Read Mitroff, chapters one through five. Write an approximate 1200-word reaction paper on the concepts. Include in your discussion:
-What lessons from historical crisis management scenarios and case studies are most important to consider in crisis action planning?
-Why is it important to consider the abnormal to be normal? How did we come to be a crisis society?
-How did conventional thinking fail Rural Books? How could conventional thinking fail your organization?
-How do Crisis Management, Risk Management, and Continuity of Operations Planning differ? Why are the differences important?
-Discuss denial, trauma, and betrayal.
-In crisis action planning, why is it necessary: To be a troublemaker? To think ‘out of the box’? To question authority?
-How was Rural Books’ business model and system impact more complex than they thought it was? How is your organization’s business model and system impact more complex than you and management think it is?
-What are the four distinct styles of thinking? Why is recognition of these distinctive styles important to crisis action planning? (This question leads directly into the discussion in forum five – six)
-What are the ‘outmoded assumptions’ and ‘counter assumptions’ that characterize the author’s evolution from his old perception of crisis management to his new one?
(1) Provide an introduction that gives the background, purpose, and overview of the topic that you are reviewing, so the reader will understand what they’re reading and why.
(2) Provide a body with a discussion of the topics organized with headings.
(3).Provide a conclusion wrapping up the paper.
APA Format and no less than 4 peer reviewed sources in addition to the Required reading from Mitroff, chapters one through five.
Mitroff, I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a crisis: 7 essential lessons for surviving disaster. Kindle Edition: New York.
View the TED talk:
Peter Haas: A disaster of engineering
Watch this clip from the author:
Then read Mitroff, chapters one through five.