Crises Management in an Organization

Crises Management in an Organization

This section of the project discusses issues related to the topic (crises Management) written by other authors. The following headings will be death with –
(a)    Organizational level crises
(b)     Forms of Organizational level crises
(c)    Approaches for managing Organizational level crises.
(d)    Causes of intergroup crises
(e)    Inter group crises
(f)    Management of intergroup crises.

To order the Complete Project Material, Pay thr Sum of N3,000 to:

BANK NAME: FIRST BANK PLC

ACCOUNT NAME:  CHIBUZOR TOCHI ONYEMENAM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 3066880122

Then send the Project Topic, Your Email Address and Full Name to 07033378184.

 

ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL CRISES IN THE WORD
Organizational level crises in the words of Walton and Mckerise (1965) is defined as the process social units which are attempting to define or redefine the terms of their inter-dependence. Such interaction is not infrequently accompanied by stress and conflict. Organizational crises do not necessarily indicate a breakdown of the organization or failure of management as implied by classical management theory and human relations philosophy.
Borelson and Steiner (1964) defined or organizational crises as the pursuit of incompatible or at least seemingly incompatible goals, sued that gains to one side come about at the expense of other. It is necessary that one side “less” in the absolute sense.
Thus, the chances of crises are small between people who house their own resources and perform entirely different6 tasks directed towards completely separates goals. There are seldom any crises between physics professors and cosmetics sale people, for example, because their worlds are generally separate. The potential for crises is much greater between professors and deans, or between sales people and company credit managers. Their tasks are interdependence and they may pursuit incompatible objectives.

FORMS OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL CRISES
A – INTRA INDIVIDUAL CRISES
This is the type of crises that take place within an individual. These crises may arise from an individual’s efforts to provide his or her own interests. It can also occur when an individual wishes to satisfy security esteem needs in a group situation, but the group demands excessive conformity.
B- INTER – PERSONAL CRISES
This is a conflict that can arise when two or more persons are interacting with one another. These are numerous examples of interpersonal crises: two individuals fighting over territory, two or more manager’s competing for the same promotion, two executives, arguing for a large share of corporate capital etc. in each case, the individuals are competing for a scare “resources” by actually or symbolically eliminating the rival.
S.M. Umoh (2000) holds that interpersonal crises because satisfying in itself and is not just a response to inability to satisfy other needs.

C – INTER – GROUP CRISES
This is crisis concerning group i.e group to group.
S.M. Umoh (2000) suggested that formation of department in an organization is directly an individual to intergroup crises. These problems can be seen from two perspectives, namely:]
(i)    How to make groups effective in fulfilling both the corporate goals of the organization and at the same time, the personal needs of the members.
(ii)    How to establish and maintain cordial relations to facilitate overall organizational efficiency without destroying intergroup co-ordination.
Dalton (1903) summarized how to prevent inter-group crises in an organization.
Firstly, Greater emphases on the total success of the organization and the roles of the contributing departments.
Secondary, reward the contributing departments’ total efforts rather than individuals.
Thirdly, Don’t put groups in win –lose competitive situations. Rather pool resources to maximize corporate effectiveness, and share the rewards equally with all departments.
Fourthly, frequently rotate the members to facilitate understanding and apperception of one another’s difficult and problems.
Lastly, maintain a high degree of cordial relationship and effective communication to secure intergroup coordination and assistance.

APPROACHES FOR MANAGING ORGANIZATION LEVEL CRISES.
Keller (1954) holds that crises is inevitable and unavoidable in an organization and that mangers should not run away or be scare when it arises but so we them. Such approaches include social esteem, self – respect and stimulate high interaction and frequent communication among the social unit.
Walton and Dutton (1969) suggested for outstanding mechanisms for handing crises. They include dominance, hierarchical appeal, system restricting and bargaining.

A.    DOMINANCE
This means allowing the other party to the conflict to dominate or have influence, power, and status or claim the scare resources, ie. The other party allows the other to get advantage of them.
Thus, crises is not only a struggle for desired values but also to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals” as quoted by closer (1969). Because of this is approach is likely to fail.
B.    APPEAL TO HIERARCHY
One of humanity’s great innovations was the transfer of crises management from dominance. To hierarchical appeal.
This comes in various ways: appeal to positional authority, appeal to higher authority, appeal to arbitration.

Bi.    APPEAL TO POSITIONAL AUTHORITY
This is the use of a hierarchical superior to resolve crises. A person in a recognized superior position after listening to the parties in crises, pass or decide who is correct or wrong and the parties in crises takes the judgment because of perceived farmers, superior, intelligent etc. the person posses or have if the principles of chain of command unity or command are followed in organizations, any two parties in conflict can find the common superior who links them and who can deal with the crises.Any superior can act as judge, rendering a just decision while possessing the authority to enforce it. People in certain positions are defined as having the authority and responsibility to make difficult and sometimes unjust decisions. This system was an enormous step toward crises management.

Bii.    APPEAL TO HIGHER AUTHORITY.
Hierarchical decisions are only as goods as the mangers are wise and just and have the time to judge. Evan (1961) argued that been developed to supplement the hierarchical process.If organizational members feel that a problem has not been handled fairly by an immediate superior, they may have the right to appeal to a higher manager, that is , have an” open door” to their boss.The right of appeal is a fine supplement to hierarchical decision, but problems exist. The higher superior A may be too busy to devote time E’s complaint or even though A may be energy with B for not handling the problem satisfactorily, A may still affirm B’s influence B too frequently, everyone would by pass B, for all of these reasons, E may concludes that he or she runs a grave risk in appealing to A.

Biii.    APPEAL TO ARBITRATION
To provide greater impartiality and protection, an independent arbitrator may be a gagged to listen to E’s appeal, gather information and render a judgment binding on A.B.E and the organization, (as show in figure 4.00) such a judge could be trained specialist who has a professional reputation of making appropriate non-biased decision.Arbitration that distress either party, they are unlikely to be retained for another contract period. Thus, there is on way for an arbitrator to be totally independent.

C.    SYSTEM RESTRUCTURING
Chapple and Sayless (1961) explain: “In order to minimize the diverse impact of conflict in organizations, managers must design and modify organizational structure to prevent upsetting work patterns. This can be achieved in the following ways.

Ci    ROTATING PERSONNEL
To reduces due narrow loyalties and misunderstanding due to perceptual distortions, management may periodically rotate people among interdependent groups.

Cii.    UNIFYING THE WORK FLOW
The workflow should be unify more logical complete work units when bring more contain under one hierarchical position, thus decreasing ambiguity. This does increase unit size, of course, and additional costs for internal costs for internal co-ordination are necessary.

D.    BARGAINING
Cambridge international dictionary of English (1995) defines “Bargain” as an agreement between two people or group in when each promises to do something in exchange for something else.
Chamberlain (1955) tells us that bargaining is another Persons inducement to agree on your terms. He hold that bargaining is viable approach in managing crises in the sense that the parties in conflict can make agreement or decides on how to share the scarce resources or any thing that results to the conflict.
This is usually observed between worker’s union and management in solving or resolve their differences.

INTER –GROUP CRISES
Intergroup crises may be defined as an opponent centered episodes or series of episodes based upon incompatibility of goals, or, valves. It involves direct and personal interruption in which the opposing party is perceived as controlling the desired goal. This is basically an extension of stern (1975) definition and generally agrees will the approach taken by Pondy (1967) and Thomas  (1976) that intergroup crises may be viewed as a process. Thomas’s process model depends five main events within an episode from the viewpoint of one of the parties: frustration, conceptualization, behaviour, other’s reaction, and outcome.
This process model of intergroup crises by Thomas is in contract to narrower definitions such as by Schmidt and Kocha, (1961) which viewed intergroup crises only as “ over behaviour”. This difference in viewpoint has important implications for research in intergroup crises. When intergroup crises are defined only as “opponent-centered behaviour”, attention is directed only at aggression.
If, however, it is defined more broadly to include antecedent conditions as well as attitude likely that crises management mechanisms can be devised and tested. An intergroup crisis is this seen to be dynamic process arising from certain causes and resulting in certain effects.

CAUSES OF INTERGROUP CRISES
1. FRUSTRATION: This is simply defined as “ the blocking or thwarting of goal attainment” (Heresy and Blanchard, 1972).This implies that someone’s may have a set goal for himself, but for one reason or another he cannot achieve that goal.
This indicates that the frustration of a group is goal attempts by another group result to definite intergroup crises. Where behavioural measures were used, this frustration also leads to verbal, and in some cases, to physical aggression.

II.    SOCIAL DISTANCE
Manheim (1960) said that intergroup crises can emanate as a result of social distance perceive by groups. It could be suggested that telling a group that another group is very different from another in terms of potentials or any good features is a direct way of creating in-group/out-group bias, which in turn leads to the behavioural indication of crises measured, by Manheim.

MANAGEMENT OF INTERGROUP CRISES
Organizations can manager inter-group crises using the following approaches postulate by S.M. union (2000)
i.   Negotiation strategy: This will facilitate face to faces discussion and interaction of the representatives or subgroups of the competing parties.
ii.    Shift the conflict to higher level by “Locating a common enemy (Schein, E.H:1990) for illustration, the management to team up in congesting successfully against company Y, instead of fighting themselves within their company.
iii.    Setting a super ordinate target: for instance, the marketing and production departments mentioned in No.2 above can be challenged by management to co-operate and develop a new product that will him their company a prominent position in the organization.
iv.    Use of laboratory training methods: (Blake and Moliton, 1962) here consultants may be used invite the competing groups to some neutral ground for frank discussions of their problems. The consultants may lecture the parties, give reading assignments, and moderate their interactions.

—-This article is not complete———–This article is not complete————

This article was extracted from a Project Research Work Topic

CRISES MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANIZATION.

(A CASE STUDY OF ANAMMCO PLC EMENE ENUGU)”

To purchase complete Project Materials, Pay the sum of N5, 000 to our bank accounts below:

BANK NAME: GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GTB)

ACCOUNT NAME:  CHIBUZOR TOCHI ONYEMENAM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0044056891

OR

BANK NAME: FIRST BANK PLC

ACCOUNT NAME:  CHIBUZOR TOCHI ONYEMENAM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 3066880122

After paying the sum of N5, 000 into any of our bank accounts, send the below details to our email address: 07033378184 and email: articlesng@gmail.com

1.      Your Depositors Name

2.      Teller Number

3.      Amount Paid

4.      Project Topic

5.       Your Email Address

Send the above details to: 07033378184 or on/before 24hours of payment. We will send your complete project materials to your email.

For Inquiries call – 07033378184

To Get Business Administration Project Materials, Click Here!

To Get Marketing Project Research Materials, Click Here!

To Get Accounting Project Materials, Click Here!

Crises Management in an Organization

To purchase complete Project Material, Pay the sum of N3, 000 to our bank accounts below:

BANK NAME: GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GTB)

ACCOUNT NAME: CHIBUZOR TOCHI ONYEMENAM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0044056891

OR

BANK NAME: FIRST BANK PLC

ACCOUNT NAME: CHIBUZOR TOCHI ONYEMENAM

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 3066880122

After paying the sum of N3, 000 into any of our bank accounts, send the below details to our Phone: 07033378184

  1. Your Depositors Name
  2. Teller Number
  3. Amount Paid
  4. Project Topic
  5. Your Email Address

Send the above details to: 07033378184 or on/before 24hours of payment. We will send your complete project materials to your email 30 Mins after payment.

Articlesng.com will only provide papers as a reference for your research. The papers ordered and produced should be used as a guide or framework for your own paper. It is the aim of Articlesng.com to only provide guidance by which the paper should be pursued. We are neither encouraging any form of plagiarism nor are we advocating the use of the papers produced herein for cheating.

Speak Your Mind

*