Reaction to Team 4 Readings
Please "comment" on this post to organize the reactions to Team 4's assigned reading.
posted by Courtney at
3/03/2007 05:04:00 PM
About
Effective risk and crisis communication requires ongoing learning and skills development. To this end, the University of FLorida offers a class in risk and crisis communication. This blog enables the students, and anyone else interested in the topics, to engage in dialogue about their readings and current events that are applicable to this topic.
Contributors
Previous
- Reaction to Johnson & Johnson Credo
- Week 8 Readings
- Digital Technology has given David of an ax to gri...
- Peanut butter and hurricanes
- Working with the Media
- Thoughts about CHP 18
- Ronnie's thoughts on evaluation
- Chapter 16 - Working with the media
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 16 working with the media
3 Comments:
As someone who donated to Red Cross after Katrina, I find reports about misappropriated funds enraging. Like all the donators, I want to know that my money goes to help those in need. I donated to the Red Cross because I trusted them as an organization. These accusations could seriously impact the willingness of people to donate money to them in the future. In the article Mr. Grassley said the Red Cross needs to address the concerns of volunteers and donators. It seems that a major mistake the Red Cross made was ignoring the findings of potential wrongdoings. Instead of saying, “We’re looking into it.” They simply refused to admit the wrongdoings existed, probably hoping they would go away.
What is the Red Cross doing to address these allegations? I visited the American Red Cross homepage and found information on how report fraud, waste, or abuse using a toll-free telephone number. Although this is a positive feature, after reading the article, I now question the Red Cross’ ability to address these complaints and serious accusations. I did not find any other information or statements addressing the wrongdoings outlined in the article. The Red Cross does amazing things, but if these negative events are constantly ignored, it may seriously impact the amount of future volunteers and donations.
The Mitroff article is an interesting approach to crisis communication. The second point in the Mitroff article recommends magnifying potential crises so if/when they do occur, they are not paralyzing. This process reminded me of women self-defense courses. The training in these courses is intended to place women in potentially paralyzing situations and teach them the correct way to respond. However, even before this training, women are taught to be cautious and to avoid these situations. This process is very evident in appropriate risk and crisis planning at the organization level. It is one thing for an organization to plan for the worst-case scenario, but it is even more effective to plan to avoid these situations completely.
Mitroff states that business must prepare for abnormal accidents so that the larger society is better prepared to handle the threats of terrorism. I think this is a very practical insight (and he states that 80% of all terrorist acts are against private businesses). If organizations are prepared to react to abnormal accidents, then their response will provide more security and peace of mind to the larger society. Thinking locally, if GRU and the University of Florida are both able to handle any potential abnormal accidents, the community of Gainesville and beyond will feel more secure. Globalization has only compounded the need for companies to be able to respond quickly and appropriately to threats.
The author discusses the wheel of crises as a tool to help organizations discover potentially “impossible” crises. I think this would be especially beneficial at the University of Florida because of the diverse group of stakeholders, research projects, and the statewide reach. If an abnormal accident occurred, it could have serious implications for the university. Using the wheel of crisis approach would help officials be better prepared to face potential crises related to students, research projects, or any other number of events. What other organizations would benefit from utilizing this brainstorming approach? Does a point exist when fear and speculation become counterproductive?
By
Courtney, at 5:06 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Katie, at 12:32 PM
I liked the two articles for the team readings. They clearly compliment each other. I can see how the American Red Cross needs to possibly adopt Mitroff’s (2004) controlled paranoia mindset and crisis preparation strategy. An organization like Red Cross is typically called into action to deal with disasters and crises. It’s highly likely that they are so consumed with preparing for the external crisis that they rarely reflect on their own ability to handle one on the inside. I used to perceive the Red Cross as an honorable, philanthropic, well-intentioned organization. I thought they did so many good things that it was inconceivable to think of “improper diversion of relief supplies, failure to follow Red Cross procedures in tracking and distributing supplies, and use of felons as volunteers in the disaster area in violation of Red Cross rules.” Apparently, neither did they or the few that did knew it was possible.
In the Mitroff (2004) article he states, “even a year after the World Trade Center was brought down, the vast majority of the executives that my colleagues and I interviewed were not willing to consider the possibility of a similar attack on their offices or factories” (p. 44). I also recalled a recent research presentation about cattlemen’s perceptions of the possibility of an agroterrorism attack. The research found through survey methodology that most livestock producers believed an agroterrorism attack is likely, but they did not believe their operation to be susceptible. They have this “Yes, but not to me attitude.” If my memory has not failed me, I also think that most producers said they do not have measures in place to prevent an attack either.
Curious about this potentially hot topic in my field, I consulted the National Agricultural Biosecurity Center hosted at Kansas State University. I was looking specifically for information on agroterrorism, but on this site they do not seem to use the word very often. I only received 7 hits in a keyword search and the resources provided little information. I wonder why that is? Do they not want to call it what it is in fear of creating paranoia? I explored one link off the home page called Anthrax because I remember terrorism incidents surrounding that. I found a cutely-named program brochure called Agroguard. Certainly and outdated and poorly designed communication tool. I decided to go to their website listed on the brochure and it kicked me to the home page for the National Agricultural Biosecurity Center again. Perhaps Agroguard is now NABC?
I guess the NABC is trying to use biosecurity as a catchall term for unintentional and malicious contamination of the food system. That was not cleat to me, and I suspect it may not be clear to producers. Although both routes (unintentional and terrorism) lead to contamination of the food system, malicious intent would create a large amount of dread and outrage. Perhaps if the NABC had separate content, producers would actively prepare for an agroterrorism crisis. Although its uses seemed to have only been tested with business, I think the Russian roulette wheel o’ crisis sounds like a great preparation tool for the agriculture industry.
Mitroff mentions a “prominent theme park” and I am positive it is Disney World. Here’s a list of Disney’s security secrets: Disney security secrets. Those security guards dressed as tourists are called “foxes.”
By
Katie, at 12:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home