The Four Myths of Crisis Management

All business managers have been warned againstwork with chaos theory and management. (Chaos
operating in an environment of crisis management.Theory holds that if a butterfly flaps its wings in
To be a more effective manager and leader, you'llTokyo this will result in a tornado in Texas.) Our
want to know that there are prevalent beliefsessential findings from the chaos research were
about crisis management that need to bethat managers who tried to hold situations static
understood and discounted. To allow us toin their organizations (or, "stable," in their view)
examine beliefs that have been assumed forwere most likely to wind up in a great deal of
many years, I've described these prevailing ideastrouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep
as the myths of crisis management in the textthings from "happening," they ignored all of the
that follows.early warning signs indicating that trouble was
Management in the modern organization, ofbrewing, and they refused to deal with these
necessity, requires managers that aresituations in a timely manner. And, why was that?
fleet-of-feet and able to manage ever-changingPrimarily, it was because their earlier management
conditions. When the term "crisis management"training had prescribed that they not engage in
was coined forty years ago, organizations were"crisis management." What resulted, therefore,
still rather staid and unchanging entities.was the severest form of chaos, often requiring
Consequently, it was deemed an unfavorable signmonths, and sometimes years, to disentangle and
if an organization of that time was regularly in ato make "right."
state of crisis, or, change. And, the managementCrisis Management Myth #2 - Inherent in the
of that organization was viewed as needing tobeliefs about crisis management and its
exert more influence to obtain control of eventsconsequences, is the assumption that managers
at the firm. Crisis Management Myth #1,should have full control over all events in the
therefore, is that experiencing frequent change inorganization. Fifty years ago, that might have
organizations, (or "crises") is a bad thing. On thebeen an accurate depiction of appropriate
contrary, an organization in today's businesscorporate management. Today, however, events
climate that is not in a constant state ofare rarely "controlled," but are, instead, managed,
fluctuation, change, and growth will not be able toor orchestrated, for best effect. And, only in the
survive. Organizations that understand the naturerarest of organizations will any one single individual
of change and its usefulness are those that dohave the ability to fully control all of the events
well. These organizations know that: 1) change isand "goings-on" in the organization. I know of very
inevitable, as nothing is certain, except changefew organizations wherecontrol of this sort is so
itself; 2) imminent changes that are faced withcomplete. Most organizational management
courage and confidence are readily managed; 3)responsibilities in today's organizations are shared
change brings with it a certain amount ofamongst several of the corporation's leaders (for
ambiguity and turbulence; and 4) the results ofexample, Presidents, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and
facing the challenges of change well will be a moreothers), all working in orchestrated teams that
cohesive company environment, aligned with itslead organizational efforts. To fear engaging in
business community and its clients and customers.change evidence, or "crises," because full control
The challenge for modern managers is to learnover all situations is preferred is at one and the
the agility and responsiveness required in an agesame time both a delusion and an unattainable
of computerization and technological interface. I'mgoal.
frequently reminded of my research team's early