The COVID-19 pandemic is a historic milestone at many levels and has launched the world into crisis management mode—all individuals and organizations have had the urgent need to manage this crisis in one way or another. A crisis does indeed bring many threats, but it can also bring opportunities. Research and practice show different phases in the crisis management process, including a need for action at different levels and that information is a central resource.
Crisis Management Before, During, and After
Experiencing a crisis and the necessary management of the crisis are not new to the world. Many crises happened in the past and more will indeed occur in the future. Crises can involve our health and welfare or our financial situation; it can be an environmental or natural disaster. Crises can result from technological issues, terrorist attacks, or even infrastructure destruction (Pearson and Mitroff, 1993). Sadly, in our most recent past, the United States (and the world) endured the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in three states, including in New York City, where citizens witnessed the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and where the overall day resulted in thousands of Americans’ lives lost (Brouard, 2004b). There was the attack to the office of the French satirical weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris on January 2015 (Lançon, 2018); the devastating fire at Notre-Dame de Paris in April 2019; or the ice storm in parts of Ontario and Quebec in January 1998—a storm considered among the worst natural disasters in Canadian history. These are examples of times where the world had to switch into crisis-management mode and navigate through the tragic circumstances. And, it is amid the current COVID-19 pandemic that we recognize the importance of a carefully thought-out plan that deploys the strategies required to deal effectively with this crisis and come through the other side with minimal side effects.
Figure A summarizes two visions of the various phases in crisis management. Each outlines the before (signal detection, preparation, prevention), during (reactions, containment, damage limitation), and after (recovery, prosperity, learning) a crisis. The first pathway focuses more on during and after the crisis, while the second pathway takes a more global perspective. In our view, it is preferable to adopt a more proactive approach, which also includes the actions following the crisis, instead of just a reactive approach.