d up in a great deal of trouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep things from “happening,” they ignored all of the early warning signs indicating that trouble was brewing, and they refused to deal with these situations in a timely manner. And, why was that? Primarily, it was because their earlier management training had prescribed that they not engage in “crisis management.” What resulted, therefore, was the severest form of chaos, often requiring months, and sometimes years, to disentangle and to make “right.”

Crisis Management Myth #2 – Inherent in

All business managers have been warned against operating in an environment of crisis management. To be a more effective manager and leader, you’ll want to know that there are prevalent beliefs about crisis management that need to be understood and discounted. To allow us to examine beliefs that have been assumed for many years, I’ve described these prevailing ideas as the myths of crisis management in the text that follows.

Management in the modern organization, of necessity, requires managers that are fleet-of-feet and able to manage ever-changing conditions. When the term “crisis management” was coined forty years ago, organizations were still rather staid and unchanging entities. Consequently, it was deemed an unfavorable sign if an organization of that time was regularly in a state of crisis, or, change. And, the management of that organization was viewed as needing to exert more influence to obtain control of events at the firm. Crisis Management Myth #1, therefore, is that experiencing frequent change in organizations, (or “crises”) is a bad thing. On the contrary, an organization in today’s business climate that is not in a constant state of fluctuation, change, and growth will not be able to survive. Organizations that understand the nature of change and its usefulness are those that do well. These organizations know that: 1) change is inevitable, as nothing is certain, except change itself; 2) imminent changes that are faced with courage and confidence are readily managed; 3) change brings with it a certain amount of ambiguity and turbulence; and 4) the results of facing the challenges of change well will be a more cohesive company environment, aligned with its business community and its clients and customers.

The challenge for modern managers is to learn the agility and responsiveness required in an age of computerization and technological interface. I’m frequently reminded of my research team’s early work with chaos theory and management. (Chaos Theory holds that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo this will result in a tornado in Texas.) Our essential findings from the chaos research were that managers who tried to hold situations static in their organizations (or, “stable,” in their view) were most likely to wind up in a great deal of trouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep things from “happening,” they ignored all of the early warning signs indicating that trouble was brewing, and they refused to deal with these situations in a timely manner. And, why was that? Primarily, it was because their earlier management training had prescribed that they not engage in “crisis management.” What resulted, therefore, was the severest form of chaos, often requiring months, and sometimes years, to disentangle and to make “right.”

Crisis Management Myth #2 – Inherent in

. When the term “crisis management” was coined forty years ago, organizations were still rather staid and unchanging entities. Consequently, it was deemed an unfavorable sign if an organization of that time was regularly in a state of crisis, or, change. And, the management of that organization was viewed as needing to exert more influence to obtain control of events at the firm. Crisis Management Myth #1, therefore, is that experiencing frequent change in organizations, (or “crises”) is a bad thing. On the contrary, an organization in today’s business climate that is not in a constant state of fluctuation, change, and growth will not be able to survive. Organizations that understand the nature of change and its usefulness are those that do well. These organizations know that: 1) change is inevitable, as nothing is certain, except change itself; 2) imminent changes that are faced with courage and confidence are readily managed; 3) change brings with it a certain amount of ambiguity and turbulence; and 4) the results of facing the challenges of change well will be a more cohesive company environment, aligned with its business community and its clients and customers.

The challenge for modern managers is to learn the agility and responsiveness required in an age of computerization and technological interface. I’m frequently reminded of my research team’s early work with chaos theory and management. (Chaos Theory holds that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo this will result in a tornado in Texas.) Our essential findings from the chaos research were that managers who tried to hold situations static in their organizations (or, “stable,” in their view) were most likely to wind up in a great deal of trouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep things from “happening,” they ignored all of the early warning signs indicating that trouble was brewing, and they refused to deal with these situations in a timely manner. And, why was that? Primarily, it was because their earlier management training had prescribed that they not engage in “crisis management.” What resulted, therefore, was the severest form of chaos, often requiring months, and sometimes years, to disentangle and to make “right.”

Crisis Management Myth #2 – Inherent in

hat is not in a constant state of fluctuation, change, and growth will not be able to survive. Organizations that understand the nature of change and its usefulness are those that do well. These organizations know that: 1) change is inevitable, as nothing is certain, except change itself; 2) imminent changes that are faced with courage and confidence are readily managed; 3) change brings with it a certain amount of ambiguity and turbulence; and 4) the results of facing the challenges of change well will be a more cohesive company environment, aligned with its business community and its clients and customers.

The challenge for modern managers is to learn the agility and responsiveness required in an age of computerization and technological interface. I’m frequently reminded of my research team’s early work with chaos theory and management. (Chaos Theory holds that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo this will result in a tornado in Texas.) Our essential findings from the chaos research were that managers who tried to hold situations static in their organizations (or, “stable,” in their view) were most likely to wind up in a great deal of trouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep things from “happening,” they ignored all of the early warning signs indicating that trouble was brewing, and they refused to deal with these situations in a timely manner. And, why was that? Primarily, it was because their earlier management training had prescribed that they not engage in “crisis management.” What resulted, therefore, was the severest form of chaos, often requiring months, and sometimes years, to disentangle and to make “right.”

Crisis Management Myth #2 – Inherent in

ess community and its clients and customers.

The challenge for modern managers is to learn the agility and responsiveness required in an age of computerization and technological interface. I’m frequently reminded of my research team’s early work with chaos theory and management. (Chaos Theory holds that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo this will result in a tornado in Texas.) Our essential findings from the chaos research were that managers who tried to hold situations static in their organizations (or, “stable,” in their view) were most likely to wind up in a great deal of trouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep things from “happening,” they ignored all of the early warning signs indicating that trouble was brewing, and they refused to deal with these situations in a timely manner. And, why was that? Primarily, it was because their earlier management training had prescribed that they not engage in “crisis management.” What resulted, therefore, was the severest form of chaos, often requiring months, and sometimes years, to disentangle and to make “right.”

Crisis Management Myth #2 – Inherent in

d up in a great deal of trouble. Why? Because in their struggle to keep things from “happening,” they ignored all of the early warning signs indicating that trouble was brewing, and they refused to deal with these situations in a timely manner. And, why was that? Primarily, it was because their earlier management training had prescribed that they not engage in “crisis management.” What resulted, therefore, was the severest form of chaos, often requiring months, and sometimes years, to disentangle and to make “right.”

Crisis Management Myth #2 – Inherent in the beliefs about crisis management and its consequences, is the assumption that managers should have full control over all events in the organization. Fifty years ago, that might have been an accurate depiction of appropriate corporate management. Today, however, events are rarely “controlled,” but are, instead, managed, or orchestrated, for best effect. And, only in the rarest of organizations will any one single individual have the ability to fully control all of the events and “goings-on” in the organization. I know of very few organizations where control of this sort is so complete. Most organizational management responsibilities in today’s organizations are shared amongst several of the corporation’s leaders (for example, Presidents, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and others), all working in orchestrated teams that lead organizational efforts. To fear engaging in change evidence, or “crises,” because full control over all situations is preferred is at one and the same time both a delusion and an unattainable goal.

Crisis Management Myth #3 is a corollary to CM Myth #2: The “crisis manager” has no focus, because there is no control when managing in a state of crisis. The simple remedy for lack of focus is to engage in a sound strategic planning process. The sole purpose of the strategic plan is to serve as the focus and the ballast for the organization when faced with serious questions and challenges. For an organization that has developed a solid strategic plan, there should be no question of straying from the central focus.

Crisis Management Myth #4 goes like this: When you’re dealing with crises, you’re not dealing with business. In today’s business world, crises (or, the everyday challenge of constant changes) are business. There are many personality profiles among those who choose to join the management ranks. Included among them are individuals who do not relish change. In my executive coaching practice, I work with these “change-aversive” managers to help them understand the importance that processes of change can bring to an organization. This work employs strategies that assist the manager in harnessing the better aspects of change and discounting some of the more unfavorable aspects.

Peter Drucker has said: “Unless