An Integrated Framework For Strategic Decision-Making Following A Shock Event
An Integrated Framework For Strategic Decision-Making Following A Shock Event
An Integrated Framework For Strategic Decision-Making Following A Shock Event
Lloyd Milliner
Graduate School of Management
Griffith School of Business
Griffith University
Nathan, QLD 4111
Australia
Email: [email protected]
Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
Graduate School of Management
Griffith School of Business
Griffith University
Nathan, QLD 4111
Australia
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of shock events on strategic-
decision making and the processes and strategies that organisations have put in place
to cope with such events. It integrates research on strategic decision-making and crisis
management to develop an integrated framework of strategic decision-making after
shock events. Our central argument is that shock events influence strategic decision-
making processes and the role of decision makers. A number of propositions were
developed to guide future research.
Introduction
The tourism and travel industry, already a highly volatile environment, has become
increasingly susceptible to shock events generated outside the industry. For example,
the September 11 attack and the second Gulf war caused devastation to the global
tourism industry, seeing the demise of airlines such as Swissair and Sabina and huge
losses for United Airlines, American Airlines, British Airways and Qantas (UK
Financial Times, 22/2/03, 25/2/03), as tourists were fearful of travelling following
these events. Many smaller travel agencies declared bankruptcy and a number of large
hotel chains are still suffering from the effects of September 11 (Stafford, Yu and
Armoo, 2003). Since September 11, there have been the bombings of the Sari
nightclub and the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, both in Indonesia, Australia’s closest
neighbour. Lastly, recent health epidemics such as Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) and the avian influenza (bird flue) scare also poses serious threats
to the survival and prosperity of tourism and travel businesses not only in Australia
but worldwide (The Weekend Australian, 13-14/4/03; Australian Financial Review,
22/4/03).
The aim of this paper is to integrate research on strategic decision-making and crisis
management to develop an integrated framework of strategic decision-making in
crisis situations. Our integrated framework will contribute to existing literature and
strategic management practice in a number of ways. First, we contribute to a more
comprehensive understanding of strategic decision-making by contending that shock
events not only influence strategic decision-making processes, but also the role of
decision-makers and the use of strategic decision-making tools. Second, our
integrated approach provides senior managers with a clearer understanding of
strategic decision-making following shock events. It will help to guide senior
managers in the aftermath of shock events and enable them to better cope with such
events.
There are four main sections in this paper. The paper commences by identifying the
parameters of this research to present the research problem. In the second section we
review the literature on strategic decision-making and crisis management. The
strategic decision-making review looks at strategic decision makers, the internal and
external context of strategic decision-making, and the types of strategic decision-
making processes. The crisis review discusses previous research on the impact of
crises on strategic decision-making. The third section of this paper outlines an agenda
for future research and the fourth and final section presents the conclusion.
Research Problem
The term ‘shock event’ is rarely used in the literature. Writers tend to talk rather of
‘crisis’ or ‘disaster’. There are more than 4,000 references examining crisis and
disasters in variety of contexts. Contexts examined to date include the social and
economic impact of crisis (e.g., Edmunds, 2003; Seneviratne, 2003; Yates, 2004), the
financial impact of crises (e.g., Doraisami, 2004; Healy, 2004; Phelps, 2004) and the
impact of crises on employees (e.g., Frankenberg et al., 2003; Kondrasuk, 2004; Roth,
2004).
Pearson and Clair (1998) define organisational crisis as “…a low-probability, high-
impact event that threatens the viability of the organisation…” Carter (1991) defines a
disaster as “an event, natural or man-made, sudden or progressive, which impacts
with such severity that the effected community has to respond by taking exceptional
measures”. Prideaux et al. (2003) describe disaster as “…unpredictable catastrophic
change that can normally only be responded to after the event…” They classify the
highest shock level as ”not anticipated, sudden and very low level of forecast
certainty”.
While the terms ‘crisis’ and ‘disaster’ are most frequently used in the literature the
term ‘shock event’ is the focus of this paper since it emphasises suddenness and
unpredictability. This has become particularly evident in recent and continuing
terrorist attacks. Moreover, a crisis is seen as a situation that has been brought on by a
particular event, which is called here shock event. Lastly, a shock event may have an
initial negative impact due to its sudden and unexpected occurrence, but may not
necessarily lead to a crisis.
Literature Review
Strategic Decision-Making
Strategic decisions are those that are “important in terms of the action taken, the
resources committed, or the precedents set” (Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret,
1976: 246). They are typically made by upper-level management and affect the long-
term health of the organisation (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, 1992). Previous studies
have provided important insights into rational and bounded rational processes of
decision-making (Eisenhardt, 1989; Nutt, 1989), the role of power and politics
(Pettigrew, 1973), and the importance of chance and random confluence of events
(Cohen et al., 1972).
The literature recognizes board of directors, chief executive officers and top
management teams as the main decision-makers in organisations. McNulty and
Pettigrew (1999) for example argue that board members influence the decision-
making process by “shaping the ideas that form the content of company strategy and
the methodologies and processes by which those ideas evolve” (p. 47). Other authors
argue that CEOs are the ultimate decision-makers whose effectiveness is based on
their insight into their own work (for example Mintzberg, 1975) and that CEO’s tend
to make lone decisions when the organization is perceived to be under threat (Staw et
al., 1981; Tjosvold, 1984; Dutton, 1986). Westphal and Frederickson (2001) suggest
that new CEOs have an effect on strategic change, but that this could mask the effects
of the board. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) argue that instead of having an all-knowing
single chief executive, the organisation should have a number of executives with
individual expertise in their respective area of specialization, effectively forming a
decision-making or top management team, chaired by the CEO. Based on the above
literature, we argue that the actual decision-makers vary according to the external and
internal context in which strategic decision-making takes place and the type of
decisions to be made.
A number of studies have examined the internal and external influences on the
decision process. Internal influences on the decision process include goals of the
decision maker (Bettman et al. 1998), decision situation (Benson and Beach 1996),
decision context (Simonson and Tversky 1992), knowledge (Alba and Hutchinson
1987; Bettman and Park 1980), emotions (Arnould et al., 2004), characteristics of the
decision task such as information presentation (Bettman and Kakkar, 1977),
organisational capabilities and resources (Flannery and May, 2000; Hitt et al., 2001;
Aragon-Correa, 2003), organisational culture and strategy (Bowen and Helfat, 2001;
Jackson, 1993), and finally individual behaviour and cognitive bias (Bazerman, 2002;
Sharma, 2000).
Table 1 positions shock events within the external and internal context of strategic
decision-making.
Table 1: External and internal context of strategic decision-making
A review of the literature shows that previous researchers have addressed a number
of issues with regards to either strategic decision-making or shock events/crises;
however, the two concepts have not been linked. In addition, many researchers have
taken a narrow view of strategic decision-making and crisis prevention. This has lead
to a call for more interdisciplinary and integrated models and frameworks that better
address the new threats faced by businesses (eg. Papadakis, Lioukas and Chambers,
1998).
Hence, research is required that looks specifically at how shock events impact on
strategic decision-making processes. This research should be inter-disciplinary and
provide an integrated framework that better links the two concepts. The next section
of this paper presents an integrated conceptual framework to guide future research.
Research Agenda
Figure 2 expresses the research focus in an integrated framework, linking the relevant
components into a cohesive construct. The framework suggests that shock events
potentially affect not only decision-making processes, but also the role of decision
makers.
P4 The consultation and consensus process will lead to improved framing of the
problem.
P5 In the time period immediately following a shock event, the CEO will become
the ultimate decision maker.
Conclusion
Arnould, E., Price, L. and Zinkhan, G. (2004), Consumers, The McGraw Hill
Group of Companies, New York.
Beach, L. R. and Mitchell, T. R. (1998) The Basics of Image Theory, Image Theory:
Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (Ed, Beach, L. R.) L. Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, N.J., pp. 3-18.
Benson, L. and Beach, L. R. (1996) The Effects of Time Constraints on the Prechoice
Screening of Decision Options, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 67, pp. 222-228.
Bettman, J. R. and Park, C.W. (1980), Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience
and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol
Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 (December), pp. 234-248.
Dawes, R. M., Van De Kragt, A. J. C. and Orbell, J. M. (1997), Not Me Or Thee But
We: The Importance of Group Identity in Eliciting Cooperation in Dilemma
Situations: Experimental Manipulations, Research On Judgment And Decision
Making: Currents, Connections, And Controversies, (Eds, Goldstein, W. M. and
Hogarth, R. M.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 379-392.
Doraisami, A. (2004), From Crisis to Recovery: The Motivation for and Effects of
Malaysian Capital Controls, Journal of International Development, Vol. 16, Issue
2, pp. 241-255.
Dutton J. E., 1986, The Processing of Crisis and Non-Crisis Strategic Issues, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp.501-517.
Edmunds, T. (2003), NATO and its New Members, Survival, Vol. 45, Issue 3, p. 145.
Faulker, B. and Vikulov, S. (2001). Katherine, Washed out one Day, back on Track
the Next: A Post-Mortem of a Tourism Disaster, Tourism Management, No. 22,
pp.331-344.
Forte, M., Hoffman, J.J., Lamont B.T. and Brockmann, E.N. (2000). Organizational
Form and Environment: An Analysis of Between-Form and Within-Form
Responses to Environmental Change, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp.
753-773.
Frankenberg, E., Smith, J. P. and Thomas, D. (2003), Economic Shocks, Wealth, and
Welfare, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 38, Issue 2, p. 280.
Hitt, M. A., Bierman L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001), Direct and Moderating
Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service
Firms: A Resource-Based Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44,
pp.13-28.
Laplante, P. A., Costello, T., Singh, P. Bindiganavile, S. and Landon M. (2004), The
Who, What, Why, Where, and When of IT Outsourcing, IT Pro, Feb. 1, 2003, pp.
19-23.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari, Prentice Hall,
New York.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.49-63.
Nutt, P.C. (1989). Making Tough Decisions: Tactics for Improving Managerial
Decision-Making. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Nowlis, S. M. and Simonson, I. (1996), The Effect of New Product Features on Brand
Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, pp. 36-46.
Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas S. and Chambers, D. (1998), Strategic Decision-Making
Processes: The Role of Management and Context, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 19, pp. 115-147.
Phelps, E. S. (2004), Crash, Bang, Wallop, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, p. A. 14.
Prideaux B., Laws, E. and Faulkner, B. (2003), Events in Indonesia: Exploring the
Limits to Formal Tourism Trends Forecasting Methods in Complex Crisis
Situations, Tourism Management, Vol. 24, pp. 475-487.
Roth, K. (2004), Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Practical Issues
Faced by an International Human Rights Organization, Human Rights Quarterly,
Vol. 26, Issue 1, pp. 63-74.
Smart C. and Vertinsky I., 1977, Design for Crisis Decision Units, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Dec. 1977, Vol. 22, pp. 640-657.
Stafford, G., Yu, L. and Armoo, A. K., (2002), Crisis Management and Recovery:
How Washington, D.C., Hotels Responded to Terrorism, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, Issue 5, pp. 27-40.
Tellis, G. J. and Gaeth, G. J. (1990), Best Value, Price Seeking, And Price Aversion:
The Impact Of Information And Learning on Consumer Choices, Journal Of
Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 34-45.
Weick K. E., 1993, The Collapse of Sensemaking: The Mann Gulch Disaster,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Dec. 1993, Vol. 38, pp. 628-652.
Yates, M. D. (2004), Poverty and Inequality in the Global Economy, Monthly Review,
Vol. 55, Issue 9, pp. 37-49.
Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., Bresser, R. K. F. (2000), Modelling the Dynamics of
Strategic Fit: A Normative Approach to Strategic Change, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 429-453.
(22/2/2003), The World’s Companies Wait in Hope For the Fog of War to Clear, in
UK Financial Times.
1-4 weeks
1-6 months