User:Rmarinov

THE MANAGEMENT OF CRISIS

by Roussi Marinov Ph.D.

The term crisis had recently become an integral part of the social vocabulary. It has been used to define various social conditions. This does not necessarily imply that the meaning of the word and what lies at its core are clearly understood by everybody.

The word crisis was first used as a term in medicine to specify certain critical processes in the human body or the psychological state of the individual. In the 17 and 18 centuries it was transferred to economics and used to characterize specific economic conditions or social processes. The term is, therefore, polysemantic and is sometimes incorrectly used. Analyses show that in three quarters of the cases when used by our politicians, the term leads to misunderstandings.

Generally speaking the word has negative connotations but every crisis has its positive aspects as well. Each crisis falls into several periods: the precritical, the critical and the postcritical; as well as into a number of phases. In a time of crisis new values and norms are established. Though people are not able to cooperate effectively they become open to new modes of action and styles of behavior. Modern ideas, concepts and technologies usually come into conflict with the older establishment, anachronism and ideologems.

It is a fact that you cannot create something new without destroying something already existing. As the new phenomena push their way through, social conflicts will inevitably arise and stir into activity the actors on the social stage.

When the crisis is fully developed people talk about the precritical period only in retrospection. The precritical period, however, and the detection of the symptoms of the crisis, are of great importance. Thus we come to the basis ethnomethodological principle of defining the possible future situation and the "how-to-achieve-it-in-regard-to-the-future-starting-from-the-present-as-a-point-of-departure".

Nowadays everybody says that we are in a period of crisis, however the prerequisites for its emergence have formed for decades. The precritical period alone may last up to 5-6 or even more years, which shows that the greater part of the processes are developed in " the dark". To the people affected by the crisis only a small superficial layer is visible. What is more, the layer varies from rather the way they would like them to be, especially in a time of crisis, and so they easily become victims of their own fictions and delusions. To the research worker a crisis presents interest rather as a period of creation, than of destruction. A social crisis cannot be controlled but rather effectively managed. The question is whether and to what extent any group, organization or society as a whole are prepared to manage a critical period. The successful way out of a critical situation depends on the correct evaluation and knowledge of the situation, though they might be encumbered by inhibitions and/or political prejudice and stereotypes.

A time of crisis presents ample opportunity for personal expression and for the increase of the individual's role, responsibility and activity. Survivability depends on the activity of the creative individuals and on the minorities. Therefore, the appeals to unite in order to overcome the crisis made by some political parties, are quite dismaying. They are utterly anachronistic and show a complete miscomprehension of the characteristics of the critical processes. It has been a scientific fact for quite some time now that a society in which each person is responsible for his/her actions will both survive and prosper as opposed to a society in which the collective prevails over the individual. The latter/ which is the one we are living in/ is a static society, incapable of rising up to the challenge of the unknown. Individual realization is inhibited and life is confined to a scope narrower than reality. An illustration of the above are the platforms and slogans of political parties in Bulgaria. These predominantly lay the stress on obscure concepts such as: " the importance of the state", " The role of the nation", "integration", " the acceleration of the structural reform, the struggle against collapse". One the lamest interpretations of the present situations is that of " rising to the surface from rock bottom", perceived as a gradual process. It is actually an attempt by the people in government to replace and define a reality to which they have become detached and estranged and which they have come to regard as mere spectators. Set against the background of those concepts, the government crisis becomes even more conspicuous because a powerful nation is one that relies on its free creative individuals. The legislative, political and economic measures carried out in our country do not always meet the requirements of the present situation. They should have promoted a technological breakthrough and an increase in scientific investments but instead investments are being made in rather doubtful spheres, lacking in intellectual potential. Attempts are being made to solve psychological or motivational problems through economically ineffective measures. A characteristic trait of any crisis is that it renders the outcome of the situation to only two alternatives: one leading to progress, and the other leading to collapse and a breakdown in the normal functioning of the system. F.A. von Hayek, a well-known economist, developed the theory of " dispersed information". On its basis he reached the conclusion that spontaneous processes have a more favorable effect on the economic system and cultural progress than the effort to control them through external intervention and centralized planning. Such efforts will bring about the disintegration of social progress. Proficient actions call for a specific organization of information and communications. They should be broadcast by a united center so as to avoid discouragement and a split in human effort. If society and social formations receive distorted or censured information their life and health will be put in jeopardy. During the Strazhitsa earthquake /which took place on the 7th of December 1986/ for instance, 44 percent of the population living in the affected area received information through rumors and hearsay: i.e. from an unreliable source. During the Chernobyl accident the percentage of such people reached 90. The consequences were: distorted opinions and ways of thinking which have their effect on people up to the present day.

The basic features of the economic crisis in our country are its diversity and lack of definition which are accompanied by public psychosis. The general public is being manipulated and is lead into informational pitfalls as management resolutions and important facts are made, known to the general public post fact. There are needs for desocialization of personality in order to be orientated in this dynamic and complicated world. Some of the important aspects in communications in a time of crisis are:

-analysis of the political and communicational situation at the moment of the emergence of the crisis; the influence of human nature should be taken into consideration because people react differently to one and the same situation;

-healthcare and the concern for human life should be of primary importance; the rise of psychosis and the avalanche of rumors should be put an end to;

-honesty, openness and dependability of institutions responsible for communications towards all participants in the process. The latter is possible only on grounds of mutual trust between social groups;

-a complete involvement in the mass media process;

-a constructive dialogue among all target audiences and society as a whole. Modern communication technologies should be applied in order to reach a higher level of information awareness.

-the institution itself should develop its own internal communication network which will allow for an operational management of the crisis, its localization, as well as help overcome the negative consequences for the people and nature. Adequate procedures will ease the tension among individuals and lower the risks to a socially acceptable level.

As I have already pointed out the crisis is to be found mainly in people's minds, and is related to their actions and motivation-which is precisely why it can be managed. A.Toffler, the popular researcher of informational society states that Third Wave organizations delegate more and decision making from the center to the periphery and from higher management levels to lower ones.

The reason behind this is that people working in lower management levels are better informed and are therefore capable of reacting quicker to the crisis and its possible solutions. Books: "Strategic communications and knowledge management"

By this author