4.0 Article

Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 78-95

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED
DOI: 10.1108/09534810510579869

Keywords

disasters; organizational change; narratives; social dynamics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - To examine the post 9/11 communication of the bond-trading firm, Cantor Fitzgerald and its CEO Howard Lutnick, according to the discourse of renewal framework. Design/methodology/approach - This case-study of the discourse of renewal draws upon the messages and statements made by the company and its employees following the 9/11 attacks. The discourse of renewal framework emphasizes provisional responses, prospective statements, and the role of the leader as a symbol of stability in the face of a crisis. Findings - This study provides support for viewing crisis as change-inducing events with the potential to fundamentally alter the form, structure and direction of an organization. Renewal discourse helped the company survive an attack where over 600 employees were killed and the company offices completely destroyed. While a crisis inevitably create severe harm, it also has the potential to serve as a renewing force for the organization. Research limitations/implications - Few examples of post-crisis discourse of renewal have been examined in the literature and more research is needed. Work needs to identify the conditions necessary for this kind of discourse. Practical implications - Organizations may have the opportunity to fundamentally reframe a crisis, focusing on the opportunities that arise from these events. Originality/value - This paper explores both organizational crisis and organizational discourse from unique positions. Discourse is positioned as the means whereby crisis can become a positive force for a change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available