User:HUMS661.Team 1.Assignment 6/sandbox

Introduction
An effective crisis communications plan must be able to address the diverse challenges that are presented to an organization in an increasingly risk abundant environment. It needs to be applicable to a wide variety of crisis situations and risk threats, while still providing the tools and processes to not only detect hazards but to also respond to them. Identification of stakeholders is essential to the plan, as is defining the distinct protocols under which they would be engaged.

A crisis communication plan developed using the Five Stages of Crisis Management model presented by Mitroff (2001) [4] meets these requirements. It is a theoretical model that, being uncomplicated, is easily implementable into real world organizations. Critically, it recognizes that advance planning and mitigation are vital pieces of a holistic crisis communication approach.

Crisis Types
The unfortunate reality of crisis management is that by definition it is unpredictable (Sellnow & Seeger, 2013; Coombs & Holladay, 2012) [1]. Although one can plan for every potential crisis by simply creating dozens of crisis management plans, Mitroff and Anagos (2001) [5] present that the argument that one can achieve the same results through an all-hazards approach to crisis management. As Mitroff and Anagos (2001) highlight, a crisis management plan must be developed for each of the following seven groups of crisis:


 * Economic
 * Informational
 * Physical (loss of key plants and facilities)
 * Human Resource
 * Reputational
 * Psychopathic Acts
 * Natural Disasters (Mitroff & Anagos, 2001)

Mechanisms
The “before” phase described by Mitroff (2001) is where the most effective crisis work can be accomplished. Using signal detection techniques to contain and appropriately react to potential issues, always while learning and adapting, the likelihood and severity of a crisis are diminished.

Not to say that crises are preventable. If anything, they’re inevitable (Covello, 2006) [2]. Sometimes crises will still occur, even in organizations with fantastic signal detection. When they do, the goal of crisis management becomes damage containment to prevent the problem from becoming worse (Tipping Point PR, 2012) [6]. In the aftermath of crisis, a post-mortem analysis which mirrors the learning and adapting components of the before phase is engaged (Mitroff, 2001). [5]

Systems
Complex systems that exist within an organization can serve to increase risk susceptibility but can also be beneficial in dealing effectively with crisis. Mitroff (2001) [4] develops a “Best Practice Model” that provides a framework for developing a robust organization capable of crisis response and communications.

Firstly, emergency management policy will reflect the training, technology, and response capability of an organization. Top leaders within an organization focussed to influence priority placed on awareness activities can create a culture of preparedness. It is recommended that this framework adopt an emergency management system aligned with regional stakeholders to ensure compatibility and alignment of best practices.

Second, organizations must effectively identify the risks they face, a key part of developing test scenarios that are responsive to possible events. This foundation establishes a framework for stakeholder dialogue and crisis communication planning. Each plan should include several points of flexibility to allow for adjustments, in accordance with the all hazards paradigm.

Systems Approach
In developing a scenario, it is vital to consider any possibility. The term “unthinkable” need not apply; the truest crises are those that fall outside the apparently conceivable. As Mitroff (2001) [4] points out, a serious failing in the development of many scenarios is a lack of imagination. The designers of the Titanic considered the possibility of multiple hull breaches across several bulkheads unthinkable, but that is precisely what occurred. Even with a damaged ship, passengers and crew remained steadfastly convinced that it could not sink, a misapprehension that compounded the tragic results of the event. In terms of scenarios the job of crisis planners is to be imaginative, to engage in strategic pessimism by accounting for the worst possible outcome; the perfect storm.

Stakeholders
Stephens et al (2005) [7] note that the main reason for communicating during a crisis is to inform stakeholders and convince them that the actions being engaged are beneficial, always while staying in control of the message. Miltroff (2000) [3] expands on that, arguing that there is a relationship piece to be maintained, with trust being built up over years between all parties identified as stakeholders during the preparation phase. Indeed, it is essential to identify all affected stakeholders who might become involved in the crisis so that the maximum number of resources can be brought to bear in supporting the organization.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Five Stages of Crisis Management developed by Mitroff (2001) [4] provides a readily adaptable, easily understood approach to crisis management and communications. The model is based upon understanding what risks and crises an organization is exposed too and developing strategies to actively monitor and plan against potential crises. This planning can involve developing programs specific to a risk that involve active surveillance or audit systems to identify non-standard trends or deviations that can lead to crises.

With all of these pre-staged efforts, organizations should implement training and preparation programs tailored to the crises scenarios. When a crisis does occur, this pre work provides the functional capacity of an organization to respond and prevent further spread or continuance of crisis. This provides the foundation for stopping loss, monitoring stakeholder response, and developing appropriate strategies to return to normal business activities.

A learning framework to identify and audit crises response for the re-evaluation of risk and crises identification and planning, creating a full circle crisis management system that is adaptable and effective. Crises are by nature unpredictable (Sellnow & Seeger, 2013 [5]; Coombs & Holladay, 2012 [1]), and Mitroff (2001) [4] makes the case that not all crises will be detected or prevented. By using an all hazards approach impact can be managed and mitigated promoting quicker recovery and stable business continuity.