Organizational crisis is the key argument from both a scholarly and a practitioner-oriented point of view. Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2008) argue that, failures are part of the organization, and that financially stable organizations have most efficient ways of handling crises. From a practitioner-oriented point of view, one could learn the difficulties in the comparison of the crisis experience to crisis-preparedness. It is easy to plan and prepare for crisis from a scholarly standpoint, but about practitioner-oriented view, there are many difficulties toward translating theories into practice (McConnell & Drennan, 2006).
Scholarly approach to crisis management get basis on the analytical approach that identifies the weakness in the organization management (Paraskevas, 2006). Practitioner-oriented point of view is applicable to managers towards designing an effective organization crisis response system that has a good theoretical foundation.
Organizational crises are due to lack of integration of different disciplines within the organization. Scholars should study different crises within organizations and management ways, especially through system approach. Practitioners learn the importance of integrating psychological, social-political, and technological-structural issues toward management of crises (Pearson & Clair, 1998).
Weick (1988) advocates sensemaking toward interpretations of crises within an organization. The scholarly view gets basis for the identification of the relationship of enactment perspective to crisis literature. Enacted perspective result in the creation of opportunities, constraints, and structures within the organization that imposes severe demand on sensemaking. Sensemaking is a motivated assessment that validates reasoning. Additionally, scholars learn the demands required in sensmaking. All practitioners in an organization should have a commitment, capacity, and expectations toward minimizing the organizational crises (Weick, 1988).
Learning from other companies’ failures, the management team of the organization adopts effective approaches of handling an organizational crisis (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). Managers have new insights because they have a range of options to implement toward an efficient method of handling crises. Additionally, scholars have an opportunity of experimenting whether the new techniques of handling crisis are efficient in different organizations.
Crises preparedness is a major challenge in organizations, and many managers assume it. Managers assume crises preparedness due to the high demand on organizational resources toward handling crises that have a very low probability event. New insights are the creation of networks across organizations and robust training on crisis preparedness (McConnell & Drennan, 2006). Paraskevas (2006) assumes that the complexity-informed framework works in all organizational crises. Organizational crises are unique, and they are not living systems in the company (Paraskevas, 2006). The new insights for practice and scholarship are on implementation of the practical aspects of crisis management and data collection of complexity perspective theory towards crisis response.
The underlying assumption evident in Pearson and Clair (1998) is the ease of integrating different disciplines towards crisis management. Additionally, the assumption that the top management team often influences company’s mechanism of action, results in a vicious circle of poor management leading in lowering the company’s turnover. Practitioners and scholars have new insight to crisis management through identification of ways of averting organizational crises. Other insightful ways of the managing crisis are education about stress as an early intervention remedy.
Weick (1988) assumes that enactment perspective will create visible assertions that will serve as expectations of what will happen in the future. New insight for practice will involve the use of social concept in identification of elements that may cause organizational crises. Human action causes organization crisis. Crises occur when technologies are non-routine, complex, not understood, and highly interactive. Weick (1988) challenges practitioners on discussion of potential crisis that may occur in the future in order to prevent problems from escalating. Scholarships will emerge toward production of significant meaning of the plausible map on crisis management.
The map will involve prevention of human errors through increase in understanding of human actions that lead in smart management of crisis. Moreover, scholarships will increase skill levels, awareness, commitment, and appreciation of small intervention methods toward crisis management (Weick, 1988).
Experimental analysis on new technologies gives an encouragement to the managers who experience series of failure in the management position. The managers develop technologies that significantly create preparedness for similar prospective crisis (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). McConnell and Drennan (2006) argue that, crisis preparedness is a “mission impossible”; because the cost of crisis-preparedness activities do not reflect the operational realities.
According to Paraskevas (2006), only complex organizations handle crises through categorizing managerial teams. Pearson and Clair (1998) give an array of organizational crises which get viewed from the perspective of management research.
Weick (1988) argues that, sensemaking helps in crises prevention and management. Many organizational management teams face the challenge of the creation of a new problem after solving the current problem. Creation of a new problem prolongs the crisis within the organization, and generates blind spots that affect the competitive advantage of the company. Weick (1988) uses the example of leaking gas in a petroleum company that may cause massive damage such as fire. The experience of fire helps in solving assumptions within the organization, and reduction of complexities as a smart corrective action (Weick, 1988).
References
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2008). Organisational crisis-preparedness: The importance of learning from failures. Long Range Planning, 41(2), 177-196.
McConnell, A., & Drennan, L. (2006). Mission Impossible? Planning and Preparing for Crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis management, 14(2), 59-70.
Paraskevas, A. (2006). Crisis management or crisis response system?: A complexity science approach to organizational crises. Management Decision, 44(7), 892-907.
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of management review, 23(1), 59-76.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. Journal of management studies, 25(4), 305-317.