Internal processes, if not effective, can really affect public perception
I am a Formula 1 fan, and have been for some time. The reason being is the Netflix show ‘Drive to Survive’ and it has just returned for its seventh season. The return raises the issue of last year's scandal surrounding Red Bull.
The subject is covered in one of the episodes, but yet again it is unclear as to what actually happened. The problem here for me is this: there were allegations of inappropriate behavior brought, resulting in an ensuing media circus. Speculation was rife as to what had occurred. Very little, if any, was confirmed by the parties concerned and the wider public were told that an internal inquiry into the matter would be held.
The trouble is, the ‘noise’ around the matter was never effectively dealt with, and further suggestions were made about NDAs, and a whole raft of other suggestions. I must point out at this juncture that none of the aforementioned were confirmed and as such remain conjecture.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the matter is still being talked about and there is still a great deal of speculation as to what actually happened. The public had been informed that the matter had been investigated and resolved internally. However, due to a lack of transparency on the matter and a non-joined-up approach, the issue is still a hot topic.
As with all F1 fans, I am unaware of the actual details of the events and I am wholly aware that there is a human element involved here and the potential that people may well have been harmed by the whole episode on all sides.
Prevention of harm to employees is, and should always be, a priority of businesses in respect of their employees; but that doesn't stop when the matter is raised. It should continue through the investigation process, through to the aftercare, once a matter has been resolved, internally or not.
When the business concerned is such a public-facing one, one that flourishes under spectator engagement, there is a need to effectively support those who are in public view.
Being clear and honest about the matter reduces the amount of speculation. It reduces the need for those involved to constantly answer questions on the issue and enables them to return to their ‘day job’ and some semblance of a ‘normal life’.
However, in this instance, it would, on the face of it, appear that the internal processes may have reached a viable resolution. Despite this, the wider understanding of the matter is not so transparent. Doubts and speculation remain on the topic, whispers continue and public confidence in the processes and culture of such a well-known sporting giant are still open to speculation.
Failure to deal with matters effectively, internally and publicly, can have lasting ramifications for all involved. Effectively mitigating this does not have to be challenging, with the right support, training and advice from specialists in the area.
Truly and honestly, rebuilding after such an episode is challenging. It requires expertise, empathy, honesty and a desire to ensure positive change for all concerned going forward.
