Introduction

Crises are basic to all human systems and a recurring challenge in both private and public spheres of life. Depending on magnitude and setting, a crisis can cut profits, close down operations, endanger lives and property, injure reputations, erode confidence, and even threaten the existence of entire groups or organizations. Crises also lead to other invisible and non-tangible problems capable of destroying systems and/or subverting them. Given the colossal cost of crises to systems/organizations, best practice requires that each system/organization, whether private or public, anticipates and manages crises decisively. Doing this requires identifying in advance those scenarios capable of negatively impacting the system and planning how they could be stopped from manifesting and/or mitigating their adverse impact. This paper is a discourse on the challenges of crisis management in government and the possible lessons which crisis managers in government can draw from their counterparts in the private sector. The paper argues that institutionalized crisis management capacity is an important challenge in government and that while modern crisis is an attack on the legitimacy of the national government, it is also a window of opportunity capable of triggering policy reforms and new social agendas in the polity. The paper is written in five parts. Part one attempts to provide meaning for the two concepts of crisis and crisis management. Section two is an exposition of the nature of public sector crisis management. Section three analyses public sector crisis management in Nigeria while section four discusses a few lessons that can be drawn from the private sector on crisis management. Section five concludes the paper.

What is a Crisis?

There are myriad ways of conceptualizing crises. For our purpose, a crisis is any event or set of circumstances that is capable of threatening the integrity, reputation, or well-being of an individual, group, or institution. There are two basic types of crises. The first are smoldering crises. These are crises whose sources and nature are known but for whatever reason, the system is unable to resolve until there is an eruption. The second are sudden crises. These strike ‘without warning’. For an event or set of circumstances to constitute a crisis, it must have the following characteristics:

  1. It must be non-routine.
  2. It must be capable of causing disequilibrium/instability in the system.
  3. It must be less understood.
  4. It must be time-urgent.
  5. It must also require discretionary decision-making to deal with.

Crisis Management

Crisis management encompasses management practices that are targeted at non-routine events and developments. It involves three distinct sets of activities. The first of these comprises activities before the crisis. Best practice requires that crisis management begins well before a crisis occurs. The assumption must be made that sooner or later, a crisis will occur in the system or the organization. ‘Managing’ crisis at this level is a proactive initiative involving an audit of the organization to bring out its crisis strength and weakness, including possible vulnerabilities. Also important at this level is capacity building aimed at developing the necessary skills to manage crises. The second set of activities are tied to containing crises and are carried out during the actual crisis. In these activities, the organization uses its capabilities built over time to contain crises, mitigate their impact, and recover with minimal effect on life, property, and the environment. This is the reactive phase of crisis management. The third set of activities are related to the ‘after phase’ of the crisis. Here the system/organization is interested in drawing lessons from the crisis in such a way as to ensure adequate recovery from the crisis and effectively deal with similar crises in the future.

All these sets of activities are embodied in a crisis management plan properly adapted to the needs and peculiarities of the system. In business, for example, it is recognized that the organization can increase the odds in favor of a positive outcome if they have a well-worked-out plan that clearly outlines the who, when, where, and how a crisis in the organization will be treated. The plan is a step-by-step manual known to all members of the organization and one which is reviewed/updated regularly to take into account emerging trends in the business. Whether in business or in government, the crisis management plan, among other things, designates a team whose responsibility is to take the necessary steps to respond to a crisis in the organization. While the actual size of the team may differ depending on the nature of the organization and its resource base, each team must have a leader, spokesperson, legal focal point, and researcher.

The Team Leader

The team leader has the responsibility to provide direction and coordinate all activities geared towards containing a crisis. He is empowered with the authority to take on-the-spot decisions relating to the crisis.

The Spokesperson

This is the public relations liaison with the sole responsibility of speaking on the crisis. This is a critical position on the team for three reasons. First, in any crisis situation, the media and the public have a right to know what the organization is doing. Having somebody who is competent to provide timely and correct information to the public and the media is a necessary aspect of containing any crisis. Improved communication (through the use of the internet, cell phones, cable television, and radio) has obvious advantages and disadvantages. Rumors and even false information can spread to millions of customers and citizens in a matter of minutes. The power and impact of these rumors and false information on the organization is overwhelming. Having somebody who will check this lapse and ensure a free flow of information during a crisis is therefore very important. Crisis also influences public perceptions. In business, these are the perceptions of customers and stakeholders (shareholders) whose continued support is necessary for the survival and profitability of the business. In government, it is the perception of citizens and the public. In both settings, the challenge is to overcome the perception and align it with the interest of the organization to ensure that after the crisis might have been resolved, customers, stakeholders, and citizens are still in support of the organization. For the spokesperson to accomplish this, he or she must not only provide true information and facts on the crisis but also avoid personal commentary on the crisis. A good spokesperson must also be courteous in relating to the public, must not speak off the record, must stay focused, never be argumentative, only respond to issues being raised, and remain positive.

The Legal Focal Point

There are legal implications attached to each crisis, whether in business or in government. Those charged with the responsibility of managing crises are supposed to be abreast of the complex legal issues that are at play in each crisis situation. The legal focal point is a professional whose responsibility is to give legal guidance.

The Researcher

Every crisis creates an array of information, data, and facts. Best practice requires the system to collate/compile and verify all information relating to any particular crisis and develop a data bank of all crises that affect the system. In many instances, the only way to make progress is to do adequate research, understand the nature of the crisis, its dynamics, and its ramifications on the system. The researcher must also be able to compare scenarios to learn useful lessons.

Public Sector Crisis Management

In the private sector, organizations plan for crises and make adjustments to the resources, procedures, and systems in the organizations to cope with crises. Whether in business or government, every crisis has three characteristics: a threat to the organization, an element of surprise, and a short decision time. The absence of these characteristics renders it a mere ‘incident’. These three characteristics have in turn created a model for crisis management. In the model, best practice requires every organization to continuously anticipate, prepare, prevent, and respond to crises. It has been argued that modern-day crises are attacks on the legitimacy of government. In the private sector, organizations can fail and new ones can emerge. However, the government cannot afford to fail because it is the last hope of citizens. This imposes a tremendous challenge on public sector managers. This paper argues that the public sector is a veritable agent of development. It performs a number of functions including maintaining law and order, promoting human capital development, developing and maintaining infrastructure, ensuring public sector reform, managing national emergencies, and coordinating development in the different sectors of the economy.

The public sector operates through ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) which are established to address specific needs in society. The public sector is also concerned with service delivery through policy formulation, monitoring, and evaluation. Unlike the private sector, government is concerned with governance. It is the custodian of public resources and operates in a political and legal environment. Whether in the private or public sector, crises generally come with devastating effects. However, in the public sector, the outcomes are colossal. Crises are capable of leading to government collapse or a vote of no confidence in government. Governments can collapse as a result of civil war and political crises. Even in less serious situations, crises can lead to the sacking of public office holders.

For example, in March 2011, the then Japanese Prime Minister resigned from office because of a perceived poor handling of the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Similarly, in the aftermath of the financial crisis that affected the US economy, the Minister of Finance resigned his appointment for failing to predict the crisis and put in place proactive measures to contain it. In Nigeria, the executive arm of government is often reshuffled as a direct response to crises. Such actions may be intended to restore public confidence and bring in new ideas capable of resolving crises.

Public Sector Crisis Management in Nigeria

Managing crises in the public sector is an imperative in Nigeria given the different dimensions of crises that the government has had to contend with. These include ethnic and religious crises, student riots, socio-economic agitations, the crisis in the Niger Delta, and kidnapping in the South East. Each of these crises has serious consequences for the government and the people of Nigeria. In spite of these crises, the public sector in Nigeria is deficient in managing crises. Part of the problem lies with the nature of the public sector. There are institutional and organizational weaknesses and inefficiencies inherent in the public sector in Nigeria. These institutional weaknesses coupled with poor resource mobilization have compounded the crises in the country. Public sector managers in Nigeria are not competent to manage crises. There are also no crisis management plans and where they exist, they are not properly implemented.

During the Niger Delta crisis for instance, the government set up a committee to negotiate with militants and proffer solutions to the crisis. However, poor implementation of the committee’s recommendations prolonged the crisis. There is also the Boko Haram insurgency that has been responsible for the killing of thousands of Nigerians and the destruction of property. Part of the problem is that there is no comprehensive policy to deal with the insurgency. The handling of the Covid-19 pandemic exposed the weaknesses in the country’s public health sector. The responses were ad hoc, disjointed, and uncoordinated. These examples illustrate the weak capacity of the public sector to manage crises in Nigeria. Part of the problem also lies in poor leadership. Leadership in the public sector is an important element in managing crises. However, in Nigeria, there is a dearth of visionary and competent leaders who can manage crises effectively.

Lessons from the Private Sector

The private sector offers useful lessons that can help improve crisis management in the public sector. These lessons are highlighted below:

Proactive Planning

One of the major strengths of the private sector is proactive planning. Organizations in the private sector recognize that crises are inevitable and plan for them. This involves identifying potential crises, assessing their impact, and developing strategies to mitigate their effects. The public sector can adopt this approach by developing comprehensive crisis management plans that are regularly updated to reflect emerging trends and challenges.

Capacity Building

The private sector invests in capacity building to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to manage crises. This includes training and retraining of staff, developing crisis management teams, and conducting regular drills and simulations. The public sector can benefit from this approach by investing in capacity building for public sector managers and developing crisis management teams at all levels of government.

Effective Communication

Communication is a critical aspect of crisis management in the private sector. Organizations recognize the importance of timely and accurate communication with stakeholders during a crisis. The public sector can learn from this by improving communication channels and ensuring that information is disseminated promptly and accurately during crises. This will help to manage public perception and maintain public confidence in the government.

Leadership

Effective leadership is crucial in managing crises. The private sector places a high premium on leadership and ensures that leaders are trained to manage crises. The public sector can benefit from this by developing and nurturing visionary and competent leaders who can effectively manage crises and inspire confidence in the public.

Collaboration

The private sector recognizes the importance of collaboration in managing crises. Organizations often collaborate with other stakeholders, including government agencies, to manage crises effectively. The public sector can learn from this by fostering collaboration between different levels of government, the private sector, and civil society organizations to develop a coordinated and effective response to crises.

Conclusion

Crisis management is a critical aspect of governance that requires proactive planning, capacity building, effective communication, leadership, and collaboration. The public sector in Nigeria can benefit from the lessons of the private sector by adopting best practices in crisis management. This will help to improve the capacity of the public sector to manage crises effectively and ensure the stability and well-being of the country.