COMPAR AND CONTRAST DECISION MAKING
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol 25, No.2; Fall 2013
17
CRISIS DECISION-MAKING: UNDERSTANDING THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS DURING
EMERGENCIES
Kenneth I. Goldberg
National University
ABSTRACT: Organizations going through emergencies have to work with a
variety of stakeholders, or system of stakeholders, as they prepare for, recover
from and return to normalcy. As in any organization, decisions made by one
stakeholder can have consequences on other stakeholders. The challenge facing
emergency and business continuity managers is developing procedures that allow
system stakeholders to better understand the decisions being made and thereby
mitigate the impact of unintended consequences. This paper reviews the related
literature on three theories that can be applied to organizational decision-making
and how they can assist leaders better understand the decisions organizations
make during emergencies. The paper concludes with a model that can be
generalized to any organization or system for minimizing unintended
consequences and improving the transparency of decision-making during
emergency situations.
INTRODUCTION
As organizations become more and more complex with ever increasing
stakeholder interests, a challenge facing emergency and business continuity
managers is addressing the interconnectedness of organizations and the impact it
has on decision making. Palmberg (2009) and Ng (2009) describe this
interconnectedness as a complex adaptive system where dynamic and
interdependent connections exist between agents. On an international scale these
events can include technological incidents, terror-related risks, food safety and
infectious diseases. The same can be said for disasters on a national or regional
level such as oil spills, flooding, and on a more local scale earthquakes and
tornados. Similarly, the interdependence of decision-making can also be applied
to the private sector in business continuity responses for events such as
information security breaches, computer hacking and terrorist acts. Due to the
complexity of these systems, the decisions stakeholders make will result in
consequences on other organizations as well.
The challenge emergency and business continuity managers have during these
situations is accurately determining the interconnectedness and consequences of
actions when attempting to return to a sense of normalcy. Although it is easy to
see the interconnectedness of actions on a major scale, it also occurs on a smaller
scale between local or regional governments, small businesses and nonprofits.
Goldberg
18
For example, one of the most common lessons learned from looking back on
emergency actions has to do with communication efforts. Kettl (2006) described
the various systems of communication between federal, state and local agencies
as being a “wicked problem” (273) that prevented essential support from being
provided to communities along the Gulf Coast of the United States during
Hurricane Katrina. Similar “wicked problems” (Kettl, 2006) often arise on a
more local level with businesses and governments trying to respond to
emergencies.
Developing methodologies to identify the interrelatedness of decisions between
organizations can be challenging during normal operations. However, identifying
relationships and their intended and potentially unintended consequences during
crisis situations can be particularly challenging. By developing a model to
analyze decision-making inputs from a variety of perspectives, emergency and
business continuity professionals may be able to better predict the outcomes of
their decision-making, reduce unintended consequences and more quickly return
to normalcy.
DISCUSSION
Complexity Theory: Complexity theory attempts to explain how organizations
behave. Complexity theory suggests there are underlying assumptions of
organizational behavior and external forces that drive decision-making.
According to Morrison (2005), organizations, like society, are dynamic open
systems that are sensitive to forces. They are influenced by feedback and their
interconnectedness to other organizations.
According to Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000), individual actions play a major
role in how an organization will react in times of emergencies. The authors
suggest that one must understand how individuals will act during a crisis to
understand how and what decisions may be made in responding to emergencies
or disasters.
Similarly, Wheatley (1999) discusses how change can cause chaos in
organizations. Wheatley suggests that in leading through change one must
understand the underlying principles and vision of the organization to accurately
determine how it will act in a crisis. To better understand decision-making during
emergencies, Wheatley (1999) and Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000) suggest that
one has to also understand the underlying assumptions (values and shared vision)
of an organization to understand crisis decision-making.
Structuration Theory: Structuration theory attempts to explain decisions
through the lens of organizational values and culture. Similar to organizational
culture, Morrison (2005) suggests organization routines can be powerful
influences in organizations.
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
19
Stones (2005) suggests decisions made by individuals in organizations are
influenced by the values and culture an organization practices. According to
Stones (2005) organizational culture can replace the individual values in
decision-making. As a result, understanding organizational culture and values
can help predict decision-making during an emergency.
In the field of nursing, research suggests that structuration theory influences a
culture of safety. According to Groves, Meisenbach and Scott-Cawiezell (2011) a
culture of safety in nursing strongly influences practices. The authors suggest that
there can be competing cultures in the medical facility system that may
compromise one culture over another resulting in unintended consequences when
decisions are made. Applying the concept of competing cultures to emergency
and disaster management, one can suggest that competing cultures may exist
between interrelated governmental or business systems. Understanding the
complex relationships between system stakeholders may mitigate unintended
consequences of decisions.
Systems Theory and Systems Thinking: Systems theory attempts to explain the
causal relationships of actions taken within and on a system. Checkland (2006),
in his study of Soft Systems Thinking, suggests that an organization has a “view”
of itself that can influence how it reacts to the internal and external forces of the
system in which it operates. Checkland argues that each organization interprets
situations differently when trying to solve a problem or react to an influence.
Other social science research supports Checkland’s work on Soft Systems
Thinking. Zexian and Xahui (2010) suggest that organizations are self-organizing
and adaptive to internal and external forces when responding to influences like
emergencies. Skarzauskiene (2010) suggests that leaders need to understand
reasons for change and the needs of others in their system when new influences
are thrust on them. Similarly, Cundill, Cumming, Biggs and Fabrecius (2011)
and Mello (2008) suggest that change is contextually driven and creates new
needs and variables that have to be addressed by an organization. Research
suggests that system theory can explain the causal relationships within and
between organizations so needs can be addressed in a holistic perspective rather
than as independent actions.
Systems thinking is the study of the causal relationships on a system (Senge,
1994 and Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur and Schley, 2010). It is one way for
emergency and business continuity managers to begin to understand how actions
taken by one organization can impact stakeholders when responding to
emergencies. Senge (1994) and Senge et al. (2010) argue that by studying the
system of an organization (both its internal procedures and operations in the
external environment), one can understand the interrelatedness of decisions.
Senge (1994) and Senge et al. (2010) suggest that understanding the
Goldberg
20
interrelatedness of actions within an organization and among stakeholders can
help managers provide services that are coordinated, intended and sustainable.
Using the principles of systems thinking, Mitchell (2006) discusses how two
other concepts can help clarify coordination efforts, quicken response times and
promote returning to normalcy. Referring to the disciplines of the Learning
Organization (Senge 1994), Mitchell (2006) suggests that understanding an
organization’s Mental Models and Shared Vision can help one understand
decisions made by organizations in times of crisis. Mental Models are the
defensive mechanisms of individuals that prevent seeing the need for change
(Senge 1994). These models can prevent an organization from addressing the
need for change during emergencies. As a result, an organization tries to respond
to an emergency with their routine business operations which may no longer be
appropriate. Shared Vision is the common vision or guiding purpose of the
organization that is shared among its members (Senge 1994). Similar to Mental
Models, an organization’s Shared Vision can prevent it from seeing the need to
change given new circumstances during emergencies. Understanding how Mental
Models and Shared Vision can impact decision-making in an emergency can help
overcome resistance to necessary change.
Similarly, Flood (1999) suggests that understanding systems from four
perspectives can further define interrelationships within and among
organizations. Flood (1999) uses systems thinking as a way of solving
organizational issues or dilemmas (6). According to Flood (1999) systems
thinking develops a deeper understanding of the interrelatedness of
organizational actions.
Flood’s four proposes of a systems thinking model consists of the following:
(1) Systems Process – the efficiency and reliability of the system
(2) Systems Structure – the effectiveness of the system
(3) Systems of Meaning – does the system do what we want it to do?
(4) Systems of Knowledge-Power - how is knowledge transmitted within
the system
In addressing interrelatedness of emergency or business continuity actions, one
can suggest that Flood’s Systems of Meaning could help in understanding how
organizations act in times of disasters.
Understanding what drives the decision-making process of an organization can
develop responses that can best support system-wide efforts during emergencies.
Even more importantly, one can also identify potentially unintended
consequences from decisions that left unaddressed could cloud transparency in
decision-making and delay an organization’s return to normalcy.
Systems Thinking/Complexity/Structuration Decision-Making Model: By
combining the concepts of Systems Thinking, Complexity Theory, and
Structuration Theory, one can envision a model for decision-making in complex
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
21
environments like emergencies and disasters. As a result, decisions can be made
that reduce unintended consequences, provide better coordinated responses and
improve decision-making transparency.
As indicated in Figure 1 in the Systems
Thinking/Complexity/Structuration Decision-Making Model, organizations:
(1) identify decision-making inputs such as organizational values, vision,
mental models, underlying assumptions and culture;
(2) identify business processes and procedures;
(3) identify potential system variables that can be impacted by a change
event;
(4) identify decision-making inputs that can impact other stakeholders
through intended and unintended consequences;
(5) collaborate with system stakeholders to develop processes that best
support each other; and
(6) evaluate responses and incorporate them into new business processes
where appropriate.
By recognizing a system’s underlying assumptions such as
organizational values, vision and culture; business processes and procedures; and
potential variables that can impact a change event, collaborative actions can then
be developed to best support the needs of the system and its members. The result
will be improved responses and transparency of decision-making that takes into
account the underlying assumptions of organizations.
Goldberg
22
Figure 1
Systems Thinking/Complexity/Structuration Decision-Making Model
Goldberg, 2013
Model Application: One can see this process taking place during table-top
exercises of an emergency. In a recent exercise, a county office of emergency
services representative was discussing the role that local hospitals would need to
play in providing medical support to the community and first responders. The
emergency service representative suggested that the hospitals would provide the
necessary beds and space to care for the emergent needs of the community. The
hospital representative said that during normal operations, they would be able to
do this. However, they might not be able to provide the support immediately after
an emergency. The hospital’s initial response had to be ensuring the care of
existing patients. In this case, the emergency services representative made a
decision based on routine operations and did not take into account the adaptive
changes required on the system given the new variables of the emergency. These
new variables included the new requirements of the hospital to ensure the care
and safety of their existing patients before accepting potentially large numbers of
new patients from the emergency. After a period of collaboration, it was
determined that the emergency services’ need to support the community
(established by their culture, values and vision) and the hospital’s new
requirement for first supporting their existing patients (a new variable introduced
by the emergency) could both be supported. One possible answer was to set up a
temporary triage tent that provided the emergent medical needs from the
Identify underlying values, principles, vision
and culture of stakeholders
Identify business processes of system
stakeholders
Identify potential system variables during
an emergency
Identify decision-making inputs for intended and
unintended consequences
Develop collaborative responses that support decision-making inputs
Evaluate repsonses and incorporate them into new business proceses
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
23
emergency while the hospital ensured the safety of their existing patients. The
information about the temporary triage center was then fed back into the
decision-making process and incorporated into emergency plans. As a result, the
intended consequence of providing the necessary emergency medical support
was addressed with transparency in the decision-making process and with no
expected unintended consequences.
CONCLUSION
During emergencies and disasters organizations strive to recover and return to
normalcy in complex systems environments. To assist in the decision-making
process, an understanding of the system in which an organization operates; and
the values, assumptions and cultures of the stakeholders can help maximize
intended consequences, reduce unintended consequences and improve
transparency. As a result, looking at systems processes and their values,
assumptions and culture of stakeholders, organizations can more effectively and
expeditiously return to normalcy after an emergency or disaster.
REFERENCES
Checkland, R.B., and Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action, a short definitive
account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners,
treachers and students. Chichester: Wiley.
Cundill, G., Cumming, G. S., Biggs, D., and Fabricius, C. (2011). Soft Systems
Thinking and Social Learning for Adaptive Management. Conservation
Biology, 26, 13-20.
Flood, R. (1999). Rethinking the fifth discipline, learning within the unknown.
New York: Routledge.
Groves, P. S., Meisenbach, R. J., and Scott-Cawiezell, J. (2011). Keeping
Patients Safe in Healthcare Organizations: A Structuration Theory of
Safety Culture. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 1846-1855.
Kettl, D. (2006). Is the Worst Yet to Come? The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 273-287.
Mella, P. (2008). Systems Thinking: The Art of Understanding the Dynamics of
Systems. The International Journal of Learning, 15, 79-88.
Morrison, K. (2005). Structuration Theory, Habitus and Complexity Theory:
Elective Affinities or Old Wine in New Bottles? British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 26, 311-326.
Goldberg
24
Ng, P. (2009), Examining the use of new science metaphors in learning
organization, The Learning Organization, 16, 168-80.
Palmberg, K. (2009). Complex Adaptive Systems as Metaphors for
Organizational Management. The Learning Organization, 16, 483-498.
Skarzauskiene, A. (2010). Managing Complexity: Systems Thinking as a
Catalyst of the Organization Performance. Measuring Business
Excellence, 14, 49-64.
Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., and Schley, J. (2010). The
necessary revolution: working together to create a sustainable world.
New York: Broadway Books.
Stacey, R., Griffin, D., and Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and Management: Fad
or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking. New York: Routledge.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration Theory. New York: Palmgrave McMillan.
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Zexian, Y., and Xuhui, Y. (2010). A revolution in the field of systems thinking-a
review of Checkland’s system thinking. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science Syst. Research, 27, 140-155.
Copyright of Journal of Business & Behavioral Sciences is the property of American Society of Business & Behavioral Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.