Crisis management strategies and implementation

Managing a Crisis

When a business faces a crisis, the leaders of that business often struggle to know what to do. Generally, that comes about because of a lack of planning. If leaders are not familiar with rules and procedures, lines of authority, and the channels of communication during the best of times, those deficiencies will be magnified when there is a crisis taking place. Fortunately, there are strategies for crisis management, including strategies that work for technological crisis and problems with it management (Barton, 2007). Crisis management is not the same as risk management. The management of risk involves the assessment of threats and finding the best way to address those threats. The management of a crisis, however, involved dealing with threats after they have already taken place or while they are occurring (Barton, 2007). Naturally, what is required for this type of management is much different than what is required for the management of risk, where plans for what could happen are addressed but there is really nothing about which to be worried at that particular time.

Crises can include technological problems, natural disasters, organizational misdeeds, man-made or terrorist disasters, workplace violence, rumors, malevolence, and confrontation (Dezenhall & Weber, 2007). Some are much easier to address than others, and some can be "small" crises, while others are much larger and can even be catastrophic. When it comes to information systems, technological crises are some of the more worrisome and some of the more common. These kinds of issues generally occur because technology is becoming more complex, and when one thing goes wrong, many things can go wrong in a "chain reaction." Human error can be the cause of this reaction, but there are times when technology just fails without warning, and without anyone doing anything to cause it (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seegar, 2006). Software and hardware can both fail, and the actual damage caused overall will depend on what systems were operated by that hardware and software, because technological problems can be much more than just a nuisance for people who suddenly cannot access their email.

Companies that want to protect themselves as much as possible should consider following the crisis management model. There are three specific phases to this model, including diagnosing the impending crisis or spotting the danger signals, choosing a turnaround strategy that is appropriate, and implementing and monitoring the process of change (Dezenhall & Weber, 2007). Management crisis planning looks at the best ways in which a company can respond to a crisis. While no company wants to go through a crisis, how that crisis is handled by the company can seriously affect the scrutiny by the public and the overall damage that is done (Barton, 2007). Even a large crisis can have little damage if it is reacted to quickly and appropriate. Conversely, a "smoldering crisis," or one that grows slowly and becomes a serious problem because nothing it done about it, can create a large amount of damage in a short period of time, even if the original problem was one that could have easily been addressed.

Contingency planning is one of the first things that can be done in order to be better prepared for the management of a crisis (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seegar, 2006). By using this type of planning, any company can simulate what would take place in a crisis, and can determine what would be done if it were to actually occur. The old adage of "practice makes perfect" may seem very cliche, but there is some truth to the statement. Even though no company wants or expects to have a crisis in it or technology, the companies that are truly prepared for just about every eventuality will be the companies that have the smallest amount of damage based on the significance of the crisis that takes place (Dezenhall & Weber, 2007). A contingency plan has to stipulate who will perform what activities, so that there is no confusion about that issue during a crisis. This is especially true with a spokesperson, because there should only be one person who is designated to speak for the company and who will provide information to the public.

Continuity planning is also very important for any business that uses technology to a significant degree. If there is a crisis, how will that business access important information? That is a question that must be answered individually by each business, and businesses that cannot answer that question can experience serious repercussions when something goes wrong and the business is no longer sure how to access information in order to keep moving forward. If all of that information is actually lost or destroyed, much of the ability of the business to survive will also be lost (Barton, 2007). That is something that should certainly be avoided, but that a company should not ignore. Assumption is a very dangerous thing when it comes to the idea that nothing will go wrong with a business or its technology in the future. When people assume that everything will be fine, they often find out the hard way that is not the case. For a business, that can be highly devastating.