Organizational crisis: lessons from Lehman Brothers and Paulson & Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".