It is baseless to understand management without the
word crisis. Crises are everywhere and the part of individuals, societies or
countries and most of the activities and efforts in the world are being
performed to tackle crisis and eliminate its threat. These efforts could be
named as Management. Crises penetrate easily in those areas where there is no
management and crises ruin everything due to lack of appropriate measures. So
the importance of crisis management arises in the present age which is more
vulnerable to crises. Crisis management is a systematic approach that
encompasses prevention of, and preparation for, a critical incident or crisis
event. (Jeffrey Mitchells, 2003)
A great deal of research has been added to the knowledge of crisis management. First of all, planning is considered to be an integral part of today's crisis management. This planning could be in shape of policies, procedures and different strategies that counter crises. Basically there are different stages in crisis. First is pre-crisis stage where crisis exist as a threat to future conditions. Second the crisis stage, where the actual crisis occurs and the post crisis stage which prevails after crisis. The level of uncertainty varies among these stages and the organizations or countries make their policies accordingly. Furthermore, it is evident that modern management involves policies made by the board of directors for management to implement. Actually the modern style of management tries to minimize crises by splitting decision making in two phases keeping in view past corporate collapses like Enron, JP Morgan and so on, which occurred due to lack of viable crisis management. Moreover, crisis and risk management go hand in hand. Risk analysis helps to find out unpredictable events in the future and their probability of happening. Crisis management deals with strategies that help to cope with uncertain events.
Likewise, economic, energy, educational and political crises exist in Pakistan. But these had not been dealt with competent crisis management techniques. In presence of these crisis management strategies and techniques why countries like Pakistan is still not being able to overcome its crises prevailing over the decades. While many countries in the world had won the war against crises but on other side, Pakistan is still not being able to think beyond its troubles.
Since independence Pakistan could not come out of crisis as the magnitude became larger with the passage of time. These problems are linked not only with the fate of our country but millions of people in Pakistan have been greatly affected. As a citizen we try to find out the solution of them and think about crises in some part of our daily life. But the important question which needs to be answered first is that why could we not able to resolve them. If crises are not being seen in the long term view, then it may not be possible to find future effects and devise a capable plan that could eliminate potential crises. The same case happened with Pakistan where absence of long term planning had led crises being worst. Different strategies and tactics had been taken at different intervals that did not give required results because those action plans did not even try to eradicate the root causes of prevailed crisis in the country. Now what could be done to lead Pakistan out of them. First, there is a need to ensure political stability, in our country. If political environment is stable, governments are likely to perform long term planning to manage crisis in an effective and efficient manner. In addition, there is need of political will to focus on crises and find out their real causes. Crisis management methodologies would pay more in this case, and they are bright chances that Pakistan may transform into a prosperous nation.
In case of Pakistan, crisis management is not being done in a way that it should be. We need to differentiate crisis management approaches between developed and underdeveloped countries. By this way, we will be better able to understand Pakistan's case. South Korea has proved its name as a developed country. This had happened due to result oriented crisis management approaches. Government and corporate entities in different sectors develop effective policies and strategies to deal with crisis. On the other hand, Koreans formulated a mechanism to measure performance of their policies or strategies. Crisis management scorecard, crisis management indexes or other tools were being used to prepare for future crisis. While in Pakistan, crisis management does not reflect these things. Policies are formed but not back up with plan to measure policy effectiveness. For instance, if any policy could not handle the crisis, it should be reviewed but unfortunately the case is not with Pakistan. Whereas crisis management should be based on a principle of "Continuous Improvement" as in South Korea where plans, strategies and work are continuously improved and reviewed. This approach made them less vulnerable to crisis. In Pakistan where uncertainty avoidance is high, especially government and public sector institutions are less likely to adopt a proactive approach in managing crisis. As discussed earlier, the level of uncertainty is high at pre-crisis stage and been moderate to low at crisis and post crisis stage respectively. For this reason, strategies are usually adopted at the time of occurrence of crisis or after the crisis in Pakistan's context.
In short, crisis management does not exist in Pakistan despite the presence of several crises. Pakistan needs to adopt a proactive approach and develop an effective mechanism that would not only ensure sound policies and strategies but also it will be able to measure performance of policies formed. By this way policies and actions will be reviewed and altered if those are not in line with the goals of minimizing crises. And this is the requirement of time in order to revitalize our beloved homeland
A great deal of research has been added to the knowledge of crisis management. First of all, planning is considered to be an integral part of today's crisis management. This planning could be in shape of policies, procedures and different strategies that counter crises. Basically there are different stages in crisis. First is pre-crisis stage where crisis exist as a threat to future conditions. Second the crisis stage, where the actual crisis occurs and the post crisis stage which prevails after crisis. The level of uncertainty varies among these stages and the organizations or countries make their policies accordingly. Furthermore, it is evident that modern management involves policies made by the board of directors for management to implement. Actually the modern style of management tries to minimize crises by splitting decision making in two phases keeping in view past corporate collapses like Enron, JP Morgan and so on, which occurred due to lack of viable crisis management. Moreover, crisis and risk management go hand in hand. Risk analysis helps to find out unpredictable events in the future and their probability of happening. Crisis management deals with strategies that help to cope with uncertain events.
Likewise, economic, energy, educational and political crises exist in Pakistan. But these had not been dealt with competent crisis management techniques. In presence of these crisis management strategies and techniques why countries like Pakistan is still not being able to overcome its crises prevailing over the decades. While many countries in the world had won the war against crises but on other side, Pakistan is still not being able to think beyond its troubles.
Since independence Pakistan could not come out of crisis as the magnitude became larger with the passage of time. These problems are linked not only with the fate of our country but millions of people in Pakistan have been greatly affected. As a citizen we try to find out the solution of them and think about crises in some part of our daily life. But the important question which needs to be answered first is that why could we not able to resolve them. If crises are not being seen in the long term view, then it may not be possible to find future effects and devise a capable plan that could eliminate potential crises. The same case happened with Pakistan where absence of long term planning had led crises being worst. Different strategies and tactics had been taken at different intervals that did not give required results because those action plans did not even try to eradicate the root causes of prevailed crisis in the country. Now what could be done to lead Pakistan out of them. First, there is a need to ensure political stability, in our country. If political environment is stable, governments are likely to perform long term planning to manage crisis in an effective and efficient manner. In addition, there is need of political will to focus on crises and find out their real causes. Crisis management methodologies would pay more in this case, and they are bright chances that Pakistan may transform into a prosperous nation.
In case of Pakistan, crisis management is not being done in a way that it should be. We need to differentiate crisis management approaches between developed and underdeveloped countries. By this way, we will be better able to understand Pakistan's case. South Korea has proved its name as a developed country. This had happened due to result oriented crisis management approaches. Government and corporate entities in different sectors develop effective policies and strategies to deal with crisis. On the other hand, Koreans formulated a mechanism to measure performance of their policies or strategies. Crisis management scorecard, crisis management indexes or other tools were being used to prepare for future crisis. While in Pakistan, crisis management does not reflect these things. Policies are formed but not back up with plan to measure policy effectiveness. For instance, if any policy could not handle the crisis, it should be reviewed but unfortunately the case is not with Pakistan. Whereas crisis management should be based on a principle of "Continuous Improvement" as in South Korea where plans, strategies and work are continuously improved and reviewed. This approach made them less vulnerable to crisis. In Pakistan where uncertainty avoidance is high, especially government and public sector institutions are less likely to adopt a proactive approach in managing crisis. As discussed earlier, the level of uncertainty is high at pre-crisis stage and been moderate to low at crisis and post crisis stage respectively. For this reason, strategies are usually adopted at the time of occurrence of crisis or after the crisis in Pakistan's context.
In short, crisis management does not exist in Pakistan despite the presence of several crises. Pakistan needs to adopt a proactive approach and develop an effective mechanism that would not only ensure sound policies and strategies but also it will be able to measure performance of policies formed. By this way policies and actions will be reviewed and altered if those are not in line with the goals of minimizing crises. And this is the requirement of time in order to revitalize our beloved homeland
No comments:
Post a Comment