MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967153662 · doi:10.1108/10569211211284494

Organizational crisis: lessons from Lehman Brothers and Paulson & Company

2012· article· en· W1967153662 on OpenAlex
Steven H. Appelbaum, Seth M. Keller, Hárold Álvarez Álvarez, Catherine Bédard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Commerce and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessCrisis managementFinancial crisisBusinessFinanceAccountingEconomicsFinancial systemManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of organizational crisis and organizational change management and to provide a guide to crisis prevention, management and recovery by highlighting critical actions to be taken during each stage of an organizational crisis. A second aim is to compare the crisis management of two financial firms during the 2007 financial crisis: Lehman Brothers and Paulson & Company. Design/methodology/approach The methodology involved a review of the literature and a case analysis related to organizational crisis and organizational change management. The synthesis of these two approaches is a conceptual paper. Furthermore, the article is supplemented by comparing the management of the 2007 financial crisis by both Lehman Brothers and Paulson & Company in an attempt to compare the literature findings to a global organizational crisis. Findings The literature suggests that organizations with early crisis detection methods and crisis management plans already in place before the onset of a crisis are significantly better prepared to manage and survive a crisis event. In addition, these better prepared organizations have the opportunity to reposition themselves and turn a crisis event into a strategic opportunity. This is evident in the authors' comparisons of both Lehman Brothers' and Paulson & Company's different management of the 2007 financial crisis. Practical implications The demand for crisis management is on the rise as the 2007 financial crisis exposed the lack of preparedness among financial institutions, challenged the assumptions crisis management plans were based on and required a regulatory transformation of financial markets. Surviving firms are recovering and learning from the crisis as their crisis management proved to be ineffective. Originality/value The scope of this paper offers readers a guide to organizational crisis management, supplemented with examples from a financial crisis that affected almost every organization in the world and from which many organizations are still recovering. Any organization, regardless of industry, can benefit from the guide presented in this research. Moreover, the framework of this paper can enable practitioners to formulate and improve their organization's crisis management plans and capabilities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it