Executive OverviewFor the tirst time in history, human-induced crises have the potential to rival natural disasters in both scope and magnitude. The financial cosfs of some crises have exceeded one billion dollars; the devastation wrought by these crises has included loss oi hundreds of human lives as well as immeasurable damage to future generations and to the environment. For instance, major crises such as Chernobyl and Exxon Valdez, as well as the oil spills and fires during the Gulf war, affected large regions of the globe. Previously, such effects could only have been wrought by natural disasters.This article seeks to explain how organizations may actually contribute to their own crises, as well as what can be done to avert human-induced disasters, and to manage those that still occur. A framework is provided for executives interested in improving their organizations' crisis preparedness. First, we consider how to defermine those crises for which a company should prepare. Next, the phases of a crisis are described followed by a description of the organizational systems which affect and are affected by it. Stakeholders' roles in the management of a crisis are discussed. The article concludes with implications for managers and executives interested in taking action. ArticleTylenol Chernobyl, Bhopal, the Space Shuttle Challenger, and Exxon Valdez. These human-induced disasters have become household words. The brand name Tylenol became synonymous with producf tampering on a nationwide scale when cyanide was heinously injecfed into pain capsules; Chernobyl-the explosion of a Soviet nuclear reactor-with the hazards associated wifh nuclear power, and as a result, a threat to the existence of the worldwide nuclear industry; Bhopal-the explosion of a pesticides manufacturing plant in India owned and operated by Union Carbide-with the hazards associated with modern chemical technology; the Space Shuttle Challenger-the loss of seven astronauts-with the dangers inherent not only in technology but also in the management of technology; Exxon Valdez-the devastation of one of the world's most pristine and sensitive ecosystems-with the danger associated with operating colossal technology. The list goes on and on. Every day seems to bring news of another crisis.The potential for large scale, human-induced crises is virtually built into the fabric of our times.' In many cases, the potential negative effects of technology exceed the ability of our organizations and management structures to control them. Indeed, there is evidence which indicates that each of the dramatic cases cited earlier could have been prevented if human operators and their managers had been crisis prepared, that is, equipped to anticipate, respond to, and learn from their crisis experiences.Ĉ ritical differences exist between human-induced and natural disasters. The public generally reacts more negatively to the effects of human-induced crises than to natural disasters. It is conceded that organizations have little control over natural catastrophes. Human-i...

This article provides a conceptual framework for understanding industrial crises. These crises are organizationally-based disasters which cause extensive damage and social disruption, involve multiple stakeholders, and unfold through complex technological, organizational and social processes. The characteristics of industrial crises are illustrated through a comparison of three diverse crisesthe Bhopal disaster, the Tylenol poisonings, and the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. Relationships among these characteristics are presented in a model of industrial crisis. Some issues for further research are identified. UNDERSTANDING INDUSTRIAL CRISESPrivate corporations and public organizations are facing a new class of strategic problems caused by the harmful effects of their own activities or the effects of environmental forces on their activities. Some of these problems are serious enough to assume crisis proportions for society, and threaten the very survival of implicated organizations. Understanding and coping with such industrial crises is a challenge facing organizational researchers and practitioners alike.A key objective of organizational theory and management sciences has been to understand the behaviour of organizations and to discover technically efficient ways of organizing. Some researchers have also focused on management of organization-environment relationships for achieving organizations' long-term objectives (Pfeffer, 1982;Schendel and Hofer, 1979). This research predominantly focuses on improving financial performance, productivity and technological efficiency. Unfortunately, it ignores the hm&l effects of organizational activities (Keeley, 1984).

An information system consists of, at least, a PERSON of a certain PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE who faces a PROBLEM within some ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT for which he needs EVIDENCE to arrive at a solution, where the evidence is made available through some MODE OF PRESENTATION. This defines the key variables comprising a Management Information System (MIS). It is argued that most research and development to date on MIS has assumed only one underlying psychological type, one class of problem types, one or two methods of generating evidence, and, finally, one mode of presentation. Other states are suggested for all these key variables. The result is the outline of a systematic research program on MIS.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. This paper describes a three and a half year study conducted over the course of the Apollo lunar missions with forty-two of the most prestigious scientists who studied the lunar rocks. The paper supports the Merton-E. Barber concept of sociological ambivalence, that social institutions reflect potentially conflicting sets of norms. The paper offers a set of counter-norms for science, arguing that if the norm of universalism is rooted in the impersonal character of science, an opposing counter-norm is rooted in the personal character of science. The paper also argues that not only is sociological ambivalence a characteristic of science, but it seems necessary for the existence and ultimate rationality of science.