LEADING & MANAGING CHANGE & CRISIS
FINAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS
As the syllabus states, your final assessment will be based on an individual paper analyzing a Crisis Case Study of your choosing and worth 80% of your final mark.
Please upload your paper to Canvas by published deadline
Your assignment must be:
A thoughtful, detailed analysis of an actual crisis that really happened
Approximately 2,500 words in length
Word processed, spell-and grammar checked
Properly referenced with accurate citations and a bibliography
Informed by at least 2 theoretical construct* discussed in class
Written in accordance with the framework provided below
Failure to follow these instructions will result in a reduced mark.
Your paper MUST INCLUDE the following format: Introduction
a)Provide a very brief overview of your case (where, when, what happened) b)Explain which theoretical constructs* you will be applying
c) where you will apply it (which section), and
d)why this is the best theories to use.
Crises rarely occur ‘out of the blue’, instead there are usually several warning signs. Discuss the warning signs and why people did not respond adequately in your particular crisis case.
Trigger—Only pick one!
Discuss the point in time that the crisis kicked-off—and why. The trigger should not be something such as: The pilots did not…The mayor of the town was….The CEO of the company did…
Discuss how, when and why the crisis escalated to produce the greatest
Discuss what happened after the acute phase was over; What were the lessons learned to prevent a future crisis event—were they ‘learned’ or ignored post-crisis?
Consider all phases of your analysis. In sum, what should we have learned from your paper’s analysis and how did the theoretical framework you selected help us understand this crisis better.
Crisis Case Study Instructions Dr Amy Fraher 1
*Theoretical constructs could be, for example, Team Resource Management (ie green sheet); Normal Accidents; Naturalistic Decision Making; Human Error; Predictable Surprises; Drift Towards Failure; Critical period; Incubation period; Social defenses; Team learning; Groupthink; Destructive pursuit of idealized goals; among others discussed in class this term.
To pass, you MUST demonstrate three skills in the analysis of your case:
Proper selection of a crisis case study.
The case study must be a real incident that actually happened.
The case can be a:
positive example of a well-managed crisis, for example, US Airways Hudson River landing [Although this example is not available since it was covered in class and the textbook].
Most likely, the case selected is a bad example or a case of some sort of organizational failure from a changing situation that was not well- managed and resulted in some sort of crisis [ie bankruptcy, accident, fatalities, etc]
The paper cannot be based on a case discussed in class &/or on the list of unauthorized topics.
Proper application of the 4 stages of the ‘Lifecycle of Crisis’ framework:
Subheadings MUST be listed exactly as directed in handout
Only ONE trigger is acceptable: Trigger should not blame individuals [ie
operator error] but rather focus on a systemic tipping point that put the
‘accident waiting to happen’ into motion.
As such, the trigger is NOT the crash, bankruptcy, fatalities, hurricane,
earthquake, etc. That should be discussed as part of the preconditions or crisis.
Proper application of at least two theories—proper application of 3 or 4 is
exceptional—IF DONE CORRECTLY. Name dropping in several theories without fully integrating and applying them in the analysis will NOT BE REWARDED WITH A HIGHER MARK.
Students will excel by following guidance provided, selecting an innovative case, reflecting deeply about it using theoretical constructs provided in class, and analysing the case in an interesting and novel manner within the framework assigned. The framework provides the structure within which you can creatively analyse your crisis and make your case.
Papers will fail if the case selected:
In order to pass, paper must:
o All directions are not properly followed
A 2nd is
• • • •
warranted when all previous criteria have been met, and in addition: Selecting an unusual case
Demonstrating above average reflection and critical thinking skills Demonstrating above average writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes
Correctly applying theory in interesting manner. Additional points can be awarded if more than two theoretical frameworks have been properly applied in a thoughtful detailed manner that furthers the analysis in an interesting and innovative way—not just name dropped in!
A 1st is warranted when all previous criteria have been met, and in addition: