Question

beginning "Merck" discussing Merck's radically revised strategy . Do you agree with their approach ?

Answer 1

For the crisis dealing strategies that Merck used in giving its corporate messages in the first 4.5 months directly following the Vioxx recall. Merck used both mortification and ingratiation in its disaster management. The principal goal of crisis management is to keep an organization’s image, or the common perception of an organization. The strategies he outlines are grounded in Attribution Theory, which asserts that people judge causes of issues based on three dimensions: locus, balance, and controllability.

There were several spheres in which Merck’s crisis management applications and arguments fell short.

One of the most striking features of Merck’s inadequate answers to the Vioxx crisis dealt with the company’s inability to feature independent voices articulating in support of Merck. All the reasoning in praise of the company’s operations with Vioxx came from representatives of Merck or those who were firmly associated with the company. In this sense, the well-known creation of the “independent” committees to investigate the case, chaired by a person that worked for Merck, is a perfect example of troublesome kind of leadership.

Another issue with Merck’s discourse had to do with its cold attitude. The tone of most Merck information was excessively practical. A vast flow of information was given in an indifferent and technical way that usually failed to engage or move. The vast number of victims affected by the recall or possibly crippled by Vioxx in the happenings deserved to find Merck say at least once: “Even though we’re not qualified, but we’re sorry.” But that did not appear.

Clearly, Merck disappointed to “put patients first” and rather put shareholders first. There were many arguments delivered by Merck spokespersons in a direction to support the company’s legitimacy that soon backfired. Throughout its crisis management communications, Merck repeatedly showed its inclination toward openness and full disclosure. Yet, there were many claims in the medical society and in the press that suppressing and coercion controlled the company’s past.