مدیریت مسئله و مدیریت بحران : ساختار یکپارچه، غیر خطی، رابطه ای

Despite extensive attempts to define and differentiate issue management and crisis management, the definitional approach – and linear life-cycle models which focus on the elements – fail to capture the full dynamics of the disciplines. Instead of a focus on definitions, this paper proposes a non-linear, relational construct which considers issue and crisis management in the context of interdependent activities and clusters of activity which must be managed at different stages. This includes the role of issue management in both the pre-crisis and post-crisis phases. The model addresses some of the limitations of linear approaches and helps analyze the outcomes and overlaps between activity clusters in order to optimize strategic relationships and enhance bottom-line effectiveness.

During the parallel development of issue management and crisis management there have been extensive academic and practitioner attempts to define and differentiate the two disciplines. Issue management as a defined activity began in the late 1970s but the first book devoted solely to issue management was not published until 1984 (Howard Chase: Issue Management – Origins of the Future). Significantly, one of the seminal works on the emerging discipline of crisis management was published just two years later (Steve Fink: Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable). Chase and his colleague Barry Jones established the pioneering definition that an issue is “an unsettled matter which is ready for decision” (Chase, 1984, p. 38). Over the ensuing twenty years, issues have been defined and categorized in many different ways. Yet, there has come to be reasonably broad acceptance of an issue as “a condition or event, either internal or external to the organization which, if it continues, will have a significant effect of the functioning or performance of the organization or on its future interests” (cited in Regester & Larkin, 2002, p. 42). At the same time there appears to now be a good level of agreement in the management literature about the definition of a crisis. This broad consensus has been consolidated by Christine Pearson and Judith Clair (1998, p. 60). “An organizational crisis is a low probability, high impact event that threatens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effects and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly.” More recently Anne Gregory (2005, p. 313) similarly reported that a literature review concludes crises are characterized as “high consequence, low probability, overlaid with risk and uncertainty, conducted under time-pressure, disruptive of normal business and potentially lethal to organizational reputation.” However, the challenge is not so much in defining issue and crisis but in the application of those definitions to management theory and practice.

When considering the closely related activities of issue management and crisis management, it is clear that definitions provide a useful starting point but are insufficient alone for a full understanding. Not only is there no substantial agreement on key definitions but there is little common ground on language between disciplines. Rather than relying on dubious definitions and distinctions, there is real value in positioning issue management and crisis management in the context of a broader coalescence of management processes. This new relational model presents them as part of a cluster of actions, focused on more effectively preventing and managing crisis, and is intended to address the weaknesses identified in the previous theoretical models, particularly the limitations of a purely definitional or linear approach. From a practitioner perspective, a typical working week may see the experienced public affairs manager seamlessly transition between the different activities and clusters nominated in the model. This is sometimes strategic but more often tactical, effectively managing and responding to the needs of a client or working organization without necessarily requiring a specific awareness of the distinctions. (Smudde, 2001). However the present model and the broader understanding it encourages, provides form and context for the different processes. At a practical level, it also helps avoids simplistic errors such as the belief that issue management relies mainly on lobbying, or that crisis management is really little more than effective media relations, or that the crisis is over when the flames die down. In this way the model aims to promote an improved theoretical understanding of the different disciplines and at the same time helps deliver real bottom line impact—minimizing human and financial cost and reducing both the risk and impact of adverse events.