IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ddj/fseeai/y2025i1p200-203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of Classical Models for Crisis Management

Author

Listed:
  • Ionica Simbanu

    (Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, Romania)

  • Liliana Mihaela Moga

    (Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, Romania)

Abstract

This article presents a comparative analysis of two significant theoretical models from decision-making literature. The models analyzed are the decision strategy selection model developed by Beach and Mitchell, and the strategic decision-making model in crisis conditions developed by Hofer and Schendel. The research examines how each model addresses essential factors such as reaction time, level of uncertainty, emotional involvement, decision structure, and the degree of formalization of the decision-making process. The research is based on a literature review in strategic management, organizational psychology, and crisis communication and uses item comparison as the research method. While Beach and Mitchell offer a rational and deliberative framework suitable for stable contexts, the Hofer and Schendel model is adapted for crisis situations, where decisions must be made quickly, often under stress and high pressure.

Suggested Citation

  • Ionica Simbanu & Liliana Mihaela Moga, 2025. "A Comparative Analysis of Classical Models for Crisis Management," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 1, pages 200-203.
    • Handle: RePEc:ddj:fseeai:y:2025:i:1:p:200-203
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.35219/eai15840409501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eia.feaa.ugal.ro/images/eia/2025_1/Simbanu_Moga.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.35219/eai15840409501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ddj:fseeai:y:2025:i:1:p:200-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gianina Mihai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fegalro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.