- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
This article focuses on crisis management and leadership by executives, boards, and institutions and appliesresearch on resilience, power, and sensemaking in the analysis of the ousting and subsequent return of a chief executive by the board of directors. Insights are shared on the transparency of information, the power of social media,the role of leadersin a crisis, and the ability of different voicesto be heard and exert influence in our social media age. This case study provides a set of recommendations for leadership and crisis management in the contemporary business environment by showing how a crisis can be fueled by social media. Twitter is analyzed as a source of real-time news and information, which can have a significant impact on organizations and their strategies. Furthermore, implications for new executives are highlighted, with a focus on how their initial sensemaking process shapes the ability to respond to a crisis.
There are several takeaway lessons from this study of the real-time power of Twitter and its implications for crisis management and leadership in the age of social media (Table 1). The UVA case illustrates how critical it is to be present, to listen, and to engage everywhere stakeholders are talking about your organization. The myriad social media platforms that are being used in today’s business environment offer touchpoints for leaders and organizations to engage in meaningful discourse and real-time sensemaking. There was a large disconnect in the UVA case between where board decision making was taking place and where much of the university community (e.g., students, alumni) was talking about those decisions. This gap grew larger as the crisis evolved and more people joined in the online conversation, yet the board continued to make decisions behind closed doors. There is another key lesson to be learned from this case: Ensure that the top executive’s leadership style and the board of directors’ desired leadership style are aligned. Although the BOV likely knew Sullivan’s leadership style when she was hired, its patience with her incremental approach seemed to dissolve quickly. The board’s urgent call forstrategic dynamism also became a rallying cry of sorts for stakeholders, who believed thatthis quick change so desired by the board perfectly embodied the mindset of a corporation more than that of a university. This disconnect around leadership style became both a catalyst for the crisis and something that exacerbated it.