Crisis management literature began to grow in the 1980s. The nature of the field made it applicable across multiple disciplines and interest grew as world events such as Chernobyl, Bhopal, and the Challenger proved the importance of crisis management (Mitroff, 2001). Table 3 highlights a few other significant case studies done with a crisis management focus. Partly because of these studies, organizations began taking steps to enact programs and develop crisis management plans, but the relatively new emergence of the field made this challenging as organizations were unaware of where to go for guidance. Initially, authors published books based on their experiences. Over time, researchers and authors capitalized on the need for more guidance, by building on the anecdotal literature through case study analysis. However, the case study analysis was done with a discipline-specific bias and results have not been synthesized across all the disciplines. The resulting available literature is far reaching in breadth and depth; however, it is not organized. This lack of structure within the crisis management literature has been an interest item with in the field. Pauchant and Douville (1992); Mitroff (2001); Lalonde (2007); Hermann (1963); as well as articles written by Shrivastava, Miller, Roberts, Smith, and Smith (Smith 2006) have all articulated that crisis management is a relatively new field of study extending across multiple disciplines, and that efforts across all disciplines have not been synthesized.
Key Themes from the Literature Review 产科实习小结
The literature review exposed key, recurring commonalities within the literature; however, a classification of these commonalities into themes proved difficult. Smith illustrated this key concern above: “The analysis of crises does not fall neatly within any particular 本文来自优.文~论^文·网原文请找腾讯324.9114 field, crisis management literature lacks definition and structure. The multidisciplinary nature of the field poses a further problem. The crisis management literature as it now exists is both anecdotal and case study based; therefore, it lacks generalizability to contexts outside those of the specific cases studied (Pauchant & Douville, 1992).
Smith (2006), reviewed existing literature and presented methods of organizing the works of seminal authors along major themes. In order to best capture crisis management literature, it was most effectively structured by identifying key themes. The synthesis of literature provided in this chapter was initially done mirroring the themes provided by Smith and Elliott (2006). Further review allowed for the extraction of key statements repeatedly proposed by different seminal authors. Additional analysis of these statements enabled the identification and grouping of five major themes: (1) no structure with crisis management literature for taxonomy, (2) defining crisis and its management, (3) modeling the crisis management process, (4) the causes of crisis, and (5) keys to successful management. 2440
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 下一页