Crisis Analysis Essay Sample

Introduction

The Firestone and Rubber Company is an American firm that specializes in making tires for vehicles. Harvey Samuel Firestone established the company in 1900. The company began the mass production of many tires after its inception and went into a partnership with Ford. On the other hand, Ford Motor Company concentrates its effort on making autos. Henry Ford founded the company in 1903. The company specializes in selling luxury and commercial cars. Instead of the two companies handling their crisis in a civilized manner, Firestone and Ford Motor Industries handled their problems in the following manner;

John Lampe, Firestone’s Chief Executive Officer ended their partnership without a consideration of having deliberations on their problems

Ford and Firestone went into a public argument that tinted the image of one another
The management of the two companies had bitter exchange of words which left them without a solution to solve their tire problems and business partnership
Ford through its director wrote a letter to Firestone with a reminder that their corporate relationship had similarities with personal relationship which created more heat in the market and negating their long term business partnership

Issue of negligence and blame

May 21st saw a meeting between Ford Motors executives and Firestone management to end a 95 years old business partnership. The meeting took place in Nashville Firestone’s headquarters. The two companies collaborated to work together in order to make profits in their respective markets. Firestone provided tires for Ford Motor’s vehicles. Due to the aspect of tire blowouts, the two companies had to sit down to bring to an end the speculation that took place concerning the status of their products. Firestone and Ford Motors knew about the tire problems and the damages they had made. At first, they ignored the problem until complaints spun in the market. Approximately six months after the recall of 6.5 million tires, Ford looked for faults in the remaining 13 million Wilderness AT tires fixed on their Explorer and trucks. They stated that the meeting acted as a safety measures to avoid future challenges. John Lampe, the executive officer from Firestone, brought the long term relationship with Ford to a halt.

Unethical consideration of facts and failure to accept faults

The phenomenon resulted in a tire replacement by Ford with an excuse that the company lacked enough confidence in the tires Firestone made for its vehicles. After the announcement by Ford, the Firestone management struck with an argument that Ford failed to confirm the status of the tires on their vehicles. The issue of the two companies failing to act on the blame game showed that the two companies have an irresponsible condition. The public went into a state of raw and confusion after the two companies announced the end of their partnership. Blames began to come out of the public concerning past negative experiences on the operations of the tires and the Ford Motors’ vehicles. According to the survey the council of public relation firms discovered that more than eighty percent of people thought that the two companies acted in a childish manner blaming each other for their faults.
According to the legislation, in the country, companies need to respect each other’s image in public and should negate the mission of the other. Companies that go against such law extract may undergo a lawsuit with vast amounts of damages.
Ford Motors and Firestone should have acted in a prudent way by accepting their faults and moved forward. The managements of the two companies should have developed possible ways through which they would solve their problems. They would have solved everything through making their partnership better by improving on the status of the tires. Accepting faults by anyone in the wrong improves the state of any given situation. It also enables individuals learn from their mistakes and improve the activities they carry out. Firestone should have taken responsibilities for their actions and continued with their partnership with Ford. The two companies have negated their moral intentions in their public wars. According to Ford, they stood to defend the reputation of their products and employees. They stated that they would protect their customers to their utmost state. Through the phenomenon, Firestone showed that they cared less about their customers. They only cared about their reputation and products. They failed to accept that their tires had killed many of their customers.

Creation of a negative business attitude towards one another

The War between the two companies creates an unknown credence on who to blame. Neither Ford nor Firestone wants to give an ultimatum to their relationship and products management. The two fail to take the responsibility for whatever that has befallen them. They use fault from each other to create mayhem and to denote the functionality of the products they offer. They use the platform to publicize the doubts they have towards one another’s doubts. Ford diverts the perspective people have towards their vehicles to the faults found in the tires of Firestone. Firestone stated that Ford needed to take heed of accepting their responsibilities on the phenomenon. The management of Ford claimed that they would not replace the vehicles, but the tires installed in the vehicles. Companies should have ethical consideration in their manner of management and how they market their image to the society. Blaming each other fails to solve the main problems affecting the companies.
The central issue should revolve around the solutions provided through the collaboration of the two companies. Nevertheless, the two companies need to solve their problems in a professional manner and not from a personal point of view. The trust between the two companies creates a challenge in mending the damages made. The companies would never carry business together due to their past wars and the blames that have occurred. Trust between companies spread to their customers in all aspects. Trust brings different individuals together, and the partnering companies should protect the customers that purchase and consume their products. The companies act as an image and enhance the influence of the consumers towards their products.

Conclusion

A working collaboration consists of many factors that entangle together. When Firestone and Ford Motors agreed to work together in 1900, they knew what they had to experience in case their relationship failed to function. Companies that work together tend to tie a note on their customers and operations. They also join their management together in the aspect of deliberations whenever they want to launch new products in the market. Ford and Firestone became one company when they vowed to work together in their relevant products. Each Ford vehicle had a tire from Firestone, and that meant that the companies worked with one accord. They would have salvaged their relationship and moved on with their business. The two companies have made more than enough losses through their negative publicity.