POST CRISIS INCIDENT ANALYSIS:

HOSTAGE INCIDENT’S IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS

Ricardo S. Guanzon, MD, MAEd, EdD

Case Scenario

Manila bus hostage-taking ends with 9 dead

Last Updated: Monday, August 23, 2010 | 10:35 PM ET Comments137Recommend373

CBC News

Police commandos assault a bus in a hostage-taking incident at Quirino Grandstand in Manila

in the Philippines on Monday. The incident began when a fired former Filipino policeman held
15 Hong Kong tourists hostage aboard the bus. (Erik de Castro/Reuters)

A hostage-taking in Manila, Philippines — in which a former policeman held 15 tourists on a bus — has ended with
nine people dead, including the gunman. Police surrounded and entered the bus Monday, and television footage
showed four people leaving it.

One body could be seen being taken off the bus.

The Associated Press later reported that Manila hospitals indicated seven out of the 15 hostages had died.

Freelance reporter Dean Bernardo said the gunman — who was identified as former senior inspector Rolando
Mendoza, 55 — was shot and killed by a police sniper.

Earlier, police said the driver of the bus, who escaped before police officers surrounded the bus, had indicated the
gunman had opened fire on the tourists. The bus driver said the gunman was armed with an M16 rifle.

Police shot out the tires of the bus and then smashed the side windows, door and windshield of the bus. The police
tried to board it, but they backed off after shots were fired from inside the vehicle.
The daylong standoff in the Philippine capital began when the gunman, in an apparent attempt to get his job back,
commandeered the bus, which had aboard mainly tourists from Hong Kong. The gunman initially released nine of his
hostages, but kept another 15 on the bus.

Newspaper reports from 2008 indicated that Mendoza was among five police officers charged with robbery, extortion
and grave threats. The charges were laid after a hotel chef in Manila complained that officers had falsely accused him
of using drugs in order to extort money from him.

Introduction

The particular hostage case happened last August 23, 2010 at the Luneta Park. It is the
best case in point to analyze. Here is another internet account:

Mintibal (dtd September 03, 2010 from the internet; the name is changed for identity protection)
The Manila hostage crisis occurred when a dismissed Philippine National Police officer took over a tour bus in Rizal Park,
Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2010. Disgruntled former senior inspector Rolando Mendoza, from the Manila Police
District (MPD) hijacked a tour bus carrying 25 tourists from Hong Kong in an attempt to get his job back. He said that he
was summarily dismissed without the opportunity to properly defend himself, and that all he wanted was a fair hearing.

As a result of the ten-hour siege, the ensuing shoot-out, and a botched rescue attempt by MPD watched by millions on live
television news, eight of the hostages and Mendoza died and nine other people were injured. The Hong Kong Government
then immediately issued a top-level 'black' travel alert for the Philippines.The assault on the tour bus to rescue the hostages
was widely regarded by pundits at home and abroad as 'bungled' and 'incompetent'; the Philippine government also
admitted that errors had been made and promised a thorough investigation, which they would report to the Chinese
government. Downloaded November 11, 2010, 6:30 PM

Looking at the particular event, there are so many things we learned. The hostage taking
is an stressful event. Why was the hostage - taker stressed and did the act? So what caused it?
How do we become stressed and what is our reaction to stress? How do we cope with it? With
the act of hostage taking, what was the outcome? What then also are the impact and implications
of the hostage taking incident?

Stress

People show marked individual differences in their reaction to stress. Even physiological
responses to painful stimuli can be influenced by the way we think about them. While some
situations are stressful to everyone (like death of loved ones or life-threatening illness), many
less dramatic experiences are very stressful to some but not for others. It is vital then to know
how an individual appraises each situation in life, his or her particular motives, and resources for
coping with stress. Physiological responses to stress involve the activation of the hypothalamus
by the sympathetic nervous system and the adrenal-cortical system. There is a release of the
hormones, epinephrine and norepinephrine. This prepares the person for the fight or flight mode.

There is cognitive impairment, the ability to concentrate and organize our thoughts
logically when under stress. Anxiety and anger are some of the common reactions to stress. The
frustration-aggression hypothesis assumes that whenever a person’s effort to reach a goal is
blocked, an aggressive drive is induced that motivates behavior to injure the object or person,
causing frustration.
Sources of Stress

Traumatic events can cause stress. These events produce severe stress responses in
everyone and require extensive and prolonged coping abilities. Some survivors of catastrophes
develop post traumatic stress disorder. This may develop immediately after a catastrophe or
several weeks or months later. Life changes may also cause stress. These changes require a
person to adapt to new circumstances. In the Holmes and Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale
(in Atkinson, et al), stress is measured in terms of life changes. A jail term has a value of 63, fired
from job, 47, retirement with 45, change in financial state, 38 and many other more life events. A
total life change score of 300 or higher is associated with an increased in various illness,
psychological disorders, etc.

Unresolved conflicts is another source of stress. The removal from work of the hostage
taker and his perception of whether this was righteous or an unjust decision continues to be
unresolved with him having a feeling of conflict.

Coping with Stress

The emotional supports and concern of other people make stress more bearable. When
the cause of stress is shared by others, like having a community disaster, it becomes more
bearable. When an individual manages a stressful demand, this is coping. It takes two forms:
the emotion-focused coping. This is the emotional response to the problem. The individual tries
to reduce anxiety without dealing directly with the anxiety-producing situation. The problem-
focused coping deals with the reduction of the stressful situation by dealing directly with the
stress producing situation by avoidance or making changes to address the problem. Defense-
Mechanisms are emotion-focused coping strategies. When a painful situation or unpleasant event
happens, one may deal with it by denial. This relieves the anxiety or stress.

Thus, any hostage taker takes with him a grievance and harms or intends to harm people
to achieve his objective. Unfortunately, this mindset or cognitive ability of the hostage taker is
severely impaired and he may commit any decision that may prove to be fatal to him or for all.
Thus, you do not rattle or further unduly excite him. This is now a real crisis.

Types of crisis (From Wikipedia, downloaded Nov 11, 2010)

It is important to identify the types of crises in that different crises necessitate the use of different
crisis management strategies.[4] Potential crises are enormous, but crises can be clustered.[4]

Lerbinger[5] categorized seven types of crises

1. Natural disaster
2. Technological crises
3. Confrontation
4. Malevolence
 5. Crisis of skewed management value
6. Crisis of deception
7. Crisis of management misconduct

Let us consider two of the crises relative to or related to the hostage event earlier explained.

Confrontation crises

Confrontation crises occur when discontented individuals and/or groups fight businesses,
government, and various interest groups to win acceptance of their demands and expectations.
The common type of confrontation crises is boycotts, and other types are picketing, sit-ins,
ultimatums to those in authority, blockade or occupation of buildings, and resisting or disobeying
police.

Example: PALEA (Employees’ Association) vs the Management of Philippine Airlines threat of

Strike against forced early retirement/dismissal due to heavy airline financial losses

Crises of malevolence

A crisis of malevolence happens in an organization when misguided elements, criminals,

miscreant individuals or political ideologues, use criminal means or other extreme tactics for the
purpose of expressing hostility or anger toward, or seeking gain from, country and government,
company, or economic system. Its intentions may be with the aim of destabilizing or destroying
it as seen in international terrorism. Sample crises include hostage taking, product tampering,
kidnapping, malicious rumors, terrorism, and espionage.[4][5]

Example: The Manila Bus Hostage Situation of Aug 23, 2010 and the New York Twin
Towers Disaster (9/11)

James categorizes five phases of crisis that require specific crisis leadership competencies.[8]
Each phase contains an obstacle that a leader must overcome to improve the structure and
operations of an organization. While James’s case study on crisis is on the financial services
sector, it is equally applicable to the Manila Bus Hostage Situation. He explored why crisis
events erode public trust in leadership. James's research demonstrates how leadership
competencies of integrity, positive intent, capability, mutual respect, and transparency impact the
trust-building process. [9] These Phases of Crisis -
1. Signal detection
2. Preparation and prevention

3. Containment and damage control

4. Recovery

5. Learning
 1. Signal detection

Signal detection is the stage in a crisis in which leaders should, but do not always, sense early
warning signals (red flags) that suggest the possibility of a crisis. The detection stages of a crisis
include: Sense-making: represents an attempt to create order and make sense, retrospectively, of
what occurs. Perspective-taking: the ability to consider another person's or group's point of view.
The hostage taking, in our case is already a red flag or as they say, already compose the corpus
delicti or body of the crime.

2. Preparation and prevention

This is both the planning and execution phase. It is during this stage that crisis handlers begin
preparing for or averting the crisis that had been foreshadowed in the signal detection stage.
Organizations such as the Risk Management Reduction Control (the former NDCC of the
Philippines) has a primary mission to prepare for and prevent the escalation of crisis events like
the natural disasters of typhoons Pepeng and Ondoy in 2009. In our case scenario, a hostage
negotiator on the other hand is now extremely needed to avert a full blown catastrophe. Security
and safety of the hostages is paramount, and all the people dealing with the crisis. Plans and
contingencies must be clear to all and laid out. Unity of command, areas of responsibilities,
operational guidelines, tactical maneuvers of rescue and assault teams, media participation
MUST be well understood and carried out to the letter. Any deviation must be addressed
immediately.

3. Containment and Damage Control

The most vivid stage, the goal of crisis containment and damage control is to limit the
reputational, financial, safety, and other threats to state or a firm’s survival. Crisis handlers work
diligently during this stage to bring the crisis to an end as quickly as possible to limit the
negative publicity to the organization, and move into the state image/business recovery phase.

4. Event or Business recovery

When crisis hits, the state or organizations must be able to carry on with their business in its
midst. At the same time, they must simultaneously plan for how they will recover from the
damage the crisis caused. Crisis handlers not only must engage in continuity planning
(determining the people, financial, and technology resources needed to keep the organization
running or mitigate the negative impact of the event), but will also actively pursue organizational
resilience.

5. Learning

In the wake of a crisis, state leaders and organizational decision makers adopt a learning
orientation and use prior experience to develop new routines and behaviors that ultimately
change the way the organization operates. The crisis in itself lends an opportunity to learn and
test the validity and reliability of previous models used. The best leaders recognize this and are
purposeful and skillful in finding the learning opportunities inherent in every crisis situation. We
would call this as the Impact – Implication Post Crisis Analysis.

Crisis management – A Review

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia downloaded 11/11/10 at1900H.) These notes
give a brief overview about Crisis.

Crisis management is the process by which an organization deals with a major event that
threatens to harm the organization, its stakeholders, or the general public. 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.[1] Venette[2] 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. In the hostage taking situation, the organization refers to the State.

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 after they have
occurred. 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.

The Donabedian Model

Crisis Management may also use the Donabedian model of quality assurance commonly used in
the medical and health sector. Consider the event as having three main components using the
hostage taking as a case in point:

1. Structure
a. Who is involved (the hostage taker/group of persons/a highly trained
organization?)

b. Where is the location of the event? Advantage and Disadvantage of the staging
ground

c. Who are the direct recipients of the event (i.e. characteristics of the hostages)

d. Who are the participating units? (the negotiator/WPD, DLG, media)

e. What are the present resources available? (How many? and training assessment)

i. Human Resources

1. Highly skilled/Adequately trained/stress inoculated?

ii. Materials and Equipment

 1. Top of the Line/Latest High-tech/calibrated/Appropriate

2. Process

a. What is the operational plan?

b. How does one carry out the mission or target/objective?

i. Strategies

ii. Main plan and other contingencies

c. Define role and assignment of all personnel involved (clear to all participating
units and personalities like the Chief Negotiator)

d. Readiness for Crisis Negotiation/Leadership (Unexpected Scenario)

e. Negotiate from vantage of co-equal win-win situation, gain an advantage, or

surrender situation

f. Time Plan or timeline adequately mapped

3. Outcome

a. Is it acceptable? Maximum attainment of objective with the least cost or zero

casualty

i. Stakeholders

1. Local Planners – Agencies directly involved

2. Recipients – the target of the plan, like the hostages/hostage taker

ii. Local Community or National Scope

iii. International Scope

4. Impact

a. Personnel and offices involved

i. National

1. Organization (State and Leadership)

2. Business/Economy
 3. Citizens

4. Media

ii. International

1. Financial/Business Perception (Tourism)

2. State Leadership and Citizen Perception

a. Perception of Credibility/Integrity/Satisfactory National

Leadership

b. Perception /Generalization of Filipinos (Racial Slur)

5. Implications

i. Unit/personnel participation – adequate/needs further training?

1. Comparison with projected outcome to actual outcome

a. Degree of deviation of actual from projected outcome and

cost generated

ii. National Leadership

iii. International Standing

iv. Economy

v. Adequacy of Plans and Contingencies and Degree of Acceptability

Similarly, Crisis management (Wikipedia) may consist of:1) Methods used to respond to both the
reality and perception of crises, 2) Establishing metrics to define what scenarios constitute a
crisis and should consequently trigger the necessary response mechanisms, and 3)
Communication that occurs within the response phase of emergency management scenarios.

Crisis management is occasionally referred to as incident management, although several industry

specialists such as Peter Power argue that the term crisis management is more accurate. [3]

The credibility and reputation of organizations is heavily influenced by the perception of their
responses during crisis situations. The organization and communication involved in responding
to a crisis in a timely fashion makes for a challenge in an organization. There must be open and
consistent communication throughout the hierarchy to contribute to a successful crisis
communication process.
The related term emergency management focuses on the prompt but short lived "first aid" type of
response (e.g. putting the fire out) and the longer term recovery and restoration phases (e.g.
moving operations to another site).

Other Models and theories associated with crisis management

There are 3 phases in any Crisis Management – 1) The diagnosis of the impending trouble or the
danger signals, 2) Choosing appropriate Turnaround Strategy, and 3) Implementation of the
change process and its monitoring.

Contingency planning

Preparing contingency plans in advance, is the first step to ensuring an organization is

appropriately prepared for a crisis. This is the crisis management plan . The crisis management
teams can rehearse a crisis plan by developing a simulated scenario to use as a drill. The plan
should clearly stipulate that the only people to speak publicly about the crisis are the designated
persons, such as the spokesperson or crisis team members. This is the management
communication team. The first hours after a crisis breaks are the most crucial, so working with
speed and efficiency is important, and the plan should indicate how quickly each function should
be performed. When preparing to offer a statement externally as well as internally, information
should be accurate. Providing incorrect or manipulated information has a tendency to backfire
and will greatly exacerbate the situation. The contingency plan should contain information and
guidance that will help decision makers to consider not only the short-term consequences, but the
long-term effects of every decision.[10] The role of the media must have been well-ascertained at
this point. Also, people exclusion, cordoning, non-involvement of unnecessary people must have
been made.

Business continuity planning

When a crisis will undoubtedly cause a significant disruption to an organization, a business

continuity plan can help minimize the disruption. First, one must identify the critical functions
and processes that are necessary to keep the organization running. Then each critical function
and or/process must have its own contingency plan in the event that one of the
functions/processes ceases or fails. Testing these contingency plans by rehearsing the required
actions in a simulation will allow for all involved to become more sensitive and aware of the
possibility of a crisis. As a result, in the event of an actual crisis, the team members will act more
quickly and effectively.[10]

Role of apologies in crisis management

There has been debate about the role of apologies in crisis management. Some argue that
apology opens an organization up for possible legal consequences. "However some evidence
indicates that compensation and sympathy, two less expensive strategies, are as effective as an
apology in shaping people’s perceptions of the organization taking responsibility for the crisis
because these strategies focus on the victims’ needs. The sympathy response expresses concern
for victims while compensation offers victims something to offset the suffering."[12] The personal
acceptance of responsibility in the botched hostage rescue situation by President Aquino in the
famous August 23 event was seen as an exculpation of the failure of the heads of agencies
directly involved in the crisis. Public sentiment points to the better response of these officials to
have just resigned their position and the President to not have pre-empted the investigations and
recommendation of the Human Rights Committee chaired by Leila De Lima.

Crisis leadership

James identifies six leadership competencies which facilitate organizational restructuring during
and after a crisis. The first entails building an environment of trust. Another competency entails
reforming the organization’s mindset. A third competency includes identifying obvious and
obscure vulnerabilities of the organization. Two other competencies include making wise and
rapid decisions as well as taking courageous action. The final competency is learning from crisis
to effect change. Crisis leadership research concludes that leadership action in crisis reflects the
competency of an organization, because the test of crisis demonstrates how well the institution’s
leadership structure serves the organization’s goals and withstands crisis. [8]

OUTCOME

Studies on the impact are better reported coming from the real events that followed after the
particular case of hostage taking recently experienced (August 23, 2010). Here are some
comments made. From those that conducted the negotiations and the attempt to free the
hostages, it would seem that the authorities in the beginning did not treat the hostage taking very
seriously as implied and evidenced by 1) poor crowd control and the many kibitzers, 2)
uncertain media rules or rules of engagement of media personalities not clear, 3) poor
operational assessment,4) non-coordination or poor coordination among offices involved, 5)
chain of command is not as well-defined, 6) President Aquino had to accept full responsibility
for the casualty-laden operation, 7) equipment and materials were inappropriate or
malfunctioned, 8) tactical movements were not precise and were monitored by the hostage taker,
9) spur of the moment personalities interfere, 10) negotiator was not proactive and “in control”,
11) event covered by national and international media without consideration for impact on
national interest, 12) Racial discrimination and harassment of Filipinos and hate campaigns in
some countries like Hongkong and China were reported, 13) Travel advisory made against
tourists and travelers coming to the Philippines were called by Chinese, 14) Loss of overseas
jobs in Hongkong made (by non-renewal of work contract and worker/job order cancellation),
15) Internet bashing of Filipinos noted, and 16) arrogance and indiscrete show by Hongkong
investigators on our local authorities, 17) undiplomatic actions of Hongkong leader to
Philippine President and authorities, 18) maximum casualty of hostage victims resulted.

COMPONENTS IMPACT IMPLICATIONS

Structure

Hostage-taker Death Crime does not pay

 Hostage Death Life is at the mercy of the
Negotiator/Gen Commander

Victim’s relatives Injury/Death Feeling of Helplessness

Poor Negotiation/Strategy

Rescue and Assault Team Multiple casualty Poor Training and Skills

Media Unlimited access Compromised Tactical

Positions/Maneuvers

Process Poor security Easy prey to criminal element

Poor Planning & Execution Uncertain outcome of events

The outcome of the rescue if positive and successful will Impact on the enhanced
reputation and image of the 1) negotiator, 2) rescue and assault team, 3) all participating
units, and, 4) the National leadership – the Police Chief Superintendent and the Philippine
President.

It will also enhance the Trust rating and credibility of the units and their heads, especially
the National Leadership which includes the President. (Consider Pulse Asia Survey, Social
Weather Station or SWS).

It will also promote and invite foreign tourists to come to the Philippines, it being a safe
and secure place to travel to.

If the outcome is negative, there is a hostage situation, unresolved and dragging, and
ultimately leads to multiple casualty then you start to question:

IMPLICATIONS

1. Since the reaction of the hostage taker for every negotiation he had every so many number
of minutes of time lapsed was unanticipated one, it would seem his character was not that clear
to the authorities. Therefore, a comprehensive background check and psychological profile of the
Hostage taker may not have been made and analyzed diligently.

2. Since the rescuers could not enter the bus and or take down the hostage taker in the
shortest possible time, a) was the Rescue and Assault Operational Plan appropriate or executed to
the smallest detail? Or, b) were they the appropriate unit or teams? Finally, were their equipment
and arms appropriate and precise?

3. Since the negotiator had a difficult time meeting the mind of the hostage taker, a) was he
the Appropriate Person? Highly trained and well versed on the art and science of negotiation?
 4. Since he was bidding his time negotiating and even released some other hostages, it
implies he may not have the full capacity to inflict harm and injury to his hostages in the
beginning. But a side event, his brother coming to the picture agitated him. It implies the brother
was a non-essential and harmful personality. It implies poor analysis on how his brother would
impact on him, and the usual restraint to all in the “ground zero”.

5. Since the event was covered with “real time” live unabated raw news information feed to
all media outlets, local and international, both the a) hostage taker, and b) the general public,
local and international knew what was going. There was no filtering of whatever information
may “give in” to the hostage taker. It implies poor operational engagements among the
stakeholders.

Unedited reportage or “live” unrestricted media feed may hurt national honor and pride in the
international scene since anything can happen in a crisis; there might be a need to give certain
restrictions on media to live unedited coverage, to make it at least use delayed telecast strategy.
Or a guideline by media themselves (self-monitoring) or the police authorities be made clear.

6. Since tourists get killed in the country, it is not safe to travel to the Philippines. Since a
Filipino killed tourists, then all Filipinos are killers (faulty overgeneralization). a) “Let us
get back at the Filipinos.” It implies they are dangerous so let us not employ them.
(IMPACT: Jobs were lost or cancelled for Filipino overseas workers)
7. International media access to local crisis created a poor image of the Philippines. It
implies we have a poor communications management team to do early and continuing
damage control to the media.

Finally the death of many tourists has tarnished our image by international perception of our
abilities to handle very well crisis situations. It implies a) Poor Crisis Handling and Crisis
Leadership and to create a better Crisis Management Plan.

Appendix 1 -Examples of International companies with successful crisis management

(downloaded from Wikipedia):

Tylenol (Johnson and Johnson)

In the fall of 1982, a murderer added 65 milligrams of cyanide to some Tylenol capsules on store shelves, killing seven people, including three in
one family. Johnson & Johnson recalled and destroyed 31 million capsules at a cost of $100 million. The affable CEO, James Burke,
appeared in television ads and at news conferences informing consumers of the company's actions. Tamper-resistant packaging was
rapidly introduced, and Tylenol sales swiftly bounced back to near pre-crisis levels. [16]

Odwalla Foods

When Odwalla's apple juice was thought to be the cause of an outbreak of E. coli infection, the company lost a third of its market value. In
October 1996, an outbreak of E. coli bacteria in Washington state, California, Colorado and British Columbia was traced to unpasteurized apple
juice manufactured by natural juice maker Odwalla Inc. Forty-nine cases were reported, including the death of a small child. Within 24 hours,
Odwalla conferred with the FDA and Washington state health officials; established a schedule of daily press briefings; sent out press releases
which announced the recall; expressed remorse, concern and apology, and took responsibility for anyone harmed by their products; detailed
symptoms of E. coli poisoning; and explained what consumers should do with any affected products. Odwalla then developed - through the help
of consultants - effective thermal processes that would not harm the products' flavors when production resumed. All of these steps were
communicated through close relations with the media and through full-page newspaper ads.[18]
Mattel

Mattel Inc., the toy maker, has been plagued with more than 28 product recalls and in Summer of 2007, amongst problems with exports from
China, faced two product recall in two weeks. The company "did everything it could to get its message out, earning high marks from consumers
and retailers. Though upset by the situation, they were appreciative of the company's response. At Mattel, just after the 7 a.m. recall
announcement by federal officials, a public relations staff of 16 was set to call reporters at the 40 biggest media outlets. They told each to check
their e-mail for a news release outlining the recalls, invited them to a teleconference call with executives and scheduled TV appearances or phone
conversations with Mattel's chief executive. The Mattel CEO Robert Eckert did 14 TV interviews on a Tuesday in August and about 20 calls with
individual reporters. By the week's end, Mattel had responded to more than 300 media inquiries in the U.S. alone." [19]

Pepsi

The Pepsi Corporation faced a crisis in 1993 which started with claims of syringes being found in cans of diet Pepsi. Pepsi urged stores not to
remove the product from shelves while it had the cans and the situation investigated. This led to an arrest, which Pepsi made public and then
followed with their first video news release, showing the production process to demonstrate that such tampering was impossible within their
factories. A second video news release displayed the man arrested. A third video news release showed surveillance from a convenience store
where a woman was caught replicating the tampering incident. The company simultaneously publicly worked with the FDA during the crisis. The
corporation was completely open with the public throughout, and every employee of Pepsi was kept aware of the details. [citation needed] This made
public communications effective throughout the crisis. After the crisis had been resolved, the corporation ran a series of special campaigns
designed to thank the public for standing by the corporation, along with coupons for further compensation. This case served as a design for how
to handle other crisis situations.[20][citation needed]

Appendix 2 - Examples of unsuccessful international companies with crisis management

Bhopal

The Bhopal disaster in which poor communication before, during, and after the crisis cost thousands of lives, illustrates the importance of
incorporating cross-cultural communication in crisis management plans. According to American University’s Trade Environmental Database Case
Studies (1997), local residents were not sure how to react to warnings of potential threats from the Union Carbide plant. Operating manuals
printed only in English is an extreme example of mismanagement but indicative of systemic barriers to information diffusion. According to Union
Carbide’s own chronology of the incident (2006), a day after the crisis Union Carbide’s upper management arrived in India but was unable to
assist in the relief efforts because they were placed under house arrest by the Indian government. Symbolic intervention can be counter
productive; a crisis management strategy can help upper management make more calculated decisions in how they should respond to disaster
scenarios. The Bhopal incident illustrates the difficulty in consistently applying management standards to multi-national operations and the blame
shifting that often results from the lack of a clear management plan.[21]

Ford and Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

The Ford-Firestone Tire and Rubber Company dispute transpired in August 2000. In response to claims that their 15-inch Wilderness AT, radial
ATX and ATX II tire treads were separating from the tire core—leading to grisly, spectacular crashes—Bridgestone/Firestone recalled 6.5 million
tires. These tires were mostly used on the Ford Explorer, the world's top-selling sport utility vehicle (SUV). [22]

The two companies committed three major blunders early on, say crisis experts. First, they blamed consumers for not inflating their tires properly.
Then they blamed each other for faulty tires and faulty vehicle design. Then they said very little about what they were doing to solve a problem
that had caused more than 100 deaths—until they got called to Washington to testify before Congress.[23]

Exxon

On March 24, 1989, a tanker belonging to the Exxon Corporation ran aground in the Prince William Sound in Alaska. The Exxon Valdez spilled
millions of gallons of crude oil into the waters off Valdez, killing thousands of fish, fowl, and sea otters. Hundreds of miles of coastline were
polluted and salmon spawning runs disrupted; numerous fishermen, especially Native Americans, lost their livelihoods. Exxon, by contrast, did
not react quickly in terms of dealing with the media and the public; the CEO, Lawrence Rawl, did not become an active part of the public
relations effort and actually shunned public involvement; the company had neither a communication plan nor a communication team in place to
handle the event—in fact, the company did not appoint a public relations manager to its management team until 1993, 4 years after the incident;
Exxon established its media center in Valdez, a location too small and too remote to handle the onslaught of media attention; and the company
acted defensively in its response to its publics, even laying blame, at times, on other groups such as the Coast Guard. These responses also
happened within days of the incident.[24]
References (Majority retrieved through Wikipedia)
1. Seeger, M. W.; Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). "Communication, organization and crisis".
Communication Yearbook 21: 231–275.
2. Venette, S. J. (2003). Risk communication in a High Reliability Organization: APHIS PPQ's
inclusion of risk in decision making. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Proquest Information and Learning.

3. "Incident or crisis? Why the debate?". http://www.continuitycentral.com/feature0447.htm.

4. Coombs, W. T. (1999). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

5. Lerbinger, O. (1997). The crisis manager: Facing risk and responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

6. "Crisis Leadership". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=1281843&rec=1&srcabs=224055. Retrieved 2010-11-12.

7. James, E. (Spring 2007). "Leadership as (Un)usual: How to Display Competence InTimes of

Crisis". Leadership Preview. http://www.leadershipreview.org/2007spring/Article4.pdf. Retrieved
2010-06-22.

8. James, E. (Spring 2007). "Leadership as (Un)usual: How to Display Competence In Times of

Crisis". Leadership Preview. http://www.leadershipreview.org/2007spring/Article4.pdf. Retrieved
2010-06-22.

9. James, Erika; Roberts, J (2009). "In the wake of the financial crisis: rebuilding the image of the
finance industry through trust". Journal of Financial Transformation 125 (2): 601–7.
PMID RePEc:ris:jofitr:1382. PMC 236121. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/risjofitr/1382.htm.
Retrieved 2010-06-22.

10. "Rigor and Relevance in Management". 12Manage.com.

http://www.12manage.com/methods_crisis_management_advice.html. Retrieved 2007-10-11.

11. Infante, D.; Rancer, A., & Womack, D. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

12. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13. James, E.; James, E. H. (Vol. 10, No. 3, 2008). "Linking Crisis Management and Leadership
Competencies: The Role of Human Resource Development". Advances in Developing Human
Resources 10: 352. doi:10.1177/1523422308316450.
http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/10/3/352. Retrieved 2010-06-22.

14. James, Erika; Lynn Perry Wooten (2010). "Why Discrimination Lawsuits Are a Noteworthy
Crisis". Leading Under Pressure. Routledge Academic.

15. James, Erika (Sept. – Oct. 2000, Vol. 11, No. 5). "Race-Related Differences in Promotions and
Support: Underlying Effects of Human and Social Capital". Organizational Science 11: 493.
doi:10.1287/orsc.11.5.493.15202. http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/493.
Retrieved 2010-06-22.

16. Dezenhall, E. (2004-03-17). USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-

03-17-dezenhall_x.html. Retrieved 2007-10-08.[dead link]
17. Rudolph, B. (1986-02-24). "Coping with catastrophe". Time.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,960708,00.html. Retrieved 2007-10-06.

18. Dwyer, S. (May, 1998). ""Hudson, we have a problem!" - Hudson Food's inability to handle a
crisis management program". Prepared Foods.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_n5_v167/ai_20791737/print. Retrieved 2009-04-
30.

19. Goldman, A.; Reckard, E. (2007). LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-

pr18aug18,0,3471349.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-pe-business. Retrieved 2007-10-13.[dead link]

20. "The Pepsi Product Tampering Scandal of 1993".

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/rant/pepsipanic.html. Retrieved 7 September 2009.

21. Shrivastava, P. (1987). Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. Ballinger Publishing Company.

22. Ackman, D. (2001). Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/20/tireindex.htm. Retrieved 2010-

11-14.

23. Warner, F. (2002). "How to Stay Loose in a Tight Spot". Fast Company.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/63/onethingdoneright.html. Retrieved 2007-10-15.

24. Pauly, J. J.; Hutchison, L. L. (2005). "Moral fables of public relations practice: The Tylenol and
Exxon Valdez cases". Journal of Mass Media Ethics 20 (4): 231–249.
doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme2004_2.

25. James, E.; James, E. H. (Vol. 44, No. 1, 2008). "Toward an Understanding of When Executives
See Crisis as Opportunity". The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44: 94.
doi:10.1177/0021886307313824. http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/94. Retrieved
2010-06-22.

26. James, Erika; Lynn Wooten (2010). Leading Under Pressure. Routledge Academic.

27. "The Wall Street Journal Community". http://online.wsj.com/community/568661/activity.

Retrieved 2010-06-22.

28. "Campus Security Summit" (RealMedia Streaming Video).

http://campussecuritysummit.ucok.edu/streaming/video/ncss_crisis1.rm.

29. "Crisis management". Kansas City Public Schools. 2010. http://www.kckps.org/crisis/.

30. "Resource guide for crisis management in Virginia schools" (PDF). Virginia Department of
Education. 2002. Archived from the original on 2010-11-13.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070803200556/http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/crisis-
guide.pdf. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

31. "Quick Reference Guide for the National Response Plan (version 4.0)" (PDF). May 2006.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_Quick_Reference_Guide_5-22-06.pdf.

32. "Emergency Management Institute Home Page". http://www.training.fema.gov/.

33. Boin, A.; P. Hart and E. Stern (2005). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under
pressure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Hellsloot, I. (2007). "Review of "The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under
pressure" by A. Boin, P. Hart, E. Stern and B. Sundelius". Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management 15 (3): 168–169.