5 Keys to Crisis Management: A CEO’s Perspective

“One of the biggest mistakes people make in a crisis is that they jump to conclusions too quickly,” says Lee Fisher, dean of Cleveland State University College of Law.

Fisher knows a thing or two about crisis situations, having spent most of his career in the public eye, including as state senator, lieutenant governor, nonprofit CEO and attorney general.

In the summer of 2020, he was at the center of a storm again. A few months after the murder of George Floyd by police, students and alumni petitioned him to change the school’s name. Then known as Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, its namesake, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, was not just a preeminent jurist, but also a lifelong slave owner.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Fisher about the issue and to get his perspective as a leader on handling a crisis. Here are the key steps he follows:

1. Define the problem.

At first blush, it might appear that the problem was whether the school should change its name. But actually, Fisher says, “The real issue before me was, ‘How do I respond to the petition?’” 

By slowing down, he was able to clarify the matter and avoid going down a rabbit hole chasing the wrong problem: “I’m far more focused on making the right decision instead of a fast decision.”

2. Gather the decision-makers.

“Rarely should you make a difficult decision alone,” Fisher warns. “So getting the right people in the room ‘where it happens’ is crucial.” 

That means seeking the counsel of trusted advisors in the early moments of a crisis, as well as reaching out to interested communities as the issue proceeds.

3. Determine the criteria for decision-making.

“You can’t choose among options unless you have criteria for evaluating those options,” Fisher says. And that comes from your core values or the organization’s guiding values.

“We decided to approach it the same way we teach our students to approach legal issues: Gather the evidence, listen to the facts, look at all sides.”

4. Gather the information.

Early on Fisher was deluged with feedback, from students demanding the name change to alumni declaring it was “cancel culture” and “political correctness at its worst.” One major donor threatened to withhold a $1 million gift to the school.

Fisher assembled a task force of experts advocating both sides of the issue. Over 18 months, they held public forums, compiled a lengthy report, and conducted a survey of students, faculty, alumni, staff and community leaders. 

One big surprise: The data revealed that 60 percent of students supported the name change. “I was shocked,” Fisher says. Based on the outcry and the media coverage, he felt it would have been closer to 90 percent.

5. Weigh the options.

“Another big mistake people make in a crisis is they immediately narrow down their options to just two possible solutions,” Fisher says. In this case, change the school’s name or not? “Taking a binary approach to decision-making may help you come up with an answer, but it’s not necessarily the best answer.” Fisher recommends coming up with a number of options — “at least three” — which led him to seeking community input.

Throughout the process, Fisher remained publicly neutral until presenting the findings to the Board of Trustees, where he recommended changing the name. 

“It’s not about erasing history,” he argued. “From a constitutional standpoint, Marshall’s landmark judicial decisions should be taught, and that will never change. But as someone who bought and sold over 100 slaves, is he worthy of having our law school named after him, given our current-day values? No.”

In the end, the name was indeed changed. And, Fisher believes, even those who disagreed respected the deliberative process that was followed.

As for the donor who promised to withhold the million-dollar contribution? He kept his word. Still, Fisher says, “the ultimate decision — and, importantly, how we arrived at it — was absolutely the right thing to do.”