When they happen, a volatile and critical situation, leaders must deal with them. There is a fine line that pulls a company out of a crisis (otherwise it would not be a crisis); it is all in the balance between acting and analysing. If there is too much action, there is a danger of acting too rashly. If there is too much planning, there is a danger of overanalysing and failing to act. The paradox between responding automatically because the process tells you to, and ensuring that you stop to find the facts before making judgement, is the key function of the crisis leader.
There definite differences between the Corporate ER and CM management styles that a crisis leader can employ. Command and control attitudes take precedence in an emergency and are designed to control human reaction in a premeditated manner, without the thought process; fixing the problem before realising the effects of the problem. CM has little to do with command and control; it is about applying a process, a consistent approach that derives decisions with confidence, overcoming the do-not-think and just act urge, which is the trait of corporate ER.
It may be that your crisis heralds another company's take-over opportunity. While corporate ER is ideal when dealing with immense stress and pressure in crisis conditions, there is a point when business opportunities must be pursued though the application of CM. Conditioned reactions must give way to opportunistic strategising. Simply put, corporate ER is a tool that does not aid business progression.
Crisis leadership is fundamental to making the transition from corporate ER to CM, it is important to discuss.
Leadership, when failure is not an option, is an important issue. In many ways, crises are about leadership, commanding a group, vis-à-vis a management team. A leader must instil confidence in the corporate group, failure to do so will promote the individuals innate desire to make undisciplined contributions and weaken team effectiveness.
Practicing crisis leadership is the best attitudinal preparation for crises. The crisis leader needs to be capable of making a decision, rather than make no decision; the easiest way to do this is to draw-on experience, be it real or simulated. The team will not follow an indecisive leader. A crisis leader needs to exhort stable behaviour; steadfastness is contagious, so is panic.
Crucially, crisis leaders must not become comfortable with only the domestic issues, the corporate ER approach. They must know the when to adopt the CM approach; furthermore, trust the operations level to handle the emergency. Competent crisis leaders will know when to break into the CM process; complex business strategising, accentuated by crisis pressure, to project the company into positive growth.
Crises do not necessarily need to be a dire experience for a company, opportunities do exist for long-term growth; to quickly move beyond the crisis while founding a positive growth future.
Emergency attitudes neither cater for nor take advantage of crisis opportunity; however, corporate ER is important in reacting to a crisis. Opportunities that bring growth must be and can be pursued with Crisis Management. The only difference between the two approaches is the crisis leadership at the corporate level.
To answer the fundamental CM or corporate ER question, it is that which keeps the shareholder value, a function of crisis leadership.
