Leadership in a Time of Crisis: Jim Tressel's Ousting from The Ohio State University

Introduction

Image repair¹ undeniably operates at the intersection of organizational leadership, conflict resolution, and conflict management. In times of crisis organizational leaders must identify, prioritize, and communicate with stakeholders. As Rawlins (2006) asserted, stakeholder prioritization, regardless of public relations task, is most often based on audiences’ legitimacy, power, and urgency. Research indicates that post-crisis audience prioritization can be particularly troubling for organizational leaders for a number of reasons. For example, Benoit (2014) warned:

Jerome’s (2008) case study of NASCAR driver Tony Stewart’s image repair campaign demonstrated the nuanced care that must be taken by organizational leaders to successfully respond to diverse audiences following a crisis. She observed that Home Depot’s (Stewart’s primary sponsor) decision to fine Stewart for his transgression, rather than suspend/fire him, before stakeholder reactions to the crisis could be accurately gauged, functioned to signal Home Depot’s derision with Stewart for stakeholders who felt some punishment was warranted while, at the same time, allowing it to avoid backlash from stakeholders who felt suspension/termination was not warranted.

While case studies do not produce generalizable results, Seeger (2006) argued that one may generate a list of best practices by generalizing “from other forms of communication” and extrapolating “from the now considerable body of largely case-based research in crisis communication” (p. 233-234). For example, he asserted that multiple case studies illustrate the value of communicating with honesty, candor, and openness in post-crisis messages. Likewise, Benoit (2014) concluded that lying is never an effective image repair strategy because, “if the truth emerges and the original accusations are shown to be true, the accused now has an additional problem” (p. 124).

Benoit (2014) illustrated the lessons that may be learned from case studies of image repair in five areas: sports/entertainment, corporate, political, international, and third party. The studies appearing in Blaney, Lippert, and Smith’s (2013) collection, Repairing the Athlete’s Image, also focus on the lessons that can be learned from image repair campaigns conducted in a sports context. However, most case studies done in this area focus on the image repair campaigns of individuals who have transgressed rather than on the, often simultaneous, campaigns undertaken by the organizations that the transgressor represents or with which he/she is associated. For example, when student-athletes/coaches violate NCAA rules, laws, and ethical mores, the colleges/universities that govern them often have to mount their own image repair campaigns. In doing so, the colleges/universities often face complex stakeholder dichotomies. When this occurs, the organization has to decide whether it should fine/suspend/terminate the, often beloved, coach or student-athlete(s) accused. Further, the organization must evaluate how its decisions may help/harm the institution’s image in the eyes of its fans and NCAA officials that often have differing opinions on the issue.

A few studies (e.g., Fortunato, 2008; Sisler, 2015) illuminate the value of inquiry that places primacy on the image repair campaigns of organizational leaders who are forced to mount image repair campaigns resulting from actions perpetrated by the athletes representing their organizations. However, additional studies are warranted. The current study examines the image repair campaign undertaken by the leadership of The Ohio State University (OSU) following its tattoos for memorabilia scandal. Further, it offers pragmatic considerations and recommendations for practitioners dealing with similar situational constraints.