Organizational Crisis. Part II: Strategies and Responses

Milburn, Thomas W.; Schüler, Randall S.; Watman, Kenneth H.

doi:10.1177/001872678303601206

Cited by 65 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternative remedies need to be considered, such as the establishment of a more effective regulator, or board of governors who oversea and assure compliance (Milburn et al 1983). Monitoring and surveillance offer a further external means of reducing the possibility of future misbehaviours (Milburn et al, 1983). However, as our analysis indicates, other strands are required to build trust, including greater attention by firms on customers' direct experiences, which in turn would enhance the third part endorsement of their competence and goodwill intentions of organizations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we bank on regulation or reputation? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector

Nienaber

Hofeditz

Searle

2014

International Journal of Bank Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we bank on regulation or reputation? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector

Nienaber

Hofeditz

Searle

2014

International Journal of Bank Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the most frequently cited propositions in the organizational literature is that, under stress, organizations undergo a 473 constriction in control, or a centralization of authority, so that control and decision making becomes concentrated in the higher levels of an organizational hierarchy (Holsti, 1971;Milburn, Schuler, & Watman, 1983;Smart & Vertinsky, 1977). Exploring organizational dynamics, Staw et al (1981) claimed that under such conditions, organizational control is increased, decisions of dominant members in the organization may prevail more readily, and the exercise of influence becomes more centralized.…”

Section: Stress and Group Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group decision making under stress.

Driskell¹,

Salas²

1991

Journal of Applied Psychology

216

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the processes by which task groups function is a major concern of social psychologists who study small groups. Equally important to the applied group researcher is the understanding of how group processes are altered by the external environment. Research suggests that organizations respond to stress with a centralization of authority so that decision making becomes concentrated in the higher levels of an organizational hierarchy. In this study, this hypothesis was extended to the small-group level of analysis, and the effects of stress on group status and decision making were examined. Experimental results clarify and delimit the centralization-of-authority hypothesis: Rather than centralizing authority and decision making under stress, group leaders and group members become more receptive to information provided by others. Implications for group decision making are discussed.Modern complex and high-risk technologies are inherently contradictory. On one hand, they greatly extend the range of human potential; for example, military anti-air warfare (AAW) systems allow military personnel to "see" aircraft at great distances. On the other hand, these systems also increase the potential for catastrophic error; in an AAW environment, the amount and complexity of information that must be processed in a short period of time once a target has been identified is enormous. We note several characteristics of these high-technology systems: (a) They pervade the aerospace, military, petrochemical, and nuclear industries; (b) they involve complex tasks that usually require interdependent or team performance; (c) during emergency or crisis conditions, operators have to make critical decisions under extreme stress; and (d) operator error is usually cited as a primary cause of system failure (see Perrow, 1984). Thus, although the necessity for effective performance under stress has been present since our ancestors were first chased with a club, it is likely that modern systems have both increased the stress under which humans must perform, as well as the consequences of poor performance.The deleterious effects of stress on human performance are well documented and have been a focus of research in the social and behavioral sciences for a number of years. Numerous studies have demonstrated cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses to stress at the individual level (Harris, 1981;Keinan, 1987;Taylor, Buunk, & Aspinwall, 1990). Considerably less is known about the effects of stress on group performance. This is particularly surprising for several reasons. First, the complexity and scope of modern-day tasks often require group efforts (see

show abstract

“…Finally, this work responds to Roux‐Dufort's () call for further consideration of the conceptual ties between the theory of crisis to organizational science. Traditional thinking in crisis management views crisis as an exceptional event, generating alternative behaviours (Milburn, Schuler, & Watman, ; Milburn et al., ) and coordination patterns (Smart & Vertinsky, , ). However, our work suggests that, whether a crisis is present or not, individuals remain both performers and spectators in the organizational arena.…”

Section: Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, settling a commonly shared picture of the crisis situation can be difficult to achieve. Informational gaps are likely to occur, generating enough confusion to obstacle crisis response (Billings, Milburn, & Schaalman, ; Milburn, Schuler, & Watman, ; Weick, ,; Weick & Sutcliffe, ). In addition, sharing a common interpretation of the situation can suffer from crisis responders' emotional state, distractions and conflicts (Ren et al., ), or can lead to cultural entrapment (Weick & Sutcliffe, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Performativity to Crisis Management Theory: An Illustration from the 2003 French Heat Wave Crisis Response

Adrot

Moriceau

2013

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWhile current crisis management literature focuses on the necessity of consistent data and shared interpretation to coordinate effectively, contrastingly, this paper highlights the predominating influence of crisis responders' performances on information transmission. Based on an exploratory interpretive analysis of the 2003 French heat wave crisis response, our findings reveal that performances can support immediate reaction and involvement, but can also generate conflicts or misunderstandings that may burden coordination. This work's contribution to the crisis management literature is in threefold. First, we enrich the crisis management literature by proposing performativity as a potential analytical lens for collective action during crisis response. Second, we propose some practical recommendations to improve crisis management training through the application of the concept of performativity. Finally, we propose a critical perspective on tacitly held assumptions in crisis management

show abstract

Organizational Crisis. Part II: Strategies and Responses

Cited by 65 publications

References 15 publications

Do we bank on regulation or reputation? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector

Do we bank on regulation or reputation? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector

Group decision making under stress.

Introducing Performativity to Crisis Management Theory: An Illustration from the 2003 French Heat Wave Crisis Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About