Write 1 page response to post below. Reilly (1987) determined six facets for crisis management in a survey given to 79 full-time employees. The first facet is a quick response time. Herman (1963) defined a crisis as a situation that is out of the norm for leaders, that has “a restriction in the amount of time available for response” (as cited in Reilly, 1987, p. 80). This time restriction could be due to potential damage to resources, financial loss, dwindling public opinion, or even pending injury to personnel. It is not unusual for crises to compound if left unattended. It is therefore crucial that a rapid response be a part of any crisis response plan. The second and third facets revolve around how informed managers are of the resources and plans allocated to dealing with crises (Reilly, 1987). According to Reilly (1987), “good decisions and knowledge about crisis management plans are of little use without effective deployment of resources” (p. 81). The best crisis response plan in the world means nothing if those who are supposed to implement it do not have access to it or do not fully understand what they are supposed to do. Additionally, the management team must be given the proper tools to put the plan into action. For example, when we deploy to the Middle East, everyone in our squadron is fitted for CBR (Chemical-Biological-Radiological) protective gear. There is a set plan in the military for when to don certain pieces of this gear, depending on threat level. However, in practice the plan would fall apart because the physical gear is stored in a facility somewhere on our compound, but very few people actually know where. In case of actual attack, one of the few informed people would hopefully be on shift and ready to respond or we could all die. The theory of responding to a chemical attack is there, but since employees are not fully aware of the tools we have on hand to act, it is like they are not present at all (Reilly, 1987). The fourth facet is having a solid crisis response strategy in place (Reilly, 1987). Leaders need to make sure that a plan outlining specific roles, protocols and communication loops are in place and flexible enough to respond to variations in predicted crises (Stern, 2013). This is, in my opinion, the most important area of crisis management, as it encompasses all of the others. For example, if an organization does not plan to use a backup generator or network in case their main system fails, then they may not have the backup system on hand at all. As Reilly (1987) summarizes, “a firm with inadequate crisis planning is unlikely to have specific resources allocated to crisis preparation” (p. 81). An organization should not rely on luck when dealing with a crisis; many of the tools and personnel that will be needed during a crisis are unlikely to just show up unless earlier preparations have been made. The next facet is related to having a crisis plan and that is the perceived likelihood that a crisis will occur (Reilly, 1987). Organizations are not eager to allocate much thought or funding towards a situation that is unlikely to happen. Part of the planning process needs to revolve around predicting the likelihood of an event occurring. For example, a company in Florida should have more contingencies revolving around destructive hurricane patterns than a company in New Mexico. This does not mean that the latter should give no thought to how the environment may interfere with their business, but a Florida company that does not prepare for volatile weather would likely not be able to recover-either physically or in terms of their clientele’s faith. The final facet is media management (Reilly, 1987). As technology has made news more and more accessible, this facet is becoming more critical. 100 years ago, if a company went through a scandal it would eventually be reported in a newspaper or over the radio, depending on how big of a story it was. Nowadays, online forums can potentially blow a small story into worldwide news instantaneously. As we have discussed before, a company can use this public attention to influence their organizational reputation by showing strong, charismatic, and well-prepared managers (Jamal & Bakar, 2017). However, media attention can only serve to amplify and pick apart organizations that are not prepared, try to cover up or lie, or show general disregard for their shareholders. Reilly (1987) cited one executive as saying, “if you aren’t geared up and ready to inform the public, you will be judged guilty until proven innocent” (p. 81). The major implication for training future leaders, based on these six facets, is flexibility and open-mindedness in crisis response. Just as business strategies adapt to a growing global market and improving technology, potential threats and how they need to be handled will also change. Reilly (1987) talked about how organizations with too bureaucratic of an approach to crisis management may drown in rigidity and be unable to make time critical decisions. Additionally, she discussed the idea that one manager may predict the occurrence of a crisis differently than another (Reilly, 1987). The ability to see multiple perspectives and keep up with trends, especially in the media and expansion of resources, could be the difference between a successful leader and one who loses him/herself in a crisis. Jamal, J., & Bakar, H. A. (2017). The mediating role of charismatic leadership communication in a crisis: A Malaysian example. International Journal Of Business Communication, 54(4), 369-393. Reilly, A.H. (1987). Are organizations ready for crisis? A managerial scorecard. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(1), 79-88. Stern, E. (2013). Preparing: The sixth task of crisis leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 51-56.
