Penn State Scandal

The Penn State scandal involved the school's assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, who was accused of child sex abuse of eight young boys over a fifteen-year period (CNN, 2020). A grand jury report showed that officials at Penn State were aware of some of these incidents and had failed to report to the relevant authorities. During the hearing, the number of confirmed victims rose to ten (CNN, 2020). Sandusky claimed that he was innocent, and the only wrong he did was showering with the students. He was convicted of 45 out of 48 counts of sexual abuse, while the school fired Joe Paterno and president Graham Spanier (CNN, 2020). The school's athletic director and vice president stepped down from their posts as they were accused of perjury and failing to report the incidents of suspected child abuse.

Throughout the incidents and school scandal, the school administrators filed to act as trust builders. Trust builders have distinct characteristics that set them apart from trust destroyers. As trust builders, the school administrators should have upheld integrity by showcasing conscientiousness, professionalism, and honesty. They should have come out and addressed the issue with Sandusky with utmost honesty rather than testifying that they were unaware of its occurrence (CNN, 2020). They should have showcased competence by addressing the scandal head. They, however, refused to address the issue, thus letting the media fashion the narrative of the crises they were experiencing (CNN, 2020). Additionally, they should have demonstrated empathy for the affected individuals. They should have by showed their workers and students that they understand their emotions and problems. Once the issues were presented to them, they should have dealt with Sandusky but left him to continue having access to the school and football facilities even after they were made aware of the first report (CNN, 2020). Finally, the administrators failed at being dependable as they broke the employees' trust and student's trust. They were made aware of the issue but failed to launch investigations into the matter as soon as it was made known to them.

The administrators would have managed and communicated the crises differently as compared to how they handled the scandal. Since the scandal erupted, the school made numerous unwise decisions in countering the crisis. They had refused to address the media the entire time the crisis was ongoing (CNN, 2020). They should have made their position on the scandal known to ensure the public was not left speculating. The school could have opened up a two-way communication channel on its social media to answer their audience's questions. They unfortunately, they refused to respond to the comments, thus staying silent the entire time (CNN, 2020). They should have also put up a social media crisis team to manage the questions that were flooding their channels. This would have ensured that they answered the questions, thus facilitating open two-way communication on their social media platforms (Bundy et al., 2017). Moreover, the school should have taken the scandal as a chance to empower their employees. Social media staff should have been sensitized on what to say and which social media platforms they should engage in. This would have ensured that the narrative that was spreading across the country about the school was managed, thus averting the consequences of the scandal (Bundy et al., 2017). Unfortunately, their decision to remain quiet resulted in them repairing the damages done to their reputation in the following years.

Pen State was involved in a major scandal that left them with a costly task of repairing their reputation. The school's assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, was accused of child sex abuse and was convicted of 45 out of 48 counts of sexual abuse. A grand jury report showed that officials at Penn State were aware of some of these incidents and had failed to report to the relevant authorities. The school administrators at Penn State failed at being trust builders since they did not display integrity, empathy, competence, and dependability when dealing with Sandusky and the employees and students who were affected by the scandal. By refusing to address the issue, the school let the public and social media create a narrative that affected Penn State's reputation. The school should have empowered its social media respondents on how to address the issue to facilitate open two-way communication to manage the crisis.

References 

Bundy, J., Pfarrer, M. D., Short, C. E., & Coombs, W. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661-1692 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206316680030 

CNN. (2020). Penn State scandal fast facts. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/28/us/penn-state-scandal-fast-facts/index.html