Effectiveness of Crisis Management
A crisis is unpredictable event that can seriously impact an organisation, threaten stakeholder’s expectations and generate negative outcomes (Coombs, 2014). Overall, Dairy UK was effective in managing the milk crisis, partially due to the quick assessment of the crisis, which quickly transitioned the company from the acute to chronic phase, allowing prompt decision-making (Fink, 1986). There was neither a prodromal phase nor the ability to detect or contain the issue (Fearn-Banks, 2006), as the onset was sudden and without warning, ergo a “cobra” within Seymour and Moore 's typology (Seymour and Moore, 2000).
In particular, the decision to announce spot checks and biannual auditing was very effective (Appendix …show more content…
Not consulting stakeholders on key decisions can severely impact relationships (Buono and Bowditch, 1989). In particular, Farmers for Action, a stakeholder that is a member of the Dairy UK trade association, was initially formed by farmers who disagreed with organisations such as the NFU and there has been consistent conflict between the two entities. Thus, FFA are unlikely to welcome the abrupt partnership and their relationship with Dairy UK will deteriorate due to not being consulted. Moreover, this will also negatively affect employees, as they were not informed or consulted prior to the merger, an indication of autocratic leadership (Boone and Kurtz, 2011). In theory, Dairy UK should have consulted several stakeholders, first and foremost the FFA, and released internal communications prior to merging. Overall, Dairy UK mismanaged the internal crisis and potentially escalated the situation.
In conclusion, Dairy UK was effective in regards to the milk crisis, promptly composing a communications strategy and utilising tactics such as press releases and a press conference to convey it. However, the group management of the internal crisis was far less effective, as decision-making was rushed to reach a quick short-term resolution whilst not apprehending long-term …show more content…
The use of first person writing, passive voice, grammatical mistakes and misspellings deteriorate the professional image of the company (Cowan, 2012), especially during a period of intense scrutiny such as the milk crisis. This is exemplified within the first press release in which Farmers for Action (FFA) are referred to as "FFS" and Müller Wiseman are called "Muller Weismann" (Appendix B). These indiscretions would likely be recognised by the press, much to the ignominy of Dairy UK; inducing brand contamination and worsening the relationship with the two stakeholders. Furthermore, this document also contains poor phrasing with the statement "we as a company have our best interest at heart" concluding the release (Appendix B). This is a misnomer which suggests Dairy UK are only self-serving in their reaction to the crisis, diluting the message the company are trying to convey and limiting effectiveness of the press
A crisis is unpredictable event that can seriously impact an organisation, threaten stakeholder’s expectations and generate negative outcomes (Coombs, 2014). Overall, Dairy UK was effective in managing the milk crisis, partially due to the quick assessment of the crisis, which quickly transitioned the company from the acute to chronic phase, allowing prompt decision-making (Fink, 1986). There was neither a prodromal phase nor the ability to detect or contain the issue (Fearn-Banks, 2006), as the onset was sudden and without warning, ergo a “cobra” within Seymour and Moore 's typology (Seymour and Moore, 2000).
In particular, the decision to announce spot checks and biannual auditing was very effective (Appendix …show more content…
Not consulting stakeholders on key decisions can severely impact relationships (Buono and Bowditch, 1989). In particular, Farmers for Action, a stakeholder that is a member of the Dairy UK trade association, was initially formed by farmers who disagreed with organisations such as the NFU and there has been consistent conflict between the two entities. Thus, FFA are unlikely to welcome the abrupt partnership and their relationship with Dairy UK will deteriorate due to not being consulted. Moreover, this will also negatively affect employees, as they were not informed or consulted prior to the merger, an indication of autocratic leadership (Boone and Kurtz, 2011). In theory, Dairy UK should have consulted several stakeholders, first and foremost the FFA, and released internal communications prior to merging. Overall, Dairy UK mismanaged the internal crisis and potentially escalated the situation.
In conclusion, Dairy UK was effective in regards to the milk crisis, promptly composing a communications strategy and utilising tactics such as press releases and a press conference to convey it. However, the group management of the internal crisis was far less effective, as decision-making was rushed to reach a quick short-term resolution whilst not apprehending long-term …show more content…
The use of first person writing, passive voice, grammatical mistakes and misspellings deteriorate the professional image of the company (Cowan, 2012), especially during a period of intense scrutiny such as the milk crisis. This is exemplified within the first press release in which Farmers for Action (FFA) are referred to as "FFS" and Müller Wiseman are called "Muller Weismann" (Appendix B). These indiscretions would likely be recognised by the press, much to the ignominy of Dairy UK; inducing brand contamination and worsening the relationship with the two stakeholders. Furthermore, this document also contains poor phrasing with the statement "we as a company have our best interest at heart" concluding the release (Appendix B). This is a misnomer which suggests Dairy UK are only self-serving in their reaction to the crisis, diluting the message the company are trying to convey and limiting effectiveness of the press