Redefining Disaster Preparedness

Barbour, Joshua B.; Manly, Jacquelyn N.

doi:10.1177/0893318916629101

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When faced with a challenge or potentially unprecedented situation, an organization may need to think outside the perceived limits or allowable actions (Barbour and Manly, 2016).…”

Section: Putting Alternative Logics To Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dynamic model of organizational resilience: adaptive and anchored approaches

Ishak

Williams

2018

CCIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Organizations of all types desire to be imbued with resilience, or the ability to withstand and bounce back from difficult events (Richardson, 2002; Walsh 2003). But resilience does not play the same role in every organization. Previous research (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2011) has argued that organizations can be more or less resilient. For high reliability organizations (HROs) such as fire crews and emergency medical units, resilience is a defining feature. Due to the life-or-death nature of their work, the ability to be successful in the face of difficult events is imperative to the process of HROs. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This is a theory piece. Findings The authors put forth a dual-spectrum model that introduces adaptive and anchored approaches to organizational resilience. Research limitations/implications There are organizations for which resilience is only enacted when the organization must overcome difficult events. And at the other end are organizations that may not enact resilience in difficult times, and therefore fail or deteriorate. But while it has been shown that organizations can be more or less resilient, there has been little attention paid to how organizations may have differing types of resilience. Originality/value In this piece, the authors theorize that resilience may differ in type between organizations. Drawing on theoretical approaches to resilience from communication (Buzzanell, 2010), organizational behavior (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2011), and motivational psychology (Dweck, 2016), the authors introduce a model that views resilience as a dynamic construct in organizations. The authors argue that an organization’s resilience-centered actions affect – and are determined by – its approach to Buzzanell’s (2010) five communicative processes of resilience. The authors offer testable propositions, as well as theoretical and practical implications from this model, not only for HROs, but for all organizations.

show abstract

“…When faced with a challenge or potentially unprecedented situation, an organization may need to think outside the perceived limits or allowable actions (Barbour and Manly, 2016).…”

Section: Putting Alternative Logics To Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dynamic model of organizational resilience: adaptive and anchored approaches

Ishak

Williams

2018

CCIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because some nonprofit organizations are active in disaster and emergency settings (Barbour & Manly, 2016;Horsley, 2014;Simo & Bies, 2007), they are more likely to have a focus supporting preparedness compared with those that are not active in these settings. This leads to the following hypothesis:…”

Section: Crisis Communication Preparedness Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis Communication Preparedness Practices Among U.S. Charitable Organizations: Results From a National Survey

Fuller

Sala

2021

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations should prepare for crises, through identifying crisis concerns, having written crisis communication plans, and designating teams for crisis planning and response, for example. Nonprofit organizations, which represent an important sector of U.S. society, are no different in needing to prepare, but to date, a review of their crisis communication preparedness is lacking. Therefore, a national online survey of 2,005 U.S. charitable organizations was administered to determine nonprofit organizations’ adoption of an anticipatory perspective of crisis management. The anticipatory perspective shifts the organization’s focus from reaction to crises to anticipation of them. According to the survey, 75% of organizations reported at least one organizational crisis in the 24 months prior to taking the survey (circa 2017–2019). Loss of a major stakeholder was the most common organizational crisis that had occurred and the greatest future concern. Most nonprofits (97.5%) reported implementing some crisis communication preparedness tactics. Importantly, charitable organizations can enact communication preparedness tactics without significantly detracting from program delivery. Moreover, given the general concerns within the sector, nonprofit organizations should prepare specifically for loss of a major stakeholder and technologically created crises such as data breaches and negative word of mouth on social media.

show abstract

“…For example, research focused on managing the tensions, ironies, and contradictions inherent to organizing often recommends the need for reflexivity-"an awareness or critical understanding of the existing social conditions" (Seo & Creed, 2002, p. 230)-and reflexivity is often given as a precondition of the successful management of organizational tensions (Barge, Lee, Maddux, Nabring, & Townsend, 2008;Putnam et al, 2016). Seo and Creed (2002) took this idea further to suggest that the presence of contradictions prompts reflexivity (see also, Barbour & Manly, 2016), and we would extend this idea once again to postulate that contradictions prompt CCD.…”

Section: Testing and Problematizingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, discursive approaches to organizational change highlight that changing organizing by modifying existing conversations or introducing new ones offers resources for disrupting and reflecting on the status quo, and generating alternatives can inspire new forms of organizing (Bushe & Marshak, 2015;Lewis, 2011). Even institutional structures can be challenged and changed through communicative intervention (e.g., Barbour & Manly, 2016;Seo & Creed, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Communication Design Logics: A Theory of Communicative Intervention and Collective Communication Design

Barbour

Gill

Barge

2018

Communication Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theorizing communication as design can support the development of theories of intervention by focusing attention not just on how groups, organizations, and communities communicate, but also on how they make and try to enact choices about their communication. We posit a theory of organizational communication design logics aimed at clarifying how collectives intervene in their own communication. We argue that collective communication design (CCD) is comprised of (a) individuals' overlapping communication designs, focused on goals and governed by communication design logics, and (b) the fit, function, and fragmentation of collectives' communication proposals and choices. Future research guided by this theoretical framework should explore the communication skills associated with CCD and the influence of power, authority, emotion, and temporality in CCD.

show abstract

Redefining Disaster Preparedness

Cited by 25 publications

References 30 publications

A dynamic model of organizational resilience: adaptive and anchored approaches

A dynamic model of organizational resilience: adaptive and anchored approaches

Crisis Communication Preparedness Practices Among U.S. Charitable Organizations: Results From a National Survey

Organizational Communication Design Logics: A Theory of Communicative Intervention and Collective Communication Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About