CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Definition

• A crisis is defined as an event that by its nature

or its consequences:
> constitutes a threat to vital national interests
or to the essential needs of the population;
> prompts rapid decision making;
> demands coordination between different
departments and organizations
 Key features of a Crisis
• Low probability

• High impact

• Uncertain/ambiguous causes and effects

Common features of a crisis:
• The situation materialises unexpectedly
• Decisions are required urgently
• Time is short
• Specific threats are identified
• Urgent demands for information are received
• There is sense of loss of control
• Pressures build over time
• Routine business become increasingly difficult
• Demands are made to identify someone to blame
• Outsiders take an unaccustomed interest
• Reputation suffers
• Communications are increasingly difficult to manage
 Crisis Management
Crisis Management :

prevents a crisis from becoming a catastrophe.

 Crisis management can be defined as a system or

methodology of solving crisis situations. We can be sure
that the actual crisis situation will differ from our
expectation.
• A crisis is like a virus, the effects can be
sudden, insidious, infectious and
extremely dangerous…
 Problem characterization
Crisis management is a very complex and not easily predictable
process. The problem can be explicated in three claims:
• Nobody knows when a crisis event will happen.
• The scenario of a crisis/emergency event can be expected and
prepared for but the real situation will change it.
• Our knowledge of a crisis/emergency event solution is developed
step-by-step and hour-by-hour and its ”current version” has to
be utilized continuously in the crisis event solution.
 Purpose of crisis
management:
•Prevention
•Survival
•Successful outcomes
 Three criteria of success:

• Has organisational capacity been restored?

• Have losses been minimised?
• Have lessons been learned?
Crisis Management in
Public Administration
 issues
• In public administration or in the public policy
realm, crisis management is given little
attention either in the academic or in the
professional worlds (Schneider, 1995)
• public administration as a science in which
organizational and bureaucratic routines
become the main concern
• the most challenging role of government is not
to control these routines, but rather to perform
well when tested by crisis (Farazmand, 2007)
 Understanding a crisis
situation
• in much of the literature on the topic,
including the U.N. standard, there are two
contexts of crises: natural and man-made
(Samal, 2005; Schneider, 1995; Nudell, 1988)
• Ali Farazmand (2001) argues that there are
four contexts of crisis: political, economic,
leadership, and environmental.
• Schoff (2004) differentiates crises into three
contexts: natural, incidents, and accidents
 Understanding a crisis
situation
• a crisis situation relates to a particular situation when
government capacity is inadequate to handle a
situation using its own resources (Ozerdem, 2006)
• Other characteristics of a crisis are:

a. severe threat (Farazmand, 2001; Rosenthal, 2001);

b. threat to the basic structure (physical and nonphysical)
and values (such as security, welfare, or health) of
society (Boin, 2004; Farazmand, 2007);
c. the inconceivability and unexpected nature of an event
(Dror in Rosenthal, 2001);
d. an event that generates extreme psychological stress
(Schneider, 1995)
Understanding a crisis
situation

Typology of crises Source: ‘t Hart and Boin

in Drennan, 2007
 Good crisis management

• Crisis management in public

affairs/administration, i.e., how government
can prevent, react to, and rehabilitate after a
crisis
• Public sector crisis management in general
can be defined as the implementation of
management principles (such as planning,
organizing, decision making, coordinating,
and controlling) in a crisis or emergency
situation (Samal, 2005; Nudel, 1988;
Rosenthal, 2001)
 three specific phases of public
sector crisis management

• Preventive aspect: planning, preparedness,

and/or mitigation
• Rehabilitation aspect: relief, recovery,
response or aftermath actions
• Coordination aspect: Coordinating those
organizations so that the distribution of goods
and the activities of each institution will not
conflict or overlap is a major challenge for
government (Nudel, 1988)
 three important requirements for
good crisis management

• sense making, how to understand the

situation quickly;
• meaning making, how to create solid
information for media and the public;
• learning, how government can learn from the
crisis to improve its capacity (Boin, 2008)
• Ali Farazmand (2007) emphasizes “creative
and agile leadership” as the most important
requirement for good crisis management
Good crisis management also strongly
depends on decision-making strategies

A relationship between situation

assessment and decision-making strategy
adapted from Crichton and Flin in Drennan,
(2007)
 caveat
• Ultimately, the fundamental concept of good
crisis management is determined by the “gap
between bureaucratic norm and emergent
norm” (Schneider, 1995)
• bureaucratic procedures (“long shadow” and
“slow burning” types of crisis) and the
emergent norms (“fast burning” crisis)
• As there are no regularities in crisis situations,
emergent norms require public officers to
instead come up with strategies to handle the
problem rather than simply use blueprints and
regulations
 four main criteria to measure the
performance of public sector crisis
management
• First, the question is whether or not the
government has a crisis management system
within its organization. The tasks of the system
are preventive, rehabilitation, and coordination
measures.
• Second is the question of the sensitivity of
government to multi-identities (including ethnic,
class, age, and gender) while rescuing the victims.
• The third criteria is related to decision-making
strategy in a crisis situation.
• the fourth is the question of how successfully the
government can adjust its bureaucratic norms
with emergent norms in the crisis situation.
 Role of government
• Most governments do not pay too much attention to
crisis management because they think that a crisis is
an unusual and unpredictable situation, so well-planned
and organizational actions from government are not
needed.
• Yet, governments have to be the most prepared
institutions, because people (especially victims) always
expect that governments will play central roles during
crises (Drennan, 2007; Boin, 2008).
• Moreover, the failure of a government to cope with a
crisis is not tolerated politically; failure to effectively
respond to a crisis situation could destroy the political
legitimacy of a regime (Boin, 2005).
• Crisis, hence, must be seen as a test for government
(Farazmand, 2007).
 Role of government
• basic criteria to evaluate governments’ core role in
the overall crisis management system is “to contain
damages as much as possible and prevent the loss
of life and property” (Kalantari in Farazmand, 2004)
• measuring the gap between the bureaucratic norm
and the emergent norm as the main tool to
evaluate the quality of a government’s crisis
management
• The capacity of government to cope with crisis
depends on how seriously the government thinks
about this particular issue.
 concrete actions that governments can
take in crisis management

• First are preventive actions. In the cases of slow-developing

crises, governments can implement long-term measures,
while in cases of fast-developing crises governments can
have a high-level preparedness system to minimize victims
when a crisis occurs (Samal, 2005). This sort of action calls
for rigorous contingency planning, which consists of
defining roles of responsibilities and the line of command
guidance in a crisis event (Drennan, 2007).

• Second, during the crisis governments have to create a

clear, organized command structure, which can coordinate
and control the situation (Kalatari in Farazmand, 2004).

• Third, after a crisis, management is related to how

governments can encourage people to overcome their own
problems with government assistance (Samal, 2005).
 Evolution of emergency
management as a function of
government
Stages in the Historical Development of Emergency
Management

While emergency management is a relatively new field and profession, it

is a function that is as old as government itself.

Early in human history, hazards and disasters were handled by

communities as a whole.

One of the primary reasons for families to gather into communities was
to provide assistance to one another when disasters struck, as well as
to reduce the hazards posed by hostile men and beasts.

Over the centuries, most societies developed procedures for responding

to disasters, although initially the responses generally were ad hoc
and voluntary.

Churches, civic organizations, social clubs, trade unions, and other

groups often assumed responsibility for disaster response.
 Stages in the Development of
Emergency Management
Floods and fires were the most common disasters and communities were
generally forced to take care of themselves without support from
regional and national authorities.

Communities that were poor, with populations lacking sufficient

education and other social resources, were ill-equipped to prevent or
reduce property losses and human casualties. Some communities
suffered frequent devastating disasters and their residents were
unable to protect themselves.

Today, communities still rely on support from family, friends, and

neighbors, rather than government agencies, when minor disasters
occur. But larger and increasingly complex disasters require the
technical capabilities and the administrative and financial capacities
of government agencies.

The idea of managing environmental hazards likely evolved from the

experience of dealing with common threats such as flooding.
As communities clustered along waterways to take
advantage of fertile farmlands and transportation links,
dams, levees, and other barriers were constructed to
protect the members of the community and their property.

As communities got larger and wooden structures were built

closer together, the risk and potential costs of fire
increased.

During the 18th and early 19th centuries, often in the

immediate aftermath of a major fire, it became
increasingly common for officials to issue orders requiring
residents to build with brick or stone, rather than wood, to
lessen the likelihood of catastrophic fires.
As structures were built larger and taller, the danger increased. Hotels,
theaters, hospitals, stores, factories, and schools were particularly
vulnerable to fire, and they put large numbers of occupants at risk.

 During the 1800s, for example, there were major fires in New York
City, Canton (China), Chicago, St. John (Nova Scotia, Canada), New
Brunswick (Nova Scotia, Canada), Vienna (Austria), Paris (France),
and Exeter (England). Hundreds died in the fires and, in some
cases, thousands of buildings were destroyed.

 The Great Chicago Fire and the fire that followed the Great
Earthquake of 1906 in San Francisco have become legendary
events in U.S. history and have encouraged the regulation of
building standards and the professionalization of firefighters.
Similarly, concerns about public health increased as cities grew. The
potential for diseases to spread rapidly among urban residents
presented special problems.

 Pestilence associated with war and diseases commonly carried by

troops became even more hazardous as the size and mobility of
armies grew.

 Frequent outbreaks of smallpox, cholera, yellow fever, and other

diseases served to increase concern. Cities like Memphis, Tennessee,
were plagued by yellow fever. Major outbreaks of influenza killed
thousands in the U.S. and still pose significant health risks for the
very young and the elderly.

 Public health regulations, particularly relating to clean water supplies

and sewage treatment, have greatly reduced the risk of the more
common health risks. Medical advances have virtually wiped out
some threats, such as small pox, but other threats remain.
Meanwhile, the potential for natural and
technological disasters is growing due to
increased population—particularly in more
hazardous coastal areas and along waterways—
and increased reliance upon technology. Society
is more complex and more fragile, and disasters
have greater effect.
Government capacities have expanded in response
to the increased risk of disaster and the resources
of government agencies have been brought to
bear to reduce the risk, prepare for possible
disasters, address the effects of disasters that do
occur, and help communities recover.
In summary, the evolution of emergency management has been
characterized by the

 development of communities to reduce risk from natural and man-

made hazards, including war and other forms of violent conflict;

 application of known techniques and practices, such as levee-

building, to reduce risk;

 development of ad hoc and voluntary associations, such as

volunteer fire brigades, to deal with hazards and to respond to
disasters;

 increased government role in regulating risky behavior, such as

establishing standards for building materials and designs;

 increasing professionalization of disaster responders;

 increasing scientific knowledge about cause-
effect relationships—i.e., what causes disasters
and how they may be prevented or reduced;
 increasing prohibitions against building in
hazardous areas and public buyouts of
hazardous property to prevent private
development; and
 increasing development of legislation that
promotes effective hazard reduction,
preparedness, response, and recovery initiatives
 Emergency management and
public administration
Public administration in the United States has evolved
since the founding of the nation. The institutions of
government have become more and more
bureaucratized as staff has been added to the
Congress, the executive, and the judiciary.
In large measure, the bureaucratization of government
institutions has been a reflection of the emphases
placed upon accountability and professional
administration, as well as the expansion of
government functions and programs.
The major change in recent decades has been the
increased reliance upon nongovernmental actors in the
delivery of public services. Many public services today
are delivered by private firms and/or nonprofit
organizations, rather than by public agencies.
Cooperation and collaboration among the many stakeholders
who might be involved in any program, from health care
administration to emergency management, is essential.
Consequently, the ability to collaborate is a critical skill-set
for professionals in the field.

Governance is not a vertical or top-down process. It is a

horizontal process requiring open communication and the
sharing of information.

American emergency managers also work in an environment

in which government is largely distrusted by the
population, although people generally do not distrust the
public officials with whom they have interacted (Henry,
2010: 11).
While the image of public administrators or bureaucrats is very
negative, polls have shown that the public has an increasingly
favorable opinion of government workers (Henry, 2010).

Because of the expansion of government programs, public

administrators have discretionary authority and, thereby, have
political power. They interpret law and make policy decisions. They
spend public money. To be effective, public administrators must
understand that they are accountable to the public.

The administrative environment within which emergency manager work

is highly competitive in terms of securing increasingly scarce
resources, particularly financial and human resources. Budgets have
been shrinking and services are being cut. Support for new
programs is very limited.
Agencies compete for budgets and struggle to protect their
“turf” (i.e., their missions). It is not enough to have an
important mission. One has to find allies and to cultivate
relationships with elected officials, other agencies, and the
public. Hence emergency managers have to make the case
that their mission is very important and deserving of scarce
public money while other public administrators are trying to
make the case for their own programs and agencies.

The profession of emergency management has evolved as the

threats to human society have grown and the capacities of
voluntary and other nongovernmental agencies have
proven inadequate to respond to catastrophic disasters.
As risk increases or communities experience poor disaster
responses, there is greater demand for professionally trained
responders, whether the community employs volunteer or full-
time, paid responders.

As risk further increases and budgets expand, there is greater

demand for full-time, paid fire departments, emergency medical
services, and other emergency response agencies.

To deal with major disasters, however, communities still require the

integration of public, nonprofit, and private resources.
 The role of media
• the basic understanding of the media
 disaster and crisis situations always become news, the
commodity that media always wants to sell
 provides information to the public

• the position of media in a crisis situation

> the media could determine the outcome of government efforts,
create the post-event perception, disseminate ideas of what
actually happened, assess the authority performance, and
promote or squash rumors (Rosenthal, 2001)
• how government should handle media in crisis
> provide systematic, coordinated, and controlled
information to the media
 Role of civil society
• CSOs, especially at local and community levels, can
think and react more rationally and contextually
during the crisis than government because they feel
the disaster directly (Boin, 2004)
• CSOs also can provide experts, basic necessities,
and volunteer forces more quickly and with less
bureaucratic involvement than government does
(Ozerdem, 2006)
• CSOs could perform, such as rebuilding the social
networks, providing leadership, and recovering
people’s psychology. For physical rehabilitation, the
real actions could be mobilizing volunteers,
providing public goods (foods, shelter, health
services, etc.), and providing experts (Samal, 2005;
Ozerdem, 2006)
 Role of international
institutions
• not only post-disaster response

• have a more strategic approach to crisis

management: The emphasis given to
preparedness measures in operational
considerations, the expansion of disaster
management into prevention and mitigation
issues, as well as the recognition of inherent
linkages between disaster and development
issues
 some problems with the role of
international donors in crisis

• Sometimes there are “conflicts of interest

between government and international
institutions” (Coppola, 2006; Rosenthal, 2001)
• dependency of the people who receive aid
from these international donors