Authors Afua Adobea Christopher McDermott Institution

Afua Adobea

Christopher McDermott

Institution

Illinois State University

School of Communication

Campus Box 4480

Normal, IL 61790-4480

(309)438-3671

Dr. Cochece Davis

08 April 2014

Abstract

In life sudden emergency situations occur without notice, that’s for certain. A crisis can occur in two ways, one being the outcome of an unpredictable event or as an unexpected consequence of a situation that had not been considered a potential risk. Communication is at the heart of every controllable or uncontrollable action in society. To fully understand communication as a whole, one must examine the different forms of communication first, as well as the sub-categories of those forms. One thing that a great percent of the population has in common is the knowledge of natural disasters occurring, or that they have lived during one or even been personally affected by one. On the other hand, a very small percentage of the population either does not notice, or they just have not experienced firsthand how communication radically changes within an organization during the early preparations, the start of and the aftermath of a natural disaster. Natural disasters will affect organizations in some of the most radical ways. We have seen in the last 20 years the impact a tornado or a hurricane can have on the daily flow of business. Although the focus is on how communication works within an organization during a natural disaster, we cannot begin to understand the differences in a communication routine without examining other countries and what natural disasters have occurred in those countries. Doing this, we can examine the differences they have with the United States and the rest of North America not only on the subject of crisis communication, but also on very basic cultural levels. Delving further into countries as a whole, it is important to examine the foundational levels within an organization. The paper will contain content about the economic harms and benefits natural disasters has on companies affected in the United States and in Asia, specifically the employees and the employers (management). Looking at the employee and management aspect will offer more insight to how crisis/natural disasters perceived and finally reacted to. The aftermath of a natural disaster will show the key components of communication within an organization as it is left ultimately up to the leaders of those organizations to solve the problems that were created by those unforeseen acts of nature.

Communication in this world is much more rapid of a process than it used to be. Something can happen, and within an hour, the whole world may know about it. This is largely due to the help of social media. In Japan, the Fukushima nuclear power plant was destroyed by an earthquake and had sent large amounts of radiation into the air. News stations covered the disaster and informed the public about it. When you look past the news coverage, a team conducted a study which examined the social media site Twitter and analyzed the number of “tweets” that had been sent that contained the words Japan radiation in it (Li, 2014). What the team found was that over 38,300 "re-tweets" were found with those words in the month following the earthquake. Although there was a chance that some of the tweets may not have been referring to Japan in 2011 but the team was confident in the data collected since it was so close to the disaster time. This data was not only compiled to see how many messages were sent via Twitter, the data was also displayed onto a chart and separated into areas that would define whether or not the tweet that was sent had communicated reassurance or fear (Li, 2014). This Twitter frenzy, so to speak, did not only inform the public by supplementing the regular news outlets throughout the world, it also influenced the government. Twitter essentially created a surge in government communication with the public and influenced it to repeat over and over what it had said before.

With the Fukushima plant meltdown being a disaster in itself, there is also an important factor to examine, evacuation. Within an organization, one would most likely find an evacuation plan to be utilized in times of disaster and crisis. According to the Department of Homeland Security, evacuation is defined as ‘the organized, phased, and supervised withdraw, dispersal, or removal of civilians from dangerous or potentially dangerous areas, and their reception and care in safe areas (Holen, 2012). The evacuation of the immediate area surrounding the Fukushima power station was rather swift. When looking at the statistics regarding total deaths in the days following the earthquake and tsunami, we find that 54 percent of the dead were older than 65 years old which can presumably explained due to the inability to move in a quick manner to evacuate the area (Urata, Hato 2012).

One thing is certain in times of crisis, communicating and receiving input from other sources about after the fact will largely contain explanations for why something went wrong and what needs to be done in order to prevent another major disaster from occurring. In the case of the Fukushima disaster, the danger of building multiple nuclear reactor units so close to one another was exposed and turned out to be true (Funabashi, 2012). Once a disaster occurs and crisis communication is in progress, communication in itself might not happen the way it is planned or practiced. It is only after the calm after the storm, metaphorically speaking, do we analyze how to improve practices within an organization.

Many reasons were found for the Fukushima disaster. One major component that is found to be worthy of blame is human error. The Japanese government’s investigation report states that the human error was not limited to only one person like the one in Unit 1 who misjudged the backup cooling situation. The technical chief, the plant director, and the nuclear energy section of Tepco’s headquarters all failed to ascertain the true operational situation of the IC system at Unit 1 (Funabashi, 2012).

All data leads to the conclusion that the Japanese Government’s crisis communication was terrible. For the most part, information about what was going on was insufficient and there was little time to review it before the information was disseminated to the public entities. The Prime Minister’s office really was seen as a micro-manager in that, on the second day of the crisis, The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) Deputy Director had acknowledged the possibility of a core meltdown and was let dismissed from his position that evening. Ultimately, his belief in a possible meltdown was rejected. Communication and action during this crisis was slowed down extensively by the Prime Minister’s office. The crisis communication during this disaster was absolutely terrible because agencies failed to listen or even consider ideas or theories on the situation at hand. Also within the organization [power plant], communication was virtually non-existent largely due to the failure of the ones responsible for the safety of the plant utilizing disaster plans and not following instructions laid out when the temperatures went above the safe level. It just goes to show that a natural disaster is only the first step in how an organization or entity will communicate effectively in times of crisis.

In almost every disaster we learn about or experience firsthand, almost every time, the effectiveness of an organization's communication practices are blamed. That is the absolute one thing that organizations have in common with one another when disaster strikes, after the event, they are scrutinized in every way imaginable to determine how well they did communicate and if they did not communicate well, was that a contributing factor in the events after the disaster.

Although North America can hold its own, so to speak, with natural disasters, Asia has seen some of the most deadliest disasters in history. In 2004, an earthquake hit in the Indian Ocean causing a massive tsunami which hit the shores of Sumatra, Indonesia and caused the deaths of more than 100,000 civilians. After the disaster, the Disaster Mitigation, and Preparedness (DMP) organization was not looked at in a very positive manner by the majority of village leaders. With the use of their mass media, the DMP's reputation is making a slow recovery. This is in part to the government working with DMP with simulations and working with tsunami disaster models in order to disseminate disaster response information to the general public and using the media outlets to disseminate that information in the future when disaster strikes again.

Most countries are able to communicate in times of crisis, but some countries are so poor that communication is very slow as most people will not have access to social media and media in general. This is the case of Haiti in 2010. An earthquake hit the nation and nearly four years after the disaster, recovery efforts are still in progress. Although death toll estimates vary, somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000-300,000 civilians were killed in from the earthquake. Most of the recovery efforts made in Haiti have been largely made possible by humanitarian aid from other countries. The popular opinion on the slow recovery of Haiti has not been that of lack of aid, but rather lack of leadership within the country. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee drafted a letter stating in many words that the leadership and communication of the current president of Haiti was lack-luster and recognizes the fact that in times of crisis, adequate communication by the leadership is necessary to the recovery effort (Washington, 2010).

Crisis management is a problem based scheme originating when massive industrial and ecological disasters occurred in the 1980s. “What has so often excited wonder [is] the great rapidity with which countries recover from a state of devastation; the disappearance, in a short time, of all traces of the mischiefs done by earthquakes, flood, hurricanes, and the ravaged of war (John Stuart Mill).” Large-scale weather events in the USA such as hurricanes Sandy, Isaac and Katrina challenge traditional approaches to change communication and management (CCM) before during and after crises. A major challenge (as well as opportunity) is addressing change from the 'whole-community' perspective affecting a spectrum of people, policies, processes, behaviors and outcomes. When CCM is used effectively, one of its fundamental advantages is creating a sense of urgency (Tinker 2013).

Another importance of crisis management is to recognize that damage has been done to the organization, but a strategy has to be put in place to prevent further damage and how to use this lesson beneficially by not repeating it. Natural disasters are unpreventable. They affect industries of all sizes in a big way, it’s better to have disaster mitigation than disaster relief.

“While every year has its share of calamities, the past few years have seen an extraordinary spate of natural disasters and atypical weather (Kliesen,1994).” Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the evening of October 29, 2012 in southern New Jersey. It was categorized as the most destructive and fatal super-storm of the Atlantic hurricane season. Impacts of it were felt across more than a dozen states. Out of all the catastrophes the U.S. has faced this was the second costliest hurricane in U.S. history. When it struck the East Coast “it flooded electrical substations and knocked down trees, shutting off power for 8.2 million customers.” Who’s to point the finger at anyone for something so unexpectedly huge or could did we neglect all of our warning signs?

Establishments overlook the ‘what ifs’ in “For years, scientists have warned that rising sea levels would ultimately pose a severe threat to lower Manhattan, and that major corrective action was needed to prevent flooding. The risks were publicized on television shows, through charts and animations available on the Internet, and in other media. No competent emergency management official could deny knowledge of the problem. Yet, little was done to protect the city from a threat that we knew would ultimately materialize.” “There's No Such Thing as Too Much Communication "During the storm, the president was calling governors and other officials in affected states to stress the administration's support and to hear about their needs. He communicated to the American public and ensured the availability of information about first responders, the number of FEMA officials deployed to the field, where and how to file claims, and other facts that, in the past, often took much longer to learn," Lauren Stiller Rikleen, president of the Rikleen Institute for Strategic Leadership. Delegation is generally a good thing, but in a crisis on-the-ground knowledge and in-person leadership are irreplaceable. When it's crunch time, make sure your team knows exactly what you expect from them.”

Patience is a true virtue in these cases. Employers must have an abundance of this towards their employees. Not all workers will be able to bounce back to their day-to-day functions, which will result in a less productive work day. Reactions employers can look out for are increased absenteeism, withdrawal as a result of concerns about financial security, housing, and other potential losses. Hopefully, the institution they’re employed at has insurance coverage. Several organizations suffered on May 22, 2011 when a super-cell thunderstorm spawned a tornado just east of the Missouri-Kansas state line that rapidly intensifies to produce EF-5^1 damage as it tore a half-mile to three-quarters-mile-wide path of neat total destruction across Joplin, Missouri. The death toll in Joplin stands at 161, making this tornado the deadliest in the United States since 1947; no tornado had claimed 100 lives since 1953. The tornado damaged or destroyed an estimated 7,500 homes and more than 500 businesses, with property damage estimated to be $3 billion, the highest ever for a U.S. tornado (Smith 2013). Insurance is the core of voluntary-sector disaster recovery because insurance payments dwarf charitable contributions. And in contrast with either private or public relief after a disaster, insurance minimizes the Samaritan’s dilemma. A free society requires that people prepare for potential catastrophes and not plan to rely on charity or government relief; insurance represents the most effective way to spread risk voluntarily (Horwich 1990). More important, risk-reflecting premiums encourage efficient risk mitigation prior to a disaster. Walgreens, Chick-fil-A, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot rebuilt within eight months; Home Depot opened a large temporary tent store in the interim. More than 500 businesses were damaged or destroyed and had to close, at least temporarily, thus threatening employees’ income. The major employers in Joplin affected by the tornado, Wal-Mart and St. John’s Mercy Hospital, assisted the tornado victims by allowing employees to take up to eight weeks off to recover and kept employees on their payroll by allowing them to work at other locations. Disasters offer a window of opportunity to strengthen construction and change land uses to prevent a recurrence of a disaster (Platt 1998).

“Rebuilding required both material and emotional resources. Even full insurance coverage will not pay for all of the material losses and certainly doesn’t indemnify against emotional damages. A natural disaster can exhaust savings, produce stress, and significantly impact a person’s life for years.” When rebuilding a business after a natural disaster the head of the company should consider equipment, stock, records, and machinery damage costs, along with the homes of your employees that may have been damaged, and the possibility that your customers will go elsewhere for service. Once that’s in place you have decide whether the property structure is in a stable position for people to reach it safely. It wouldn’t be a good to reopen immediately after a disaster, because all of the resources you once had are limited now.

Mangers must acknowledge the concerns of their team members in non-judgmental way, but be comfortable enough to express their own frights. Urge employees to reach out to people who comfort them. In the midst of it all, address critical changes in performance and pin point where resources can be found. It would be a superb idea to consider group stress and anxiety workshops. No one will be facing hardships alone. As a company come together as one.

As far as the community is involved, “FEMA’s disaster-prevention principles work to ensure that communities are prepared days, months, or years in advance of the next disaster. The message is clear: A disaster resistant community can rebound from a natural disaster with more property intact and, consequently, lower costs of repairs (Taylor, 2001). The trauma from such catastrophes can be a heavy burden on an organization. It is important to consider psychological first aid when talking about crisis management for natural disasters. This model examines the needs of the first responders and those involved with crisis recovery and management. Such people can include rescue workers, police officers, firefighters, humanitarian relief workers and any others who are in a position to help out during a natural disaster (Castellano & Plionis, 2006). As Castellano and Plionis (2006) discuss, first responders view themselves as having to be strong for others. Showing emotion is considered a type of weakness. This often develops into a hesitancy to seek help, which can lead to worsening mental health. This creates a domino effect. The first responder needs to be psychologically and physically healthy enough to assist others. However, if their own physical and psychological health is ignored, the person in need may not be taken care of either (Kronenberg, Osofsky, Osofsky, Many, Hardy, & Arey, 2008). “Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005. The storm surge caused multiple levee breaches and left 80% of New Orleans and most of St. Bernard Parish underwater. Metropolitan New Orleans was in a state of chaos… During this time all, all communication systems failed (Kronenberg). How can a CEO keep its employers level headed in a time like this and how can they cut their losses?

Change is and can be a very difficult event in itself within an organization. Even the simple act of changing an organizations core values can have long term affects on the employee, and even a momentary loss of productivity depending on how drastic the change may be (Shin, J. 2012). At the heart of an organization, there are the people that inhabit the organization, who essentially run the business or whatever it may be. Aside from the management side of the organization, we must look at the employee perspective as well as the management side, but in separate discussions and research. Management researchers have concluded that employees play a major role in the success or failure of change in their organizations (e.g., Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Change within an organization will typically be communicated to the employees and then they will eventually transition into that change. Within an organization, the communication from the employees to the management can be verbal and non-verbal. They can communicate through behavior whether it be working harder, or showing resistance to change. A management team may empathize with the employees and understand or at the very least predict how they will react to the change that is on the table for the organization. Employees constantly receive inducements for the actual and anticipated contribution they will make to an organization (Shin, J., Taylor, M., & Seo, M., 2012).

Within an organization there is very little that employees will have in common with one another, let alone their origin. Multi-cultural organizations must be embraced. It must also be recognized that within a multi-cultural organization, communication barriers will exist and time must be spent working through those barriers. Different experiences and beliefs all contribute to a diverse workplace, adding to the organization’s well-oiled machine desire by employees and employers.

With crisis communication, it is not necessarily when disaster strikes do we analyze the communication between employees within an organization that was affected. We also have to examine the basic reactions from employees in times of disaster. After all, natural disasters are acute events which disrupt normal business operation and impinge on the employee’s well-being (Sanchez, J.I., Korbin, W.P., & Viscarra, D.M. 1995). Natural disasters aside, crisis in general will call upon actions from employees such as their reactions. Trust is a key term when evaluating how a crisis is handled and the employees are the ones who will ultimately judge whether or not the management is concerned for their well-being (Kanter, 1983). The trust factor will also play a part in time management. For example, during a crisis, an organization may allow employees to decide which areas or activities should have resources reduced or eliminated, and which areas should receive additional resources, then time that would otherwise be spent seeking management approvals can be devoted to implementing the resource reallocations. This assumes, of course, that the knowledge requisite for making correct decision resides among these employees (cf. Vroom & Yetton, 1973). After disaster strikes, it is mainly the upper management level that will take control and use the resources that are still available after those other resources have been reallocated or reduced to locate and communicate with displaced employees after the natural disaster.

The management sector of this paper will focus on the development of a supply chain and overcoming decision biases to reduce losses from natural catastrophes. Our central thesis is that escalating losses from natural hazards are the result of a dynamic interplay between two central forces, one economic, the other behavioral. The economic driver of catastrophic losses are the increasing levels of material and human assets that have been placed in harm’s way without adequate compensating investments in mitigation —most notably in coastal areas adjacent to the world’s oceans. These location decisions, in turn, arise from a tendency among residents and policy makers to under-attend to low-probability, high consequence risks. While decision makers are quick to see the potential short-run gains that can be obtained from investing in development… The result of economic development in high-risk areas increasingly outpaces technological gains in how to protect these assets. As late as 1950 the state was only the 20th largest in the United States with a population of 2.8 million. But the years since then have witnessed a migration boom, with the state now being the country’s fourth largest with a projected 2010 population of 19.3 million (a 600 percent increase since 1950). The consequence is clear: storms that were previously sources of inconvenience are now potential sources of catastrophe (Kunreuther, 2014). Capital represents the financial resources companies use to purchase goods or labor for their business operations. Natural or operational disasters frequently have serious negative effects on a company’s available capital, since they must now spend money to restore assets rather than advance business operations.

Large companies can set aside a portion of their operational profits for future disaster recovery plans. They can invest this capital in short-term marketable securities to earn interest on these funds. If disasters are particularly devastating, large companies may have additional capital for restoring business operations (Vitez, 2009). Small businesses do not usually have copious amounts of capital saved for future business purposes. Limited capital might mean small businesses cannot pay for personal or business expenses. Reduced capital can also result in the small business obtaining external financing for operations, which may lead to future cash outflows. Assets are the physical items companies use in business operations. Disasters often render physical assets unusable if damage is significant to the business. Large companies can mitigate the loss of business assets from natural or operational disasters by operating multiple locations with multiple business assets. If disasters render one location inoperable, larger companies can transfer operations to another facility in an attempt to maintain normal production output. Small businesses usually operate in a single location. Business assets are commonly at this location or the business owner’s home. Disasters that significantly damage a small business’s assets sometimes prohibit the business from continuing operations. Business owners may spend copious amounts of time attempting to repair the asset or wait until they can obtain a replacement. Large companies often have more personnel available when restoring business operations to pre-disaster levels. These managers and employees may be able to work from home if the company has sufficient technological resources. Transforming employees to another facility is another option for larger companies. Small businesses often do not have employees who can help restore operations after a disaster. Business owners who are injured or unable to work may face significant setbacks from natural or operational disasters. Small businesses might not reopen while the business owner is unable to physically operate the company (Vitez, 2009).

Natural disasters put companies on stage, and how they behave leaves a lasting impression. It also provides an opportunity to do the right thing and to get credit for it. A textbook example of this is Wal-Mart Stores’ response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The company outperformed federal and local relief efforts and was widely recognized for its efficient provision of much-needed emergency supplies. Wal-Mart drivers were greeted as heroes when their trucks reached the disaster areas days before government relief efforts. Wal-Mart’s swift response was no accident; it was the result of meticulous preparation and execution based on the company’s decades of experience with stores affected by hurricanes and other natural disasters–not to mention its strength in logistics and supply chain management. The program’s public face consisted mainly of local employees, store managers and truck drivers, whom Wal-Mart made available to the media for interviews, an unusual but very effective move. In times of crisis, local employees typically have more credibility than senior management, as they are seen as less calculating. They told powerful stories about neighbors helping neighbors that reflected well on Wal-Mart. When disaster strikes a company becomes not just an anonymous provider of goods and services, but a member of the community. Anything that can look self-serving or like self-promotion should be avoided, and connection to the company’s core competency is less important than serving actual needs. The leaders of companies need to realize that any major crisis will put them on stage, with the public paying close attention. Anything they do–or don’t do–will likely be remembered for a long time. Leaders with a keen sense of crisis management will recognize these opportunities and seize the moment (Diermeier, 2011).

We all have been in times of change at some point in our lives. The goal is not necessarily to react, but be proactive with that particular change before it occurs. Countless hours have been within organizations planning and being proactive about preparation for either planned or unplanned change. Unplanned change is the final frontier, so to speak, when examining communication. Communication itself has been shown time and time again to be the single element that can be looked at as a reason for a good or bad outcome during and after a crisis. For the most part, communication between members of an organization has not been discussed when the outcome based on the reactions were of above standard. When something catastrophic happens such as a natural disaster, communication before the disaster will always be investigated, especially when human life is affected and the outcome from that disaster is long-term. Researching crisis communication will be an ongoing activity for many communication theorists and students and will never cease as long as crisis does exists. For many, answers for how to effectively communicate during a time of unplanned changed such as a natural disaster will sadly only be given during the recovery process. Learning will also be at the forefront of a disaster investigation (What could we have done better? etc...). The challenge is to accept the fact that disaster, as well as unplanned change in general, will happen. All we can do is examine past experiences and apply them to the future.

References

Howard, A. (Eds.) (1994). Diagnosis for Organizational Change: Methods and Models. New York: Guilford Press.

Millar, D., Pyle, H., & Robert, L. (Eds.) (2004). Responding to Crisis: A Rhetorical Approach to Crisis Communication, Mahwah, N.J.

Salem, Philip J. (Eds.) (1999). Organizational Communication and Change, Cresskill, N.J.: Hamilton Press.

Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R.T. (Eds.)The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employees Perspective

Shin, J., Taylor, M., & Seo, M. (2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy Of Management Journal, 55, 727-748.

Mackay, R., & Chia, R. (2013). Choice, chance, and unintended consequences in strategic change: A process understanding of the rise and fall of Northco Automotive. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 208-230. Doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0734

Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 877-904. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0013.

Singh, J. V., House, R. J., & Tucker, D. J. (1986). Organizational change and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 587-611.

Employee Reactions to Organizational Change. (n.d.). Small Business. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/employee-reactions-organizational-change-17732.html

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model. (n.d.). - Implementing Change Powerfully and Successfully. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm

Ready, K. (2013, July 24). A Hidden Risk of Big Organizational Change. Forbes. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinready/2013/07/24/a-hidden-risk-of-big-organizational-change/

Change and crisis management. (n.d.). Change and crisis management. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://www.slideshare.net/KarenJosephBeeston/change-and-crisis-management

Communicating Change. (n.d.). People-focused communication drives M&A integration success. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from http://www.pwc.com/us/en/peoplemanagement/assets/communicating-change.pdf.
Emergency information: Safety rules for rescue operations; safety rules and recovery procedures after a natural disaster / Emergency information: Safety rules for rescue operations; safety rules and recovery procedures after a natural disaster Floods, water contamination. (1979). Information sheet - Cooperative Extension Service, Mississippi State University,

A blueprint for action: the President’s action plan for recovery from the January 1998 ice storm : Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont. (1998). Washington, DC (500 C St., SW, Washington 20472) : Federal Emergency Management Agency, [1998].

Taylor, C. (2001). BUILDING DIASTER-RESISTANT COMMUNITIES. USA Today Magazine, 130(2674), 32.

Henderson, D. M. (2005). When Disaster Strikes. American School & University, 78(4), 29.

Szafranski, T. (2013). Natural Disaster Crisis Management. Psych Central. Retrieved on March 27, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/natural-disaster-crisis-management/00015540

Castellano, Cherie, and Elizabeth Plionis. 2006. “Comparative analysis of three crisis intervention models applied to law enforcement first responders during 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.” Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 6, no. 4: 326-336. PsycINFO, EBSCOhost.

Kronenberg, M., Osofsky, H., Osofsky, J., Many, M., Hardy, M., & Arey, J. (2008). First responder culture: Implications for mental health professionals providing services following a natural disaster.Psychiatric Annals, 38(2), 114-118. doi:10.3928/00485713-20080201-05.

Kunreuther, H., Meyer, R., & Kerjan, E. (n.d.). Overcoming Decision Biases to Reduce Loses from Natural Catastrophes.Wharton University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/

Antonacopoulou, E., Sheaffer, Z. (2013). Learning in Crisis: Rethinking the Relationship Between Organizational Learning and Crisis Management Journal of Management Inquiry 2014 23: 5. DOI: 10.1177/1056492612472730.

Kopp, D. M., Nikolovska, I., Desiderio, K. P., & Guterman, J. T. (2011). "Relaaax, I Remember the Recession in the Early 1980s...": Organizational Storytelling as a Crisis Management Tool. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 373-385.

Smith, F. M., Coffelt, T. A., Rives, A. P., & Sollitto, M. (2012). The Voice of Victims: Positive Response to a Natural Disaster Crisis. Qualitative Research Reports In Communication, 13(1), 53-62. doi:10.1080/17459435.2012.719209.

RØd, S., Botan, C., & Holen, A. (2012). Risk communication and the willingness to follow evacuation instructions in a natural disaster. Health, Risk & Society, 14(1), 87-99. doi:10.1080/13698575.2011.641522

Li, J., Vishwanath, A., & Rao, H. (2014). Retweeting the Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Disaster. Communications Of The ACM, 57(1), 78-85. doi:10.1145/2500881

Tinker, T. L. (2013). Communicating and managing change during extreme weather events: Promising practices for responding to urgent and emergent climate threats. Journal Of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 6(4), 304-313.

Urata, J., & Hato, E. (2012). Modeling the Cooperation Network Formation Process for Evacuation Systems Design in Disaster Areas with a Focus on Japanese Megadisasters. Leadership & Management In Engineering, 12(4), 231-246. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000205

Funabashi, Y., & Kitazawa, K. (2012). Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 68(2), 9-21. doi:10.1177/0096340212440359

Sanchez, J.I., Korbin, W.P., & Viscarra, D.M. (1995). Corporate support in the aftermath of a natural disaster: Effects on employee strains. Academy Of Management Journal, 38(2), 504-521. doi:10.2307/256690.