective way. Looking
at these two case studies, they can ascertain what was not effective and,
therefore, learn from Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. and Helmsley Corporation's
mistakes.
                Policy makers might want to suggest that companies have a series of
checks and balances on their chief executive officers. Often, top executives do
not have to report to anybody and,
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 34
          therefore, can keep their actions more secretive than other employees.
Having an unobtrusive set of checks and balances may increase public trust and
ensure companies of a more secure reputation and less likely chance of crises
occurring pertaining to key figures' misdeeds. Requiring this might keep
businesses more above board in the future and would, in effect, have a favorable
effect on the public opinion of corporations.
                For future studies, the researcher would suggest that investigators
try to obtain the inside story of what happened behind closed doors of these two
companies. She would also suggest they look at a corporate scandal where Herrero
& Pratt's
          model was implemented to accurately assess its effectiveness. This was
the first study done on this topic so due to time constraints and lack of
background information from other studies, it was not possible but would be
useful in the future.
                A complete list of "how to" guidelines cannot be compiled through
this research but some can be suggested. First, companies should make sure that
they have a crisis management plan, regardless of which one they choose.
Second, companies need to respond during crises and not become passive observers
of their fate. Public opinion and crisis management is an interactive
           Chief Executive Officers' Misdeeds 35
          process.  Companies need to communicate with the public and media and
make their actions publicly-known. Lastly, companies need to keep a watch on
their key corporate figures because their actions will and do significantly
affect the company's stature. The researcher would suggest continued use of
Herrero & Pratt's model of crisis management based on the correlation that when
it was not used, the plans were not effective. This is not a definitive reason
to stick to it but the researcher feels that the model has been applied to
situations that were successful and continues to provide a good framework. More
research, however, is needed.
           Works Cited
          Abrahms, Doug. (1995, January 27). Milken's advising is probed by
        SEC. Washington Times, B7.
 
          Bates, James. (1990, December 13). Columbia savings sues Milken
                over junk bond sales. Los Angeles Times, D1.
 
          Gotschall, Mary. (1991). The machine behind Michael Milken.
                Regarding the business of Washington, 11, 58-64.
 
          Grant, Peter. (1989). After Leona: a bleak Helmsley-Spear future.
                Crains New York Business, 5, 1-2.
 
          Greenberg, Keith E. & Shell, Adam. (Aug. 1993). Pepsi's Big   Scare.
Public Relations Journal, 6-7, 13.
 
          Hearit, Keith M. (1994). Apologies and Public Relations
                Crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations
                Review, 20,(2), 113-125.
 
          Herrero, Alfonso G. & Pratt, Cornelius B. (1995). How to
                manage a crisis before-or whenever-it hits. Public Relations
                Quarterly, 40,(1), 25-9.
 
          Jordan, John. (1989). New York pursues Helmsley tax probe as
                Connecticut waits. The Westchester County Business Journal,
                21, 1-2.
 
          Mahar, Maggie. (1990). With a whimper, not a bang: Michael Milken
                is ready to plead guilty. Barron's, 70,(17), 12-3.
 
          Paltrow, Scot J. (1992, December 25). Milken to get work
                privileges. Los Angeles Times, D1.
 
          Scannel, Daniel. (1996, Thurs., March 7, 1:45 p.m.). Milken's         Crime
and Current Whereabouts. Telephone Interview, Winston-  Salem, N.C.
 
          Scherer, Ron. (1989). Accountants may face investigation.
                Christian Science Monitor, 81, 7-8.
 
          Stevenson, Richard W. (1992, June 17). Sear's Ducks, Then Tries
                to Cover. The New York Times, D1, D4.
          Works Cited 2
 
          Wilkerson, Isabel. (1991, May 14). Tylenol Maker Settles in   Tampering
Deaths. The New York Times,  B15.

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main AEJMC Page

Permalink



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager