This project is a review Management of Crisis in an Organization; a study of MB ANAMMCO PLC EMENE ENUGU. The problems identified are crisis response, effective information management, the need to prepare leaders for this role and validate their capabilities, and crisis communications. The major objectives of this study include: the effects of crisis response on the management of crisis in organization, the effects of Strategic thinking and decision making on the management of crisis in organization, the effects of Information management on the management of crisis in organization, the effects of leadership on the management of crisis in organization and how communication can affect the management of crisis in organization. The descriptive survey method was used and the research tool was questionnaire. 245 staffs answered the questionnaire. Frequency percentages and criterion mean score of 7.51 were used in data analysis using Chi-square formula and presentation was done by the use of tables. Taro Yamani’s Statistical formula was used for the sample size determination of 245 from a total population of 629 staffs. The findings from the study showed that the effect of crisis response on the management of crisis in organization is high. Finally, solutions and recommendations were proffered that crisis management is a key capability in the armoury of an organisation’s resilience to disruption. In conclusion, it is the strategic capability in times when fast, effective response is required.
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
- Background of the study 1
- Statement of the problems 3
- Objective of the study 4
- Research questions 4
- Hypothesis formulation 5
- Significance of the study 6
- Scope of the study 6
- Limitation of the study 6
1.9 Brief History of MERCEDES-BENZ ANAMMCO 7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
- Introduction 13
2.1 Conceptual Framework 13
2.2 Theoretical Framework 22
2.3. Empirical Review 26
2.4 Summary of Review of Related Literature 40
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 42
3.2 Research Design 42
3.3 Area of the Study 42
3.4 Population of the study 42
3.5 Sources of Data 43
3.6 Sample and Sampling Techniques for the Study 43
3.7 Data Collection Instrument 47
3.8 Validation of the Instrument 48
3.9 Method of Data Analysis 49
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Presentation of Data 52
4.2 Analysis of Data 53
4.2 Testing of Hypothesis 59
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of Findings 71
5.2 Conclusion 71
5.3 Recommendation 72
5.4 Suggestion for Further Studies 73
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Management of a major crisis requires prevention, planning, testing, evaluation and maintenance to mitigate and minimize the consequences. The process used by a company can determine the outcome for those affected, including employees, community and the company.
According to F. John Reh (2009:131), a crisis is any natural, accidental or intentional event that severely impacts people, property, and/or the environment. Effects might include fatalities, disabling injuries significant destruction or contamination, or jeopardize the organization’s reputation or products, threatening a company’s reputation or its continued existence. The consequences are independent of company size, quality of management, industry or location, (Lawrence S. K. 2001:12).
Crisis Management defined as the preparation and application of strategies and tactics that can prevent or modify the impact of major events on the company or organization. It is the way of thinking and acting when everything “hits the fan.” At worst, crisis management can be the life-or-death difference for a product, career, or company (Caywood, 1997:189). Crisis has potential to do direct impact on corporate reputation. For this reason, crisis periods are indeed time of the reputation risk management for the managers in the competitive business environment. Crisis situations are risky process and it should manage timely manner.
Kolawole, O. D. (2002), see crisis management as the process by which an organization deals with a major event that threatens to harm the organization, its stakeholders, or the general public. The study of crisis management originated with the large scale industrial and environmental disasters in the 1980s. Three elements are common to most definitions of crisis: (a) a threat to the organization, (b) the element of surprise, and (c) a short decision time. Venette (2000:12) argues that “crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained.” Therefore the fourth defining quality is the need for change. If change is not needed, the event could more accurately be described as a failure or incident. Peter Drucker (1909-2005),
In contrast to risk management, which involves assessing potential threats and finding the best ways to avoid those threats, crisis management involves dealing with threats before, during, and after they have occurred. That is, crisis management is proactive, not merely reactive. It is a discipline within the broader context of management consisting of skills and techniques required to identify, assess, understand, and cope with a serious situation, especially from the moment it first occurs to the point that recovery procedures start.
Virtually nothing can damage organizational reputation and financial performance more rapidly and more deeply than the impact of a major crisis. Yet many organizations continue to delegate responsibility for crisis management to operational middle managers, while reputation management increasingly secures a place at the executive table.
However a significant trend in crisis management is now emerging which has the potential to reshape the discipline with substantial implications for the development of organizational structure and design. This trend is the advance of proactive crisis prevention as opposed to reactive crisis response, which brings with it more comprehensive parameters of what should be recognized as integral elements of crisis management within a broader continuum of management activities.
According to Hisrich, R. D. and Peter M. D. (2002), in order to properly understand the emerging shape of crisis management it is essential to appreciate the longer term evolution of the discipline. It is also important to recognize that in the present discussion the term crisis is used to refer primarily to organizational crises – where particular organizations or groups of organizations are specifically impacted. This discussion is not intended to focus on societal crises – including natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, forest fires or even climate change – where individual organizations may be affected but only as part of broader community or national impact.
The British scholar Denis Smith observed in 2005: “The definition of crisis has generated considerable debate within the academic literature and there is no real collective acceptance about the precise meaning of the term” (p. 319).
Yet there is a good deal of academic and practitioner support for the broad concept of a crisis fundamentally as a low probability and highly damaging occurrence (Bekesua. T. A. 2003). A frequently cited descriptive definition is that developed by Pearson and Clair (1998): “An organizational crisis is a high impact event that threatens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly”
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM