Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Practice settings and prescribing

profiles: the simulation of tension
headaches to general practitioners
working...
Carole Lalonde

American Journal of Public Health

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Managing crises t hrough organisat ional development : a concept ual framework

Carole Lalonde

Organisat ional socialisat ion in a crisis cont ext

Carole Lalonde

Changing t he Paradigm of Crisis Management : How t o Put OD in t he Process

Carole Lalonde
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228129836

The Potential Contribution of the Field of

Organizational Development to Crisis
Management

Article in Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management · May 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00508.x

CITATIONS READS

42 385

1 author:

Carole Lalonde
Laval University
28 PUBLICATIONS 213 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carole Lalonde on 25 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007

The Potential Contribution of

the Field of Organizational
Development to Crisis
Management
Carole Lalonde
Department of Management, University Laval, Pavillon Palasis Prince, Québec, Canada, G1K 7P4. E-mail:
carole.lalonde@mng.ulaval.ca

This paper explores the possibilities of cross-disciplinarity between organization devel-

opment and crisis management. The departure point of our reflection is that crisis
management as a field currently faces two limitations. First, two major trends have
characterized this field to date: the sociological analysis of organizational contingencies
which focus on disasters as social events and the crisis management planning which
emphasizes the development of techniques to master hazards. Despite what we have
learned from these approaches, neither seems to lead to a crisis management learning
model that fosters organizational resilience in coping with crises. Second, researchers
have studied a number of events as single case studies but have not synthesized these
case studies. Consequently, each crisis seems idiosyncratic and administrators tend to
repeat the same inefficient patterns when a crisis occurs. The research proposal
presented in this paper aims to remove these limitations by bringing together two
apparently opposing fields of study, that of crisis management, characterized by what are
perceived as specific events, and that of organizational development, characterized by
the strengthening of organizations’ capacities to cope with lasting changes. This paper
proposes to explore their potential to work together theoretically and empirically
through a research design. We conclude on how this proposal meets the challenges of
a new research agenda in the 21st century.

Introduction Kerjan, 2003a, 2003b). We have more creeping crises

and new studies show the impacts of climate change on

C rises in contemporary societies have increased in

diversity and complexity (Rosenthal, Boin and
Comfort, 2001). Many authors point out that crises
can no longer be considered improbable and sparse
events (Rosenthal and Kouzmin, 1996). In fact, the
occurrence and diversity of types of crisis in our
societies have increased (Hart, Heyse and Boin, 2001;
Quarantelli, 2001; Robert and Lajtha, 2002). Moreover,
the time frame of crises has tended to expand (Ro-
senthal and Kouzmin, 1996; Hart et al., 2001), along
with their geographic spread (Hart et al., 2001; Michel-
the risk of natural disasters (O’Brien et al., 2006; Van
Aaslt, 2006). Also, massive social transformations in the
last decades should impact the number and kinds of
disasters that will occur and the very nature of planning
and managing necessary in the future (Rosenthal, Boin
and Comfort, 2001; Quarantelli, 2001, 2005). Crisis
management is on the public administration agenda but,
unfortunately, only when crises occur (Lagadec, 1991,
1996). Decision-makers are increasingly put on the
carpet and pressed for answers on issues which they
often find overwhelming (Drabek and Hoetmer, 1991;

& 2007 The Author. Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA
96 Carole Lalonde

Pauchant and Mitroff, 1995; Boin and Lagadec, 2000). Crises Authors
Anthrax Babbs and O’Connor (2003)
The extensive media coverage of events is too fre- Clarke et al. (2006)
quently oriented towards identifying the ‘guilty’ rather Boin et al. (2003)
than looking for solutions. Leaders and managers have World Trade Center Connell (2001)
Cox (2002)
difficulties in dealing with the communication aspect of Kendra and Wachtendorf (2003)
their role and tend to avoid the media (Lerbinger, 1997; Michel-Kerjan (2003)
Tierney (2003)
Sellnow, Seeger and Ulmer, 2002) to avoid blaming Peek and Sutton (2003)
(Neal, 1984). Finally, the costs of catastrophes continue Burke (2005)
Three Mile Island Perrow (1994, 1999)
to grow (Nathan, 2000; Newkirk, 2001) and everyone Hopkins (2001)
feels insecure (Michel-Kerjan, 2003b). These are the Heart Wave Lagadec (2003)
new realities that organizations confront and that Thirion (2005)
Rwanda genocide Reyntjens (2001)
require a fresh perspective on the issue of crisis Buruchara et al. (2002)
management practice, as well as in the area of research. Darfur Pinto et al. (2005)
Hurricane Katrina Connelly (2006)
Banipal (2006)
Mad cow Lanska (1997)
Grönvall (2001)
Academic contributions in a diversity of types Pennings et al. (2002)
of crisis Avian influenza Thorson and Edkall (2005)
Bhopal Shrivastava (1994)
In addition to research on the industrial catastrophes of S ARS M aunder et al . (2003)
Nickell et al. (2004)
Bhopal, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (Perrow, 1994; Buus and Olsson (2006)
Shrivastava, 1994), and that on natural catastrophes, Contaminated blood scandal Feld man and Bayer (1999)
Tsunami Rodiguez et al. (2006)
well-documented by the Disaster Research Center in Oloruntoba (2005)
recent years, we have seen the addition of research Shaw (2006)
Global warming Boiral (2006)
concerns touching a variety of crises in very diverse Van Aaslt (2006)
sectors (see Figure 1 for a synthesis of some important O’Brien et al. (2006)
academics contributions): Bam earthquake (Iran) Pinera et al. (2005)
Bowman and Kunreuther (1988)
Oklahoma bombing Sprang (1999)
 in the public health sector, the contaminated blood North (2002)
scandal, SARS, and avian flu; Note : Selection of articles mainly from specialized reviews in crisis and disaster
management such as : Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
 in the political and humanitarian sector, the Rwandan Disasters, Disaster Prevention and Management and Disaster Management
genocide, and Darfur; Response.

 in the international relations sector, the growth of
terrorism, the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma
City bombing, the London attack and the train attack
in Madrid, Spain, and bio-terrorism, like Anthrax
attack;
 in the agrobusiness sector, mad cow disease and the
risks associated with genetically modified food;
 in the environmental sector, deforestation, the thin-
ning of the ozone layer and global warming;
 in the business sector, the collapse of Enron and
Andersen;
 and the multiplication of so-called natural cata-
strophes such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans,
the dangers associated with West Nile virus, the
heat wave in Europe, the earthquake in Bam in Iran,
the tsunami in Southeast Asia and many others.
Furthermore, a recent inventory carried out by
Rosenthal, Boin and Comfort (2001) reflects this
diversity of interests and the increasingly multidisciplin-
ary nature of the field, which is another new reality that
researchers are just beginning to recognize. This diver-
sity – from Katrina, through SARS to terrorist attacks –
presents new challenges to academics and practitioners
in crisis management (Pearson and Clair, 1998; Michel-
Kerjan, 2003a). It shatters fundamental assumptions and
Figure 1. Academic contributions for different types of crisis in recent
years.
take-for-granted definitions (Perry and Nigg, 2005) as
well as ways of doing research in the field (Quarantelli,
2005). The central question, ‘what is a disaster’ raised
by Quarantelli in 1998 comes back with more acuity
than ever in the research agenda for the 21st century
(Quarantelli, 2005). In fact, diversity in the more recent
literature on crisis management is subject to scientific
scrutiny (Rosenthal, Boin and Comfort, 2001).
Some Reports from Crisis Management
Research
For many decades, the field of crisis management has
been characterized by two main trends: planning in
crisis management and the analysis of organizational
contingencies during a crisis. The literature analyzing
organizational contingencies relies mostly on the so-
ciology of disasters. This domain of inquiry has brought
rich data that features the complex and often disorga-
nized dynamic amongst actors themselves, as well
as the role and behaviour of citizens during crises.
According to this perspective, crisis management

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management & 2007 The Author

Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007 Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to Crisis Management
should consider the larger social context, in addition to
the characteristics of communities and organizations
having to intervene in times of crisis. Thus, within
communities, many contingencies are to be considered.
As stated by Quarantelli (2005: 346), ‘disasters . . . are
the results of a convergence of social factors none of
which might be very important in themselves’. Re-
searchers have clarified many of those social factors.
Previous experience in crises (Dynes, 1970; Perry and
Nigg, 1985; Britton, 1987) could affect the way a
particular community will cope with crisis. Also, the
nature of the social fabric (Dynes, 1970) including
citizens’ level of participation in social life (Wenger,
1978; Wolensky, 1983; Echterling et al., 1988) and the
role of gender (Fordham, 1998; Enarson, 1998; Bate-
man and Edwards, 2002) or ethnicity in helping beha-
viours (Peacock, Morrow and Gladwin, 1997; Kreps,
1989; Olivier-Smith, 1996), the level of resources and
the type of local infrastructure pre-existing to crisis
(Stallings and Schepart, 1990; Sylves and Pavlak, 1990),
the rural, urban or semi-urban semi-rural character of a
territory (Dynes, 1975; Lalonde, 2004), the social
assistance dynamic (Wright et al., 1990; Kaniasty and
Norris, 1995; Drabek and McEntire, 2003),
some undesirable behaviours such as panic (Wenger,
1980; Helsloot and Ruitenberg, 2004) or looting
(Quarantelli, 1993, 1994) and some manifestations of
hostility towards the outside world (Quarantelli and
Dynes, 1976). These are all important dimensions to
examine to understand the very dynamic and iterative
process of dealing with crises. Research also highlights
the variable and political geometry of intervention
according to the missions of the organizations involved
(Dynes, 1970, 1978, 1987; Britton, 1991), the strategies
deployed (coalitions, alliances and disputes over control
of resources, garbage can approach) and the specific
structural modalities adopted to confront the crisis
(Milburn et al., 1983a, 1983b; Denis, 2002; Lagadec,
1991, 1996; Pauchant and Mitroff, 1995).
The literature on crisis management planning em-
phasizes formal or explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994).
It consists of a number of normative pronouncements
aimed at increasing the efficiency of crisis interventions.
It often takes the form of recommendations presented
as the right way to cope with crisis situations. Their
authors highlight the need for emergency planning
(Lagadec, 1991, 1996; Counts and Prowant, 1994; Perry
and Nigg, 1985; Denis, 2002; Bugge, 1993; Sylves and
Pavlak, 1990; Quarantelli, 1996), defining actions in
relation to the various phases of the evolution of a
crisis starting with the detection of warning signs up to
post-crisis activities (Drabek and Hoetmer, 1991),
stressing the necessity to promote preventive beha-
viour as well as the development of a culture of
security, both within organizations and in the popula-
tion at large (Lagadec, 1991; Tazieff, 1988; Denis, 2002;
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
97
Toft and Reynolds, 1994), the importance of training,
communications skills and sensitization of leaders to
their roles in times of crisis (Perry and Nigg, 1985;
Lagadec, 1991, 1996, 1997; Kuban, 1995; Petak, 1985;
Pauchant and Mitroff, 1995). In the planning literature,
emphasis is on the formalization of a set of rules,
routines, techniques and general guidelines to follow
in order to master hazards. Some authors (Pauchant
and Mitroff, 1995) thought that relying exclusively on
formal and pre-defined plans could give to members of
organizations, especially leaders, a false sense of secur-
ity. Moreover, when a crisis occurs, many other strate-
gies come into play (Lalonde, 2004).
Generalizing about crises has led several researchers
like Reason (1997) to develop the high reliability organiza-
tions model. This model was largely inspired by experi-
ences in security and risk management in the area of
airlines, aerospace and nuclear energy. This model scru-
tinizes the chain of production and identifies the critical
processes and normal operations that constitute areas of
weakness or risk (‘near miss’). Attempts to export this
model have been made, notably in the medical world and
the health sector in general with a view to guaranteeing a
more secure provision of care. Unfortunately, managers
are unfamiliar with this model (Bourrier, 2002). Moreover,
the ‘zero risk approach’ that this model implies is
criticized by some authors (Sagan, 1993; Perrow, 1994;
Beck, 2003; Bertrand, 2005; Guilhou and Lagadec, 2002)
for its lack of realism. In addition, this model seems to
apply more to large industry and to the redesigning of its
technical operations and technologies, and little or not at
all to small and medium-sized enterprises, or to organiza-
tions having a role as social interveners during crises like
governmental or non-governmental agencies, communi-
tarian and humanitarian associations.
Obstacles and limitations to initiate learning
There is no question about the great contribution these
trends have brought to crisis management research and
to the expansion of knowledge about crisis phenomena.
They contain many lessons for administrators and
decision-makers. However, to date, it seems this has
not been enough to improve organizations’ capacity to
respond in a crisis. Indeed, a consensus is emerging
amongst researchers about the obstacles encountered
in incorporating this knowledge in organizational prac-
tice. In fact, researchers note the difficulty of transfer-
ring knowledge stemming from all of this research to
administrators in organizations. This inhibits the im-
plementation of proactive crisis management and the
development of greater organizational and civic resi-
lience in times of crisis (Rosenthal and Kouzmin, 1996;
Quarantelli, 2001). Administrators continue to repeat
the same inefficient patterns and do not seem to absorb
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
98
lessons from their experiences (Piotrowski, 2006; Van
Heerden, 2006). Learning processes fall short after mitiga-
tion actions have been put into place. Why is it so difficult
to draw lessons from crises and to make organizational
changes as a result of these lessons? The main reasons
advanced are as follows. First, the time or temporal
framework of the crisis analysis is too limited (Bourrier,
2002); the issue does not remain a priority once the
immediate crisis has passed (Petak, 1985; Lagadec, 1996;
Rosenthal and Kouzmin, 1996; Nathan, 2000) and, after
having experienced a crisis, the area is too sensitive for
discussion (Lagadec, 1996; Bourrier, 2002). The pressure
of managing day-to-day affairs resurfaces and tends to
eclipse the period which could be devoted to post-crisis
reflection (Rosenthal et al., 1989; Rosenthal and Kouzmin,
1996). Second, the manager is avoiding his or her
responsibilities (Lagadec, 1991, 1996) and tends to pass
this off to the experts (Rosenthal and Kouzmin, 1996;
Bourrier, 2002) and to use them for political ends (Hart
et al., 2001). Third, managers and interveners do not
envisage the transferability of experiences during a crisis
to routine practices (Roux-Dufort, 2000; Bourrier, 2002).
These experiences are seen as eminently contingent with
their own idiosyncrasies. So, there is a lack of sharing of
experiences in crisis management across organizations
(Bourrier, 2002), between sectors of activities and
amongst countries (Hart et al., 2001).
An Incursion in Organizational
Development
The concept of learning is increasingly central to crisis
management researchers’ concerns (Roux-Dufort, 2000;
Simon and Pauchant, 2000; Stern, 1997). According to
Baumard (1996), crisis induces a disconcerting effect on
organizations that is particularly favourable for learning
and organizations must learn how to manage this new
knowledge. Researchers and practitioners are seeking
models allowing for a lasting integration of organizational
learning during crises, models that could help managers
build organizational resilience to cope with crisis. There-
fore, as Roux-Dufort (2000) rightly pointed out, such
models remain largely to be created and invented. The
concept itself needs some clarification (Easterby-Smith
and Araujo, 1999; Prange, 1999) and there is no clear
consensus on what organizational members can learn
from crises, how they learn and under what conditions
learning occurs. Some authors argue that an organization’s
members should unlearn to allow new learning to take
place (Hedberg, 1981). The challenge is to transfer the
accumulated knowledge flowing from concrete experi-
ences, well-documented by crisis management research-
ers to a comprehensive learning model in which
organizational actors will be actively engaged. One of
the avenues to better integrate this learning seems to us
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
Carole Lalonde
to be found in organizational development approaches.
First initiated by precursors such as Kurt Lewin and his
National Laboratory Training (see Burnes, 2004) which
focus on the ‘micro processes’ and dynamics of small
groups, the field has been enriched by many complemen-
tary contributions in human resource management, lea-
dership and strategy. Organizational development (OD)
can be defined as a process calling upon social and
behavioural sciences to strengthen abilities and capacities
of organizations over the long term to confront changes
and to better attain their objectives (Cummings and
Worley, 2005). OD is research-action oriented and
favours a constant and iterative dialogue between practical
and theoretical concerns. It is a field of practical applica-
tion based on a process of accompaniment, initiated either
internally or externally (Schein, 1999) and covering a vast
panoply of activities (Carter et al., 2001, 2005; French and
Bell, 1999; Rothwell and Sullivan, 2005) such as: organiza-
tional diagnosis (Harrison, 1999); feedback mechanisms
for members of the organization such as survey feedback
(Ryan et al., 2000), search conference (Cabana and Emery,
1995; Emery and Purser, 1996), coaching (Evered and
Selman, 1989; Testa, 2005; Thach, 2002; Natale and
Diamante, 2005), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider
et al., 2003; Egan and Lancaster, 2005; Whitney and
Trosten-Bloom, 2003); and the design of interventions at
the level of human processes, technostructure, human
resource management and global strategy. This array of
methods allows organizational actors to master new
knowledge and ways of doing things. This idea of
strengthening organizational abilities and capacities is
also related to the notion of resilience put forward by
many scholars (Quarantelli, 2001; Rosenthal and Kouzmin,
1996) as well as from the UNISDR in their Hyogo
Declaration (2005). We think of resilience as a process
that induces positive outcomes like skills to bounce back
and capacities for recovery (Manyena, 2006). This con-
ception fits well the purposes of practices in OD.
Furthermore, OD may represent what Bourrier (2002)
calls the ‘missing link’ and thus addresses the concern
about crisis management over a period of time through
reconfiguring interventions and the support structures of
these interventions. The field of OD seems to us
particularly well-placed to concretize this necessary trans-
fer of theoretical knowledge into practice and benefits
from a long and well established tradition in assisting
members of organizations to face challenges presented by
high velocity environments (Eisenhardt, 1989b).
Towards a New Research Design
Main goals
This article is looking for new goals research through a
proposal that will relate two fields of study that have
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to Crisis Management
largely ignored each other to date, and, in the light of
this rapprochement, to develop a learning model.
Central questions already raised by crisis management
literature will be addressed, that is: how can one ensure
the long-term incorporation of the learning that takes
place in organizations during a crisis and thus develop
improved organizational resilience in times of crisis?
More specifically, we plan to develop a new model of
OD intervention, specific to crisis management, estab-
lish the original contribution of approaches in OD likely
to guarantee lasting learning within organizations; and
synthesize research results from the most recent case
studies in crisis management which, to date, have been
handled independently, and to discern the lessons
which emerge time after time.
Methodological framework
Many authors (Hart et al., 2001; Quarantelli, 2005)
encourage a transversal and cross-disciplinary type of
framework in crisis management research. We believe
that researchers in the 21st century have needed to
become more interested in the transversal nature of
crises and to develop research specifications allowing
for comparison of management practices across sectors
or countries. The methodological framework of the
research proposed takes these new recommendations
into account. Thus, cross-disciplinarity is guaranteed by
the convergence of the literature on crisis management
and that on organizational development. Cross-discipli-
narity is assured by an inventory of case studies in crisis
management in an array of fields and sectors.
First, a meta-analysis of the field of crisis manage-
ment will be conducted based on two complementary
sources of information, that of the scientific community
in the form of research results (reliable data), and that
emerging from expert committees in the form of
recommendations. Second, our framework permits
the easy exploitation of existing and rich data (Quar-
antelli, 2005) from diverse sources.
Academic research on case studies
One aspect of our framework will come from an
inventory of case studies presented between 2000
and 2006 in specialized journals in crisis and disaster
management (see a preliminary selection in Figure 1).
The research proposal aims to classify the results
obtained on the basis of five key dimensions:
 issues related to planification and the use of formal
rules and routines;
 strategies deployed to coordinate actions (emergent
planning, interventions in various phases, alliances,
coalitions, improvisation etc.);
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
99
 the involvement of local, national and international
leadership (including communication and decision-
making);
 civic behaviour (and more specifically the forms of
social capital) both of those directly affected by the
crisis and those living on the periphery, volunteers
and others potentially offering assistance;
 task expansion and novel forms or professional and
organizational socialization between actors.
These dimensions have often been identified as parti-
cularly central to crisis management but there is no
satisfying synthesis, and this is contributing to the
persistence of the idea that each crisis is unique and
that administrators cannot really learn lasting lessons
from their experiences and improve their capacity to
confront future crises.
Expert recommendations
The research proposal also aims to proceed to a
classification of recommendations and lessons from
crises such as those stemming from a content analysis
of the expert committee reports on major events that
have occurred over the last decade. It will focus on five
major crises that have been subject to public inquiries:
 SARS in Toronto (Canada), report of the National
Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health
(2003);
 Ice Storm in Quebec (Canada), report from Quebec
Commission on scientific and technical events re-
lated to the ice storm (1999);
 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (USA), report
from the US House of Representatives (2006) and
from the White House (2006);
 the Tsunami (Southeast Asia), report from Interna-
tional Federation of Red Cross (2005) and United
Nations (2005);
 the Heat Wave (France), report from the National
Assembly (2003, 2004).
The same dimensions or markers will serve to classify
the recommendations or lessons stemming from the
analysis of these expert committees. We hypothesize
that the material we are to collect through these
reports will emphasize and reinforce the planning
perspective.
Learning design
A synthesis of results from academic research and
expert recommendations will be obtained through
classifying them with reference to three basic questions:
 types or contents of lessons, returning to the
question what have we learned?, whether new
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
100 Carole Lalonde

Figure 2. Classification scheme.

information, the consolidation of existing organiza- Classification scheme

tional routines stemming either from crisis plans or
In the light of considerations presented in the metho-
routines learned within the organization, or tacit
dological framework, a blueprint has been developed to
knowledge coming from socialization in a trade or
classify the data, similar to that which Miles and Huber-
profession or from an organizational cultural envir-
man (1994) characterize as an ‘unranked meta-matrix’
onment, etc.;
(see Figure 2). Information classified under each dimen-
 learning conditions, returning to the question how or
sion will have to correspond to the quotations
in what conditions did we learn?, including experimen-
or paraphrases from the extracts of selected articles
tation in real time in ‘real’ situations, simulations of
or reports. This will be classified through the use of
the experience, training, confrontation and sharing
appropriate software for processing qualitative data and
of experiences, etc.;
through a process of double rating. Researchers who
 the potential to transfer knowledge within the
rely on qualitative methods find themselves confronted
organization, aiming to respond to the question
with the issue of the condensation of data, that is with
how can we incorporate this knowledge in an organiza-
techniques allowing for the synthesis of a large array of
tional learning model?
data in the form of words and not figures (Miles and
Huberman, 1994; Thiétart, 1999; Easterby-Smith et al.,
2002). The present details of the condensation process
that we have followed to render intelligible the great
OD contributions mass of information with which we have worked will be
presented in a research report. The initial classification
Following a review of the literature, we will identify
scheme, comprising five principal dimensions, allows a
approaches and methods recognized as effective, and
relatively high degree of latitude for the discovery of
successfully applied by practitioners-researchers in or-
more precise sub-themes. Following a moderate induc-
ganizational development (Carter et al., 2001, 2005;
tive approach, we will include sub-themes for each
Rothwell and Sullivan, 2005; French and Bell, 1999), and
dimension as they occur.
we will compare the synthesis obtained with reliable
data from OD research according to subject matter:
human processes, technostructure, human resource
management and strategy. This division is borrowed Conclusion
from Cummings and Worley (2005) who situate the
OD methods and approaches in a global perspective or In a recent article, Quarantelli (2005) pleads for a
what they call a system-wide approach. renewal of the research agenda for disasters of the

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management & 2007 The Author

Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007 Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to Crisis Management
21st century. He raises many interesting tracks of inquiry
at different levels: theoretical, methodological and em-
pirical. We think that the characteristics of the research
proposal presented here – cross-disciplinarity, transversal
analysis of well documented case studies, iterative dialo-
gue between practical and theoretical concerns – corre-
sponds to challenges exposed by Quarantelli (2005) and
others (Hart et al., 2001; Rosenthal, Boin and Comfort,
2001). We believe that it should bring ‘new answers to
old questions’. On the methodological side, for instance,
instead of adding new material by traditional research
methods (face-to-face interviewing, questionnaires), we
anticipate using already existing material and analyzing it
in a transversal manner to enlighten regularities in the
findings (Yin, 1994). This idea of synthesis and integration
has been raised by other authors such as Pearson and
Clair (1998) but their perspective has been limited to the
theoretical sphere.
Furthermore, we are aware of the problems we will
encounter by making a content analysis of varied
sources of data (Quarantelli, 2005: 361). For instance,
we hypothesize that reports from formal authorities
will probably emphasize formal planning and practical
considerations. Academic research on case studies may
bring more reliable and scientific data but on more
focused dimensions and only on few factors. The
transversal perspective that we adopt may lead to
contradictory conclusions. But it could also lead to
some sort of theory building in the sense given by
Eisenhardt (1989a).
Quarantelli (2005: 354) also points out that ‘there
are many theoretical models and frameworks in the
social sciences. However, disaster research have ex-
plicitly used very few of them.’ Our cross-disciplinary
view is expected to be fruitful in that sense. We think
that two important concepts – resilience and social
capital (Feld, 2003) – are overlapping in crisis manage-
ment and OD literature. We propose to explore this
theoretical avenue more deeply.
Our conception of a learning model raises a com-
plementary question about the vector or vehicle to
transfer learning from researchers to administrators
(Roy et al., 1995). Frequently, consultants working in
the field of management are called upon as experts or
as facilitators (Schein, 1999). Consequently, a debate
has occurred amongst authors as to the real assistance
provided to organizations from external consulting
resources. These authors (Abrahamson, 1996; Gill
and Whittle, 1992; Sorge and Van Witteloostujin,
2004; Spell, 2001) wonder about the quality of
‘packages’ being marketed and the instrumentalization
of knowledge that results. Could we prevent these
pitfalls in the applications of OD interventions in crisis
management? This is certainly worth investigating.
According to Rosenthal, Boin and Comfort (2001),
future crises will have an endemic quality and will be
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
101
compounded by nature and self-perpetuating. A good
example of this endemic character comes from the risk
of pandemic faced by most governments in the inter-
national community linked to the potential of the avian
flu virus. Governments have already engaged in preven-
tion activities and crisis planning. This case corresponds
well to the conclusions suggesting that administrators’
and researchers’ future concerns will touch not only
crises that have already occurred but also, and perhaps
increasingly, incipient crises (‘creeping crises’) with
latent, gradual and progressive effects. The manner in
which governments are preparing to confront these
incipient crises represents a particularly fruitful avenue
for testing the validity of the learning model to be
developed in the framework of our research
project. Thus, there will be a very interesting and
relevant empirical foundation starting with this current
experience.
Our research will examine a diversity of disasters
case studies. But, would the contribution of OD be
similar or different according to whether one deals with
natural disaster, with a technological catastrophe, ter-
rorist attacks or management failure (skewed values,
deception, misconduct)? Several authors (Pauchant and
Mitroff, 1995; Lerbinger, 1997) propose that organiza-
tions should create a portfolio of interventions accord-
ing to the various types of crisis. Quarantelli (1993,
2005) brings a distinction between consensus-type
crises under which natural and technological disasters
are included and conflict-type crises in which riots and
civil strife disturbances are included. He states that the
characteristics and the consequences of each type of
crisis are different and should be analyzed differently.
The investigation of the practices of OD according to
various types of crisis constitutes another promising
track for the research which it will be important to
deepen in the future.
Notes
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada (SSHRC) will contribute financially to the
realization of the research proposal presented in this
paper.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996), ‘Management Fashion’, Academy of
Management Review, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 254–285.
Bateman, J.M. and Edwards, B. (2002), ‘Gender and Evacua-
tion. A Closer Look at Why Women Are More Likely to
Evacuate for Hurricanes’, Natural Hazards Review, August,
pp. 107–117.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
102
Baumard, P. (1996), Organisations Déconcertées. La Gestion
Stratégique de la Connaissance, Masson, Paris.
Beck, U. (2003), La Société du Risque: Sur la Voie d’une Autre
Modernité, Flammarion, Paris.
Bertrand, M-A. (2005), ‘Le Rêve d’une Société sans
Risque’, Drogues, Santé et Société, Volume 4, Number 2,
pp. 1–13.
Boin, A. and Lagadec, P. (2000), ‘Preparing for the Future:
Critical Challenges in Crisis Management’, Journal of Con-
tingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 8, Number 4, pp.
185–191.
Bourrier, M. (2002), ‘Bridging Research and Practice: The
Challenge of Normal Operations Studies’, Journal of Con-
tingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 10, Number 4,
pp. 173–180.
Britton, N.R. (1987), ‘Towards a Reconceptualization of
Disaster for the Enhancement of Social Preparedness’, in
Dynes, R.R., DeMarchi, B. and Pelanda, C. (Eds), Sociology of
Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disaster Research,
Franco Angeli, Italy, pp. 31–55.
Britton, N.R. (1991), ‘Constraint or Effectiveness in Disaster
Management. The Bureaucratic Imperative versus Organi-
sational Mission’, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration,
Volume 64, pp. 54–64.
Bugge, R.G. (1993), ‘Temporary Organization for Crisis
Intervention. When a Disaster – A Hotel Fire – Strikes a
Community’, in Wilson, J.P. and Raphael, B. (Eds), Inter-
national Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes, Plenum
Press, New York, Chapter 82.
Burnes, B (2004), ‘Kurt Lewin and The Planned Approach to
Change: A Re-appraisal’, Journal of Management Studies,
Volume 41, Number 6, pp. 977–1002.
Cabana, S. and Emery, F. (1995), ‘The Search for Effective
Strategic Planning is Over’, Journal for Quality and Participa-
tion, Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 1–7.
Carter, L., Giber, D. and Goldsmith, M. (Eds), (2001), Best
Practices in Organization Development and Change, Jossey-
Bass Pfeiffer, San Francisco.
Carter, L., Ulrich, D. and Goldsmith, M. (Eds), (2005), Best
Practices in Leadership Development and Organization Change,
John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. and Stravos, J.M. (2003),
Appreciative Inquiry Handbook, Bedford Heights, Ohio.
Counts, C.S. and Prowant, B.F. (1994), ‘Disaster Prepared-
ness: Is Your Unit Really Ready?’, ANNA Journal, Volume 21,
Number 4, pp. 155–161.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2005), Organization Devel-
opment and Change, Thomson South-Western, Ohio.
Denis, H. (2002), La Réponse aux Catastrophes. Quand
I’Impossible Survient, Presses Internationales Polytechnique,
Montréal.
Drabek, T.E. and Hoetmer, G.J. (1991), Emergency Manage-
ment: Principles and Practice for Local Government, Interna-
tional City Management Association, Washington.
Drabek, T. and McEntire, D. (2003), ‘Emergent Phenomena
and the Sociology of Disaster. Lessons, Trends and
Opportunities from the Research Literature’, Disaster
Prevention and Management, Volume 12, Number 2,
pp. 97–112.
Dynes, R.R. (1970), Organized Behavior in Disaster, Heath
Lexington, Massachusetts.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
Carole Lalonde
Dynes, R.R. (1975), ‘The Comparative Study of Disaster: A
Social Organizational Approach’, Mass Emergencies, Volume
1, pp. 21–31.
Dynes, R.R. (1978), ‘Interorganizational Relations in
Communities Under Stress’, in Quarantelli, E.L. (Ed), Dis-
asters. Theory and Research, Sage Publications, London,
pp. 50–64.
Dynes, R.R. (1987), ‘The concept of Role in Disaster Re-
search’, in Dynes, R.R., DeMarchi, B. and Pelanda, C. (Eds),
Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disaster
Research, Franco Angeli, Italy, pp. 71–102.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999), ‘Organizational Learn-
ing: Debates and Opportunities’, in Easterby-Smith, M.,
Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L., Organizational Learning and
The Learning Organization, Sage Publications, London, pp.
1–21.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002),
Management Research. An Introduction, Sage Publications,
London.
Echterling, L.G., Bradfield, C. and Wylie, M.L. (1988), ‘Re-
sponses of Urban and Rural Ministers to a Natural Dis-
aster’, Journal of Rural Community Psychology, Volume 9,
Number 1, pp. 36–46.
Egan, T.M. and Lancaster, C.M. (2005), ‘Comparing Apprecia-
tive Inquiry to Action Research: OD Practitioner Perspec-
tives’, Organization Development Journal, Volume 23,
Number 2, pp. 29–49.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989a), ‘Building Theories from Case Study
Research’, Academy of Management Review, Volume 14,
Number 4, pp. 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989b), ‘Making Fast Strategic Decisions In
High-Velocity Environments’, Academy of Management Jour-
nal, Volume 32, Number 3, pp. 543–576.
Emery, M. and Purser, R.E. (1996), The Search Conference: A
Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change and
Community Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Enarson, E. (1998), ‘Through Women’s Eyes: A Gendered
Research Agenda for Disaster Social Science’, Disasters,
Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 157–173.
Evered, R.D. and Selman, J.C. (1989), ‘Coaching and the Art of
Management’, Organizational Dynamics, 16–32.
Feld, J. (2003), Social Capital, Routledge, London.
Fordham, M.H. (1998), ‘Making Women Visible in Disasters:
Problematising the Private Domain’, Disasters, Volume 22,
Number 2, pp. 126–143.
French, W. and Bell, C.H. (1999), Organization Development:
Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (6th Edition).
Gill, J. and Whittle, S. (1992), ‘Management by Panacea:
Accounting for Transience’, Journal of Management Studies,
Volume 30, Number 2, pp. 281–295.
Guilhou, X. and Lagadec, P. (2002), La Fin du Risque Zéro,
Éditions d’Organisation, Paris.
Harrison, M. (1999), Organizational Diagnosis and Assessment:
Bridging Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Hart, P., Heyse, L. and Boin, A. (2001), ‘Guest Editorial
Introduction. New Trends in Crisis Management Practice
and Crisis Management Research: Setting the Agenda’,
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 9,
Number 4, pp. 181–188.
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 The Potential Contribution of the Field of Organizational Development to Crisis Management
Hedberg, B. (1981), ‘How Organizations Learn and Unlearn’,
in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Handbook of
Organizational Design, Volume 1. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp. 3–27.
Helsloot, I. and Ruitenberg, A. (2004), ‘Citizen Response to
Disasters: a Survey of Literature and Some Practical
Implications’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 98–111.
Kaniasty, K. and Norris, F.H. (1995), ‘In Search of Altruistic
Community: Patterns of Social Support Mobilization Fol-
lowing Hurricane Hugo’, American Journal of Community
Psychology, Volume 3, Number 4, pp. 447–477.
Kreps, G.A. (1989), Social Structure and Disaster, University of
Delaware Press, Newark, DE.
Kuban, R. (1995), Crisis Management in Canada. A Study of its
Practice, Pendragon Publishing, Calgary.
Lagadec, P. (1991), La Gestion des Crises. Outils de Réflexion à
l’Usage des Décideurs, Ediscience International, Paris.
Lagadec, P. (1996), ‘Un Nouveau Champ de Responsabilité
pour les Dirigeants’, Revue Française de Gestion, Volume 108,
pp. 100–109.
Lagadec, P. (1997), ‘Learning Processes for Crisis Management
in Complex Organizations’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 24–31.
Lalonde, C. (2004), ‘In Search of Archetypes in Crisis Manage-
ment’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 76–88.
Lerbinger, O. (1997), The Crisis Manager Facing Risk and
Responsibility, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Manyena, S.B. (2006), ‘The Concept of Resilience Revisited’,
Disasters, Volume 30, Number 4, pp. 433–450.
Michel-Kerjan, E. (2003a), ‘New Challenges in Critical Infra-
structures: A US Perspective’, Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 132–
141.
Michel-Kerjan, E. (2003b), ‘Aux États-Unis, la Peur d’une
Nouvelle Attaque Terroriste est dans Tous les Esprits’, Le
Monde, 11 June.
Milburn, T.W., Schuler, R.S. and Watman, K.H. (1983a),
‘Organizational Crisis. Part I: Definition and Conceptualiza-
tion’, Human Relations, Volume 36, Number 12, pp. 1141–
1160.
Milburn, T.W., Schuler, R.S. and Watman, K.H. (1983b),
‘Organizational Crisis. Part II: Strategies and Responses’,
Human Relations, Volume 36, Number 12, pp. 1161–1180.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis:
An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Natale, S.M. and Diamante, T. (2005), ‘The Five Stages of
Executive Coaching: Better Process Makes Better Practice’,
Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 59, pp. 361–374.
Nathan, M. (2000), ‘The Paradoxical Nature of Crisis’, Review
of Business, Volume 21, Number 3, pp. 12–16.
Neal, D.M. (1984), ‘Blame Assignment in a Diffuse Disaster
Situation: A Case Example of the Role of an Emergent
Citizen Group’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, Volume 2, pp. 251–266.
Newkirk, R.T. (2001), ‘The Increasing Cost of Disasters in
Developed Countries: A Challenge to Local Planning and
Government’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Manage-
ment, Volume 9, Number 3, pp. 159–170.
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
103
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation’, Organization Science, Volume 5,
Number 1, pp. 14–37.
O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Rose, J. and Wisner, B. (2006),
‘Climate Change and Disaster Management’, Disasters,
Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 5–18.
Olivier-Smith, A. (1996), ‘Anthropological Research on Ha-
zards and Disasters’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Volume
25, pp. 303–328.
Pauchant, T. and Mitroff, I. (1995), La Gestion des Crises et des
Paradoxes. Prévenir les Effets Destructeurs de nos Organisations,
Éditions Québec-Amérique, Montréal.
Peacock, W.G., Morrow, B.H. and Gladwin, H. (1997), Hurri-
cane Andrew. Ethnicity, Gender and The Sociology of Disaster,
Routledge, London.
Pearson, C.M. and Clair, J.A. (1998), ‘Reframing Crisis Man-
agement’, Academy of Management Review, Volume 23,
Number 1, pp. 59–76.
Perrow, C. (1994), ‘The Limits of Safety: The Enhancement of
a Theory of Accidents’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 212–220.
Perry, R.W. and Nigg, J.M. (1985), ‘Emergency Management
Strategies for Communicating Hazard Information’, Public
Administration Review, Special Issue, pp. 72–77.
Petak, W.J. (1985), ‘Emergency Management. A Challenge for
Public Administration’, Public Administration Review, Volume
45, pp. 3–7.
Piotrowski, C. (2006), ‘Hurricane Katrina and Organiza-
tion Development: Part 1. Implications of Chaos Theory’,
Organization Development, Volume 24, Number 3, pp.
10–19.
Prange, C. (1999), ‘Organizational Learning. Desperately
Seeking Theory?’, in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J.
and Araujo, L., Organizational Learning and The Learning
Organization, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.
22–43.
Quarantelli, E. (1993), ‘Community Crises: An Exploratory
Comparison of the Characteristics and Consequences of
Disasters and Riots’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 67–78.
Quarantelli, E. (1994), Looting and Antisocial Behavior in Dis-
asters’, Preliminary Paper, Disaster Research Center, Uni-
versity of Delaware.
Quarantelli, E. (1996), ‘The Future is not the Past Repeated:
Projecting Disasters in the 21st Century from Current
Trends’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
Volume 4, Number 4, pp. 228–240.
Quarantelli, E. (2001), ‘Another Selective Look at Future
Social Crises: Some Aspects of which we can already see
in the Present’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Manage-
ment, Volume 9, Number 4, pp. 233–237.
Quarantelli, E. (2005), ‘A Social Science Research Agenda for
the Disasters of the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodo-
logical and Empirical Issues and their Professional Imple-
mentation’, in Perry, R.W. and Quarantelli, E.L. (Eds),
What Is A Disaster? New Answers To Old Questions, Inter-
national Research Committee on Disasters, Xlibris
Corporation.
Quarantelli, E. and Dynes, R.R. (1976), ‘Community Conflict:
Its Absence and its Presence in Natural Disasters’, Mass
Emergencies, Volume 1, pp. 139–156.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
104
Reason, J. (1997), Managing the Risks of Organizational Acci-
dents, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
Robert, B. and Lajtha, C. (2002), ‘A New Approach to Crisis
Management’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Manage-
ment, Volume 10, Number 4, pp. 181–191.
Rothwell, W. and Sullivan, R. (Eds), (2005), Practicing Organiza-
tion Development. A Guide for Consultants, John Wiley & Sons,
San Francisco.
Rosenthal, U. and Kouzmin, A. (1996), ‘Crisis Management
and Institutional Resilience: An Editorial Statement’, Journal
of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 4, Number
3, pp. 119–124.
Rosenthal, U., Charles, M.T. and t’Hart, P.T. (1989), Coping with
Crises. The Management of Disasters, Riots and Terrorism,
Charles Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL.
Rosenthal, U., Boin, R.A. and Comfort, L.K. (2001), Managing
Crises. Threats, Dilemmas, Opportunities, Charles Thomas
Publisher, Springfield, IL.
Roux-Dufort, C. (2000), ‘Why Organizations don’t Learn
from Crises: The Perverse Power of Normalizaton’, Review
of Business, Volume 21, Number 3, pp. 25–30.
Roy, M., Guindon, J.-C. and Fortier, L. (1995), Transfert de
Connaissances – Revue de Litérature et Proposition d’un Modèle,
Institut de Recherche en Santé et Sécurité du Travail du
Québec, Montréal.
Ryan, A.M., Brutus, S., Greguras, G.J. and Hakel, M.D. (2000),
‘Receptivity to Assessment-based Feedback for Manage-
ment Development’, Journal of Management Development,
Volume 19, Number 4, pp. 352–376.
Sagan, S.D. (1993), The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents
and Nuclear Weapons, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton, NJ.
Schein, E (1999), Process Consultation Revisited. Building the
Helping Relationship, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Sellnow, T.L., Seeger, M.W. and Ulmer, R.R. (2002), ‘Chaos
Theory, Informational Needs and Natural Disasters’, Journal
of Applied Communication Research, Volume 30, Number 4,
pp. 269–292.
Shrivastava, P. (1994), ‘Technological and Organizational Roots
of Industrial Crises: Lessons from Exxon Valdez and
Bhopal’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume
45, Number 3, pp. 237–253.
Simon, L., and Pauchant, T. (2000), ‘Developing the Three
Levels of Learning in Crisis Management: A Case Study of
the Hagersville Tire Fire’, Review of Business, Volume 21,
Number 3, pp. 6–11.
Sorge, A. and Van Witteloostujin, A. (2004), ‘The (Non)sense
of Organizational Change: An Essai about Universal Man-
agement Hypes, Sick Consultancy Metaphors, and Healthy
Organization Theories’, Organization Studies, Volume 25,
Number 7, pp. 1205–1231.
Spell, C.S. (2001), ‘Management Fashions: Where Do They
Come From and Are They Old Wine in New Bottles’,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Volume 10, Number 4, pp.
358–373.
Stallings, R.A. and Schepart, C.B. (1990), ‘Contrasting Local
Government Responses to a Tornado Disaster in Two
Communities’, in Sylves, R.T. and Waugh, W.L. (Eds), Cities
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Volume 15 Number 2 June 2007
Carole Lalonde
and Disaster. North American Studies in Emergency Manage-
ment, Charles Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, pp. 75–90.
Stern, E. (1997), ‘Crisis and Learning: A Conceptual Balance
Sheet’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
Volume 5, Number 2, pp. 69–86.
Sylves, R.T. and Pavlak, T.J. (1990), ‘The Big Apple and
Disaster Planning: How New York City Manages Major
Emergencies’, in Sylves, R.T. and Waugh, W.L. (Eds), Cities
and Disaster. North American Studies in Emergency Manage-
ment, Charles Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, pp. 185–
219.
Tazieff, H. (1988), ‘Qui Aura le Courage de Prévenir les
Catastrophes?’, États d’Urgence: Défaillances Technologiques
et Déstabilisation Sociale, Seuil, Paris, pp. 298–303.
Testa, M.R. (2005), ‘A Model for Organization-based 360
Degree Leadership Assessment’, Leadership and Organiza-
tion Development Journal, Volume 23, Number 5, pp.
260–268.
Thach, E.C. (2002), ‘The Impact of Executive Coaching and
360 Feedback on Leadership Effectiveness’, Leadership and
Organisation Development Journal, Volume 23, Number 4, pp.
205–214.
Thiétart, R.-A. (1999), Méthodes de Recherché en Management,
Dunod, Paris.
Toft, B. and Reynolds, S. (1994), ‘Introduction’, in Learning from
Disasters. A Management Approach, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, pp. 1–15.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Risk Reduction) (2005), Hyogo Framework for 2002–2015:
Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters.
http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/
Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf. Accessed on 1
February 2007.
Van Aaslt, M.K. (2006), ‘The Impacts of Climate Change on
the Risk of Natural Disasters’, Disasters, Volume 30, Num-
ber 1, pp. 64–80.
Van Heerden, I. (2006), The Storm: What Went Wrong and Why
during Hurricane Katrina, Penguin, New York.
Wenger, D.E. (1978), ‘Community Response to Disaster’, in
Quarantelli, E. (Ed.), Disasters. Theory and Research, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 17–48.
Wenger, D.E. (1980), ‘The Nature of Panic Behavior’, in Levin,
M. and Paulsen, R.L. (Eds), Second International Seminar on
Human Behavior in Fire Emergencies, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, pp. 214–219.
Whitney, D. and Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003), The Power of
Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Wolensky, R.P. (1983), ‘Power Structure and Group Mobiliza-
tion Following Disaster: A Case Study’, Social Science
Quarterly, Volume 64, Number 1, pp. 97–110.
Wright, K., Ursano, R.J., Bartone, P.T. and Ingraham, L.H.
(1990), ‘The Shared Experience of Catastrophe: An
Expanded Classification of the Disaster Community’, Amer-
ican Journal Orthopsyhiatric, Volume 60, Number 1, pp.
35–42.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research. Design and Methods,
Second Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
& 2007 The Author
Journal compilation & 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.