The impact of organizational crises has never been stronger. Yet previous research on crisis management lacks adequate integration. In this article we attempt to integrate and build upon current knowledge to create a multidisciplinary approach to crisis management research, using psychological, social-political, and technological-structural research perspectives. We offer definitions of organizational crisis and crisis management, as well as a framework that depicts the crisis management process and researchable propositions for the integration of these perspectives. We also suggest implications for research and practice.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259099.pdf

Reframing Crisis Management

This paper attempts to address the question of whether organizational explanations produced through idiographic studies can be regarded as externally valid. It is argued that explanatory idiographic studies that are informed by a realist epistemology are, indeed, in a position to make general claims about the world. For realists, generality is distinguished from recurrent regularities; instead, it is ascribed to the operation of causal tendencies (or powers). The latter act in their normal way even when expected regularities do not occur. This is possible because the realization of causal tendencies is contingent upon specific circumstances, which may or may not favor the generation of certain patterns of events. Idiographic research conceptualizes the causal capability of structures, while at the same time it sheds light on the contingent manner through which a set of postulated causal powers interact and gives rise to the flux of the phenomena under study.

The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations

When Karl Weick's seminal article, ‘Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations’, was published in 1988, it caused the field to think very differently about how crises unfold in organizations, and how emergent crises might be more quickly curtailed. More than 20 years later, we offer insights inspired by the central ideas in that article. Beginning with an exploration of key sensemaking studies in the crisis and change literatures, we reflect on lessons learned about sensemaking in turbulent conditions since Weick (1988), and argue for two core themes that underlie sensemaking in such contexts: shared meanings and emotion. We examine when and how shared meanings and emotion are more and less likely to enable more helpful, or adaptive, sensemaking, and conclude with some suggestions for future research in the sensemaking field.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x

Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988)

The field of organization and management studies has a significant and ever increasing published research base, often criticized as fragmented and of limited relevance for practice A design science approach to management has argued that more room for the development of solution-oriented or prescriptive knowledge would increase its relevance In this article we discuss prescriptive knowledge cast in the form of design propositions following the so-called 'CIMO-logic', extending previous applications of the design proposition notion This logic involves a combination of a problematic Context, for which the design proposition suggests a certain Intervention type, to produce, through specified generative Mechanisms, the intended Outcome(s) We discuss how design-oriented research synthesis provides a vehicle for addressing fragmentation and increasing the chances of application Moreover, we explore how the development of design propositions can result from synthesizing previously published research and illu

Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis

Research on crisis management and resilience has sought to explain how individuals and organizations anticipate and respond to adversity, yet—surprisingly—there has been little integration across t...

Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams

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 crises - the 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.

Anil Miclani

Papers

Understanding industrial crises[1]