Crisis Management: Lessons to Consider in Crisis Action Planning

Emerging from Crisis Management – Lessons from Mitroff
Author’s Name
The Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor Name
Assignment Due Date
Emerging from Crisis Management – Lessons from Mitroff
Introduction
Crisis management became a fundamental focus of organizations and their strategies. Organizational management stressed dealing with uncertainties emerging continuously in the business environment. The unaddressed situations convert into a crisis for organizations, which become difficult to overcome in the long run. By definition, crisis management is an event that leads to a potential risk of failure or discontinuity of operations in the long-term planning of an organization (Max, 2020). This report aims to investigate the fundamental role of contemporary organizational structures in overcoming the crisis effectively compared to the traditional organizational structures. The paper will take lessons and outcomes that Mitroff (2005) investigated to align the overall discussion accordingly.
Discussion
Lessons from Historical Crisis Management Scenarios
Traditional crisis management processes had different challenges that influenced the long-term decision-making of organizations. One of the cases discussed by Mitroff (2005) is Rural Books (RB). The case scenario identified two fundamental gaps in traditional crisis management planning. First, the traditional management failed to think out of the box. For instance, RB could respond to the crisis by adding food safety labels in the packaging to inform the audience before consumption. Besides, the management could overcome the challenge by highlighting the incident as accidental and unintentional (Mitroff, 2005). Unfortunately, Mary Douglas, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of RB, could not think of the possible alternatives to address the crisis. The incident indicated that RB’s management team is incompetent and untrained for crisis management since traditional organizational structures do not offer proper training to employees.
The second case discussed by Mitroff (2005) is the failed assumptions in Oklahoma City. The scenario argued that traditional management structure does not form assumptions based on two-sided realities. Instead, the assumptions for managing crisis are more likely to take grounds on moral values, which could differ for individuals. For instance, “assuming that taking the lives of innocent citizens is unthinkable” is an unrealistic hypothesis proposed by the Oklahoma management while overcoming a crisis (Mitroff, 2005). Hence, contemporary management is strong in assuming more realistic and acceptable possibilities to evaluate crisis probability. Precisely, traditional organizations were incompetent and weak in managing crises.
Difference between Crisis Management, Risk Management, and Continuity of Operations
Organizations encounter three fundamental concepts while operating in an uncertain business environment. First, crisis management refers to the sudden occurrence of an event that leads to potential failure. The crisis is an unexpected and unplanned event, which has no prior planning for businesses to manage after occurrence (Mitroff, 2005).
On the contrary, risk management refers to the event not incurred in the business environment. However, businesses take contingency measures to address the challenge by forming strategies to overcome the occurrence. In most instances, businesses expand risk appetite to deal with potentially harmful situations (Mitroff, 2005).
Lastly, the continuity of operations (COOP) refers to organizations’ functions during disruptions. Crisis and risks could disrupt operations for organizations. In some instances, the events could cause a malfunction for the process controls, making organizations vulnerable to the situations (Mitroff, 2005). Hence, the COOP comprises functions that would not get under the influence of risk events or crises.
Arguably, the fundamental difference is the occurrence of an event for organizations. The management must understand the timeline of an event as an essential element to determine the sensitivity and respond through appropriate strategy in the long run. A misunderstanding between crisis management, risk management, and COOP could lead to functional failures or market elimination.
Four Distinct Styles of Thinking
Tough Minded – The thinking style focuses on perfection while making decisions; such individuals are more likely to make rational decisions based on clarity and facts while creating logic (Mitroff, 2005). Tough-minded would make rational assumptions during a crisis, which is essential for organizations to create a long-term strategy.
Tender Minded – The thinking style focuses on moral values and leader-member exchange (LMX) while making crisis management decisions. Tender-minded people are more people-oriented than result-oriented while addressing crises (Mitroff, 2005). Such individuals are essential for organizations to retain talent during a crisis, which is essential to function in the long run.
Grounded Earthbound (GEB) – GEB balances the thinking style with tender-minded individuals. GEB would value people and arrange rational protocols to accomplish results. The people would accomplish pooled results for the organization while valuing humanity in making strategic decisions (Mitroff, 2005). Personally, GEB is a contemporary approach for managing crises while preventing attrition in the organization.