Organizational Crisis Management and Human Resourc

Advances in Developing Human
Resources
http://adh.sagepub.com
Organizational Crisis Management and Human Resource Development:

A Review of the Literature and Implications to HRD Research and
Practice
Holly M. Hutchins and Jia Wang
Advances in Developing Human Resources 2008; 10; 310 originally published online
Apr 9, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/1523422308316183
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/310
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Academy of Human Resource Development
Additional services and information for Advances in Developing Human Resources can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 53 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/10/3/310
Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

© 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Organizational Crisis
Management and Human
Resource Development:
A Review of the Literature
and Implications to HRD
Research and Practice
Holly M. Hutchins
Jia Wang
The problem and the solution. From the post-9/11 effect on finan-
cial and transportation industries to the corporate fraud scandals
involving Enron and Tyco, organizational crises are a pervasive threat
to organizational performance and sustainability. The authors’ review
of the literature suggests that although the impact of crises on organi-
zation effectiveness has been increasingly recognized, it has not
attracted much attention from human resource development (HRD)
scholars and practitioners. As a result, HRD has not considered
how learning, change, and performance interventions might be used to
support crisis management processes. The purpose of this article
is to explore the role of HRD in organizational crisis management.
Specifically, the authors review the theoretical underpinnings of
organizational crisis management research, identify opportunities
for HRD to be involved in crisis management processes, and explore
how HRD research and practice may contribute to supporting orga-
nizations’ crisis management efforts.
Keywords: crisis management; human resource development; theory

and practice
The disciplines of organizational crisis management and human resource devel-

opment (HRD) share similar concerns and areas of inquiry when considering
organizational behavior. Scholars and practitioners in both areas focus on how
This article was subjected to a two-tier blind review process that did not involve the authors who
are currently members of the editorial board.
Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 10, No. 3 June 2008 310-330
DOI: 10.1177/1523422308316183
Copyright 2008 Sage Publications

Hutchins, Wang / ORGANIZATION CRISIS MANAGEMENT 311
elements within an organization (culture, systems, technology) can influence

individual, group, and organizational behavior (Mitroff & Pearson, 1993;
Swanson, 1995). Crisis management and HRD scholars also engage in research
rooted in shared theoretical perspectives, notably critical, human capital/
economic, psychological, and strategic/systems thinking (McGuire, Garavan,
O’Donnell, & Watson, 2007; Shrivastava, 1993; Swanson, 1996). In addition, a
main goal of both disciplines is the ultimate concern about the impacts of the
organization on individuals, the community, and society. For crisis management,
a main goal is to protect and support key organizational stakeholders, communi-
ties, and resources in case of a crisis event; for HRD, it is to develop the intellec-
tual, emotional, and skill-based capabilities of people to perform various types of
work (Torraco, 2005) that organizational and community sustainability (Gilley &
Maycunich, 2003; McLean, 2004). Thus, there appears to be much overlap
between the disciplines of crisis management and HRD, yet these relationships
and relative implications for research and practice have yet to be explored.
In the extant crisis management literature, implications for HRD are typi-
cally limited to suggestions for crisis training. However, as McConnell and
Drennan (2006) noted, a level of “symbolic readiness that does not reflect
operational realities” (p. 59) often occurs when crisis training and exercises
are the focal point of crisis management preparation. Learning and perfor-
mance interventions are also routinely coupled with other human resource
management (HRM) responsibilities, such as managing emergency compensa-
tion for displaced workers and complying with federal and state safety laws
(Kondrasuk, 2004; Lockwood, 2005; Pasek, 2002) during crisis situations,
often overshadowing the role and contribution other HRD interventions could
make to crisis management. As a result, the relationship between HRD and cri-
sis management has not received much attention by HRD researchers nor
championed by practitioners, thus limiting opportunities for HRD profession-
als to understand how HRD-based interventions might be used to support
organizational crisis management efforts.
The purpose of this article is to explore the role of HRD in organizational
crisis management. Although we recognize the broader and burgeoning per-
spective of HRD functions and roles (McLean, 2004; Torraco, 2005), we focus
primarily on the role of HRD in supporting learning, change, and performance
improvement in the process of managing organizational crises. Specifically,
we review the theoretical underpinnings of organizational crisis management
research, identify opportunities for HRD to participate in crisis management
efforts, and explore how HRD research and practice may contribute to sup-
porting organizations’ crisis management practices.
Theoretical Approaches to Crisis Research

As a precursor to discussing prevalent research in organizational crisis
management, we discuss Smith and Elliott’s (2006) review of developmental

312 Advances in Developing Human Resources June 2008
events that have contributed to the study of organizational crisis management.

We then review the major perspectives representative of the crisis research on
organizations.
Early Research on Crisis
Despite a diversity of theoretical perspectives (see Pauchant & Douville,

1993 for an integrative review of crisis research), the early research on crisis
research has been overwhelmingly incident- or problem-driven (Shrivastava,
1993). Incident-focused research represented the first phase of crisis research
where natural disasters were the object of study, and the role of the community
and response agencies was primarily examined. As such, research on disasters
and crisis events was predominately viewed from a geopolitical perspective, and
organizations were considered in the collective of response resources rather
than as contributors or causes of a crisis event (Smith & Elliott, 2006).
The second stage of research was ushered in by Turner’s (1976) seminal
work on the role of social, political, and technical factors on crisis events.
Turner was the first to suggest that ineffective management practices, rigid
organizational policies, and inefficient technology system might be responsi-
ble for crisis events. From this line of inquiry, researchers began considering
the actions of people and organizations as perpetrators of crisis events.
Researchers still primarily considered the causes and outcomes of a crisis inci-
dent but shifted from more descriptive to critical analysis of how organiza-
tional policies, culture, and communication might have contributed to crisis
development or escalation. Accounts of industrial (now called corporate or
organizational) crisis events such as the chemical leak in Bhopal, India, the
NASA Challenger explosion, and the Tylenol product tampering were some of
the first studies to identify breakdowns in social, political, and technical factors
within the organizational setting (Boin, 2006). The role of the organization—
how it contributed to and managed crisis events—became a primary concern
of crisis researchers. Topics such as risk management, business continuity, and
crisis management were the major foci of research of both organizational dis-
aster scholars and organizational crisis scholars. It is within this genre of
research that we review the major perspectives represented.
Perspectives on Organizational Crisis Management
As a useful framework for understanding the different perspectives regard-

ing how crises have been studied in and related to organizations, Pearson and
Claire (1998) offered a categorical framework for reviewing organizational
crisis literature. Although we recognize that these research areas are not rep-
resentative of all crisis management research, they provide a general frame-
work for understanding how organizational crises have been examined.

In studying the psychological aspects of crisis, Pearson and Claire (1998)

identified research that explores cognitive and psychoanalytic aspects of crisis
events. Cognitive approaches tend to address the way in which individuals
make sense of crisis events, with a specific focus on how individual cognitive
processes might be influenced under times of distress, role ambiguity, and lack
of clear communication. Some common research areas include the role of
emotion in decision making during crisis situations (Sayegh, Anthony, &
Perrewé, 2004), skills needed for crisis leadership (James & Wooten, 2005;
Reilly, 1998), developing performance adaptability in crisis situations
(Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000), and increasing cue recogni-
tion to enhance situational awareness of errors (Salas, Cannon-Bowers, Fiore,
& Stout, 2001).
Weick’s (1988, 1995) research on individual sensemaking is especially rep-
resentative of a psychological perspective and facilitates an understanding of
how individuals make sense of, seek meaning for, and take action toward
resolving a crisis situation. Sensemaking can be understood as the cognitive
process of interpreting largely fragmented, emotional, and often unusual infor-
mation. It also includes the process of making a decision about what action to
take to handle an event. The process of sensemaking occurs when individuals
experience a distortion between the individuals’ or groups’ perceived current
and expected reality, resulting in an attempt to make and share meaning out of
new and often contradictory information. Because sensemaking occurs through
a process of retrospection, ongoing understanding and learning, social interac-
tion, identity, cues, and communication, it can be a useful heuristic for assess-
ing the different phases of the crisis process (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld,
2005). In a review of the organizational communication during the 1997 Red
River Valley flood in Minnesota and North Dakota, Sellnow, Seeger, and Ulmer
(2002) found that the preexisting communication structures that favored ratio-
nal decision-making led to incorrect assumptions about the nature of the flood
impact on communities. Similarly, in an analysis of the Walkerton (Ontario)
contaminated water crisis, Mullen, Vladi, and Mills (2006) found that inaccu-
rate sensemaking of the social context and networks resulted in an escalation of
the water issue to include multiple factors rather than the act of one individual.
From a sociopolitical perspective, organizational crises have been viewed as
being perpetuated by the organizational culture. Specifically, researchers using
this perspective consider how crises arise from a breakdown in the social mean-
ing, legitimization, and social relationships among organizational members
(Pearson & Claire, 1998). As suggested by Mitroff and Pearson (1993),
The cultural system of the organization at large reflects the emotional/belief system of
senior executive mindsets. The system can hinder or facilitate or facilitate crisis manage-
ment thinking and preparation at the organization’s core. Ultimately, senior executives’ atti-
tudes beliefs and attitudes regarding the organization’s potential for crisis and the
organization’s ability to prepare for and manage crises will determine the success of crisis
management’. (p. 55)

As stakeholders seek out new meaning resulting from a crisis event, change—
sometimes in the form of major policy or leadership change—occurs within
the organization. Crises arising from discrimination cases at Texaco and
Denny’s restaurant (discussed in Wooten and James’s [2008] article on crisis
leadership, this issue) are examples that prompted a major change in the
organizational structure and policies impacting several human resource,
leadership, and community outreach activities. Miller (2006) argued that orga-
nizational culture can be described as emerging from five different organiza-
tional pathologies (compulsive, depressive, dramatic, detached, and suspicious),
each being susceptible to unique crisis events. For example, compulsive orga-
nizations are described as closed systems, where concern for social responsi-
bility and creativity is minimal. These organizations risk engendering crisis
situations caused by product malfunction or loss of market share because of
apathetic managers or low commitment and loyalty among members.
Speculation around Mattel, Inc.’s recall of toys manufactured in Chinese plants
is that multinational companies place so much pressure on Chinese companies
to supply cheap products that safety issues (such as using nonlead paints) are
often ignored (Story & Barboza, 2007). In contrast, dramatic organizations are
overambitious in taking on new ventures and approaches, going on “hunches”
rather than facts, and often risk encountering a financial or operating crisis
because of a lack of expertise and knowledge.
Finally, researchers have also viewed crisis from the lens of a technological-
structural perspective. This perspective represents much of the current
research on crisis management in organizations conducted by management
and organizational scholars (Smith & Elliott, 2006). From this approach,
researchers have investigated how organizations can be designed to minimize
the occurrence of crisis events and to expedite the management and recovery
processes if such events ever happen. Researchers have considered how to
align crisis planning with the organization’s strategic plan (Preble, 1997), how
business continuity planning (BCP) in risk management can be used to protect
human and technological capital (Zsidisin, Melynk, & Ragatz, 2005), and how
communication networks can be designed to expedite information flow among
stakeholders (Alavosius, Houmanfar, & Rodriquez, 2005). Research on high-
reliability organizations (HROs)—organizations that have fewer than normal
accidents and place a high value on developing a safety culture—has garnered
much of the attention to how organizations can be designed to minimize the
risk of error. In their research on HROs, Roberts and Bea (2001) suggested that
organizations reporting fewer accidents align strategic goals and employees’
perceived goals, provide extensive training on how to identify and react to
system or behavioral errors, continuously assess risks and reward safe prac-
tices, and have management communicate about the importance of crisis
readiness. The authors also noted that HROs frequently use organizational
memory of crisis events as a learning tool for future crisis planning.

Organizational Crisis Management

The development of an organizational crisis event appears to follow a pre-
dictable pattern that can be used to guide the planning and management of a cri-
sis event. Pearson and Claire (1998) described crisis management as a systematic
process of averting or managing a crisis to sustain or resume normal business
operations and minimize stakeholder loss. To facilitate a clear understanding of
how organizations manage crises, we will discuss some critical organizational
factors that can influence crisis events and review a model of crisis management.
Organizational Crisis Factors
Drawing on systems theory to model the relationships in complex organi-

zations, Mitroff and Pearson (1993) developed a framework of interrelating
factors that influence crisis events in organizations. On the basis of their study
with more than 200 Fortune 500 organizations on how they manage crisis
events, the authors identified five factors inherent to a crisis system: technol-
ogy, organizational structure, human factors, organizational culture, and top
management psychology.
Technology is a major factor used to support and send communication
among organizational members. Unless managed, checked, and updated regu-
larly, technology can be the source of a major crisis. Computer hacking,
viruses, and online identity theft are examples of how organizational technolo-
gies can be used to create crisis events. The organizational structure might also
be a source of crisis vulnerability if the current configuration does not reflect
how the organization would operate under crisis conditions. If the organization
is either too slow in identifying a crisis event, unprepared to communicate with
the media or stakeholders, or misrepresents information, an even greater crisis
can ensue. The lack of interoperability between the federal, state, and city offi-
cials in responding to disastrous impacts of Hurricane Katrina seemed to esca-
late the crisis event, particularly in the New Orleans area.
Another consideration in the systemic model of crisis factors is the
inevitability of humans to make errors, underscoring the need for controls
and checks to ensure that problems are identified before a crisis occurs. The
organizational culture can also be a major predictor of crisis events, specif-
ically because it represents the system’s value perspective on issues such as
safety, diversity, and performance. In their research on high-reliability orga-
nizations, Roberts and Bea (2001) found that organizations that report
fewer accidents tend to support a culture of crisis awareness through teach-
ing employees to look for mishaps, assessing risks and rewarding safe prac-
tices, and continuously communicating about the importance of crisis
readiness. Finally, top management’s psychological approach to issues such
as decision making, risk adversity, and conflict management will influence
how resources are used to support crisis management efforts. A breakdown

Containment/
Signal Probing/ Damage
Business No Fault
Detection Preparation Limitation Recovery Learning
Redesign
FIGURE 1: Crisis Management Model

Source: Mitroff (2005; Mitroff & Pearson, 1993).
of any of these factors is often triggered by or will trigger a crisis and may
result in the restructuring of both the affected system and the basic assump-
tions made by stakeholders within the system (Pauchant & Douville, 1993).
Although each system factor represents a distinct set of processes, the inter-
operability and complexity of these relationships is characterized by the
arrows going between each factor.
Crisis Management Model
Multiple models have been constructed to illustrate crisis management

processes (cf. Elsubbaugh, Fildes, & Rose, 2004; Pearson & Claire, 1998;
Reilly, 1993; Smits & Ally, 2003; Shrivastava, 1993). Each model identifies
similar steps regarding how organizations manage and respond to a crisis
event. The model developed by Pearson and Mitroff (1993) and later refined
by Mitroff (2005) appears to be representative in that it accommodates many
of the earlier and more current model articulations (see Figure 1) and provides
a feedback loop where new knowledge will affect the entire system. Therefore,
our discussion here will focus on this model in particular.
During the signal detection phase, small but significant indicators that a cri-
sis could occur begin to appear in an organizational setting. Examples include
reports of faulty Firestone tires in South America several months before U.S.
consumers were affected or the integrity of the insulating tile on NASA’s
Challenger Space Shuttle several years before the fatal explosion. The failure
of organizations to recognize and respond to the presence of early crisis indi-
cators often causes substantial losses in revenue, reputation, and human life.
Crisis preparation involves systematic planning to prepare the organization
to manage a crisis event, explicating critical personnel, resources, and actions
to be allocated during a crisis situation. In the results of the Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM) Disaster Preparedness (DP) Survey, more
than 60% of participants (n = 600) identified training, business continuity

plans, and crisis communication as being a part of their organization’s disas-

ter preparedness plans. The role of crisis management teams in crisis planning
were also identified by 56% of the respondents in a separate survey on crisis
management preparation (American Management Association, 2005). The
results of these surveys and our content review of numerous empirical and
conceptual studies (see Hutchins, Annulis & Gaudet, 2008, for a full review)
reveal that crisis communication, crisis management teams, training, and
BCPs are critical components in crisis planning. Although these components
are discussed in other articles included in this issue, a brief overview of each
component is provided here to build an initial understanding.
Crisis management teams (CMTs) are described as a cross-functional and permanent

group of individuals representing all major aspects of business (i.e., top executives
from operations, legal, human resources, public affairs/media/communication, facili-
ties, security, and finance) and charged with leading crisis planning and coordination
(Boin & Lagadec, 2000; Kash & Darling, 1998; Pearson & Mitroff, 1993). CMT
responsibilities include identifying and assessing organizational crisis readiness, devel-
oping the processes and infrastructure needed to identify and manage both anticipated
and unanticipated crisis events, and executing recovery plans.
Crisis communication is described as the process for conveying ongoing crisis events to
stakeholders, for decision making within the crisis management team, and to support
organizational decisions regarding information shared with internal and external
sources (Hale, Dulek, & Hale, 2005).
Crisis training, drills and simulations are individual, group, and organizational exercises that
develop crisis awareness and preparedness (Shaw & Harrald, 2004). Benefits of crisis
exercises are to test the efficacy of the crisis training plan, to provide formative and sum-
mative reviews of training content for evaluative purposes, and to ensure the coordinated
response of emergency support personnel (i.e., fire, police, medical) to the crisis event
(Peterson & Perry, 1999). Common crisis training includes CPR/first aid, training in
organization-specific response plans, skills for keeping others calm during a crisis, fire
suppression and evacuation, crisis management, procedures for handling hazardous
chemicals, and assisting persons with disabilities during disaster (Fegley & Victor, 2005).
BCPs are written documents that describe how the organization will resume core operations
during and after a crisis situation. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the United States
Department of Homeland Security and the Small Business Administration issued guide-
lines to help organizations develop continuity plans that include evacuation plans,
remote storage for critical data, emergency communication lists, supplier contacts, and
alternative work locations (Continuity of Operations Planning, 2006). BCPs are impor-
tant to ensure that critical “lifelines” (Webb, Tierney, & Dahlhammer, 2000, p. 86), such
as transportation and utilities, are available and accessible during crisis events.
The third phase of the crisis management model, containment, involves lim-
iting the impact of the crisis event to prevent further escalation and losses. Such
actions include communicating with internal and external stakeholders on how
the organization is handling the crisis event and how resources or investments
are being secured. Although planning for crisis communication should be
addressed in the preparatory stage in crisis management, specific communica-
tion activities used to contain a crisis include providing emergency contact

information for management, employees, retirees, and emergency stakeholders

to learn about operational (e.g., building/facility access and security, work
schedule changes, alternative office locations) and employee relations issues
(e.g., compensation and benefits, employee assistance programs, travel and
relocation; Hewitt Associates’ Report on Crisis Communication, 2004).
In the recovery phase, organizations begin to enact procedures to resume
normal business activity. Recovery efforts include long- and short-term busi-
ness continuity recovery plans and reassuring stakeholders that the organization
will return to business as usual. According to the SHRM Disaster Preparedness
survey, 63% of organizations have BCPs, with the largest concentration (80%)
in organizations with greater than 500 employees (Fegley & Victor, 2005). This
finding is supported by the Disaster Research Center’s 5-year cross-sectional
study of disaster preparedness and recovery of 5,000 private sector firms in the
United States. Webb et al. (2000) found that organizations tended to focus on
inexpensive and easy preparedness activities (i.e., using first aid equipment)
rather than explicating plans for recovery efforts. Although BCPs traditionally
focused on protection of information technology processes for data backup dur-
ing crises, the compounded impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on organizations
pushed many organizations to include additional human relations and opera-
tional aspects essential to full business recovery (Alonso, Boucher, & Colson,
2001; McKee & Gutheridge, 2006).
The final two phases of the crisis management model focus on increasing
organizational learning and using that knowledge to restructure the crisis
system. As true with systems models, the last phase will feed back data into
the entire system and promote a cyclical and iterative process through which
new knowledge is used to promote change. This phase includes critical reflec-
tion of the crisis experience, analysis of the impact on central and ancillary
system processes, and then adapting behaviors and systems to improve the
organization’s crisis management practices. Mitroff (2005) advised organiza-
tions to engage in “no-fault learning” (i.e., not blaming an individual for the
crisis event) except in cases of criminal behavior and liability, but rather use
the systemic factors to analyze the cause of the crisis event. Wang’s (2008, this
issue) article provides a comprehensive discussion of the role of organizational
learning and resulting change as a part of crisis management.
Role of HRD in Crisis Management Efforts

On the basis of the foregoing discussion about the nature, characteristics,
and impact of organizational crises, as well as the consideration of the mission
of HRD, we believe that HRD professionals can make a substantial contribu-
tion to the organization’s crisis management activities. This section explores
and unfolds some of the critical roles that HRD may play in the crisis manage-
ment process. Although our presentation is a broad sketch, it serves as a call
for more future efforts toward this direction. We start with a brief overview of

the primary purpose of and core beliefs about HRD. We then move to discuss
how HRD professionals may identify, design, and implement some of the
interventions in the areas of training, career development, and organization
development to prepare organizations for handling crisis situations.
Mission of HRD and the Relationship to Crisis Management
As many HRD scholars agree, HRD began as a field oriented toward

improvement, problem solving, and system thinking with a primary focus on the
organization (Swanson & Holton, 2001). With the emergence of diverse philo-
sophical paradigms and theoretical assumptions, HRD’s mission continues to
focus on developing intellectual capital and supporting organizational renewal
and transformation (Gilley & Maycunich, 2003) for the ultimate benefit of indi-
viduals, organizations, communities, and nations (McLean & McLean, 2001).
However, it is also clear that HRD is expanding its focus and outreach as a truly
integrated, global, and multidisciplinary profession (McLean, Osman-Gani, &
Cho, 2004). Torraco (2005) noted that HRD has expanded in breadth, enlarging
the traditional domains of training, organization development, and career devel-
opment to include issues such as ethics, diversity, human and social capital
development, and strategic change. HRD has also expanded in scope, focusing
not just on organizations but also considering policy development in developing
nations, secondary and postsecondary education reform, and nonprofit business
development. It is this integrated perspective that positions HRD as a central
player in helping organizations develop the intellectual and social capital needed
to effectively manage potential or actual crisis events.
HRD Roles in Crisis Management
What we have found particularly helpful in framing our thinking of HRD

roles in crisis management is Watkins’s (1989) five philosophical metaphors for
HRD: HR developers as organizational problem solver, organizational change
agent/interventionist or helper, organizational designer, organizational empow-
erer/meaning maker, and developer of human capital. In the subsequent para-
graphs, we ground our discussion in the context of organizational crises. Our
goal is to demonstrate how each of the HRD roles may be carried out in prac-
tice and interwoven into the crisis management processes as depicted Figure 1.
Problem solver. HRD, as commonly accepted, is a process of problem defining

and problem solving for the purpose of improvement (Swanson & Holton, 2001).
To that end, HRD professionals must take a proactive role in identifying issues or
variables that are inherent to a crisis system or may cause crisis events as previ-
ously discussed. With a diversity of tools and models provided by HRD
researchers for analyzing performance gaps at both individual and organizational

levels, HRD brings a useful set of perspectives for considering performance

issues. With Swanson’s (1996) performance diagnosis matrix, Rummler and
Brache’s (1995) performance model, Cummings and Worley’s (2001) organiza-
tional development model, the balanced scorecard (Lockwood, 2005), and human
performance technology tools (Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger, 2004), just to
name a few, HRD professionals are well equipped in both defining performance
gaps and filling those gaps that may eventually lead to a crisis situation.
Furthermore, we propose that problem finding and solving is a continuing
effort that should be made to all the five aspects of the crisis system (see
Figure 1) and at each phase of the crisis management process (see Figure 2).
In fact, HRD professionals must pay more attention to problem finding rather
than problem solving. To do so, they need to stay proactive by constantly and
consistently scanning and evaluating how the change in the internal and exter-
nal environments affects performance so as to identify issues that may threaten
organizational sustainability.
Change agent. Crises often drive organizational change, for better or worse
(Barnett & Pratt, 2000). The organizational crises and resulting impact make the
HRD role of change agent more prominent than ever. It is HRD professionals’
responsibility for educating organizational leaders and members on the change
management process and seeking appropriate organizational development inter-
ventions that will facilitate change and help individuals and organizations better
cope with the outcomes of crises. One area that HRD professionals can certainly
make a big impact on is fostering crisis-prepared organizational culture. In the
crisis management framework (Mitroff, 2005; Mitroff & Pearson, 1993), the
organizational culture is included as a major predictor of crisis events, because
it represents shared beliefs on issues such as risk and organization’s vulnerabil-
ity to crisis situations (Pearson & Claire, 1998). Therefore, how to create a
crisis-prepared mentality and organizational environment is a major task for
HRD professionals. Such a culture can be cultivated through training interven-
tions and by teaching organizational leaders and members how to look for signs
and constantly assessing organizations’ practices (Roberts & Bea, 2001).
Another area that HRD professionals can tap into to facilitate changes resulted
from crises is to promote organizational learning. Through strategically aligned
learning interventions, the HRD professionals may help organizations establish
effective crisis communication systems, build organization’s crisis knowledge
base, develop individual’s critical thinking and reflection skills, and encourage
double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996).
Organizational designer. Professionals who operate from this perspective are

able to see a clear connection between work structure and HRD (Watkins, 1989).
What is particularly important in organizational design is constantly assessing
the gap between the organization’s reality and its desired state (Lorsch, 1997)
using the performance-oriented diagnostic tools (see our discussion above for a

few examples). HRD professionals taking the role of organizational designer

need to carefully diagnose and select structures and systems of communication,
authority, and responsibility that will warrant the attainment of organizational
goals (Watkins, 1989).
The crisis systems model (Mitroff, 2005) can be a useful framework for HRD
professionals when considering the multiple organizational factors that may con-
tribute to a crisis condition. For example, HRD professionals can help organiza-
tional leaders make strategic choices about the technological system and overall
organization structure, two critical elements that may induce crisis events. In
addition, HRD professions can help organizations design appropriate informa-
tion systems (Galbraith, 1974) and crisis communication channels (Kondrasuk,
2004; Lockwood, 2005; Turner, 1976) so that organizational members are
enabled to share and process information in a timely and effective manner with
the advent of crisis events. A well-designed organizational structure will also
allow organizational leaders to effectively respond to the uncertainty that orga-
nizations face (Simon, 1965). Finally, HRD professionals who assume the orga-
nizational designer’s role will also have much to contribute to the development
of a crisis management system. For example, they can take a major role in
designing systems that will allow crisis signals to be promptly identified (Phase
1) and the organization’s crisis management system to be redesigned for better
outcomes (Phase 7, see Figure 1).
Organizational empowerer/meaning maker. HRD professionals who embrace this

metaphor tend to take a critical perspective and seek to transform people and orga-
nizations to foster long-term success (Watkins, 1989). Managing organizational
crises should be considered as one effort in this direction. Swanson and Holton
(2001) proposed strategies for transforming perspectives in action, including (a)
determining the potential unintended consequences of action strategies, (b) ensur-
ing that organizational members take full responsibility for their actions, and (c)
offering an alternative for action in the form of learning-oriented behavior rather
than control-oriented behavior. Such a critical perspective is particularly useful in
fostering organizations’ consciousness and appreciation of the value and the need
for crisis management. It may also help reduce the adverse effects on shared
beliefs, values, and sense-making processes for individuals involved in crisis situ-
ations (Pearson & Claire, 1998; Turner, 1976). HRD professionals who take the
critical perspective must seek appropriate strategies to engage organizational
leaders and members in collective sense making of, and critical reflections on, cri-
sis experiences, for example, through dialogues and collective learning activities.
Human capital developer. One of the fundamental roles of HRD, as the schol-
arly community commonly agrees, is to develop human resources through
training and development activities. One of the factors that attribute to the
occurrence of crises, as Mitroff and Pearson (1993) noted, is human error. The
fact that individuals do make mistakes and poorly informed decisions points to

the need for, and importance of, training and development. It also presents
tremendous opportunities for HRD professionals who are primarily responsible
for developing human capitals for organizational effectiveness as discussed ear-
lier. In the crisis environment, it is paramount that organizations build a knowl-
edge base of crises and capabilities of coping with it. To this end, training can
be an effective tool to reduce, if not eliminate, the impact of elements that are
likely to induce crises, such as technology complexity and human factors.
Training tools can be applied at every stage of the crisis management process
from the signal detection to redesign (Figure 1) to help organizational members
learn systematically about the nature and causes of crisis events and become
capable of dealing with crises when occurred.
In addition, a number of studies found that organizational leaders’ perceptions
of risk and their ability to deal with it have direct influence on the organization’s
plans for crisis preparation, prevention, reactions, and management (e.g., Mitroff
& Pearson, 1993; Mitroff, Pearson, & Harrington, 1996; Pearson & Claire, 1998;
Reilly, 1998). It is crucial that HRD professionals provide not only generic aware-
ness training on crisis management but also crisis leadership development to
ensure that organizational leaders develop the right mentality and perceptions on
risks that may lead to shared beliefs and culture reflective of the organization’s
reality (Wooten & James, 2008 [this issue]). Meanwhile, with much needed train-
ing and skill building, leaders are more likely to make informed and educated
decisions to avoid or minimize the potential negative outcomes of crises.
Along the same line of thinking, HRD professionals should also take
responsibility for building the individual and organizational learning capacity
so that organizational members not only have the knowledge base for manag-
ing a crisis when it occurs, but more important, have the capability of docu-
menting, analyzing, comparing, and sharing knowledge of their crisis experiences
(Stern & Sundelius, 2002). This can be accomplished through individual and
organization-based learning activities that are strategically aligned with the
organization’s objectives and goals (Lockwood, 2005).
Finally, HRD professionals can play a critical part in facilitating the man-
agement of organizational crises by (a) focusing on developing much-needed
leadership qualities (e.g., strategic thinking, communication, empowerment,
trust, and integrity), (b) fostering organizational cultures and learning capacity
that would enable organizations to foresee crisis situations (Lagadec, 1997)
and to learn from crisis experience (Stern, 1997), (c) aligning crisis manage-
ment with the business results using key performance indicators (e.g., organi-
zations’ balanced scorecard) (Lockwood, 2005), and (d) establish crisis
communication channels (Lockwood, 2005; Turner, 1976). These opportuni-
ties represent three major aspects of HRD—training and development (e.g.,
leadership development), career development (e.g., succession planning), and
organization development (e.g., organizational culture, organizational learn-
ing, strategic alignment)—and further underscore the fundamental role HRD
should play in crisis management efforts.

Implications for HRD Research, Theory, and Practice

Effective crisis management is critical to organizational success and continu-
ity amidst changing times and complex systems. In this primer on organizational
crisis management and the role of HRD, we provide a working framework for
understanding how organizational crisis has been defined and studied and how
HRD might participate in facilitating and supporting organizations’ crisis man-
agement efforts. Our analysis of the current literature and discussions above
point to a few implications that may be useful for future HRD research, theory
development, and practice. We propose that if HRD professionals strive to
develop strategically aligned learning, performance, and change initiatives, we
must address issues that are relevant to organizational stakeholders and that pro-
mote the research-practice-theory development cycle (Swanson, 2005).
HRD Research
We offer two suggestions for advancing HRD research based on our review
of organizational crisis management theory and practice. First, the majority of
current HRD research is conducted under fairly stable and predictable condi-
tions, where rational and logical decision making helps to guide performance.
Yet the major organizational crisis events during the last decade demonstrate
that decision making and performance often occur in dynamic and unpre-
dictable contexts, rather than static environments where most extant research
has been situated. In this sense, it is critical for HRD scholars to consider how
learning and performance-oriented HRD interventions can be used during com-
plex times of change and to understand the associated results of the success and
failure of these interventions (Herling, 2003). Currently, few HRD studies have
examined the cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and technological implica-
tions of crisis on the interventions organizations adopt or how such interven-
tions may affect the outcome of crisis management. Research, particularly
empirical studies, will be very helpful to expand our knowledge in this respect.
Our second suggestion focuses on additional research on the process of cri-
sis management. Much of the organizational crisis research we reviewed has
focused on three of the five areas of crisis management (see Figure 1), notably
crisis preparation, containment, and business recovery. Despite the importance
of learning to crisis prevention and preparation (Roberts & Bea, 2001), research
exploring how organizations can identify new learning opportunities arising
from crisis events is a central area where HRD research can engage stakehold-
ers in reflective learning opportunities to redesign systems and processes that
might have failed. Common HRD analysis methods such as evaluative inquiry
(Preskill & Torres, 1999) and action learning (Marquardt, 2004) might serve as
effective interventions to help stakeholders identify and process crisis events to
enhance ongoing crisis management procedures. Traditionally, learning is con-
sidered as a separate step in the crisis management process and often occurs in

the form of crisis training in the planning stage or as a reflective practice after
the fact (see Figure 1). When incorporated into planning, learning interventions
are usually coupled with HRM practices such as managing emergency compen-
sation for displaced workers, coordinating with the employee assistance
program, and complying with federal and state safety laws (Lockwood, 2005;
Pasek, 2002) during crisis situations. In this issue, we contend that learning has
an impact at every phase of crisis management from crisis identification, plan-
ning, to response and recovery (see Wang, 2008 [this issue]). By considering
learning as an integral component of crisis management, HRD researchers are
more likely to take a proactive role in helping organizations seek opportunities
to learn how to prevent, cope with, and recover from a crisis situation. More
empirical evidence and cases need to be collected to support our assertion that
learning contributes to effective crisis management at every stage of the whole
process.
HRD Theory Development
Our review of theoretical perspectives that have guided crisis management

research can be a helpful launching point for future theory development.
In addition, we also suggest that scholars consider the major and emerging
theoretical perspectives underpinning HRD to formulate new or different
approaches to crisis management research. McGuire et al. (2007) proposed four
metaperspectives (language, community/societal, system, and psychological)
that represent a “higher order view” (p. 131) of the diverse collection of HRD
individual theoretical perspectives. Each of the four metaperspectives repre-
sents a collection of similar individual perspectives as a way to accentuate the
diversity among the different values represented by each perspective. For
example, the systems metaperspective is composed of strategic, line manager,
and evidence-based perspectives, each representing a resource-based economic
perspective of HRD’s role in organizations. Although organizational and man-
agement scholars have primarily viewed crisis from a systems perspective (i.e.,
how to mitigate operating or financial loss through crisis planning), there also
exists a need to consider how other perspectives (community/social, discourse)
might enrich our understanding of crisis management. Earlier studies that
explored the crisis implications, typically in the form of environmental and eco-
logical aspects (Shrivastava, 1994), in developing countries or in communities
located in vulnerable ecological areas are examples of how a more commu-
nity/societal megaperspective has been used to examine crisis impacts on com-
munities. This line of inquiry aligns well with the broadening interest within the
HRD profession of national and international HRD (McLean, 2004) where the
concept of workforce learning and performance has come to include commu-
nity and global issues such as the health, culture, safety, and community devel-
opment innate to national policy development (McLean et al., 2004).

We also acknowledge the overwhelming emphasis (in this issue) on organi-

zational crisis that affected or occurred in Western (United States) firms.
Therefore, it is useful to conduct future research that explores how crises are
conceptualized and managed by organizations in the international setting. As
demonstrated by the multiple definitions of HRD across nations (McLean &
McLean, 2001), it is expected that the understanding of crises and the role
HRD might play in supporting crisis management are likely to be culture
bounded (Wang & McLean, 2007).
HRD Practice
In addition to opportunities to advance HRD research and theory, HRD prac-

titioners might find Garavan’s (1991, 2007) strategic HRD (SHRD) model a
helpful framework for understanding how HRD professionals might align
change and performance interventions to support organizations’ crisis manage-
ment goals. In brief, the SHRD model proposes that HRD take an integral role
in the organization’s mission by collaborating with line managers to design and
develop HRD interventions and aligning HRD policies with the organization
culture and values. Garavan’s (2007) most recent articulation of the SHRD
model links the learning, performance, and change strategies with different
levels of the organization (organization, group, individual) and to stakeholder
interests (owners, employees, internal and external customers). As characteristic
of crisis-prepared organizations (Mitroff, 2005; Mitroff & Pearson, 1993), crisis
management is a company-wide process and a system-wide coordinated effort,
linking human resources, safety, information technology, and other related areas.
As HRD practitioners consider how to enact the roles specific to crisis manage-
ment, the SHRD model provides a blueprint for understanding not only how
HRD interventions will affect firm performance resulting from crisis manage-
ment processes but also how organizational culture and the role of stakeholders
will influence such interventions in terms of acceptance, implementation, and
evaluation. The SHRD model provides a rich lens for exploring how the various
crisis factors (Figure 1) might interact to influence crisis management outcomes.
So far, we have considered crisis implications as being those processes
external to HRD. An additional implication for HRD practitioners would be to
consider the crisis vulnerability of actual interventions and processes used in
the HRD function. Clardy (2004) was the first to apply the practice of risk
management to HRD interventions, particularly in the administration and sup-
port of training and development programs that could result in a crisis event.
Examples of potential hazards include noncompliance with relevant HR laws
and practices as applicable to HRD (required training, copyright laws, fair
employment, compensation); not using professional standards (ethics, appro-
priate use of instructional design) in HRD planning, development, and evalu-
ation; and ineffective administration of the HRD function (records, controls,

reports). Clardy’s (2004) working protocol for auditing the HRD function
(identifying potential risks, planning procedures, and implementation guide-
lines) would help HRD mitigate the risk of specific interventions, programs,
and policies. Considering how crisis vulnerability occurs within the HRD
function might also help practitioners overcome initial stakeholder skepticism
to organizational crisis management practices.
Conclusion
Corporate scandals, disease outbreaks, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters
are just a few examples of crises that threaten the sustainability and ultimate sur-
vival of organizations today (Coleman, 2006; Mitroff & Alpaslan, 2003). The
wide range of unexpected organizational crises is likely due to the complexity of
modern firms, thus requiring stakeholders to engage in systematic and strategic
planning that include a focus on how learning and change occur. In this article,
we suggest that organizational crisis management is an area that requires atten-
tion by HRD researchers and practitioners. We offered a comprehensive review
of the crisis and organizational crisis management literature, reviewed relevant
perspectives in current crisis research, explicated an organizational crisis man-
agement model, and identified specific opportunities for HRD to advance their
role in supporting organizational crisis management efforts. In essence, we pro-
vided interested researchers and practitioners with a “map in hand” to embark
on new areas to expand HRD research and practice in organizations.
References
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Alavosius, M. P., Houmanfar, R., & Rodriquez, N. J. (2005). Unity of purpose/unity of
effort: Private sector preparedness in times of terror. Disaster Prevention &
Management, 14(5), 666-680.
Alonso, F., Boucher, J., & Colson, R. H. (2001). CPA Journal, 71(11), 60-61.
American Management Association Survey. (2005). Crisis management and security
issues. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.amanet.org/research/pdf.htm
Barnett, C. K., & Pratt, M. G. (2000). From threat-rigidity to flexibility: Toward a
learning model of autogenic crisis on organizations. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 13(1), 74-88.
Boin, A. (2006). Organizations and crisis: The emergence of a research paradigms. In
D. Smith D. Elliott (Eds), Key readings in crisis management (pp. 84-98). New
York: Routledge.
Boin, A., & Lagadec, P. (2000). Preparing for the future: Critical challenges in crisis
management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 8(4), 185-191.
Clardy, A. (2004). Toward an HRD auditing protocol: Assessing HRD risk management
practices. Human Resource Development Review, 3(2), 124-150.

Coleman, L. (2006). The frequency of man-made disasters in the 20th century. Journal
of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 14 (1), 3-11.
Continuity of Operations Planning. (2006). United States Small Business Administration.
Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.ready.gov/business/plan/planning.html
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organization development and change
(7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Elsubbaugh, S., Fildes R., & Rose, M. B. (2004). Preparation for crisis management: A
proposed model and empirical evidence. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 12(3), 112-127.
Fegley, S., & Victor, J. (2005). 2005 Disaster Preparedness Survey Report. Alexandria,
VA: SHRM Research.
Galbraith, J. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interface,
4, 28-36.
Garavan, T. N. (1991). Strategic human resource development. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 15, 17-30.
Garavan, T. N. (2007). A strategic perspective on HRD. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 9(1), 11-30.
Gilley, J., & Maycunich, A. M. (2003). Strategically integrated HRD. Boston: Perseus.
Hale, J. E., Dulek, R. E., & Hale, D. P. (2005). Crisis response communication chal-
lenges. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 112-134.
Herling, R. W. (2003). Bounded rationality and the implications for HRD. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 5(4), 393-407.
Hewitt Associates’ Report on Crisis Communication. (2004). Communicating with
employees during times of crisis. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www
.hewittassociates.com/Intl/NA/en-US/KnowledgeCenter/ArticlesReports/Article
Detail.aspx?cid=1680
Hutchins, H. M., Annulis, H., & Gaudet, C. (2008). Crisis planning: Survey results
from Hurricane Katrina and implications for performance improvement profession-
als. Performance Improvement Quarterly 20(3-4), 27-51.
James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2005). Leadership as (un)usual: Competence in a time
of crisis. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 141-152.
Kash, T. J., & Darling, J. R. (1998). Crisis management: Prevention, diagnosis and
intervention. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 19(4), 179-187.
Kondrasuk, J. N. (2004). The effects of 9/11 and terrorism on human resource manage-
ment: Recovery, reconsideration, and renewal. Employee Responsibilities & Rights
Journal, 16(1), 25-36.
Lagadec, P. (1997). Learning processes for crisis management in complex organiza-
tions. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1), 24-31.
Lockwood, N. R. (2005). Crisis management in today’s business environment: HR’s
strategic role. SHRM Research Quarterly. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from
www.shrm.org/hrmagazine.06February
Lorsch, J. (1997). Organization design: A situational perspective. In Organizational
dynamics. New York: American Management Association.
Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Optimizing the power of action learning. Palo Alto, CA:
Davies-Black.
McConnell, A., & Drennan, L. (2006). Mission impossible? Planning and preparing for
a crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(2), 59-70.

McGuire, D., Garavan, T. N., O’Donnell, D., & Watson, S. (2007). Metaperspectives
and HRD: Lessons for research and practice. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 9(1), 120-139.
McKee, K., & Gutheridge, L. (2006). Leading people through disasters: An action
guide. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
McLean, G. N. (2004). National human resource development: What in the world is it?
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(3), 269-275.
McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. D. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how
can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development
International, 4(3), 313-326.
McLean, G. N., Osman-Gani, A. M., & Cho, E. (Eds.). (2004). Human resource devel-
opment as national policy [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 6(3).
Miller, D. (2006). Organizational pathology and industrial crisis. In D. Smith & D. Elliott
(Eds.), Key readings in crisis management. New York: Routledge.
Mitroff, I. I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a crisis.
New York: AMACOM.
Mitroff, I. I., & Alpasian, M. C. (2003). Preparing for evil. Harvard Business Review,
109-115.
Mitroff, I. I., & Pearson, C. M. (1993). Crisis management: A diagnostic guide for
improving your organization’s crisis-preparedness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitroff, I. I., Pearson, C. M., & Harrington, L. K. M. (1996). The essential guide to
managing corporate crises: A step-by-step handbook for surviving major catastro-
phes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mullen, J., Vladi, N., & Mills, A. J. (2006). Making sense of the Walkerton crisis.
Culture and Organization, 12(2), 207-220.
Pauchant, T. C., & Douville, R. (1993). Recent research in crisis management: A study
of 24 authors’ publications from 1986-1991. Industrial and Environmental Crisis
Quarterly, 7, 43-66.
Pasek, J. I. (2002, August). Crisis management for HR. HR Magazine, 47(8), 111-115.
Pearson, C. M., & Claire, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of
Management Review, 23(1), 58-76.
Pearson, C. M., & Mitroff, I. I. (1993). From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A frame-
work for crisis management. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 48-59.
Peterson, D. M., & Perry, R. W. (1999). The impacts of disaster exercises on partici-
pants. Disaster Prevention and Management, 8(4), 241-254.
Preble, J. F. (1997). Integrating the crisis management perspective into the strategic
management process. Journal of Management Studies, 34(5), 769-791.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in
the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624.
Reilly, A. H. (1998). Are organizations ready for crisis? A managerial scorecard.
Columbia Journal of World Business, 22, 79-88.
Reilly, A. H. (1993). Preparing for the worst: The process of effective crisis manage-
ment. Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 7(2), 115-143.

Reilly, A. H. (1998). Exploring human resources issues in organization crises: A prelim-

inary analysis of the banking industry. Current Topics in Management, 3, 283-298.
Roberts, K. H., & Bea, R. (2001, August). Must accidents happen? Lessons from high-
reliability organizations. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 70-78.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the
white space on the organizational chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Fiore, S. M., & Stout, R. J. (2001). Cue recognition train-
ing to enhance team situation awareness. In M. McNeese, E. Salas, & E. Endsley (Eds.),
New trends in cooperative activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex envi-
ronments (pp. 169-190). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.
Sayegh, L., Anthony, W. P., & Perrewé, P. L. (2004). Managerial decision-making
under crisis: The role of emotion in an intuitive decision process. Human Resource
Management Review, 14, 179-199.
Sellnow, T. L., Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2002). Chaos theory, informational needs,
and natural disasters. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(4), 269-292.
Shaw, G. L., & Harrald, J. R. (2004). The core competencies required of executive level
business crisis and continuity managers: The results. Journal of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, 3(1), 1-36.
Shrivastava, P. (1993). Crisis theory/practice: Towards a sustainable future. Industrial
& Environment Crisis Quarterly, 7(1), 23-42.
Shrivastava, P. (1994). The evolution of research on technological crises in the US.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2(1), 10-20.
Simon, H. (1965, March). Administrative decision making. Public Administration
Review, 25, 31-37.
Smith, D., & Elliott, D. (2006). Responding to the demands of crisis: Issues around
future developments in theory and practice. In D. Smith & D. Elliott (Eds), Key
readings in crisis management (pp. 415-425). New York: Routledge.
Smits, S. J., & Ally, N. E. (2003). “Thinking the unthinkable”—Leadership’s role in
creating behavioral readiness for crisis management. CR, 13(1), 1-23.
Stern, E. (1997). Crisis and learning: A conceptual balance sheet. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(2), 69-86.
Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2002). Crisis management Europe: An integrated regional
research and training program. International Studies Perspectives, 3, 71-88.
Story, L., & Barboza, D. (2007, August). Mattel recalls 19 million toys sent from china.
New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/
2007/08/15/business/worldbusiness/15imports.html?pagewanted=all
Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 62(2), 207-213.
Swanson, R. A. (1996). In praise of the dependent variable. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 7(3), 203-207.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III (2001). Foundations of human resource develop-
ment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swanson, R. A. (2005). The challenge of research in organizations. In R. A. Swanson &
E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koeheler.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Human resource development transcends disciplinary bound-
aries. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 251-253.
Turner, B. (1976). The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 378-397.

Van Tiem, D. M., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Fundamentals of perfor-
mance technology (2nd ed.). Silver Springs, MD: International Society for
Performance Improvement.
Wang, J. (2008). Developing organizational learning capacity in crisis management.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(3), 425-445.
Wang, X., & McLean, G. N. (2007). The dilemma of defining international human
resource development. Human Resource Development, 6(1), 96-108.
Watkins, K. E. (1989). Five metaphors: Alternative theories for human resource devel-
opment. In D. Gradous (Ed.), Systems theory applied to human resource develop-
ment (pp. 167-184). Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Webb, G. R., Tierney, K. J., & Dalhammer, J. M. (2000). Businesses and disasters:
Empirical patterns and unanswered questions. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 83-90.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management
Studies, 25(4), 304-317.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organizational Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Wooten, L. P., & James, E. H. (2008). Linking crisis management and leadership com-
petencies: The role of human resource development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10(3), 352-379.
Zsidisin, G. A., Melynk, S. A., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). An institutional theory perspec-
tive of business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management.
International Journal of Production Research, 43(16), 3401-3420.
Holly M. Hutchins, PhD, is an assistant professor of human resource development in

the College of Technology at the University of Houston, Texas. Her research interests
focus on organizational crisis planning and response, transfer of learning, e-Learning,
and information-seeking strategies used for workplace learning.
Jia Wang, PhD, is an assistant professor of human resource development (HRD) in the
Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at Texas
A&M University. Her research interests focus on organizational crisis planning and
response, transfer of learning, e-Learning, and workplace program evaluation.
This refereed journal article is part of an entire issue on organizational crisis man-
agement. For more information or to read other articles in the issue, see Hutchins, H. M.,
& Wang, J. (2008). Crisis management in organizations: The role of human resource
development [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(3).


Organizational Crisis Management and Human Resourc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Organizational Crisis Management and Human Resourc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Crisis Management and Human Resourc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Developing Human

Organizational Crisis Management and Human Resource Development:

The online version of this article can be found at:

Academy of Human Resource Development

Email Alerts: http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Citations (this article cites 53 articles hosted on the

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Keywords: crisis management; human resource development; theory

The disciplines of organizational crisis management and human resource devel-

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

elements within an organization (culture, systems, technology) can influence

Theoretical Approaches to Crisis Research

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

events that have contributed to the study of organizational crisis management.

Early Research on Crisis

Despite a diversity of theoretical perspectives (see Pauchant & Douville,

Perspectives on Organizational Crisis Management

As a useful framework for understanding the different perspectives regard-

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

In studying the psychological aspects of crisis, Pearson and Claire (1998)

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Organizational Crisis Management

Organizational Crisis Factors

Drawing on systems theory to model the relationships in complex organi-

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

FIGURE 1: Crisis Management Model

Crisis Management Model

Multiple models have been constructed to illustrate crisis management

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

plans, and crisis communication as being a part of their organization’s disas-

Crisis management teams (CMTs) are described as a cross-functional and permanent

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

information for management, employees, retirees, and emergency stakeholders

Role of HRD in Crisis Management Efforts

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Mission of HRD and the Relationship to Crisis Management

As many HRD scholars agree, HRD began as a field oriented toward

HRD Roles in Crisis Management

What we have found particularly helpful in framing our thinking of HRD

Problem solver. HRD, as commonly accepted, is a process of problem defining

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

levels, HRD brings a useful set of perspectives for considering performance

Organizational designer. Professionals who operate from this perspective are

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

few examples). HRD professionals taking the role of organizational designer

Organizational empowerer/meaning maker. HRD professionals who embrace this

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Implications for HRD Research, Theory, and Practice

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

HRD Theory Development

Our review of theoretical perspectives that have guided crisis management

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

We also acknowledge the overwhelming emphasis (in this issue) on organi-

In addition to opportunities to advance HRD research and theory, HRD prac-

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008

Downloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com at UNIV HOUSTON on May 29, 2008