The Ford-Firestone Tire Crisis
CONTENTS
CHAIRMAN SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 3 THE CASE AT A GLANCE 3 BACKGROUND 4 RULES THEORY 5 LEVELS OF CONTEXT 6 THE FORD-FIRESTONE CRISIS FACTS 8 CONCLUSION 12 REFRENCES Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURES Figure 1. Network Setting of Ford-Firestone Crisis 5 Figure 2. Levels of Context 7
EQUATIONS Equation 1. Primitive Form of Constitutive Rule 6 Equation 2. Primitive Form of a Regulative Rule 7
CHAIRMAN SUMMARY In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s several accidents were reported of Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires rolling over as a consequence of tires’ failures. By the end of 2000 the death toll was estimated at more than 250, and some 3,000 incidents had been associated with “defective” Firestone tires mounted on Ford Explorers. These problems were frequently encountered in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela but also occurred in mid-western US. The US reports triggered a crisis for the two companies. The magnitude and complexity of the problem was such that neither Ford nor Firestone could provide an acceptable explanation. Both companies denied responsibility and did not react as customers might have expected but instead chose to blame each other. The approach taken by Ford and Firestone to the management of the crisis not only severely damaged their century-old relationship but also enabled other parties to exploit this opportunity for commercial gain. Consequences included destroying both companies’ bottom-line and, of course, damage to brand reputation. Biggemann and Buttle analyzed the episode using Rules Theory. This models the episode and the companies’ interactions as if the parties were applying sets of rules. There are two types of rule account for their interaction, rules of meaning and rules of action. Rules of meaning enable each party to make sense of the other’s acts and rules of action
CHAIRMAN SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 3 THE CASE AT A GLANCE 3 BACKGROUND 4 RULES THEORY 5 LEVELS OF CONTEXT 6 THE FORD-FIRESTONE CRISIS FACTS 8 CONCLUSION 12 REFRENCES Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURES Figure 1. Network Setting of Ford-Firestone Crisis 5 Figure 2. Levels of Context 7
EQUATIONS Equation 1. Primitive Form of Constitutive Rule 6 Equation 2. Primitive Form of a Regulative Rule 7
CHAIRMAN SUMMARY In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s several accidents were reported of Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires rolling over as a consequence of tires’ failures. By the end of 2000 the death toll was estimated at more than 250, and some 3,000 incidents had been associated with “defective” Firestone tires mounted on Ford Explorers. These problems were frequently encountered in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela but also occurred in mid-western US. The US reports triggered a crisis for the two companies. The magnitude and complexity of the problem was such that neither Ford nor Firestone could provide an acceptable explanation. Both companies denied responsibility and did not react as customers might have expected but instead chose to blame each other. The approach taken by Ford and Firestone to the management of the crisis not only severely damaged their century-old relationship but also enabled other parties to exploit this opportunity for commercial gain. Consequences included destroying both companies’ bottom-line and, of course, damage to brand reputation. Biggemann and Buttle analyzed the episode using Rules Theory. This models the episode and the companies’ interactions as if the parties were applying sets of rules. There are two types of rule account for their interaction, rules of meaning and rules of action. Rules of meaning enable each party to make sense of the other’s acts and rules of action
References: Biggemann, S. & Buttle, F. (2007). The Ford Explorer - Firestone Tires Crisis: a Rules Theory Analysis of Relationships. 23rd IMP-Conference. Waddell, B. (2006, February 14). Henry and Harvey would be ashamed. Evolving Excellence.