CRISIS MANAGEMENT

 

Your assignment must be:

• A thoughtful, detailed analysis of an actual crisis that really happened
• Approximately 2,500 words in length
  oWordcountdoesnotinclude bibliography orappendices

o Pleaseensureyouput thewordcountonyourpaper

• Word processed, spell-and grammar checked
• Properly referenced with accurate citations and a bibliography

o Atleast 15 originalreferencesfoundonyourown

• Three theoretical frameworks have been properly applied in a thoughtful
• detailed manner that furthers the analysis in an interesting and innovative way—not just name dropped in! that isdiscussed in class
• Written in accordance with the framework provided below

Failure to follow these instructions will result in a reduced mark.

Final Paper Topic

 

• Pick case that you have some familiarity with
• Pick a case that really happen before
• Pick case that has ample, reliable material
  • Parliamentary inquiry, accident investigation, etc.
• Avoid reporting ‘What happened’ in lengthy paragraphs
  • Instead analyse ‘Why’ this crisis occurred,
  • Describe ‘How’ it came to occur
  • Why people didn’t notice or stop it [Covert problem]

 

 

Your paper MUST FOLLOWthe following format:

Introduction

Provide a very brief overview of your case (where, when, what happened)

Explain which theoretical construct* you will be applying and why

1. 1. Pre-Conditions

Crises rarely occur ‘out of the blue’, instead there are usually several warning signs. Discuss the warning signs and why people did not respond adequately in your particular crisis case.

1. 1. Trigger—Only pick one!

Discuss the point in time that the crisis kicked-off—how, when, why?

1. 1. Crisis

Discuss how, when and why the crisis escalated to produce the greatest

damage

1. 1. Post-Crisis

Discuss what happened after the acute phase was over
What were the lessons learned to prevent a future crisis event—were they ‘learned’ or ignored post-crisis?

Summary

Consider all phases of your analysis. In sum, what should we have learned from your paper’s analysis and how did the theoretical framework you selected help us understand this crisis better.

*Theoretical constructs could be, for example, Team Resource Management (ie green sheet); Normal Accidents; Naturalistic Decision Making; Human Error; Predictable Surprises; Drift Towards Failure; Critical period; Incubation period; Social defenses; Team learning; Groupthink; Destructive pursuit of idealized goals;

 

Skill 1.

Proper selection of a crisis case study.

• The case study must be a real incident that actually happened.
• The case can be a:
  • Positive example of a well-managed crisis, for example, Tylenol or US Airways Hudson River landing [Although these examples are not available since it was covered in class and the textbook].
  • Most likely, the case selected is a bad example or a case of some sort of organizational failure from a changing situation that was not well- managed and resulted in some sort of crisis [ie bankruptcy, accident, fatalities, etc]
• The paper cannot be based on a case discussed in class &/or on the list of unauthorized topics. [See Canvas for list]

Skill 2.

• Proper application of the 4 stages of the ‘Lifecycle of Crisis’ framework:
• Subheadings MUST be listed exactly as directed in handout
• Only ONE trigger is acceptable: Trigger should not blame individuals [ie

operator error] but rather focus on a systemic tipping point that put the

‘accident waiting to happen’ into motion.

• As such, the trigger is NOT the crash, bankruptcy, fatalities, hurricane,

earthquake, etc. That should be discussed as part of the preconditions or crisis itself.

Skill 3 Proper application of at least one theory—proper application of 2 or 3 is exceptional—IF DONE CORRECTLY. Name dropping in several theories without fully integrating and applying them in the analysis in a thoughtful way will NOT BE REWARDED WITH A HIGHER MARK.

 

Students will excel by following guidance provided, selecting an innovative case, reflecting deeply about it using theoretical constructs provided in class, and analysing the case in an interesting and novel manner within the framework assigned. The framework provides the structure within which you can creatively analyse your crisis and make your case.

 

 

 

Mark Range	Explanatory Comments
Fail	Papers will fail if the case selected: Is listed on the unauthorized list Does not clearly apply the ‘Life Cycle of Crisis’ framework Does not identify a theory discussed in class to be used in analysis
40-50	In order to pass, paper must: Analyze in a thoughtful manner—not just report—the details of a crisis case [ie case that really happened] Clearly apply the 4 stages of the Lifecycle of Crisis framework Clearly identify and explain ONE trigger as the case tipping point Identify one theory to analyze case [Although theory may not be applied exactly right to earn a minimum pass]. Trigger must not blame individuals [ie operator error] but rather identify systemic factors that set crisis in motion [ie accident waiting to happen] Papers may lose points if: o All directions are not properly followed o There are spelling, grammar, &/or referencing/citation mistakes. o o Theory is not applied correctly
50-59	Better marks can be achieved by meeting previous criteria as well as: Analyzing selected case in interesting manner Demonstrating good writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes Correctly applying theory
60-69	A 2ndis warranted when all previous criteria have been met, and in addition: Selecting an unusual case Analyzing selected case in novel manner Identifying a ‘covert’ issue that motivated people to not ask ‘why’ Identifying an example of ways that not effectively managing change led to crisis Demonstrating above average reflection and critical thinking skills Demonstrating above average writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes Correctly applying theory in interesting manner. Additional points can be awarded if two theoretical frameworks have been properly applied in a thoughtful detailed manner that furthers the analysis in an interesting and innovative way—not just name dropped in!
70+	A 1stis warranted when all previous criteria have been met, and in addition: Selecting a very unusual case and representing it in unique perspective Analyzing selected case in original, innovative manner Identifying more than one ‘covert’ issue that motivated people to not ask ‘why’ Identifying more than one example of ways that not effectively managing change led to crisis Demonstrating exceptional reflection and critical thinking skills Demonstrating excellent writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes Three theoretical frameworks have been properly applied in a thoughtful detailed manner that furthers the analysis in an interesting and innovative way—not just name dropped in!