Crisis Management

Crisis Management Students will demonstrate their knowledge of HR’s role in and influence on legal and environmental risk mitigation, as well as the integration of ethical practices. Read the article: “Crisis Management: Prevention, Diagnosis and Intervention” by Toby J. Kash and John R. Darling (SNHU Library online) http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/226915167?accountid=3783 Write a 3- to 5-page analysis (approximately 3,000 words) on the companies in the assigned case study. In your analysis, do the following: 1. Briefly summarize the article (1-3 paragraphs). 2. Identify 3 different companies in the article. 1. Discuss whether the risk management approach taken by each company was a preventive or intervention measure. 2. Consider whether or not the risks change when events are addressed in a proactive manner instead of a reactive manner. Explain your reasoning. 3. Compare the different types of leadership approaches, and suggest how an HR department might implement strategies to mitigate risk or manage a crisis event. 4. Discuss ethical ways for mitigating risks with key stakeholders, considering practical implications to executive leaders. Guidelines The article analysis must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and APA citations. Page length requirements: 3-5 pages, not including cover page and references. Rubric for Article Analysis One/Module Three Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Not Evident Value Summary of the article N/A Includes a brief summary of the article (5) N/A Does not include a summary of the article (0) 5 3 different companies N/A Identifies 3 different companies in the article (5) Identifies 1 or 2 different companies in the article (3-4) Does not identify any companies in the article (0-2) 5 Preventive or intervention Submission meets “Proficient” and extends explanation to include supporting evidence from scholarly resources (9-10) Evaluates whether the risk management approach was a preventive or intervention measure and clearly explains why (8) Evaluates whether the risk management approach was a preventive or intervention measure, but is not correct, or does not clearly explain why (7) Does not evaluate whether the risk management approach was a preventive or intervention measure (0-6) 10 Explain whether risks change when addressed proactively as opposed to reactively Submission meets “Proficient” and provides illustrative examples (14-15) Explains clearly whether the risks change when events are addressed in a proactive vs. a reactive manner (12-13) Attempts to explain whether the risks change when events are addressed in a proactive manner, but is not clear or correct (11) Does not explain whether the risks change when events are addressed in a proactive manner (0-10) 15 Leadership approaches to mitigate risk or manage a crisis Submission meets “Proficient” and extends explanation to include supporting evidence from scholarly resources (18-20) Compares different leadership approaches, and suggests how to implement strategies to mitigate risk or manage a crisis event (16-17) Compares different leadership approaches, but does not suggest how to implement strategies to mitigate risk or manage a crisis event; or compares different leadership approaches, and makes illogical suggestions for how to implement strategies to mitigate risk or manage a crisis event (14-15) Does not compare leadership approaches, or suggest how to implement strategies to mitigate risk or manage a crisis event (0-13) 20 Ethics implications for leaders Meets “Proficient” and provides in-depth discussion of ethical concerns in mitigating risks; considers practical implications in detail (18-20) Discusses ethical ways for mitigating risks with key stakeholders in detail; considers at least 3 practical implications for leaders (16-17) Only weakly or does not discuss ethical ways for mitigating risks with key stakeholders; considers few or incorrect practical implications for leaders (14-15) Does not discuss ethical ways for mitigating risks with key stakeholders; does not consider practical implications for leaders (0-13) 20 Course Vocabulary Meets “Proficient” and integrates the course vocabulary into all aspects of the analysis (9-10) Applies vocabulary for HR throughout case study (8) Uses some vocabulary or phrases, but it is not connected to the context of the questions (7) Does not include appropriate vocabulary (0-6) 10 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format (14-15) Submission has no major errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization (12-13) Submission has major errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas (11) Submission has critical errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas (0-10) 15