Skip to main content

Contradictions of Objectives During Organizational Crisis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Challenging Global Times

Abstract

Organizational crises management in many cases relies on ad hoc created teams to handle these unexpected events. Due to the demanded short reaction time, there is pressure on all persons involved in handling the situation. Crisis management team members instinctively search for the “best possible outcome” of the crisis mostly based on their professional background. Some of the individual professional goals are conflicting, and conciliation might be necessary. Ultimately, each of the apparently conflicting professional goals points to the same organizational goal: the resilience after the crisis. Our findings are based on a survey done at some Eastern European multinational organizations. In the paper we not only provide arguments for multidisciplinary crisis management teams, but also show that crisis managers sometimes have concerns about the time-consuming reconciliation of the goals and the one-track-minded approach of some professionals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Arpan LM, Roskos-Ewoldsen DR (2005) Stealing thunder: analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public Relat Rev 31(3):425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bakos L, Dumitrașcu DD (2017) Holonic crisis handling model for corporate sustainability. Sustainability 9:2266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bakos L, Dumitrașcu DD, Harangus K (2019) Human factor preparedness for decentralized crisis management and communication in cyber-physical systems. Sustainability 11:6676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barton L (2001) Crisis in organizations II, 2nd edn. College Divisions South-Western, Cincinnati, OH

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cannon W (1932) Wisdom of the body. W.W. Norton & Company, United States

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Claeys A-S (2017) Better safe than sorry: why organizations in crisis should never hesitate to steal thunder. Bus Horiz 60:305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coombs WT (2007) Crisis management and communications. Institute for Public Relations

    Google Scholar 

  8. Donahue JJ (2020) Fight-flight-freeze system. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford TK (eds) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences, pp 1590–1595

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ebersberger B, Kuckertz A (2021) Hop to it! The impact of organization type on innovation response time to the COVID-19 crisis. J Bus Res 124:126–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Flyverbom M, Leonardi PM, Stohl C, Stohl M (2016) The management of visibilities in the digital age. Int J Commun 10:98–109

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hernandez JGV, Ortega RP (2019) Bounded rationality in decision-making. MOJ Res Rev 2(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  12. Minton EA, Khale LR (2014) Belief systems, religion, and behavioral economics. Business Expert Press LLC, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pauchant JB, Mitroff I (1992) Transforming the crisis-prone organization: preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pearson C, Clair J (1998) Reframing crisis management. Acad Manag Rev 23(1):59–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Puthentara M (2012) Perspectives of public relations. DC Books, India

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sent EM (2018) Rationality and bounded rationality: you can’t have one without the other. Eur J Hist Econ Thought 25(6):1370–1386

    Google Scholar 

  17. Simon HA (1982) Models of bounded rationality. Economic analysis and public policy. Behav Econ Bus Organ 2:478–505

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Ethical Statement

The authors of this paper confirm that they have gained all the necessary permissions from the human subjects involved in this study to use their information. Furthermore, all individual information presented in this study has been anonymized.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sapientia University (registered under 36455-15 June 2021).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Levente Bakos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bakos, L., Dumitrașcu, DD. (2024). Contradictions of Objectives During Organizational Crisis. In: Prostean, G.I., Lavios, J.J., Brancu, L., Şahin, F. (eds) Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Challenging Global Times. Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47164-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47164-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47163-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47164-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics