Last Wednesday Kenon Brown came in and talked to us about organizational crisis management. Mr. Brown is in his second year of pursuing his Ph.D.
We first started out by talking about the BP Oil Spill and the impact it had on our country and Gulf Coast lines. The oil spill stretched 320 miles of the Louisiana Shoreline and all the way down to Destin. I could see the affects of the oil spill because I live in Orange Beach, Al and we were one of the places that was hit hard by this spill. We also talked about the stress that it caused on the different communities around the shorelines. We said that it causes numerous anxiety, stress, and health problems for the people. The fishing industry also took a hard hit. The reaction of the CEO of BP acted like it was not his fault and did not take the blame. When the stepped down, the person who took over, also took over the blame and started trying to make amends. In the end the United States government blamed BP responsible for the oil spill.
Next we talked about the definition of crisis? A crisis is a perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes. A crisis is also unexpected. You never know when a crisis is going to arise and it can spring up at any moment. We had know idea that the BP Oil Spill, Katrina, or any other natural disasters were going to happen.
We also talked about the importance of crisis management. Here are the things to keep in mind:
1. Value of reputations
2. Stakeholders activism (very important)
3. Communication technology (all correct information, and get it fast)
4. Broader view of crises
5. Negligent failure to plan
The last thing that we talked about is the best practices in crisis management
• Process approaches and policy departments
• Pre-event planning (we need to plan for these things, so when they arise we are not in total shock.)
• Partnerships with the public
• Listen to the public’s concerns and understand the audience
• Honestly, candor, and openness
• Collaborate and coordinate with credible sources
• Meet the needs of the media and remain accessible
• Communicate with compassion, concern and empathy
• Accept, uncertainty, and ambiguity
• Message of self-efficacy
The last thing that we did in class was play out crisis scenarios. We had to come up with a message to tell the media, and make a client look in a good light. Even though the situation they might be in are bad. After we came up those messages we had breaking new, where get received another message where something else went wrong. It was fun getting to play out these scenarios because some of these could actually happen.
My question to the class is: have any of you ever been involved in a crisis? If so what did you do to prevent and/or help the situation.
By: Reed Ellis
Monday, April 18, 2011
Managing a Crisis
During class Wednesday, Kenon Brown gave a presentation on organizational crisis management. He first discussed the recent BP Oil Spill, providing an example of lack of crisis management preparation. A crisis is a perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes. Crisis management is vital to all organizations. Lack of preparation or an inappropriate response to crisis can negatively effect the reputation of the organization and can cause stakeholders to show negative criticism towards the organization. There are four steps to the ongoing process of crisis management: mitigation & prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. When faced with a crisis, there are a number of practices an organization can use to guarantee the best outcome. The organization must first have a plan in response to given situations, and must then act on that plan. Strong partnerships with the public and media can help organizations receive positive criticism while dealing with the crisis. Meeting the public’s needs with honesty and openness can help build the organization’s credibility.
After discussing crisis management, its process, and the best practices when dealing with crisis management, Mr. Brown divided the class into groups for an activity. Each group was given a situation when organizations were forced to deal with crisis management. We were asked to determine what each organization should do in response to the crisis it was dealing with. Our group was given an example of a crisis that Regions Bank was faced with. The CAO of Regions was indicted on charges of fraud. Regions claimed they had no knowledge of this and that he acted alone. In response, our group chose to explain that it was an ongoing investigation and made no comments about the CAO at the time. After each group announced their statement or plan of action to deal with their particular crisis, we were given new information about the crisis, forcing each group to rethink their proposal. It turned out that the CAO of Regions was framed by a member of the SEC who was previously fired from Regions for stealing funds. Have you been a part of an organization that was forced to deal with a crisis management situation? If so, was the organization prepared for the situation? What did the organization do in response to the situation?
By: Drew Snider
After discussing crisis management, its process, and the best practices when dealing with crisis management, Mr. Brown divided the class into groups for an activity. Each group was given a situation when organizations were forced to deal with crisis management. We were asked to determine what each organization should do in response to the crisis it was dealing with. Our group was given an example of a crisis that Regions Bank was faced with. The CAO of Regions was indicted on charges of fraud. Regions claimed they had no knowledge of this and that he acted alone. In response, our group chose to explain that it was an ongoing investigation and made no comments about the CAO at the time. After each group announced their statement or plan of action to deal with their particular crisis, we were given new information about the crisis, forcing each group to rethink their proposal. It turned out that the CAO of Regions was framed by a member of the SEC who was previously fired from Regions for stealing funds. Have you been a part of an organization that was forced to deal with a crisis management situation? If so, was the organization prepared for the situation? What did the organization do in response to the situation?
By: Drew Snider
Monday, April 11, 2011
Desiring Ethics To Be Real in the Business World
Ethics are an individual’s moral principles. Companies incorporate ethics into their corporate profile through mission statements and/or code of values. However the meaning of ethics is hard to pin down. When someone asks you what are ethics you may replay, “Ethics are what my gut tell me is right or wrong." or “Ethics are what the law requires” or “Ethics are what society views as appropriate behavior”. There are many views of what ethics are and this was reflected in subjects of the Inside Job. As a class we were angry after watching the movie but the “economic experts” that contributed to the US economic crisis felt they did nothing wrong. Their moral principles, we view as flawed, told them they were profiting so what was the problem. The economic crisis destroyed the credibility of corporations along with our trust in ethics. After watching the movie I feel that companies disregard their code of values. So why are ethics important if companies simply disregard them? Ethics are important because they might be a step to help us out of the economic crisis. Ethics help us organize our activities, create a sense of community, remind people what is important, create positive role models for others to follow, and keep people in line. If companies can follow their code of values then public trust can be regained. People like those who are strong and committed to their values.
In life we find ourselves in many different situations that require us to make difficult moral choices. The one that most people find themselves in is “having a life” versus “making a living”. How do you choose? You use your moral code as a guide. No choice is easy. The choices the subjects of the Inside Job made upset us and changed our lives but no matter our feelings the choice was not easy. They gave up apart of themselves when they made their choices. Our belief system, our ethics, are different from theirs and allows us to come up with a better decision. But as we discussed in class, we were not in their shoes so how do we really know what choice we would have made. It is easy to say you would stick to your ethics when you are not faced with a decision. In the book there was a survey of MBA that demonstrates how easy ethics can change. “MBA students enter B-school with relatively idealistic ambitions, such as to create quality products and be of service to consumers. By they time they graduate, though, these goals have taken a back seat to such priorities as boosting their company’s share price”. How do we prevent this, how do we keep our ethics intact?
We also discussed in class who is the blame, who do we hold accountable. As an individualistic society we like to blame individuals but by doing this sometimes we miss the larger forces at work. Sometimes there is no individual to blame. Especially when powerful organizations can control who we blame. Organizations like to acquire power and scatter accountability thus making it difficult to assign blame and hold people accountable because we can’t find who really did it. Organizations say, “it was done in the name of__(inset political ploy here)___”. We should stop trying to find someone to blame because as the movie showed the “economic experts” are not going to jail, they are getting better jobs. The public needs to start talking about the importance of ethics. Organizations need to recognize how important they are and encourage their employees to follow their own morals and the company’s code. Really commit to their ethics and stop pretending they are committed. But how do you talk about ethics when they are hard to spell out? A few questions I believe are important to ask are: How do you justify or excuse your own actions? Do you blame or take responsibility? Are ethics only important when someone is watching or holding you accountable?
Amanda Bjorklund
In life we find ourselves in many different situations that require us to make difficult moral choices. The one that most people find themselves in is “having a life” versus “making a living”. How do you choose? You use your moral code as a guide. No choice is easy. The choices the subjects of the Inside Job made upset us and changed our lives but no matter our feelings the choice was not easy. They gave up apart of themselves when they made their choices. Our belief system, our ethics, are different from theirs and allows us to come up with a better decision. But as we discussed in class, we were not in their shoes so how do we really know what choice we would have made. It is easy to say you would stick to your ethics when you are not faced with a decision. In the book there was a survey of MBA that demonstrates how easy ethics can change. “MBA students enter B-school with relatively idealistic ambitions, such as to create quality products and be of service to consumers. By they time they graduate, though, these goals have taken a back seat to such priorities as boosting their company’s share price”. How do we prevent this, how do we keep our ethics intact?
We also discussed in class who is the blame, who do we hold accountable. As an individualistic society we like to blame individuals but by doing this sometimes we miss the larger forces at work. Sometimes there is no individual to blame. Especially when powerful organizations can control who we blame. Organizations like to acquire power and scatter accountability thus making it difficult to assign blame and hold people accountable because we can’t find who really did it. Organizations say, “it was done in the name of__(inset political ploy here)___”. We should stop trying to find someone to blame because as the movie showed the “economic experts” are not going to jail, they are getting better jobs. The public needs to start talking about the importance of ethics. Organizations need to recognize how important they are and encourage their employees to follow their own morals and the company’s code. Really commit to their ethics and stop pretending they are committed. But how do you talk about ethics when they are hard to spell out? A few questions I believe are important to ask are: How do you justify or excuse your own actions? Do you blame or take responsibility? Are ethics only important when someone is watching or holding you accountable?
Amanda Bjorklund
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
To Change Or Not To Change…
We read Chapter 11 “Organizational Change and Change-Related Communication” to prepare for class on Monday and apply the concepts we had read to the movie Inside Job. Our textbook defines change as “ the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system; the difference between two or more successive conditions, states, or moments of time; or, a succession of differences in time within a persisting identity.” Our book explains a model of change as suggested by Kert Lewin that makes it easy to apply to organizations: see that there is a need, come up with a plan for action, imply that new plan, and make that new plan a routine. It seems so easy, right?! If change seems this easy then why is implementing a change in routine so difficult to grasp in organizations?
Change is the result of communication. Lewin’s model involves COMMUNICATING a need for change, COMUNICATING a plan, and COMMUNICATING that new plan and making it happen by implementing it throughout the organization. Communication is very important to change because without it, there would be no change. What would it be like with no change? Boring. Same routine every day, every week, every month.
Communicating the change to different people involved with the organization is very important. Our book explains that communication must be designed around whom the change is being communicated to. For example, if a new plan for change is being implemented in the organization and they are letting the employees know then they might tell the facts, hold a meeting where the groups of employees are all present, and target the important information to the supervisors. Where is the stakeholders are being informed then it might be on a “need to know basis” and information may be released often enough to keep participation equal. There are six dimensions of change: degree, type, intentionality, timing, impetus, and control. All of these are important to successfully implementing change. To whether the degree of change is major/minor or when to execute the new plan for change, each dimension serves as an important role for successful change. Successful change is then measured by whether it is accepted, if the goals of the organization were fulfilled, and what the consequences were of the new change and how those are managed within the organization.
In class, we watched Inside Job, which is about events that happened over time to result in our current economic crisis. Different “key players” in the banking industry were interviewed and they talked about their roles or the roles of others in the banking industry to result in this crisis. The information that was so shocking to me was the amount that the CEO’s and other executives in the banking industry take home each year when our economy was dwindling down. Executives were said to have several airplanes, helicopters, yachts, vacation homes, etc. Is all this necessary? We were given a note sheet to keep track of interesting facts and answer questions that required us to apply concepts from Chapter 11 to this movie.
What do you think could have been done to implement change in the banking industry to lessen the crisis that we are currently in? Are organizations that you are a part of communicating change effectively? If not, what do you think they can do to change the way they communicate change to make the process of implementing new plans more effective?
By: Randi Bellew
Change is the result of communication. Lewin’s model involves COMMUNICATING a need for change, COMUNICATING a plan, and COMMUNICATING that new plan and making it happen by implementing it throughout the organization. Communication is very important to change because without it, there would be no change. What would it be like with no change? Boring. Same routine every day, every week, every month.
Communicating the change to different people involved with the organization is very important. Our book explains that communication must be designed around whom the change is being communicated to. For example, if a new plan for change is being implemented in the organization and they are letting the employees know then they might tell the facts, hold a meeting where the groups of employees are all present, and target the important information to the supervisors. Where is the stakeholders are being informed then it might be on a “need to know basis” and information may be released often enough to keep participation equal. There are six dimensions of change: degree, type, intentionality, timing, impetus, and control. All of these are important to successfully implementing change. To whether the degree of change is major/minor or when to execute the new plan for change, each dimension serves as an important role for successful change. Successful change is then measured by whether it is accepted, if the goals of the organization were fulfilled, and what the consequences were of the new change and how those are managed within the organization.
In class, we watched Inside Job, which is about events that happened over time to result in our current economic crisis. Different “key players” in the banking industry were interviewed and they talked about their roles or the roles of others in the banking industry to result in this crisis. The information that was so shocking to me was the amount that the CEO’s and other executives in the banking industry take home each year when our economy was dwindling down. Executives were said to have several airplanes, helicopters, yachts, vacation homes, etc. Is all this necessary? We were given a note sheet to keep track of interesting facts and answer questions that required us to apply concepts from Chapter 11 to this movie.
What do you think could have been done to implement change in the banking industry to lessen the crisis that we are currently in? Are organizations that you are a part of communicating change effectively? If not, what do you think they can do to change the way they communicate change to make the process of implementing new plans more effective?
By: Randi Bellew
Bully or Be Bullied
We started off class by defining workplace bullying. The definition of workplace bullying according to our slides; repeated health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons by one or more perpetrators that takes one or more of the following traits: verbal abuse, offensive conduct, and/or work interference. I was thinking this was more of someone just messing with another person in a joking matter, not as someone intentionally trying to harass someone. Next, we were asked if we had ever been bullied, the majority of the class had been bullied and some were in jobs while most appeared to be during high school or even younger. Then, we were asked if we had ever been the bully, there were still a lot of people that had but not quite as many as those that had been bullied. The fact that there were so many that had been both bullied and the bully surprised me especially since I assume that most were the ones being bullied before they bullied someone else. If we know what it feels like to be in that situation then why would we put someone else in the same or even worse situation?
In class it seemed that most of the women in class agreed that they would not say anything to the one bullying them, while most of the men said they would confront the person. Regardless of the reason women are targeted more than men it is important to stop bullying. There can be severe psychological and physical health issues and even death from bullying. Some people have even committed suicide over bullying like the example we were given when two adults bullied a young girl over MySpace. According to several videos we watched it is obvious to see that bullying is happening and something needs to be done about it. So what would you do if you were being bullied or knew someone that was? If you were being bullied how would you handle it, would you confront the person even if it was your boss?
By: Zachary McCoy
In class it seemed that most of the women in class agreed that they would not say anything to the one bullying them, while most of the men said they would confront the person. Regardless of the reason women are targeted more than men it is important to stop bullying. There can be severe psychological and physical health issues and even death from bullying. Some people have even committed suicide over bullying like the example we were given when two adults bullied a young girl over MySpace. According to several videos we watched it is obvious to see that bullying is happening and something needs to be done about it. So what would you do if you were being bullied or knew someone that was? If you were being bullied how would you handle it, would you confront the person even if it was your boss?
By: Zachary McCoy
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Get to the Why
In class on Monday we looked into organizational conflict. We discussed how incompatible goals can create disturbances in organizations. We talked about how there are different types of conflict. Two that we discussed were latent conflict and perceived conflict. Latent conflict is where conditions are right for conflict. Perceived conflict is where one or more of the parties believe that there is a problem when there really is not.
There are four ways to address conflict through avoidance, accommodation, compromise, or collaborate:
*Avoidance is rarely good because then the problems will add up and cause frustration within. Also the problem never gets addressed or handled this way.
*Accommodation is where you give up some of your personal objectives and give to the other players needs. This can be an especially good approach when you’re in a fight with your girlfriend! With accommodation your end up giving to get something later or you’re preserving the relationship for the future. The problem is that you give up some of your personal needs to the other person.
* Compromise can be effective because it can keep forward momentum but the problem is that both sides are going to have to give up some needs.
* Collaboration is the most effective approach to keep the best relationship going into the future. Both sides work together to come up with the best solution for the future. This is a step beyond compromise because both sides get more of what they need, they ask the question why.
It is best to handle conflict without involving the courts or an arbitrator. The courts make a final decision. An arbitrator makes decisions that are often binding based on the arguments presented by the parties involved. A mediator can be helpful and save a lot of money, especially compared to court costs. It is not binding and can lead to a resolution in conflict. A mediator helps to facilitate the dispute but has no power. We should always try to avoid the courts and arbitrators because their decisions are often binding and it they take control from our hands.
Using your knowledge of how to address conflict, think about how to resolve the following situation: There are two people in a city. There is one orange left in the city and both of them want the orange, but there is only one. How can these two people have both of their needs met?
Keep in mind that they could have different needs. We need to address conflict, by asking why. People have different needs based on their interests. Get to the core of what both parties want, identify party interests.
By: Grayson Goodstein
There are four ways to address conflict through avoidance, accommodation, compromise, or collaborate:
*Avoidance is rarely good because then the problems will add up and cause frustration within. Also the problem never gets addressed or handled this way.
*Accommodation is where you give up some of your personal objectives and give to the other players needs. This can be an especially good approach when you’re in a fight with your girlfriend! With accommodation your end up giving to get something later or you’re preserving the relationship for the future. The problem is that you give up some of your personal needs to the other person.
* Compromise can be effective because it can keep forward momentum but the problem is that both sides are going to have to give up some needs.
* Collaboration is the most effective approach to keep the best relationship going into the future. Both sides work together to come up with the best solution for the future. This is a step beyond compromise because both sides get more of what they need, they ask the question why.
It is best to handle conflict without involving the courts or an arbitrator. The courts make a final decision. An arbitrator makes decisions that are often binding based on the arguments presented by the parties involved. A mediator can be helpful and save a lot of money, especially compared to court costs. It is not binding and can lead to a resolution in conflict. A mediator helps to facilitate the dispute but has no power. We should always try to avoid the courts and arbitrators because their decisions are often binding and it they take control from our hands.
Using your knowledge of how to address conflict, think about how to resolve the following situation: There are two people in a city. There is one orange left in the city and both of them want the orange, but there is only one. How can these two people have both of their needs met?
Keep in mind that they could have different needs. We need to address conflict, by asking why. People have different needs based on their interests. Get to the core of what both parties want, identify party interests.
By: Grayson Goodstein
Monday, March 28, 2011
What do our U.S. Government, Alabama football, and COM350 class have in common?
During Monday’s class we covered Chapter 8 titled, “Participation, Teams, and Democracy at Work. We began by taking a look at what workplace democracy entails and the necessary steps towards building workplace democracy. Employee participation is implemented within the organizational structure and gives employees power and the ability to identify with organizational goals with a more balanced approach to control. The outcomes of successful employee participation are increased productivity and job satisfaction. (Sounds like a good way to develop more theory Y driven employees, right?) The book gives a case example on Levi Strauss & Co. and their employees opinions on the implementation of more employee participation and team-based models as opposed to their previous assembly line individualized production model. There were several advantages and disadvantages listed, and in my opinion the advantages seemed to far outweigh the disadvantages as far as benefitting their workplace as a whole. We also covered managerially driven programs of employee participation that included problem solving or decision-making teams, restricting of work processes and activities, and ownership as an economic investment in overall governance.
We did a group activity where we were able to role play different personalities of a group. Also, as a class, we were given the ability to exercise our own democracy by making changes to our existing class calendar as well as giving our own suggestions and opinions as to what we would like the remainder of our semester to look like. Something interesting to think about is how our country’s government model of democracy transcends into the workplace and organizations. Our founding fathers believed that democracy was the best way to run a country and now we implement that same model into our organizations—giving the people and employees some buy-in by allowing them to make decisions and participate in the overall function of the whole. Can you think of some similarities and differences between our government and democracy within organizations?
I tried to think of examples of teams and groups and decided that the most relatable examples would be sports teams and group projects. Most of us have probably been a member of a sports team where, as players, you all had similar skills and a communal commitment to an overall goal. This is usually a long-term goal; such as a championship. However, in a group project for class you are placed in groups for the duration of that assignment with a goal to complete the project. Can anyone share experiences they’ve had in either very successful or very unsuccessful teams or groups and why you think that was the case? Were there obvious roles that each person played? I will leave you with a quote about the kind of buy-in that is instilled in our own Alabama football team…this is from Rolando McClain after winning the 2009 National Championship when he played while he was sick. “My team needed me. They needed me to be a leader and out there…For them, I’d do anything. I love them. My team needed me. I had to play.” Do we get this type of passion for a team in the workplace? Why is it harder to implement the model of democracy and team-orientation in some settings than others when it seems so beneficial in any setting?
A final thought for those of you looking for jobs soon: Because of recent team trending, more than ever employers are looking for potential employees who can work well and are willing to work in a team setting. Are there some things we need to be working on before we enter the democracies, groups, and teams of the real world?
Sydney McWaters
We did a group activity where we were able to role play different personalities of a group. Also, as a class, we were given the ability to exercise our own democracy by making changes to our existing class calendar as well as giving our own suggestions and opinions as to what we would like the remainder of our semester to look like. Something interesting to think about is how our country’s government model of democracy transcends into the workplace and organizations. Our founding fathers believed that democracy was the best way to run a country and now we implement that same model into our organizations—giving the people and employees some buy-in by allowing them to make decisions and participate in the overall function of the whole. Can you think of some similarities and differences between our government and democracy within organizations?
I tried to think of examples of teams and groups and decided that the most relatable examples would be sports teams and group projects. Most of us have probably been a member of a sports team where, as players, you all had similar skills and a communal commitment to an overall goal. This is usually a long-term goal; such as a championship. However, in a group project for class you are placed in groups for the duration of that assignment with a goal to complete the project. Can anyone share experiences they’ve had in either very successful or very unsuccessful teams or groups and why you think that was the case? Were there obvious roles that each person played? I will leave you with a quote about the kind of buy-in that is instilled in our own Alabama football team…this is from Rolando McClain after winning the 2009 National Championship when he played while he was sick. “My team needed me. They needed me to be a leader and out there…For them, I’d do anything. I love them. My team needed me. I had to play.” Do we get this type of passion for a team in the workplace? Why is it harder to implement the model of democracy and team-orientation in some settings than others when it seems so beneficial in any setting?
A final thought for those of you looking for jobs soon: Because of recent team trending, more than ever employers are looking for potential employees who can work well and are willing to work in a team setting. Are there some things we need to be working on before we enter the democracies, groups, and teams of the real world?
Sydney McWaters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)