We live in a turbulent environment in which the unpredictability of crises is unprecedented. Following this, crisis management literature has shifted from traditional planned and process-based approaches to contemporary concepts that emphasize reactivity. Although contemporary scholars label traditional approaches as outdated, it remains unknown if real organizations agree. The question thus becomes, how do different organizations apply crisis management theory in practice and what influences the design of their systems?

This qualitative study relies on focus groups and interviews from SMEs, large, and state-owned organizations. The empirical findings show that predominantly traditional crisis management systems are utilized. The systems are mainly proactive when crisis vulnerability is limited but extend to include a reactive and flexible strategic element when the organization is large and faces unpredictable crises. Relying on a purely contemporary crisis management system is rare but possible, as demonstrated by one small organization. Overall, the crisis management design is influenced by size, organizational structure, crisis vulnerability, identity, expert opinions, similar organizations and where the responsibility for crisis management is placed in the organization. 

Practitioners can use this study to understand how to apply traditional and contemporary crisis management systems. Scholars can use this study to understand the gap between theory and practice, which opens several avenues for further research that concern influences and characteristics of real crisis management systems.