250 word minimum
JustMe22
week6.pdf
ORGANIZATIONAL CRISES AND THE DISTURBANCE OF RELATIONAL SYSTEMS
WILLIAM A. KAHN MICHELLE A. BARTON
STEVEN FELLOWS Boston University
Various bodies of literature attest to how crises significantly damage the way people relate with one another—damage that lasts long past the cessation of those crises. Such relational disturbances are problematic in terms of crisis management theory. If crises are understood to be operationally resolved yet the relational systems that underlie organizations remain disturbed, the crises may not truly be resolved, with implications for ongoing dysfunctional patterns of behavior, organizational vulnera- bilities, and longer-term performance problems. The purpose of this article is to conceptualize organizational crises in terms of relational disturbance and crisis management as the repair of such disturbances. We introduce a framework for analyzing the relational health of organizational systems, drawing on family systems theory to help define the dimensions of relational systems. We describe and illustrate the disturbances of relational systems in the context of crises and develop a frame- work for their repair and transformation. We conclude with implications for theory and research guided by an expanded definition of crisis management that links opera- tional and relational dimensions.
Traditional models of crisis management are rooted in a classic engineering mandate: iden- tify and fix the problems in inputs and opera- tions that lead to ineffective outputs (see Mitroff & Pearson, 1993, and Woods, 2006). Most crisis management studies focus, understandably, on the theory and practice of minimizing interrup- tions of the operations by which tasks are com- pleted, work is performed, and products are de- livered. Resulting definitions of effective crisis management highlight the stabilization and transformation of operations (see James & Woo- ten, 2010, and Pearson & Clair, 1998).
Missing from such definitions is an under- standing of the relational disturbances within organizations left in the wake of crises. Such disturbances can continue long past the cessa- tion of operational disruptions and can lead to dysfunctional patterns of behavior, organiza- tional vulnerabilities, and longer-term perfor- mance problems. Our purpose here is to concep- tualize organizational crises in terms of relational disturbance and crisis management as the re- pair of such disturbances. We expand beyond
purely operational perspectives by introducing a framework for analyzing the relational health of organizational systems. We suggest that without direct attention to the relational disrup- tions that follow some crises, their management may not ultimately be defined as successful. In developing this argument, we draw on family systems theory to define the dimensions of rela- tional systems. We then describe and illustrate the disturbances of relational systems in the context of crises, their repair and transforma- tion, and implications for crisis management theory and research.
A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON CRISES
Organizational crises are low-probability, high-impact events that pose threats to organi- zations (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Crisis events are marked by ambiguity in relation to their genesis and resolution and an urgency to fix what has been damaged (James & Wooten, 2010). Crisis managers seek to prevent crises through sys- tematic routines that reduce inconsistencies and anomalies in operational systems (Pearson & Mitroff, 1993). Amid crises, they urgently seek to resolve ambiguity and fix damaged systems (James & Wooten, 2005), after which they engage
For their extraordinary insightful comments, useful feed- back, and thoughtful reflections, we thank associate editor Neal Ashkanasy and three anonymous reviewers.
� Academy of Management Review 2013, Vol. 38, No. 3, 377–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0363
377 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
in damage control, diagnosis, and long-term re- pair in order to assuage stakeholders and pre- vent future crises (Mitroff & Pearson, 1993).
Crisis management efforts are mostly pre- mised on operational/engineering models of the organization, in which the organization is viewed as a machine that can break down when operating outside intended parameters and can be fixed so that acceptable functioning is re- stored (Quarantelli, 1988; Woods, 2006). The op- erational/engineering perspective has a critical, often unquestioned effect on the way theorists frame and pursue crisis management research. Organizations tend to be separated from their members; when organizations are viewed, for example, as legally recognized business enti- ties with associated property (James & Wooten, 2010), it is difficult to recognize that they are enacted by and exist through their members (Weick, 1995). As a result, models of crisis man- agement treat organizational members as just another class of stakeholders separate from the firm itself.
The operational/engineering frame is at once useful and incomplete. The frame directs atten- tion to systems and routines that enable predict- ability, stakeholders that need to be engaged in order to maintain valuable resource flows, and fixes that need to be applied in order to restore damaged organizations. Yet the frame also di- rects attention away from how crises personally affect system members and disrupt their con- nections, networks, and attachments. A rela- tional lens on organizational crisis focuses at- tention on how relational systems are damaged and may remain so long after operations are up and running again. We suggest that repairing crises often requires repairing relational dam- age, which can require approaches and tools different from those used in traditional crisis management. Furthermore, we suggest that re- pairing relational systems can be an opportu- nity to transform how people enact organiza- tions, enabling them to grow stronger—and not just return to normal—as a result of crises.
Relational Systems
Organizations are defined by sets of relation- ships among people who coordinate their activ- ities in the service of tasks, goals, and missions (Gittell, Seidner, & Wimbush, 2010; Kahn, 1998). These relationships exist in the context of the
departments, teams, functions, divisions, and other units that make up organizations. Rela- tionships are, metaphorically, the nervous sys- tem of the organization—the source of complex social interactions, rapid coordination of sys- tems, and integrated processing of concurrent signals. Formal and informal work relationships can be thought of as underlying relational sys- tems that stretch beneath units and shape what occurs within them (Kahn, 1998). These systems are defined by patterns of affect, cognition, and behavior among members of bounded groups ranging in size from dyads to organizations (Al- derfer, 1980). Throughout this article we focus on these patterns as they occur in different levels of analysis (interpersonal, group, family, organiza- tion). We suggest that across these levels the phenomena associated with relational systems are similar.
All human systems are relational, in that they are composed of individuals who move toward and away from one another in ways that become patterned over time (Schein, 1993). Relationships affect how work gets done— how individuals and teams coordinate, share knowledge, and accomplish tasks (see Bechky, 2006). Relational systems thus constitute a set of resources and structures through which complex organizing occurs (see Feldman, 2004). While relational sys- tems influence most aspects of organizing, they are particularly important to task coordination (Weick & Roberts, 1993), especially when situa- tions are uncertain, interdependent, and time constrained (Gittell et al., 2010). This is evi- denced in studies of “high-reliability organiza- tions” (e.g., nuclear power plants, air traffic control systems) that are able to avoid crisis despite conditions of high uncertainty and inter- dependence (LaPorte, 1996). These studies show members coordinating rapidly and flexibly and reorganizing resources and actions, even as conditions change (Barton & Sutcliffe, 2009; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Similarly coordinated relational systems may also develop and oper- ate as informal, emergent organizations, taking precedence under crisis conditions as formal structures and work processes become unavail- able (Dutton, Worline, Frost, & Lilius, 2006; Pow- ley & Piderit, 2008).
The relational systems lens reveals key gaps in how crises are framed and managed. People affected by crises tend to turn toward and away from one another in different ways. Various bod-
378 JulyAcademy of Management Review
ies of psychological literature, including trauma recovery (Herman, 1997), disaster relief (Erikson, 1978), and family systems (Minuchin, 1974), attest to how individual, family, and community crises can significantly damage the way people relate with one another. This can be problematic in terms of crisis management. When relational systems damaged by crises are indeed not truly repaired, organizations and their longer-term performance can be at risk. Yet little is written about how organizational crises disrupt rela- tional health. Thus, little is known about the nature and extent of relational damage or how to repair such damage.
The relational lens further illuminates how crises can be opportunities for growth and pos- itive change, rather than merely the resumption of precrisis states. Researchers have noted that crises can provide the opportunity for improved resilience (Gittell, 2008; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003) and, further, that capitalizing on the opportunity is a function of relational as well as operational capacities (Dutton et al., 2006). It is through their sets of relationships that unit members can join together not simply to fix problems but to strengthen how they think, work, and learn about themselves, their work, and their environ- ments (Kahn, 1998). Crises thus afford opportu- nities for unit members to join together in new ways on behalf of their organizations and their own collective growth (Dutton et al., 2006). Crisis management theory has room for concepts re- lated to the growth of relational systems, de- fined as movements toward healthy, functional patterns among members (Kahn, 1998).
A relational perspective therefore offers the opportunity to expand and change current mod- els of crisis management by considering orga- nizations as relational systems with the capac- ity for damage and disturbance as well as the capacity for resilience and transformation. We begin by specifically defining relational sys- tems and the nature of their health. In the orga- nizational sciences a broad set of literature enu- merates various relational components, yet there are no models for conceptualizing the na- ture and health of relational systems as a whole. Thus, scholars have considered how trust, com- munication, mutual respect, and high-quality relationships more generally facilitate coordi- nation and learning (Dutton et al., 2006; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), whereas negative patterns of relating are associated with poor
organizational outcomes (Argyris, 1982; Miller, 1993; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). While this work indicates helpful patterns, it neither offers a more encompassing model nor points to how relational patterns are particularly important or vulnerable in crisis situations.
The family systems literature both conceptu- alizes relational systems and adopts a systemic perspective on crisis management. Theorists conceptualize families as open systems within larger systems that contain their own subsys- tems (Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974). There is significant overlap between families and orga- nizations, since both have operational and rela- tional aspects, involve hierarchies, manage boundaries with larger systems, navigate devel- opmental transitions and crisis situations, are governed by explicit and implicit rules, can ex- perience problematic boundaries between sub- systems, and struggle with tensions between change and homeostasis (Brotheridge & Lee, 2006; Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1980; Schein, 1998). We thus draw on family systems theory to guide our conceptualization of crisis management.
Dimensions of Relational Systems
In the last several decades there has been a concerted effort by Olson and colleagues to syn- thesize key concepts from family systems theory into a parsimonious model using theoretical and factor analysis (Olson, 2000; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1989). The resulting circumplex model of family systems has been used widely in family systems research to analyze dysfunc- tional family systems (Thomas & Olson, 1993; Walsh & Olson, 1993) and family systems under stress (Lavee & Olson, 1991).
The circumplex model weaves together in- sights from respected family systems theorists (e.g., Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974) to describe three dimensions of relational systems (Olson, 2000). Cohesion refers to how system members balance separateness and togetherness in their relations with one another. Flexibility refers to how system members balance stability and change in their relations. Communication— which refers to how system members listen, speak, self-disclose, respect, regard, and stay focused with one another as they discuss task and affective dimensions—is critical to facilitat- ing shifts of cohesion and flexibility (Olson, 2000). These three dimensions are integral to the
2013 379Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
conceptualization of how the family system ac- complishes its primary task—namely, the devel- opment of each of its members (Shapiro & Carr, 1991). Such development requires each member to be autonomous and yet still join with other members to create loving attachments (Bowlby, 1988) and, moreover, to collectively adapt to sys- temic and environmental changes while main- taining necessary stability (Minuchin, 1974).
The circumplex model conceptually distin- guishes healthy and unhealthy family rela- tional systems. In healthy systems family mem- bers are routinely independent from and connected to one another (Bowen, 1978), are able to change and maintain stability (Olson & Go- rall, 2003), have appropriate voice in decisions and negotiations (Walsh, 1998), and move fluidly among roles as necessary (Byng-Hall, 1995). The family system is open to feedback from other sources, enabling it to adjust levels of cohesion and flexibility in response to situations and events (Olson, 2000). Such healthy systems are considered balanced: the levels of both cohesion and flexibility enable families to effectively carry out operational and relational tasks (Ol- son & Gorall, 2003). There are also midrange types of family systems as well, created by bal- ances on one dimension and extremes on the other (Olson & Gorall, 2003).
Unhealthy family systems are marked by ex- tremes on both dimensions (Minuchin, 1974). Members are emotionally disengaged (com- pletely separate) or enmeshed (completely to- gether). In reaction to altered circumstances, they are rigid (completely stable) or chaotic (completely changing). In rigid families too much control and power are located in particu- lar individuals, roles are strictly defined to dic- tate who does what, and family system rules are unvarying and unyielding (Olson, 2000). In cha- otic families leadership is erratic or limited, members move in different and uncoordinated directions, decisions are made impulsively, and roles are unclear and constantly shifting with- out clear coordination (Olson, 2000). Poor com- munication increases the possibility that unbal- anced systems will remain so: members are too disengaged or enmeshed, or their systems too rigid or chaotic, to communicate well enough to resolve conflicts (Olson & Gorall, 2003; Walsh & Olson, 1993). Extreme system types are framed as rigidly enmeshed, rigidly disengaged, chaot-
ically enmeshed, and chaotically disengaged (Olson & Gorall, 2003).
The circumplex model is useful in its compre- hensive view of relational systems. While cohe- sion, flexibility, and communication have been variously used in organizational science, nei- ther they nor other concepts have been drawn together to describe the nature of the relational systems that underlie organizations. The cir- cumplex model is, of course, suggestive rather than definitive, given that families are not work organizations, and vice versa. Families empha- size emotional interdependencies and expres- sion, while work systems emphasize formal tasks (Brotheridge & Lee, 2006). Entanglements are deeper, memberships more durable, and ex- its more complicated in families, extending the timelines over which relational dynamics can play out relative to work systems (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1980). Nevertheless, the circumplex model fills a void in organizational literature by offering a useful way to define and analyze re- lational systems ranging from healthy to un- healthy. The model enables us to move beyond categories and descriptions and explain rela- tional shifts and disturbance in the context of crises.
CRISES AND THE DISTURBANCE OF RELATIONAL SYSTEMS
The circumplex model provides conceptual language to define how crises disturb relational systems. Crises are not simply natural shifts of relational patterns. Balances of cohesion and flexibility are always in play as relationships develop and grow, get stuck, progress, plateau, regenerate, and terminate. Two colleagues go into business for themselves, creating a partner- ship; a quality improvement task force is cre- ated; a department gets a new leader. Rela- tional systems form in each unit, as members strike various balances of being separate and together (cohesive) and stable and in flux (flex- ible). These balances shift over time as mem- bers communicate well or badly, needs and mo- tives shift, situations arise, and individuals change. Beneath the observable phenomena of organizational life, these underlying relational systems exist, shaping and being shaped by people’s interactions (Kahn, 1998).
Crises, however, are distinct from both normal developmental transitions and shifting circum-
380 JulyAcademy of Management Review
stances. Crises are high-impact events that threaten organizations (Pearson & Clair, 1998) and thus represent significant jolts to both rela- tional and operational systems. Such events can trigger anxiety in members confronted with dis- rupted work routines and operations (Pearson & Clair, 1998) and the potential loss of income, jobs, status, identity, and coworkers (Morris, 1975). Crises can also trigger certain emotions, such as anger at those who caused events, guilt in those at fault, and hopelessness and despair at acts of nature (James, Wooten, & Dushek, 2011; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). In the face of such experiences, members cope. They might draw very close to some individuals and groups for protection and support, or they might pull far away from others blamed for crises or their af- termath (Miller, 1993). They might become more rigid and constricted in communication and de- cision making (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981), or they might become simply more chaotic in their responses to crises (Kahn, 2011). When such movements occur, relationships become, in a word, disturbed.
Such relational disturbances can remain hid- den beneath operational disruptions. While these disturbances have not been systemati- cally researched as such, a set of organizational crisis case studies (summarized in Table 1) of- fers enough information about events, actions, and experiences to analyze what occurs in rela- tional systems as a result of crises. The case studies are analyzed in terms of the three di- mensions of the circumplex model.
The case studies show that crises affect the health of relational systems by unbalancing co- hesion and flexibility and disrupting communi- cation that would rebalance those dimensions. Unhealthy relational processes (e.g., blaming, isolation, withdrawal, scapegoating, aggres- sion) are both cause and effect: as members engage in such acts in response to anxiety and emotion, they move their systems toward greater imbalance and disrupted communica- tion, which further worsen relational processes (see Kahn, 2005, and Miller, 1993). Hence, mem- bers of groups such as those in the medical practice that become overly enmeshed suppress differences among themselves and heighten those with groups they define as “other,” thus avoiding useful conversations within and across groups (see Coser, 1956). Similarly, if members such as the law firm partners become
rigid and controlling in the face of threat (see Staw et al., 1981), they can diminish, isolate, and undermine others, such as the law firm associ- ates, who might well provide useful resources. The imbalance of relational systems can there- fore become intertwined with communications that are closed, self-protective, and defensive, creating self-reinforcing negative spirals that maintain imbalances (see Minuchin, 1974).
We borrow from the circumplex model to offer a useful way to chart relational systems and their changes during and after crises (Olson, 2000). Family systems researchers use the typol- ogy to show how crises shift the health of rela- tional systems (Lavee & Olson, 1991). The typology uses the cohesion and flexibility dimensions to sort relational systems into balanced, midrange, and extreme. We use the graph in Figure 1 to illustrate the shifts in the relational system of a branch office of a large consulting firm through a particular crisis.
The branch office consists of two senior con- sultants, several junior consultants, a business manager, and administrative assistants. There has been little turnover in the last few years. The relational system is balanced, its members flexible and somewhat connected (point A). One of the senior consultants suffers a heart attack. The crisis brings the group together emo- tionally, the members remaining in constant contact. They become enmeshed, unable to act autonomously. Chaos ensues as members dra- matically shift routines. The relational system becomes unbalanced amid the crisis, shifting into chaotic enmeshment (point B). A few weeks pass. Members stabilize routines, creating rigid divisions of labor and patterns of interaction after the crisis has resolved. With members re- maining enmeshed, the relational system shifts to rigidly enmeshed (point C). Six months later the members remain close but more autono- mous and with more structure to manage the senior consultant’s chronic heart condition. The office’s relational system has returned to a bal- anced form, its members creating a new status quo as structured and connected (point D). The branch office thus changes systemic type sev- eral times; the changes help the branch office deal effectively with the crisis.
The example illustrates several key themes relevant to systems more generally. First, crises can send systems into unhealthy extremes, as members struggle with highly charged, difficult
2013 381Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
T A
B L
E 1
R e
la ti
o n
a l
S y
st e
m s
A m
id O
rg a
n iz
a ti
o n
a l
C ri
se s
S y
st e
m C
ri si
s C
o h
e si
o n
F le
x ib
il it
y C
o m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
T h
e su
d d
e n
, se
v e
re il
ln e
ss o
f th
e se
n io
r p
a rt
n e
r o
f a
la w
fi rm
, a
lo n
g w
it h
re ce
n tl
y d
e v
e lo
p e
d p
la n
s to
li m
it th
e si
ze a
n d
g ro
w th
o f
th e
fi rm
, tr
ig g
e rs
su rv
iv a
l a
n x
ie ty
, h
o p
e le
ss n
e ss
, a
n d
d e
sp a
ir in
fi rm
m e
m b
e rs
(S h
a p
ir o
& C
a rr
, 19
91 ).
T h
e p
a rt
n e
rs d
ra w
cl o
se r
to o
n e
a n
o th
e r
(e n
m e
sh m
e n
t) .
T h
e y
a ls
o d
ra w
a w
a y
fr o
m th
e a
ss o
ci a
te s,
w h
o a
re le
ft w
it h
o u
t fo
rm a
l p
ro ce
ss e
s fo
r fe
e d
b a
ck ,
e v
a lu
a ti
o n
, o
r ca
re e
r p
la n
n in
g (d
is e
n g
a g
e m
e n
t) .
P a
rt n
e rs
m a
in ta
in st
ri ct
fo rm
a l
co n
tr o
l o
v e
r a
ss o
ci a
te s,
p re
sc ri
b in
g th
e ir
ro le
s a
n d
le a
v in
g li
tt le
ro o
m fo
r n
e g
o ti
a te
d o
u tc
o m
e s
o r
co ll
a b
o ra
ti v
e d
e ci
si o
n m
a k
in g
(r ig
id ).
P a
rt n
e rs
is su
e fi
rm p
o li
cy m
e m
o s
to a
ss o
ci a
te s,
o u
tl in
in g
ro le
re q
u ir
e m
e n
ts ,
w it
h o
u t
fo ll
o w
-u p
d ia
lo g
u e
. P
a rt
n e
rs a
re cl
o se
d to
fe e
d b
a ck
fr o
m se
n io
r a
ss o
ci a
te s
th a
t w
o u
ld e
n a
b le
b o
th g
ro u
p s
to b
e co
m e
m o
re e
ff e
ct iv
e .
A tt
e m
p ts
to ch
a n
g e
in e
ff e
ct iv
e b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
b e
tw e
e n
g ro
u p
s th
ro u
g h
d ia
lo g
u e
a re
fr u
it le
ss .
T h
e su
d d
e n
a n
n o
u n
ce m
e n
t o
f th
e p
o te
n ti
a ll
y im
m in
e n
t cl
o su
re o
f a
n a
d o
le sc
e n
t re
si d
e n
ti a
l tr
e a
tm e
n t
ce n
te r
tr ig
g e
rs fe
e li
n g
s o
f a
n x
ie ty
, a
n g
e r,
lo ss
, fe
a r,
a n
d h
o p
e le
ss n
e ss
in st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
(C a
rd o
n a
, 19
94 ).
T h
e tr
e a
tm e
n t
ce n
te r
is m
a rk
e d
b y
co n
fl ic
t b
e tw
e e
n “a
n g
ry ”
st a
ff a
n d
“i n
e ff
e ct
u a
l” m
a n
a g
e m
e n
t, b
e tw
e e
n th
e sc
h o
o l
a n
d th
e re
si d
e n
ti a
l u
n it
s, b
e tw
e e
n re
si d
e n
ti a
l te
a m
s, a
n d
b e
tw e
e n
st a
ff m
e m
b e
rs a
n d
ch il
d re
n th
e y
la b
e l
a s
a b
u si
v e
, u
n co
n tr
o ll
a b
le ,
a n
d h
o st
il e
(d is
e n
g a
g e
m e
n t)
. T
h e
se co
n fl
ic ts
a re
e n
a b
le d
w h
e n
m e
m b
e rs
w it
h in
th e
se g
ro u
p s
d ra
w to
g e
th e
r in
m u
tu a
l su
p p
o rt
a n
d a
d m
ir a
ti o
n (e
n m
e sh
m e
n t)
.
M a
n a
g e
m e
n t
a tt
e m
p ts
to d
ra w
to g
e th
e r
st a
ff m
e m
b e
rs to
d is
cu ss
is su
e s
a n
d cr
e a
te u
n if
ie d
p la
n s
to d
e a
l w
it h
cl o
su re
a re
u n
co o
rd in
a te
d ,
u n
ce rt
a in
, m
e ss
y ,
a n
d in
e ff
e ct
iv e
a t
b u
il d
in g
sh a
re d
m o
m e
n tu
m (c
h a
o ti
c) .
C e
n te
r le
a d
e rs
a n
d m
e m
b e
rs ro
u ti
n e
ly e
n g
a g
e in
co n
fl ic
tu a
l d
is co
u rs
e ,
w h
ic h
d is
tr a
ct s
th e
m fr
o m
fa ci
n g
th e
re a
li ty
o f
th e
im m
in e
n t
cl o
su re
o f
th e
ce n
te r.
T h
e co
n fl
ic tu
a l
d is
co u
rs e
p re
v e
n ts
ce n
te r
m e
m b
e rs
fr o
m jo
in in
g to
g e
th e
r to
sh a
re e
x p
e ri
e n
ce s,
cr e
a te
o p
ti o
n s,
a n
d d
e v
e lo
p st
ra te
g ie
s to
m a
n a
g e
th e
cu rr
e n
t e
n v
ir o
n m
e n
t.
A se
ri e
s o
f v
io le
n t
a ss
a u
lt s
in a
n u
rb a
n h
ig h
sc h
o o
l le
a v
e s
te a
ch e
rs a
n x
io u
s a
b o
u t
th e
ir sa
fe ty
a n
d th
e ir
a b
il it
y to
d o
th e
ir w
o rk
, a
lo n
g w
it h
fe e
li n
g s
o f
d e
sp a
ir ,
fr u
st ra
ti o
n ,
g u
il t,
a n
d sa
d n
e ss
(P o
w e
ll ,
19 94
).
T e
a ch
e rs
fo cu
s o
n d
is ci
p li
n e
ra th
e r
th a
n a
ca d
e m
ic s
a n
d ,
th u
s, d
is co
n n
e ct
e m
o ti
o n
a ll
y fr
o m
th e
ir st
u d
e n
ts ;
th e
sc h
o o
l b
e co
m e
s fr
a g
m e
n te
d b
y sp
li ts
b e
tw e
e n
te a
ch e
rs a
n d
a d
m in
is tr
a to
rs ,
b e
tw e
e n
d e
p a
rt m
e n
ts ,
b e
tw e
e n
tr a
ck s,
b e
tw e
e n
p ro
g ra
m s,
a n
d a
lo n
g st
a ff
ra ci
a l
li n
e s
(d is
e n
g a
g e
m e
n t)
. S
ta ff
m e
m b
e rs
w it
h d
ra w
in to
ti g
h tl
y d
ra w
n sm
a ll
g ro
u p
s w
h o
se id
e n
ti ti
e s
a re
sh a
p e
d b
y o
th e
r g
ro u
p s
a g
a in
st w
h ic
h th
e y
a re
p o
si ti
o n
e d
(e n
m e
sh m
e n
t) .
T h
e p
ro ce
ss b
y w
h ic
h te
a ch
e rs
a n
d a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
se e
k to
d e
v e
lo p
so lu
ti o
n s
to th
e p
ro b
le m
o f
sc h
o o
l v
io le
n ce
is m
a rk
e d
b y
co m
p e
ti n
g co
n v
e rs
a ti
o n
s a
n d
p e
rs p
e ct
iv e
s, a
m b
ig u
o u
s re
so lu
ti o
n s,
w a
rr in
g fa
ct io
n s,
a n
d th
e la
ck o
f cl
e a
r d
e ci
si o
n ru
le s
a n
d a
u th
o ri
ty .
D if
fe re
n t
le a
d e
rs e
m e
rg e
, w
it h
o u
t co
n ti
n u
it y
o r
cl a
ri ty
o f
v is
io n
(c h
a o
ti c)
.
T e
a ch
e rs
a n
d a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
re m
a in
is o
la te
d w
it h
in g
ro u
p s
a n
d cl
iq u
e s
a n
d ,
th u
s, a
re u
n a
b le
to jo
in to
g e
th e
r o
n th
e la
rg e
r is
su e
s fa
ci n
g th
e sc
h o
o l.
M e
m b
e rs
ta lk
a t
ra th
e r
th a
n w
it h
o n
e a
n o
th e
r, a
re u
n a
b le
to p
ro v
id e
o r
re ce
iv e
u se
fu l
fe e
d b
a ck
in re
la ti
o n
to sa
fe p
ra ct
ic e
s a
t sc
h o
o l,
a n
d a
re u
n a
b le
to sp
e a
k o
p e
n ly
a b
o u
t th
e ir
e m
o ti
o n
a l
e x
p e
ri e
n ce
s w
it h
in a
n d
a cr
o ss
g ro
u p
s.
T h
e m
u rd
e r
o f
a se
n io
r p
a rt
n e
r in
a m
e d
ic a
l p
ra ct
ic e
b y
a p
sy ch
o ti
c p
a ti
e n
t tr
ig g
e rs
sh o
ck ,
sa d
n e
ss ,
d e
sp a
ir ,
p a
in ,
a n
d fe
a r
in st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
(G a
rl a
n d
, 20
02 ).
In d
iv id
u a
l st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
e m
o ti
o n
a ll
y w
it h
d ra
w fr
o m
th e
ir w
o rk
a n
d fr
o m
o n
e a
n o
th e
r, w
o rk
in g
w it
h p
a ti
e n
ts w
it h
o u
t g
e n
u in
e ca
re (d
is e
n g
a g
e m
e n
t) .
S o
m e
st a
ff m
e m
b e
rs cr
e a
te sm
a ll
, in
su la
r p
o ck
e ts
o f
e m
o ti
o n
a l
su p
p o
rt w
it h
o n
e a
n o
th e
r th
a t
p re
cl u
d e
th e
ir ch
a ll
e n
g in
g o
n e
a n
o th
e r
o n
is su
e s
o f
q u
a li
ty ca
re (e
n m
e sh
m e
n t)
.
S ta
ff m
e m
b e
rs a
re u
n a
b le
to th
in k
to g
e th
e r
a b
o u
t th
e m
o st
e ff
e ct
iv e
w a
y s
to b
o th
e n
g a
g e
in th
e ir
w o
rk a
n d
ta k
e ca
re o
f th
e m
se lv
e s.
L e
a d
e rs
h ip
is la
rg e
ly a
b se
n t,
si n
ce se
n io
r p
a rt
n e
rs in
d iv
id u
a ll
y w
it h
d ra
w in
o rd
e r
to m
o u
rn p
ri v
a te
ly (c
h a
o ti
c) .
S ta
ff m
e m
b e
rs re
m a
in su
p e
rf ic
ia l
in th
e ir
co n
v e
rs a
ti o
n s
w it
h o
n e
a n
o th
e r.
T h
e y
a re
u n
a b
le to
m o
u rn
th e
ir lo
ss in
re la
ti o
n to
o n
e a
n o
th e
r a
n d
, th
u s,
a re
u n
a b
le to
re a
li ze
th a
t th
e ir
la ck
o f
e n
g a
g e
m e
n t
w it
h o
n e
a n
o th
e r
co n
tr ib
u te
s to
th e
ir se
n se
o f
is o
la ti
o n
a n
d p
a in
.
T h
e 9/
11 b
o m
b in
g o
f th
e W
o rl
d T
ra d
e C
e n
te r
d e
ci m
a te
s th
e co
rp o
ra te
h e
a d
q u
a rt
e rs
a n
d k
il ls
m o
st o
f th
e m
e m
b e
rs o
f a
fi n
a n
ci a
l se
rv ic
e s
fi rm
(B a
rb a
sh ,
20 03
).
T h
e su
rv iv
in g
m e
m b
e rs
o f
th e
fi rm
— m
a n
y o
f w
h o
m a
re fr
ie n
d s
o r
re la
ti v
e s—
cl in
g to
o n
e a
n o
th e
r in
th e
ir g
ri e
f, sh
o ck
, a
n d
sa d
n e
ss .
T h
e y
re m
a in
to g
e th
e r
co n
st a
n tl
y ,
g iv
in g
a n
d re
ce iv
in g
e m
o ti
o n
a l
su p
p o
rt re
g a
rd le
ss o
f h
ie ra
rc h
y ,
fu n
ct io
n ,
a n
d ro
le s
(e n
m e
sh m
e n
t) .
F ir
m m
e m
b e
rs sc
ra m
b le
a m
id th
e d
is ru
p ti
o n
s to
fi g
u re
o u
t w
h o
ca n
d o
w h
a t
to a
id in
th e
re co
v e
ry o
f d
a m
a g
e d
o p
e ra
ti o
n s
a n
d co
n fu
si n
g m
e ss
a g
e s
re g
a rd
in g
th e
fi rm
’s st
a tu
s. T
h e
su rv
iv in
g se
n io
r le
a d
e rs
st ru
g g
le to
re m
a in
fo cu
se d
o n
w o
rk a
m id
th e
ir o
w n
p e
rs o
n a
l g
ri e
f (c
h a
o ti
c) .
C o
m m
u n
ic a
ti o
n s
a m
o n
g su
rv iv
in g
m e
m b
e rs
a re
d is
ru p
te d
, h
a p
h a
za rd
, a
n d
a lt
e rn
a te
ly fo
cu se
d o
n p
e rs
o n
a l
e x
p re
ss io
n s
o f
g ri
e f
a n
d th
e re
co v
e ry
o f
d a
m a
g e
d o
p e
ra ti
o n
s a
n d
sy st
e m
s. M
e m
b e
rs a
re o
ft e
n in
ti m
a te
ly co
n n
e ct
e d
to o
n e
a n
o th
e r,
p ro
v id
in g
p e
rs o
n a
l a
n d
e m
o ti
o n
a l
su p
p o
rt .
382 JulyAcademy of Management Review
new realities (Lavee & Olson, 1991; Thomas & Ozechowski, 2000). Second, as crises abate, bal- anced systems tend to recover and remain bal- anced, even if they shift relational forms; they often have the resources and skills to appropri- ately modify levels of cohesion and/or flexibility to enable members to cope effectively (Lavee & Olson, 1991; Walsh, 1998). Third, unbalanced systems have relatively fewer resources and skills useful for adapting to crises; their mem- bers cannot easily change levels of cohesion and flexibility through positive communication (Olson, 2000). These insights help frame the postcrisis repair of relational systems.
RELATIONAL SYSTEM REPAIR AND TRANSFORMATION
The relational system framework offers a means of reconceptualizing crisis management to include postcrisis balancing of relational systems. However, we should first note that all crises, of course, are not alike. Typologies rec- ognize how crises differ across various dimen- sions, such as control and intentionality (Coombs & Holladay, 1996), predictability and influence possibility (Gundel, 2005), and origin and effect (Marcus & Goodman, 1991). Yet one aspect of crises remains constant across time
and type: all have the potential to disrupt rela- tional patterns. Following family systems theory (Byng-Hall, 1995; Walsh, 1998), we suggest that such disruption has less to do with the type of crisis than with preexisting relational patterns. The same type of crisis can have different ef- fects on different groups, depending on the co- hesion and flexibility of preexisting relational patterns (Walsh & Olson, 1993). Consider, for example, how the Mann Gulch fire (Weick, 1993) and the Chilean mine disaster (Useem, Jordan, & Koljatic, 2011), each categorized in Gundel’s (2005) typology as “unexpected,” resulted in dif- ferent relational patterns, with the former marked by disengagement and chaos and the latter by enmeshment and flexibility. We sug- gest that in discussing crisis management we focus less on the type of crisis and more on its disturbing effects. Appropriate responses need to reflect the disruption that has occurred, not just what caused it; so, too, should theories of crisis management.
In exploring how relational systems are re- paired in the face of disturbance, we turn to structural family therapy for a model of diagno- sis and intervention (Minuchin, 1974). Family therapists routinely use structural family con- cepts and methods in working with imbalances in cohesion and flexibility and dysfunctional
FIGURE 1 Consulting Office Relational System Shifts
Low High
Disengaged Separated Connected Enmeshed High
Chaotic
Flexible
Structured
Rigid Low
F l e x i b i l i t y
Cohesion
Key
Balanced
Midrange
Extreme
Precrisis
Crisis
Resolution
Postcrisis
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
2013 383Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
patterns of communication (Fishman, 1993). Structural family therapy can thus provide a useful way to conceptualize interventions in dis- turbed relational systems at varying levels of analysis (see Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1980).
Structural Family Therapy
The following tenets of structural family ther- apy were initially outlined by Minuchin (1974). He described family systems as sets of transac- tional (or relational) patterns among members that regulate their behaviors. Relational pat- terns are regulated by boundaries—that is, the rules defining who participates and how in the family. Boundaries create subsystems (or coali- tions) and are defined, set in place, and pro- tected via communications among members. The parental and sibling subsystems, for exam- ple, are marked by boundaries defining the na- ture of relations between the two; these bound- aries are routinely named and reinforced through everyday communication on the order of “This is what you do and what we do.” Such communication maintains the underlying struc- ture of coalitions.
Minuchin (1974) noted that healthy boundaries protect necessary differentiations, enabling both individual members and subsystems to re- main separated yet connected. Such boundaries enable parents, for example, to retain their indi- vidual identities in relation to one another, even as they join together in parenting tasks. In the normal range boundaries are clear, with mem- bers participating in one another’s lives with appropriate degrees of separation and connect- edness. In the abnormal range the boundaries are unclear and inappropriate. As Minuchin (1974) first noted, disengaged systems are marked by inappropriately rigid boundaries. Members and subsystems, overly distant, tend not to respond to one another when responses are necessary. Enmeshed systems are marked by diffuse boundaries. Members and sub- systems, overly close, respond to any variation in transactional patterns with speed and inten- sity. In abnormal ranges existing coalitions are ill-suited to the tasks facing the larger system.
Minuchin (1974) developed structural family therapy techniques to clarify diffuse boundaries or open inappropriately rigid boundaries—and sometimes both, with different parts of the same family system (Colapinto, 1991). The process of
clarifying boundaries shifts members on the cir- cumplex model, creating relational systems bal- anced in cohesion and flexibility. In a family in which the mother is overly connected to her son, for example, an intervention that encourages her to join with her husband to develop rules regarding the son’s curfew simultaneously strengthens the boundaries of the parental co- alition, moves the son back into the child sub- system, and reduces the chaotic process of the mother turning toward the child rather than her husband to make key decisions (cf. Olson, 2000). Communication is the primary tool by which to open up rigid systems and to bring order and structure to chaotic systems. Structural family therapy interventions thus restructure relational systems, defining and shoring up boundaries of coalitions appropriate for family needs and goals (Minuchin, 1974).
Clarified boundaries protect the integrity of the system as a whole and the functional auton- omy of its parts (Colapinto, 1991; Minuchin, 1974). Consider how the boundary concept helps explain the earlier example of the consulting office (Figure 1). Prior to the crisis (point A), the boundaries were clear and well defined, en- abling members to remain connected and to act independently on behalf of the firm. Amid the crisis (point B), the office becomes enmeshed and chaotic as boundaries between members collapse, rendering them unable to individuate and perform distinct tasks. As the immediate crisis abates (point C), members become rigidly enmeshed, with the boundaries between them remaining diffuse even as they create processes that lock them into overly structured routines. The office’s final shift (point D) represents a re- turn to healthy boundaries as members remain connected, even as they develop the flexibility necessary to both follow and change routines.
The return to healthy boundaries does not, however, mean that the system is precisely as it was before its crisis. Nor should it be, given that postcrisis groups and organizations are left con- fronting new realities (Pearson & Clair, 1998). The relational system of the consulting office noted above, for example, was disturbed by the senior consultant’s heart attack, rendering the remaining members enmeshed and chaotic. As the crisis subsided, the group’s relational sys- tem shifted and stabilized. Yet the office was not as it was before; its members were faced with the new reality of an imbalance in the capaci-
384 JulyAcademy of Management Review
ties of the two senior consultants who had here- tofore been equal. The repair of the relational system thus involved rebalancing levels of co- hesion and flexibility to meet the new reality. Similar new realities need to be faced in the organizations described in Table 1, such as the assaults in the high school that left teachers and administrators looking for new solutions together, or a disaster that forced leaders of a financial services firm forced to redefine their roles.
Repair and Transformation
The purposeful creation of appropriate bound- aries is instrumental in repairing disturbed relational systems. Actions that create such boundaries restructure disturbed relational sys- tems and render them more balanced. The case studies documented in Table 1 provide enough information to identify the processes involved in restructuring disturbed relational systems. The restructurings were guided by leaders and con- sultants whose efforts helped repair group and intergroup relations within postcrisis organiza- tions. While the efforts were not explicitly de- scribed in terms of restructuring relational pat- terns and creating balanced relational systems, they can be analyzed as such. Table 2 offers such an analysis. The shifts in the relational systems of these organizations from precrisis to crisis to resolution to postcrisis following atten- tion to disturbed relations are graphically dis- played in Figure 2, with the circumplex model used to display similar shifts in family rela- tional systems (see Olson, 2000).1
In each case none of the relational systems returned to what it had been prior to the crisis. Further, each relational system shifted toward more balanced degrees of cohesion and flexibil- ity in the aftermath of key relational interven- tions. Of the five organizations, four shifted into balanced relational systems; the fifth, the treat- ment center, shifted to a midrange relational system. The repair of these relational systems involved increasing cohesion between disen- gaged groups (e.g., law firm partners and asso- ciates) and/or decreasing overly connected rela- tions within enmeshed groups (e.g., surviving financial service firm leaders). Members created more connections across and inserted more dis- tance within groups that had become disengaged from one another during the crises (e.g., high school teachers and administrators). The repair further involved members reducing overly flex- ible work patterns to reduce chaos (e.g., medical practice working group) or increasing too nar- row behavioral repertoires to reduce rigidity (e.g., law firm values clarification process).
We therefore suggest that repair can involve not simply the return of relational systems to precrisis states but their healthy transformation, an idea supported by the family systems litera- ture (Walsh, 1998, 2007). As noted earlier, fami- lies that experience significant crises face new realities in the wake of those crises, given seis- mic shifts in what individual members need, are capable of, and must contend with (Walsh, 1998). If these families simply return to the precrisis status quo in how members relate and function, they will be ill-suited for their changed circum- stances. Their relational systems would not be considered repaired in the sense of enabling effective functioning (see Olson, 2000; Walsh, 2007). Such relational systems either transform or remain insufficient. Repair and transforma- tion, in the context of relational systems, are, thus, inextricably intertwined.
The relational view offers the opportunity to understand, precisely, how crises can actually leave members better off (see Brockner & James, 2008, and James et al., 2011). Such transformation postcrisis goes beyond simply learning from mistakes or implementing new operational sys- tems. It involves what posttrauma researchers term posttraumatic growth—that is, qualitative changes in functioning that surpass what was present prior to struggling with crises (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Posttraumatic growth moves
1 The organizations graphically displayed in Figure 2 are classified in terms of system rather than subsystem dynam- ics. In the law firm, for example, the relations between the partners and associates are marked by disengagement, even as the partner subsystem is enmeshed. This is rela- tively common in disturbed relational systems: subsystem members draw too closely together in the process of creating disengaged relations with other subsystems (see Minuchin, 1974). In Figure 2 the law firm is classified as disengaged, with the intergroup dynamics between the partners and associates determining the firm’s relational dynamics. When such intergroup relations are not prominent, rela- tional patterns within the focal group are mapped. In the medical practice, for example, relations among group mem- bers were disengaged, since they mostly withdrew from one another and their patients after the crisis, even as small pockets of the group remained enmeshed. Relational pat- terns that affect the largest part of the system are thus determinant.
2013 385Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
T A
B L
E 2
T h
e R
e st
ru ct
u ri
n g
o f
F iv
e R
e la
ti o
n a
l S
y st
e m
s
R e
st ru
ct u
ri n
g D
im e
n si
o n
s K
e y
A ct
iv it
ie s
L a
w fi
rm (S
h a
p ir
o &
C a
rr ,
19 91
) P
o st
cr is
is re
sp o
n se
s In
a se
ri e
s o
f a
ll -s
ta ff
re tr
e a
ts ,
co n
su lt
a n
ts h
e lp
fi rm
m e
m b
e rs
d is
cu ss
th e
st a
te o
f th
e fi
rm a
n d
d e
v e
lo p
st ra
te g
ie s
fo r
fi rm
o p
e ra
ti o
n s.
K e
y re
la ti
o n
a l
in te
rv e
n ti
o n
s (1
) F
ir m
m e
m b
e rs
d is
co v
e r
th a
t te
n si
o n
s b
e tw
e e
n p
a rt
n e
rs a
n d
a ss
o ci
a te
s re
p re
se n
t u
n a
d d
re ss
e d
co n
fl ic
t a
b o
u t
fi rm
v a
lu e
s. (2
) T
h e
p a
rt n
e rs
in v
it e
th e
a ss
o ci
a te
s in
to d
is cu
ss io
n s
a b
o u
t w
h e
th e
r th
e fi
rm ’s
su rv
iv a
l is
to b
e a
t a
ll co
st s
o r
o n
th e
b a
si s
o f
ce rt
a in
v a
lu e
s. (3
) T
h e
y jo
in to
d e
v e
lo p
k e
y v
a lu
e s—
in te
g ri
ty ,
e x
ce ll
e n
ce ,
su cc
e ss
io n
— to
g ro
u n
d h
o w
m e
m b
e rs
w o
rk w
it h
o n
e a
n o
th e
r. (4
) T
h e
fi rm
cr e
a te
s w
o rk
in g
g ro
u p
s, ch
a ir
e d
b y
p a
rt n
e rs
, to
u se
th e
n e
w ly
a rt
ic u
la te
d v
a lu
e s
to cl
a ri
fy a
n d
o rg
a n
iz e
th e
a ss
o ci
a te
s’ e
v a
lu a
ti o
n p
ro ce
ss ,
m o
d if
y a
ss o
ci a
te ro
le s,
sh a
p e
th e
re cr
u it
m e
n t
p ro
ce ss
, a
n d
cr e
a te
m e
n to
ri n
g sy
st e
m s.
C o
m m
u n
ic a
ti o
n p
a tt
e rn
s T
h e
co n
su lt
a n
ts h
e lp
m e
m b
e rs
n a
m e
th e
ir sh
a re
d su
rv iv
a l
a n
x ie
ty a
n d
co ll
e ct
iv e
p a
tt e
rn s
o f
d e
n ia
l a
n d
a v
o id
a n
ce .
T h
e p
a rt
n e
rs a
n d
a ss
o ci
a te
s b
e g
in to
ta lk
o p
e n
ly a
n d
li st
e n
a ct
iv e
ly w
it h
in a
n d
a cr
o ss
th e
ir g
ro u
p s.
T h
e p
a rt
n e
rs cr
e a
te o
n g
o in
g st
ru ct
u re
s fo
r d
ia lo
g u
e ra
th e
r th
a n
is su
in g
p o
li cy
m e
m o
s; th
e y
e n
g a
g e
th e
a ss
o ci
a te
s in
fe e
d b
a ck
lo o
p s.
B o
u n
d a
ri e
s T
h e
o v
e rl
y ri
g id
b o
u n
d a
ri e
s b
e tw
e e
n th
e p
a rt
n e
rs a
n d
a ss
o ci
a te
s b
e co
m e
m o
re p
e rm
e a
b le
a s
m e
m b
e rs
tu rn
to w
a rd
o n
e a
n o
th e
r fo
r in
fo rm
a ti
o n
, re
so u
rc e
s, a
n d
p ro
b le
m so
lv in
g .
T h
e b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
a ro
u n
d e
a ch
co a
li ti
o n
lo o
se n
, e
n a
b li
n g
fi rm
m e
m b
e rs
to a
tt a
ch to
th e
fi rm
a s
a w
h o
le m
o re
th a
n to
th e
ir re
sp e
ct iv
e su
b sy
st e
m s.
T h
e su
b sy
st e
m s
b e
co m
e m
o re
d e
p e
n d
e n
t o
n o
n e
a n
o th
e r
w h
il e
re ta
in in
g th
e b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
n e
ce ss
a ry
to p
e rf
o rm
d is
ti n
ct ro
le s.
R e
la ti
o n
a l
sy st
e m
s T
h e
fi rm
m o
v e
s fr
o m
d is
e n
g a
g e
m e
n t
to se
p a
ra te
d to
co n
n e
ct e
d a
s p
a rt
n e
rs a
n d
a ss
o ci
a te
s d
e v
e lo
p co
h e
si o
n in
th e
fa ce
o f
n e
w ly
a rt
ic u
la te
d sh
a re
d co
n ce
rn s,
g o
a ls
, a
n d
v a
lu e
s. T
h e
fi rm
sh if
ts fr
o m
th e
ri g
id co
n tr
o l
o f
th e
p a
rt n
e rs
to in
cr e
a si
n g
ly m
o re
fl e
x ib
le p
ro ce
ss e
s o
f n
e g
o ti
a te
d d
e ci
si o
n s
w it
h th
e a
ss o
ci a
te s,
w h
o se
v o
ic e
s a
re so
li ci
te d
a n
d h
e a
rd .
T h
e fi
rm e
n g
a g
e s
in st
ru ct
u re
d w
a y
s to
cr e
a te
a n
d im
p le
m e
n t
ch a
n g
e s
in st
ra te
g y
, p
o li
cy ,
a n
d sy
st e
m s.
A d
o le
sc e
n t
re si
d e
n ti
a l
tr e
a tm
e n
t ce
n te
r (C
a rd
o n
a ,
19 94
) P
o st
cr is
is re
sp o
n se
s A
co n
su lt
a n
t co
n d
u ct
s a
re tr
e a
t in
w h
ic h
ce n
te r
m e
m b
e rs
(m a
n a
g e
rs ,
w it
h re
p re
se n
ta ti
v e
s fr
o m
th e
o th
e r
se ct
o rs
) re
fl e
ct to
g e
th e
r o
n th
e ce
n te
r’ s
p o
ss ib
le cl
o su
re .
K e
y re
la ti
o n
a l
in te
rv e
n ti
o n
s (1
) S
ta ff
m e
m b
e rs
d e
v e
lo p
a n
u n
d e
rs ta
n d
in g
o f
h o
w th
e ir
cr is
is re
sp o
n se
s p
re v
e n
te d
th e
m fr
o m
cr e
a ti
n g
st ra
te g
ie s
to p
o si
ti o
n th
e ce
n te
r fo
r su
rv iv
a l
in th
e n
e w
co m
p e
ti ti
v e
e n
v ir
o n
m e
n t.
(2 )
T h
e e
x e
cu ti
v e
d ir
e ct
o r
(E D
) b
e g
in s
to a
ss u
m e
a p
p ro
p ri
a te
a u
th o
ri ty
to e
n g
a g
e st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
in d
e v
e lo
p in
g p
ro a
ct iv
e st
ra te
g ic
p la
n s.
(3 )
T h
e E
D cr
e a
te s
a w
o rk
in g
g ro
u p
w it
h re
p re
se n
ta ti
v e
s fr
o m
a ll
p a
rt s
o f
th e
sy st
e m
; it
s ta
sk is
to d
e v
e lo
p p
la n
s a
n d
st ra
te g
ie s
fo r
th e
p o
ss ib
il it
ie s
o f
e it
h e
r th
e ce
n te
r’ s
cl o
su re
o r
it s
d e
v e
lo p
m e
n t.
C o
m m
u n
ic a
ti o
n p
a tt
e rn
s S
ta ff
m e
m b
e rs
a re
h e
lp e
d d
u ri
n g
th e
re tr
e a
t to
sh a
re so
m e
th o
u g
h ts
, co
n ce
rn s,
a n
d fe
e li
n g
s re
g a
rd in
g th
e p
o ss
ib le
fu tu
re o
f th
e ce
n te
r. T
h e
re su
lt in
g d
ia lo
g u
e cr
e a
te s
e n
o u
g h
sp a
ce (a
m id
o n
g o
in g
in te
rg ro
u p
co n
fl ic
t) fo
r th
e E
D to
a rt
ic u
la te
a u
n if
y in
g ta
sk a
n d
m is
si o
n fo
r a
w o
rk in
g g
ro u
p co
m p
o se
d o
f re
p re
se n
ta ti
v e
s fr
o m
th e
v a
ri o
u s
st a
ff g
ro u
p s.
Y e
t st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
re ta
in im
a g
e s
o f
“o th
e r”
g ro
u p
s a
s p
ro b
le m
a ti
c a
n d
re m
a in
u n
a b
le to
w o
rk to
g e
th e
r e
ff e
ct iv
e ly
a cr
o ss
g ro
u p
s. B
o u
n d
a ri
e s
T h
e o
v e
rl y
ri g
id b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
se p
a ra
ti n
g th
e v
a ri
o u
s g
ro u
p s
lo o
se n
sl ig
h tl
y a
s ce
n te
r m
e m
b e
rs tr
y to
jo in
to g
e th
e r
in th
e fa
ce o
f sh
a re
d a
n x
ie ty
a b
o u
t su
rv iv
a l,
sh if
ti n
g a
w a
y fr
o m
in te
rg ro
u p
co n
fl ic
ts a
n d
to w
a rd
th e
d if
fi cu
lt ie
s fa
ci n
g th
e ce
n te
r a
s a
w h
o le
. T
h e
w o
rk in
g g
ro u
p cr
e a
te d
b y
th e
E D
st ri
v e
s to
fo rm
a b
o u
n d
a ry
a ro
u n
d it
se lf
in o
rd e
r to
cr e
a te
it se
lf a
s a
n in
d e
p e
n d
e n
t co
a li
ti o
n th
a t
d ri
v e
s ch
a n
g e
. T
h is
is o
n ly
p a
rt ly
su cc
e ss
fu l
in th
e fa
ce o
f o
p p
o si
ti o
n fr
o m
m e
m b
e rs
o f
e x
is ti
n g
co a
li ti
o n
s. R
e la
ti o
n a
l sy
st e
m s
T h
e ce
n te
r m
o v
e s
fr o
m ch
a o
ti c
to fl
e x
ib le
to st
ru ct
u re
d a
s m
e m
b e
rs jo
in to
g e
th e
r u
n d
e r
th e
d ir
e ct
io n
o f
th e
E D
to e
x a
m in
e a
lt e
rn a
ti v
e s
a n
d m
a k
e d
e ci
si o
n s.
L e
d b
y th
e ta
sk fo
rc e
, ce
n te
r m
e m
b e
rs a
re a
b le
to sy
n th
e si
ze in
fo rm
a ti
o n
fr o
m th
e v
a ri
o u
s g
ro u
p s
a n
d to
a ct
in a
m o
re co
o rd
in a
te d
fa sh
io n
. C
e n
te r
m e
m b
e rs
re m
a in
re la
ti v
e ly
d is
e n
g a
g e
d ,
w it
h o
n ly
sl ig
h t
m o
v e
m e
n ts
to w
a rd
g re
a te
r co
h e
si o
n a
ft e
r th
e re
tr e
a t.
W it
h th
e e
x ce
p ti
o n
o f
th e
w o
rk in
g g
ro u
p re
p re
se n
ta ti
v e
s, m
e m
b e
rs co
n ti
n u
e to
id e
n ti
fy w
it h
th e
ir g
ro u
p s
ra th
e r
th a
n w
it h
th e
ce n
te r
a s
a w
h o
le .
U rb
a n
h ig
h sc
h o
o l
(P o
w e
ll ,
19 94
) P
o st
cr is
is re
sp o
n se
s T
h e
sc h
o o
l im
p le
m e
n ts
th e
C o
m m
u n
it y
G ro
u p
s p
ro g
ra m
, w
h ic
h a
ss ig
n s
te a
ch e
rs to
st u
d e
n t
co h
o rt
s fo
r fo
u r
y e
a rs
o f
h ig
h sc
h o
o l.
C o
h o
rt s
m e
e t
w e
e k
ly so
th a
t st
u d
e n
ts ca
n d
is cu
ss to
p ic
s o
f co
n ce
rn (e
.g .,
te a
ch e
r- st
u d
e n
t re
la ti
o n
s, p
e e
r p
re ss
u re
, d
ru g
s, p
re g
n a
n cy
). K
e y
re la
ti o
n a
l in
te rv
e n
ti o
n s
(1 )
T h
e p
ro g
ra m
is a
u th
o ri
ze d
b y
se n
io r
sc h
o o
l a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
, le
d b
y a
n a
ss is
ta n
t p
ri n
ci p
a l,
a n
d im
p le
m e
n te
d b
y a
d iv
e rs
e ta
sk fo
rc e
o f
sc h
o o
l a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
a n
d te
a ch
e rs
. (2
) T
h e
ta sk
fo rc
e (r
e p
re se
n ta
ti v
e s
fr o
m d
if fe
re n
t tr
a ck
s, d
e p
a rt
m e
n ts
, a
n d
ra ci
a l
id e
n ti
ti e
s) p
la n
s, re
fl e
ct s,
tr a
in s,
a n
d b
u il
d s
cu rr
ic u
lu m
. (3
) T
h e
ta sk
fo rc
e so
li ci
ts fe
e d
b a
ck fr
o m
fa cu
lt y
a n
d a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
to im
p ro
v e
p ro
g ra
m d
e si
g n
. (4
) T
a sk
fo rc
e m
e m
b e
rs b
e co
m e
th e
le a
d e
rs o
f a
co n
su lt
a ti
v e
p ro
ce ss
a cr
o ss
th e
sc h
o o
l. C
o m
m u
n ic
a ti
o n
p a
tt e
rn s
T e
a ch
e rs
a n
d a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
e n
g a
g e
in d
if fi
cu lt
, co
n st
ru ct
iv e
co n
v e
rs a
ti o
n s
a b
o u
t p
ro g
ra m
p h
il o
so p
h y
, d
e si
g n
, st
ru ct
u re
, a
n d
im p
le m
e n
ta ti
o n
. T
h e
y b
u il
d o
n ra
th e
r th
a n
d is
m is
s o
n e
a n
o th
e r’
s id
e a
s, sp
e a
k in
g a
p p
ro p
ri a
te ly
a n
d li
st e
n in
g a
ct iv
e ly
a cr
o ss
th e
in te
rg ro
u p
d iv
is io
n s.
S ta
ff m
e m
b e
rs a
sk fo
r a
n d
re ce
iv e
su p
p o
rt a
s th
e y
le a
d co
h o
rt s.
386 JulyAcademy of Management Review
B o
u n
d a
ri e
s T
h e
b o
u n
d a
ri e
s d
iv id
in g
g ro
u p
s fr
o m
o n
e a
n o
th e
r le
ss e
n a
s st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
jo in
to g
e th
e r
a n
d a
tt a
ch to
st u
d e
n ts
. S
tu d
e n
ts le
a rn
to e
x p
re ss
a n
d w
o rk
th ro
u g
h o
b st
a cl
e s
to a
ca d
e m
ic a
n d
so ci
a l
a ch
ie v
e m
e n
t. T
h e
b o
u n
d a
ri e
s b
e tw
e e
n st
a ff
a n
d st
u d
e n
ts a
re cl
a ri
fi e
d a
s e
a ch
g ro
u p
a cc
e p
ts it
s re
sp e
ct iv
e re
sp o
n si
b il
it ie
s re
g a
rd in
g st
u d
e n
t su
cc e
ss .
S ta
ff co
a li
ti o
n s
w e
a k
e n
a s
m e
m b
e rs
tr a
v e
rs e
b o
u n
d a
ri e
s o
n b
e h
a lf
o f
th e
in te
rv e
n ti
o n
. R
e la
ti o
n a
l sy
st e
m s
T h
e sc
h o
o l
m o
v e
s fr
o m
d is
e n
g a
g e
d to
se p
a ra
te d
to co
n n
e ct
e d
a s
m e
m b
e rs
fr o
m th
e sp
li t-
o ff
co a
li ti
o n
s jo
in fo
rc e
s a
n d
b e
co m
e m
o re
co h
e si
v e
w h
il e
w o
rk in
g o
n th
e C
o m
m u
n it
y G
ro u
p s
p ro
g ra
m .
M u
tu a
l tr
u st
d e
v e
lo p
s a
s m
e m
b e
rs sh
a re
re so
u rc
e s,
in fo
rm a
ti o
n ,
k n
o w
le d
g e
, a
n d
su p
p o
rt .
T h
e sc
h o
o l
a ls
o m
o v
e s
fr o
m ch
a o
ti c
to fl
e x
ib le
to st
ru ct
u re
d .
T h
e ta
sk fo
rc e
, le
d b
y se
n io
r a
d m
in is
tr a
to rs
, cr
e a
te s
st ru
ct u
re d
p ro
ce ss
e s
b y
w h
ic h
sc h
o o
l st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
d e
v e
lo p
a n
d im
p le
m e
n t
th e
sc h
o o
l- w
id e
p ro
g ra
m .
T h
e p
ro g
ra m
p ro
v id
e s
a st
a b
le ,
g u
id in
g st
ru ct
u re
fo r
a co
o rd
in a
te d
re sp
o n
se to
th e
e p
id e
m ic
o f
v io
le n
ce in
th e
sc h
o o
l.
M e
d ic
a l
p ra
ct ic
e (G
a rl
a n
d ,
20 02
) P
o st
cr is
is re
sp o
n se
s A
co n
su lt
a n
t fa
ci li
ta te
s m
e e
ti n
g s
in w
h ic
h st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
(p h
y si
ci a
n s,
n u
rs e
s, te
ch n
ic ia
n s,
a d
m in
is tr
a to
rs ,
a n
d v
o lu
n te
e rs
) re
fl e
ct o
n th
e ir
e x
p e
ri e
n ce
s in
th e
w a
k e
o f
th e
m u
rd e
r. K
e y
re la
ti o
n a
l in
te rv
e n
ti o
n s
(1 )
T h
e co
n su
lt a
n t
h e
lp s
st a
ff m
e m
b e
rs re
fl e
ct o
n h
o w
th e
ir w
it h
d ra
w a
l fr
o m
p a
ti e
n ts
a n
d o
n e
a n
o th
e r
in th
e w
a k
e o
f th
e tr
a g
e d
y is
re la
te d
to th
e ir
in a
b il
it y
to cr
e a
te ti
m e
a n
d sp
a ce
a w
a y
fr o
m th
e e
v e
r- p
re se
n t
w o
rk lo
a d
. (2
) A
s st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
p ro
ce ss
th e
ir e
x p
e ri
e n
ce s
o f
th e
tr a
g e
d y
, th
e re
m a
in in
g se
n io
r p
a rt
n e
rs jo
in th
e co
n v
e rs
a ti
o n
s a
n d
sh a
re th
e ir
e x
p e
ri e
n ce
s o
f th
e tr
a g
e d
y .
(3 )
L e
d b
y a
se n
io r
p a
rt n
e r,
th e
st a
ff d
e ci
d e
s to
tu rn
to o
n e
a n
o th
e r
fo r
h e
lp in
ca ri
n g
fo r
p a
ti e
n ts
d u
ri n
g d
if fi
cu lt
sh if
ts .
T h
e y
d e
v e
lo p
g ro
u n
d ru
le s
b y
w h
ic h
to a
sk fo
r a
n d
p ro
v id
e su
p p
o rt
. (4
) W
o rk
in g
g ro
u p
s, ru
n b
y v
a ri
o u
s st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
, le
a d
th e
st a
ff to
w a
rd m
o re
e ff
e ct
iv e
w a
y s
o f
w o
rk in
g to
g e
th e
r a
n d
m a
n a
g in
g li
fe -w
o rk
b a
la n
ce s.
C o
m m
u n
ic a
ti o
n p
a tt
e rn
s S
ta ff
m e
m b
e rs
ta lk
a b
o u
t th
e ir
se n
se o
f lo
ss a
n d
th e
a tt
e n
d a
n t
fe e
li n
g s
(o u
tr a
g e
, m
is e
ry ,
sa d
n e
ss )
th e
y e
x p
e ri
e n
ce in
th e
w a
k e
o f
th e
tr a
g e
d y
. T
h e
se co
n v
e rs
a ti
o n
s a
re a
u th
e n
ti c
a n
d re
v e
a li
n g
, ra
th e
r th
a n
su p
e rf
ic ia
l; st
a ff
m e
m b
e rs
a ll
o w
th e
m se
lv e
s to
b e
v u
ln e
ra b
le w
it h
o n
e a
n o
th e
r a
n d
, in
tu rn
, a
re li
st e
n e
d to
cl o
se ly
a n
d w
it h
m e
a n
in g
fu l
su p
p o
rt .
B o
u n
d a
ri e
s S
ta ff
m e
m b
e rs
w h
o h
a d
w it
h d
ra w
n fr
o m
p a
ti e
n ts
a n
d o
n e
a n
o th
e r
se e
k o
u t
o n
e a
n o
th e
r to
g iv
e a
n d
re ce
iv e
su p
p o
rt ,
cr o
ss in
g th
e b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
se p
a ra
ti n
g th
e m
. T
h e
in cr
e a
si n
g ly
p e
rm e
a b
le b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
e n
a b
le st
a ff
to b
re a
k a
w a
y fr
o m
ti g
h tl
y co
n n
e ct
e d
co a
li ti
o n
s th
a t
h a
d re
m a
in e
d d
is co
n n
e ct
e d
fr o
m o
n e
a n
o th
e r.
M e
m b
e rs
a re
th u
s a
b le
to jo
in to
g e
th e
r o
n b
e h
a lf
o f
th e
p ra
ct ic
e a
n d
it s
w o
rk w
it h
p a
ti e
n ts
. R
e la
ti o
n a
l sy
st e
m s
T h
e p
ra ct
ic e
m o
v e
s fr
o m
d is
e n
g a
g e
d to
co n
n e
ct e
d a
s m
e m
b e
rs tu
rn to
w a
rd ra
th e
r th
a n
a w
a y
fr o
m o
n e
a n
o th
e r
a m
id a
n e
w ly
re a
li ze
d se
n se
o f
sh a
re d
p a
in .
W o
rk in
g g
ro u
p s
h e
lp co
a le
sc e
m e
m b
e rs
o f
d is
p a
ra te
co a
li ti
o n
s, cr
e a
ti n
g co
n n
e ct
io n
s a
cr o
ss th
e p
ra ct
ic e
. T
h e
w o
rk in
g g
ro u
p s
p ro
v id
e a
co n
ta in
in g
st ru
ct u
re ,
e n
a b
li n
g th
e p
ra ct
ic e
to sh
if t
fr o
m ch
a o
ti c
to st
ru ct
u re
d to
fl e
x ib
le in
h o
w it
s m
e m
b e
rs id
e n
ti fy
a n
d so
lv e
p ro
b le
m s.
M e
m b
e rs
a re
a b
le to
sy n
th e
si ze
ra th
e r
th a
n re
m a
in o
v e
rw h
e lm
e d
b y
in fo
rm a
ti o
n a
n d
a ct
in a
n o
rg a
n iz
e d
fa sh
io n
a cr
o ss
th e
p ra
ct ic
e .
F in
a n
ci a
l se
rv ic
e s
fi rm
(B a
rb a
sh ,
20 03
) P
o st
cr is
is re
sp o
n se
s T
h e
C E
O a
n d
su rv
iv in
g se
n io
r le
a d
e rs
re g
u la
rl y
co n
v e
n e
p e
o p
le fo
r m
o n
th s
a ft
e r
th e
tr a
g e
d y
fo r
v a
ri o
u s
p u
rp o
se s:
m o
u rn
in g
w it
h su
rv iv
in g
m e
m b
e rs
; co
m fo
rt in
g th
e fa
m il
ie s
o f
fi rm
m e
m b
e rs
w h
o d
id n
o t
su rv
iv e
; si
ft in
g th
ro u
g h
th e
d a
m a
g e
to th
e fi
rm to
u n
d e
rs ta
n d
w h
a t
m ig
h t
b e
sa v
e d
, in
te rm
s o
f o
p e
ra ti
o n
s a
n d
p ro
ce ss
e s;
a n
d p
ro ce
ss in
g th
e ir
o w
n e
x p
e ri
e n
ce s
o f
lo ss
a n
d g
ri e
f. K
e y
re la
ti o
n a
l in
te rv
e n
ti o
n s
(1 )
T h
e C
E O
re a
ch e
s o
u t
to su
rv iv
in g
m e
m b
e rs
a n
d g
ri e
v in
g fa
m il
ie s,
v is
it in
g h
o m
e s
a n
d h
o sp
it a
ls ,
a tt
e n
d in
g fu
n e
ra ls
, a
n d
e st
a b
li sh
in g
a d
is a
st e
r re
co v
e ry
si te
. (2
) F
ir m
m e
m b
e rs
g ri
e v
e to
g e
th e
r, sh
a ri
n g
e x
p e
ri e
n ce
s a
n d
te ll
in g
st o
ri e
s, e
x p
re ss
in g
th e
ir lo
ss ,
sa d
n e
ss ,
a n
d sh
o ck
. (3
) T
h e
C E
O cr
e a
te s
a re
li e
f fu
n d
fo r
sp o
u se
s a
n d
ch il
d re
n o
f fi
rm m
e m
b e
rs k
il le
d in
th e
tr a
g e
d y
. S
e n
io r
le a
d e
rs co
m m
it to
u si
n g
fi rm
p ro
fi ts
o v
e r
th e
n e
x t
fi v
e y
e a
rs to
p ro
v id
e fi
n a
n ci
a ll
y fo
r sp
o u
se s
a n
d w
id o
w s.
(4 )
F ir
m m
e m
b e
rs m
e e
t re
g u
la rl
y to
p ro
ce ss
th e
ir e
x p
e ri
e n
ce s,
p ro
v id
e su
p p
o rt
, a
n d
d e
ci d
e to
g e
th e
r a
b o
u t
th e
ir fu
tu re
co u
rs e
s o
f a
ct io
n .
C o
m m
u n
ic a
ti o
n p
a tt
e rn
s S
u rv
iv in
g fi
rm m
e m
b e
rs a
re o
p e
n ly
v u
ln e
ra b
le w
it h
o n
e a
n o
th e
r, sh
a ri
n g
st o
ri e
s a
n d
e x
p e
ri e
n ce
s o
f lo
ss ,
sh o
ck ,
a n
d sa
d n
e ss
. M
e m
b e
rs o
p e
n ly
d is
cu ss
th e
ir co
n ce
rn s
a b
o u
t th
e fu
tu re
, in
te rm
s o
f th
e v
ia b
il it
y o
f th
e co
m p
a n
y ’s
su rv
iv a
l in
th e
a ft
e rm
a th
o f
th e
tr a
g e
d y
. L
e d
b y
th e
C E
O a
n d
o th
e r
se n
io r
le a
d e
rs ,
th e
y h
a v
e d
if fi
cu lt
co n
v e
rs a
ti o
n s
a b
o u
t re
su sc
it a
ti n
g th
e co
m p
a n
y w
h il
e g
ri e
v in
g th
e lo
ss o
f th
e ir
co ll
e a
g u
e s.
B o
u n
d a
ri e
s L
e a
d e
rs a
n d
m e
m b
e rs
cl a
ri fy
th e
b o
u n
d a
ri e
s th
a t
h a
d co
ll a
p se
d a
m id
th e
tr a
g e
d y
. F
ir m
m e
m b
e rs
th u
s a
ss u
m e
m o
re d
e fi
n e
d ro
le s
a s
d iv
is io
n s
o f
la b
o r
b e
co m
e in
cr e
a si
n g
ly d
e fi
n e
d a
n d
p o
ss ib
le .
T h
e C
E O
a n
d se
n io
r le
a d
e rs
cr e
a te
a p
p ro
p ri
a te
se p
a ra
ti o
n b
e tw
e e
n th
e ir
p e
rs o
n a
l a
n d
p ro
fe ss
io n
a l
re la
ti o
n sh
ip s
w it
h fi
rm m
e m
b e
rs ,
o n
e a
n o
th e
r, a
n d
su rv
iv in
g sp
o u
se s
a n
d ch
il d
re n
, w
h il
e m
a in
ta in
in g
th e
ir le
v e
ls o
f co
n ce
rn a
n d
co m
m it
m e
n t.
R e
la ti
o n
a l
sy st
e m
s T
h e
fi rm
sh if
ts fr
o m
e n
m e
sh m
e n
t im
m e
d ia
te ly
fo ll
o w
in g
th e
cr is
is to
co n
n e
ct e
d a
s le
a d
e rs
a n
d m
e m
b e
rs cl
a ri
fy th
e b
o u
n d
a ri
e s
th a
t e
n a
b le
th e
m to
re m
a in
b o
n d
e d
w h
il e
a u
to n
o m
o u
s in
th e
ir ta
sk s.
A ft
e r
th e
cr is
is sh
if ts
th e
fi rm
fr o
m st
ru ct
u re
d to
ch a
o ti
c, th
e in
te rv
e n
ti o
n s
e n
a b
le m
e m
b e
rs to
re m
a in
fl e
x ib
le in
h o
w th
e y
a p
p ro
a ch
a n
d so
lv e
p ro
b le
m s,
m a
k e
d e
ci si
o n
s, a
n d
re sp
o n
d to
b o
th a
co m
p le
x e
n v
ir o
n m
e n
t a
n d
a n
o rg
a n
iz a
ti o
n re
co v
e ri
n g
fr o
m tr
a u
m a
.
2013 387Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
FIGURE 2 Relational System Shifts
Low High
High Chaotic
Flexible
Structured
Rigid Low
(a) Law firm: Rigid separation to structured connection
(b) Treatment center: Chaotic disengagement to structured disengagement
(c) School: Flexible separation to structured connection
(e) Financial services firm: Structured connection to flexible connection
(d) Medical practice: Chaotic connection to flexible connection
F l e x i b i l i t y
Cohesion
Key
Balanced
Midrange
Extreme
Precrisis
Crisis
Resolution
Postcrisis
A
B
C
D AB
C D
B
B
A
A
A
B
C
D
C
D
C
D
A
D
B
C
Disengaged Separated Connected Enmeshed
388 JulyAcademy of Management Review
beyond resilience, resulting not simply in the resumption of life but in pronounced positive differences in how people appreciate their lives, prioritize their activities, create intimacy, value their strengths, recognize new life possibilities and paths, and develop their spirituality (Tede- schi & Calhoun, 2004). The posttraumatic growth model applies to families in distress (Berger & Weiss, 2009), whose crises can be turning points that lead to qualitatively different system func- tioning (Patterson, 2002).
Posttraumatic growth offers a way to concep- tualize the transformation of organizations in the wake of crises, as distinct from conceptual- izations of organizational change (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), evolution (Greiner, 1998), and resil- ience (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Such transforma- tion can involve, as for individuals and families, pronounced differences in how leaders and members collectively define and enact the meanings and purpose of their work. Groups and organizations, like families and communi- ties (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; Walsh, 2007), have the capacity to deepen their collective pur- poses, to act according to shared values, to de- velop close attachments, and to enact new pos- sibilities and paths (Dutton et al., 2006; Smith & Berg, 1987). We suggest that such relational shifts, in the wake of shared traumas, loss, and crises, can similarly define the underlying na- ture of some organizational transformations. This formulation presumes that the essential nature and treatment of traumatic experiences adhere across individual, family, group, and or- ganization levels (see Herman, 1997, and Kahn, 2005).
Such transformations do not happen of their own accord; they need to be managed, like other aspects of crisis recovery. The posttraumatic lit- erature includes three processes by which such postcrisis transformations are managed in indi- viduals (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), families (Berger & Weiss, 2009), and communities (Walsh, 2007). These processes restructure damaged re- lational systems—that is, they create and clarify appropriate boundaries within and between subsystems (Minuchin, 1974). We suggest that in some postcrisis organizations adaptations of these processes can occur as well, as leaders, members, and consultants engage in acts of re- pair that transform postcrisis balances of cohe- sion and flexibility. These processes are illus- trated using the case material in Table 2.
Emotional processing. Trauma survivors en- gage in posttraumatic growth via meaningful connections with others with whom they con- tinue to process their experiences of distress while performing the concrete tasks of rebuild- ing their lives (Herman, 1997). In organizations a similar multitasking occurs as people engage in both operational recovery and the processing of their emotional experiences. The latter involves people telling stories of their experiences and sharing what they thought and felt amid crises and their aftermaths (Berger & Weiss, 2009; Te- deschi & Calhoun, 2004). Storytelling enables people to share rather than remain stuck with painful events, experiences, thoughts, and emo- tions (Herman, 1997). It helps them to not feel alone and isolated with the pain they experi- enced. The organization becomes a series of “holding environments”—settings in which sup- port and compassion are sought and provided (Kahn, 2001). Absent these settings, the emo- tional fallout from crises remains located within individuals, impeding their personal and collec- tive ability to recover (Burke, 2012).
Emotional processing can restructure the boundaries of damaged relational systems. As people share their stories and experiences, they discover connections among those who had turned away from and bound themselves off from one another (see Kahn, 2011). In the medical practice (Garland, 2002) the collective process- ing of members’ grief in the wake of their col- league’s murder brought them closer, shifting them from disengaged to connected. As they identified and processed their emotions, mem- bers gained more control over their reactions to the crisis, enabling them to become more flexi- ble (and less chaotic) in how they analyzed in- formation and made decisions. In the financial services firm (Barbash, 2003) members cried over the loss of friends and colleagues, told stories, and consoled one another, bearing collectively what they could not bear individually. As their emotional pain faded from sharp to dull, they had less need to cling to one another, enabling them to become less enmeshed while remaining connected. In the law firm (Shapiro & Carr, 1991) members’ acknowledgment of shared feelings of fear and frustration enabled them to join to- gether rather than split apart; they became less rigid (yet still structured) in how they shared information and made decisions.
2013 389Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
Construction of meaning. Traumatic experi- ences disrupt one’s sense of reality (Herman, 1997). Weick (1993) described such disruptions as cosmological episodes, in which the universe is no longer seen as rational and orderly. In the wake of crises, the narratives that had made sense of the world and oneself no longer do so. The process of constructing new narratives to provide meaning to new realities is central to transformations in the wake of crises. Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) found that persistent cogni- tive processing—that is, rumination— enables crisis survivors to formulate new goals and world views in reconstituted realities. Such pro- cessing occurs collectively as well, as families engage in interactive processes of giving mean- ing to sharply altered realities (Berger & Weiss, 2009). Individual narratives are shared and inte- grated into social narratives such that crises are collectively seen as turning points (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). People discuss who “we” are in the aftermath of a crisis and decipher the mean- ing that the trauma has for their groups (Tedes- chi & Calhoun, 1995, 2004).
As people join together to share experiences and make sense of newly altered realities, they clarify and shift the boundaries marking their relations with one another. In the urban school (Powell, 1994) the narrative shifted from that of a war zone in which teachers, administrators, and students battled within and across their groups to that of a community fighting for itself and its members. The new narrative helped shift the school’s relational system from disengaged to connected (as members joined together across divisions) and from chaotic to structured (as leaders provided direction and supporting struc- tures). In the financial services firm (Barbash, 2003) the precrisis narrative revolved around ruthless competition for clients, money, and in- fluence. In the wake of the tragedy, surviving members created the different narrative of cre- ating a legacy for those who had perished by providing for their families. This narrative re- quired firm members to collaborate (i.e., become more flexible and less rigid) and organize effec- tively (i.e., become less chaotic and more structured).
Envisioning and creating desirable futures. Traumatic experiences shatter the sense of nor- mal progress and development (Herman, 1997). It is the past that grips individuals, families, and communities that have suffered trauma (Berger
& Weiss, 2009; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; Walsh, 2007); the future appears as a memory, from a time and place no longer familiar and recogniz- able. Amid such despair, it is hope—the lone weapon left inside Pandora’s box after evils have been loosed upon the world—that offers the possibility of recovery and transformation (Walsh, 2007). Hope allows people to envision and ultimately create desirable futures. Trauma recovery involves enabling people to envision and take steps toward enacting preferred fu- tures and, thus, to move from despair to opti- mism (Herman, 1997; Walsh, 2007). Organiza- tions follow a similar path in postcrisis repair and transformation. Key to this process are working groups, where members join together across divisions to figure out the way forward, and leaders, who use their roles to embed hope in those forward movements.
Small groups provide key settings for mem- bers to come together to develop ideas that help their systems move from places in which they are stuck (Smith & Berg, 1987). In the treatment center a group developed strategies to position the organization for survival; in the school a group developed and implemented a program that tackled the underlying causes of the school’s crisis; in the medical practice senior partners sponsored groups to develop more ef- fective work routines; in the law firm working groups reorganized evaluation and mentoring practices; and in the financial services firm groups met regularly to figure out how to keep their firm alive in a shifting competitive environ- ment. The work of such groups provides bridges between painful pasts and optimistic futures. Moreover, small groups can enable the repair and transformation of relational systems. The groups can provide the structure to offset chaotic patterns (e.g., treatment center) and the settings for flexible collaboration rather than rigid command and con- trol (e.g., law firm). They can also dissolve overly rigid boundaries that mark disengagements be- tween various divisions (e.g., school) while en- abling members to appropriately voice their own ideas (e.g., medical practice).
Leaders enable traumatized system members to move toward desirable futures when they en- gage in the discourse of renewal—the framing of events in ways that are empowering and moti- vating (Seeger & Ulmer, 2002). The discourse of renewal is prospective, related to the future rather than the past, and thus becomes the
390 JulyAcademy of Management Review
means to create a new organizational reality (Seeger & Ulmer, 2002). Such leaders do not merely issue directives, lead by example, or pull crisis teams together. They engage with others in ways that engender hope about what can be rather than simply despair about what has been. The CEO of the financial services firm used the discourse of renewal to empower, mo- tivate, and provide hope to surviving firm mem- bers (Seeger, Ulmer, Novak, & Sellnow, 2005). In offering a vision of what a reconstituted firm could do— become profitable enough to take care of the families of those who died, as well as take care of surviving firm members—the leader provided a focus for members’ energies and an outlet to act constructively (Seeger et al., 2005). Such leaders focus on the future rather than all that has been lost, and they then articulate what others can do to help make that future a reality. They thus help restructure relational system boundaries, creating a larger “we” from frag- mented, balkanized groups while authorizing specific subsystems to take on specific work.
Facilitating Conditions
The repair and transformation of postcrisis organizations can thus involve system members joining together to share their crisis experiences and to process their emotions, which give way to narratives that help them make sense of their altered realities. Those narratives can provide meaningful contexts, as well as the possibility of hope, in which to envision desirable futures. This process parallels the healing and transfor- mation of individuals (Herman, 1997), families (Berger & Weiss, 2009), and communities (Walsh, 2007) that have sustained trauma. In organiza- tions these processes may repair underlying re- lational systems, transforming them into health- ier balances of cohesion and flexibility that fit their new internal and external realities. In or- ganizations the leader is clearly important, be- ing the individual who plays the central role in convening others to share experiences and pro- cess emotions (Kahn, 2011), framing the meaning of crises (Seeger et al., 2005), authorizing work- ing groups to envision the future (Miller, 1993), and articulating the discourse of renewal and hope (Seeger & Ulmer, 2002).
The precrisis state of an organization’s dis- turbed relational system likely shapes the limits of its repair and transformation, at least in the
short term. Family systems researchers note that balanced types of families will more effectively manage stress than unbalanced types because they are able to engage in second-order change in order to cope (Olson, 2000), particularly if the families have functioned at extreme levels for too long (Olson & Gorall, 2003). In the adolescent treatment center (Cardona, 1994) a consultant helped center members understand that the po- tential closing of the center negatively affected their abilities to relate, collaborate, and work together. The relational system ultimately shifted from extreme to midrange. Yet members remained unable to alter their disengagement across departmental, functional, and hierarchi- cal lines. The center’s relational system was disturbed precrisis, making it that much more difficult to fully transform the system. Implied is the need to balance a group’s relational system prior to crisis.
It is also likely that repair and transformation efforts in the wake of crises need to be sustained over time in order to be fully successful. The risks associated with discussing trauma largely accrue when “debriefings” are stand-alone events rather than events conducted as part of comprehensive, integrated intervention pro- grams with multiple components spanning the entire temporal spectrum of a crisis (Everly & Mitchell, 2000; Flannery & Everly, 2000). The postcrisis intervention in the treatment center was relatively brief, without ongoing attention by either its leader or consultant. In such condi- tions it can be counterproductive for system members to engage in openly sharing their ex- periences—in effect, opening themselves to the possibility of retraumatization without ongoing support and consultation through which new meanings and structures develop and stabilize (Everly & Mitchell, 2000). The pain of reliving the trauma in the absence of adequate holding en- vironments sustained by competent leaders, consultants, and counselors can actually worsen for trauma survivors (see Herman, 1997). The larger implication here is that full recovery from organizational crises may take far longer than operational recovery models indicate.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND RESEARCH
A focus on the nature, disturbance, repair, and transformation of relational systems can ex- pand and change existing conceptualizations of
2013 391Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
crisis management. The relational system lens can alter how we define, analyze, and manage organizational crises. Theory and research have mapped the terrain of the damage that crises cause to business operations, systems, and per- formance (James & Wooten, 2010); the nature and effects of preventing, mitigating, and containing crises (Mitroff & Pearson, 1993); and postcrisis recovery and learning (Clair & Dufresne, 2007). Our argument suggests that theoretically and empirically mapping the terrain relevant to the relational systems that exist alongside and en- able operational systems can add a deeper un- derstanding of the impact of organizational cri- ses. This terrain includes crisis management, crisis leadership, and organizational resilience.
Prior to mapping that terrain, we should note that while our focus is on the aftermath of crises, relational systems are also likely to influence efforts prior to and during crises. Building on family systems research (Olson, 2000; Walsh, 1998), for example, we believe balances of cohe- sion and flexibility likely will shape how prone systems are to crises. The lack of balance can leave leaders dangerously unaware of unfold- ing crises: in disengaged systems members are less likely to share key pieces of data; in en- meshed systems they are less likely to scan external environments. Similarly, chaotic struc- turing is likely to prevent members from mar- shalling and sifting through bits of information, while rigidity prevents them from diverging from habitual patterns of thought and action. Amid crises, relational systems are likely to shape how members react. In the immediacy of crises, system members become unbalanced: they become more chaotic or rigid and more disengaged or enmeshed. Yet for how long and how deeply relational systems remain unbal- anced likely varies, according to preexisting re- lational systems that shape collective action, the actions of authority figures, and the re- sponse of others to those actions (see Walsh, 1998, and Walsh & Olson, 1993).
Crisis Management
The concept of balanced and unbalanced re- lational systems offers a means by which to reconsider the definition and processes of crisis management. To the extent that disturbed rela- tional systems continue to undermine effective work operations—as systems are fragmented,
chaotic, and rigid and as individuals and groups are isolated— crisis management efforts are not yet fully successful. Building on the op- erational model criteria noted by Pearson and Clair (1998), we offer an expanded definition of crisis management:
Crisis management efforts are effec- tive when operations are sustained or resumed, organizational and exter- nal stakeholder losses are minimized, learning occurs so that lessons are transferred to future incidents, and organizational groups create and sus- tain healthy, balanced relational patterns of cohesion, flexibility, and communication within and across clarified boundaries.
The expanded definition signals the impor- tance of both operational and relational dimen- sions to crisis management. This has certain theoretical implications. First, system members are key stakeholders, as much as owners and shareholders are (Pearson & Clair, 1998), in that imbalanced relational systems can greatly un- dermine long-term organizational recovery. Sec- ond, postcrisis learning may need to focus not only on operational vulnerabilities that exacer- bated the crises (Pearson & Mitroff, 1993) but on relational ones as well. Third, the effects of cri- ses can be understood as relational as well as financial, operational, and positional (see Quar- antelli, 1988).
Several sets of research questions emerge re- garding relational systems in the aftermath of crises. One research stream involves examining both the long-term and short-term impacts of crises in the intertwining of operational and re- lational recovery processes. For example, while operational recovery is at the forefront in the immediacy of crisis containment, the timing of relational systemic recovery will likely affect the effectiveness of operational recovery. A sec- ond set of questions focuses on how preexisting relational systems shape how and how much they are disturbed, with implications for efforts at recovery and repair (see Lavee & Olson, 1991). The third stream focuses on how crisis types might affect the nature, extent, and repair of relational system disturbances. While we have suggested that all crises disturb relational pat- terns, empirical work might well indicate cer- tain patterns of disturbance triggered by acci-
392 JulyAcademy of Management Review
dents, scandals, or product safety and health incidents (Marcus & Goodman, 1991), or by con- ventional, unexpected, intractable, or funda- mental crises (Gundel, 2005).
Such empirical work will require valid instru- ments to assess relational systems. Family sys- tems researchers use a self-report survey to map cohesion and flexibility in systems ranging from couples to multigenerational families (Olson et al., 1989); the validated scale discriminates be- tween healthy and problematic families (Olson, 2011). The Family Communication Scale is widely used to assess communication within family systems (Barnes & Olson, 1985). In addi- tion to self-report surveys, relational systems are assessed by the Clinical Rating Scale (Ol- son, 1990), a validated scale designed for re- searchers and therapists using clinical inter- views or observations (Thomas & Olson, 1993). The scale provides specific indicators for each level of cohesion, flexibility, and communica- tion and produces the same factor structure when raters are researchers or therapists (Lee, Jager, Whiting, & Kwantes, 2000). Organizational researchers can adapt these tools to assess re- lational systems of varying sizes and configura- tions. This would involve carefully identifying and bounding specific groups in order to collect and analyze data about specific relational sys- tems, given the size and complexity of organiza- tions relative to families (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1980).
Crisis Leadership
Crisis leaders are deemed responsible for de- tecting systemic vulnerabilities, containing and controlling crises and their fallout, fixing dam- aged systems, and pressing for learning and subsequent preparation and prevention (Clair & Dufresne, 2007; James & Wooten, 2010). The idea that crises can also disturb relational systems (disturbances that can linger long past the ces- sation of those crises) implies a different set of postcrisis leadership activities. Postcrisis lead- ers may need to engage in recovery efforts in ways that both restore operational systems and balance relational systems. This expanded view offers leaders a means by which to engage in positive leadership in response to crisis (Brock- ner & James, 2008): their balancing of relational systems, coupled with their helping others in- crease competence and efficacy in the wake of
crises (James et al., 2011), can enable transfor- mation and growth.
Empirical research can help develop knowl- edge about such postcrisis leadership. One set of questions focuses on how leadership differs in practice when attending to relational sys- tems. In the case studies leaders convened members so they could empathize with, normal- ize, and validate one another as they worked through distressing events. The leaders moved between focusing on emotional release and op- erational recovery, and between facilitative and directive stances. They were the primary fram- ers of meaning (Seeger et al., 2005). Empirical research is necessary to examine the nature, sequencing, and timing of leaders’ efforts to re- store both operational and relational systems postcrisis. Such efforts likely require leaders to tolerate anxiety and the difficult feelings trig- gered by crisis without getting so disturbed that they cannot engage in discourses of renewal that enable optimism and hope (Seeger et al., 2005). How such leadership qualities fit with other leadership competencies and capacities is a theoretical question; how leaders actually de- velop and maintain relevant qualities and skills amid crises is an empirical question.
Organizational Resilience
The relational systems concept enables us to expand and deepen recent efforts to theorize about organizational resilience, defined as the collective capacity to absorb strain, withstand setbacks, and recover from untoward events (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Resilience is at once a latent capacity that exists before crises occur, a source of positive adjustments within crises, and an enabler of learning and recovery (Sut- cliffe & Vogus, 2003). The extent to which rela- tional systems are balanced or unbalanced of- fers a precise way to chart resilience capacity. Thus, groups and organizations may be better positioned to remain resilient during crises when they are balanced along cohesion and flexibility; as family systems researchers have discovered, such balance can become a re- source on which to draw (Byng-Hall, 1995; Walsh, 1998). Moreover, people’s efforts during crises are more than simply positive and sup- portive or negative and unsupportive. Their ef- forts can facilitate or undermine balances of cohesion and flexibility.
2013 393Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
There are implications here for empirical work. Family systems researchers show that balanced relational systems are more resilient, with greater ability to recover functioning and relational balances than unbalanced systems (Lavee & Olson, 1991). Similar research needs to empirically examine this relation across various types of organizational systems affected by var- ious crisis types and impacts. More precisely, this empirical work should link the creation of social resources prior to (Powley, 2009), during (Feldman, 2004), and after (Dutton et al., 2006) crises to the processes by which system mem- bers create balances of cohesion and flexibility through positive communications and actions. Such empirical work can complement Gittel, Cameron, Lim, and Rivas’s (2006) airline study on organizational resilience following 9/11 to understand the factors that contribute to achiev- ing postcrisis resilience.
CONCLUSION
Organizational crises are shock waves sent through systems. Much is understood about how those shock waves affect what organization members do in preparing for, containing, and recovering from crises and in repairing opera- tional systems. In this article we emphasize the necessity of similar advancements in theory and research about the potential effects of crises on relational systems. These effects are less ob- servable than the abrupt disruption of activities and output; they can be subterranean, affecting the underlying relational patterns that implic- itly define organizations and their subsystems. As psychologists have long noted, the impact of crises on people and their relationships can be far-reaching and long-lasting. Crises can also be transformational, offering both significant opportunities for positively altering the health of people and their relationships. Building on the extensive theory and research of family sys- tems theory, we identify the properties of rela- tional systems and the nature of their distur- bances; building on structural family therapy concepts and practices, we identify the pro- cesses of relational system repair and transfor- mation. The result is a foundation for research- ers to develop empirical knowledge about organizational crises and their effective management.
REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. P. 1980. Consulting to underbounded systems. In C. P. Alderfer & C. I. Cooper (Eds.), Advances in experi- ential social processes, vol. 2: 267–295. New York: Wiley.
Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning and action. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barbash, T. 2003. On top of the world. New York: Harper Collins.
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. 1985. Parent-adolescent commu- nication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56: 438 – 447.
Barton, M. A., & Sutcliffe, K. L. 2009. Overcoming dysfunc- tional momentum: Organizational safety as a social achievement. Human Relations, 62: 1327–1356.
Bechky, B. A. 2006. Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17: 3–21.
Berger, R., & Weiss, T. 2009. The posttraumatic growth model: An expansion to the family system. Traumatology, 15: 63–74.
Bowen, M. 1978. Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Aronson.
Bowlby, J. 1988. The secure base. New York: Basic Books.
Brockner, J. B., & James, E. H. 2008. Toward an understanding of when executives see crisis as opportunity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44: 94 –115.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. 2006. We are family: Congruity between organizational and family functioning con- structs. Human Relations, 59: 141–161.
Burke, R. J. 2012. The trauma impact on organizations: Causes, consequences, and remedies. In R. Hughes, A. Kinder, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), International handbook of workplace trauma support: 69 – 86. New York: Wiley.
Byng-Hall, J. 1995. Rewriting family scripts. New York: Guil- ford Press.
Cardona, F. 1994. Facing an uncertain future. In A. Obholzer & V. Z. Roberts (Eds.), The unconscious at work: 139 –146. London: Routledge.
Clair, J. A., & Dufresne, R. I. 2007. Changing poison into medicine: How companies can experience positive transformation from a crisis. Organizational Dynamics, 36(1): 63–77.
Colapinto, J. 1991. Structural family therapy. In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy, vol. 2: 417– 443. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. 1996. Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8: 279 –295.
Coser, L. 1956. The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006. Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 51: 59 –96.
394 JulyAcademy of Management Review
Erikson, K. T. 1978. Everything in its path. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Everly, G. S., & Mitchell, J. T. 2000. The debriefing controversy and crisis intervention: A review of lexical and substan- tive issues. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 2: 211–226..
Feldman, M. S. 2004. Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15: 295–309.
Fishman, H. C. 1993. Intensive structural therapy: Treating families in their social context. New York: Basic Books.
Flannery, R. B., & Everly, G. S. 2000. Crisis intervention: A review. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 2: 119 –126.
Garland, C. 2002. The traumatised group. In C. Garland (Ed.), Understanding trauma: 183–198. London: Karnac Books.
Gittell, J. H. 2008. Relationships and resilience: Care provider responses to pressures from managed care. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44: 25– 47.
Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. 2006. Relation- ships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: Airline in- dustry responses to September 11. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42: 300 –329.
Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R., & Wimbush, J. 2010. A relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Or- ganization Science, 21: 490 –506.
Greiner, L. E. 1998. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3): 55– 68.
Gundel, S. 2005. Towards a new typology of crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13(3): 106 –115.
Herman, J. 1997. Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Hirschhorn, L., & Gilmore, T. 1980. The application of family therapy concepts to influencing organizational behav- ior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 18 –37.
James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. 2005. Leadership as (un)usual: How to display competence in times of crisis. Organiza- tional Dynamics, 34(2): 141–152.
James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. 2010. Leading under pressure. New York: Taylor & Francis.
James, E. H., Wooten, L. P., & Dushek, K. 2011. Crisis man- agement: Informing a new leadership agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 455– 493.
Kahn, W. A. 1998. Relational systems at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 39 –76. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kahn, W. A. 2001. Holding environments at work. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37: 260 –279.
Kahn, W. A. 2005. Holding fast: The struggle to create resilient caregiving organizations. London: Brunner-Routledge.
Kahn, W. A. 2011. The treatment of organizational wounds. Organizational Dynamics, 40(2): 75– 84.
LaPorte, T. 1996. High reliability organizations: Unlikely, de- manding and at risk. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4(2): 60 –71.
Lavee, Y., & Olson, D. H. 1991. Family types and responses to stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53: 786 –798.
Lee, R. E., Jager, K. B., Whiting, J. B., & Kwantes, C. T. 2000. Clinical assessment using the Clinical Rating Scale: Thomas and Olson revisited. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26: 535–537.
Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. 1991. Victims and sharehold- ers: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 281–305.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An inte- grative model of organizational trust. Academy of Man- agement Review, 20: 709 –734.
Miller, E. 1993. From dependency to autonomy. London: Free Association Books.
Minuchin, S. 1974. Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mitroff, I. I., & Pearson, C. M. 1993. Crisis management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morris, P. 1975. Loss and change. Garden City, NY: Anchor/ Doubleday.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706 –725.
Olson, D. H. 1990. Clinical rating scale for circumplex model. St. Paul: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.
Olson, D. H. 2000. Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22: 144 – 167.
Olson, D. H. 2011. Faces IV and the circumplex model: Vali- dation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 3: 64 – 80.
Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. 2003. Circumplex model of family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family pro- cesses (3rd ed.): 514 –547. New York: Guilford Press.
Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. 1989. Circumplex model: Systematic assessment and treatment of families. New York: Haworth Press.
Patterson, J. M. 2002. Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64: 349 –360.
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. 1998. Reframing crisis manage- ment. Academy of Management Review, 23: 59 –76.
Pearson, C. M., & Mitroff, I. I. 1993. From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for crisis management. Acad- emy of Management Executive, 7(1): 48 –59.
Powell, L. C. 1994. Interpreting social defenses: Family group in an urban setting. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform: 112–121. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Powley, E. H. 2009. Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resil- ience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human Relations, 62: 1289 –1326.
Powley, E. H., & Piderit, S. K. 2008. Tending wounds: Elements of the organizational healing process. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44: 134 –149.
2013 395Kahn, Barton, and Fellows
Quarantelli, E. L. 1988. Disaster crisis management: A sum- mary of research findings. Journal of Management Stud- ies, 25: 373–385.
Schein, E. H. 1993. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2): 40 –51.
Schein, E. H. 1998. The family as metaphor. Journal of Man- agement Inquiry, 7: 131–132.
Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. 2002. A post-crisis discourse of renewal: The cases of Malden Mills and Cole Hard- woods. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 30: 126 –142.
Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. 2005. Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Man- agement, 18: 78 –95.
Shapiro, E. R., & Carr, A. W. 1991. Lost in familiar places. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. 1985. Patterns of cognitive ap- praisal in emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 813– 838.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501–524.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. 2003. Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 94 –110. San Francisco: Ber- rett-Koehler.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. 1995. Trauma and transfor- mation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. 2004. Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psy- chological Inquiry, 15: 1–18.
Thomas, V., & Olson, D. H. 1993. Problem families and the circumplex model: Observational assessment using the Clinical Rating Scale (CRS). Journal of Marital and Fam- ily Therapy, 19: 159 –175.
Thomas, V., & Ozechowski, T. J. 2000. A test of the circumplex model of marital and family systems using the Clinical Rating Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26: 523–534.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Sci- ence, 13: 567–582.
Useem, M., Jordan, R., & Koljatic, M. 2011. How to lead during a crisis: Lessons from the rescue of the Chilean miners. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1): 49 –55.
Walsh, F. 1998. Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford Press.
Walsh, F. 2007. Traumatic loss and major disasters: Strength- ening family and community resilience. Family Process, 46: 207–227.
Walsh, F., & Olson, D. H. 1993. Utility of the circumplex model with severely dysfunctional family systems. In D. H. Olson, C. S. Russell, & D. H. Sprenkle (Eds.), Circumplex model: Systematic assessment and treatment of families: 104 –137. New York: Haworth Press.
Weick, K. E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organiza- tions: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 628 – 652.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in orga- nizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.
Woods, D. D. 2006. Essential characteristics of resilience. In E. Hollnagel, D. Woods, & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: 21–34. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
William A. Kahn ([email protected]) is professor of organizational behavior at Boston University School of Management, where he has taught since receiving his Ph.D. in psychology from Yale University. His current research focuses on the social, cultural, and structural dimensions of caring for organizational members exposed to painful stress and trauma.
Michelle A. Barton ([email protected]) is assistant professor of organizational behavior at Boston University School of Management. She received her Ph.D. from the Univer- sity of Michigan. Her research focuses on the social and cognitive processes that affect the awareness, interpretation, management, and adaptive responses to uncertain events.
Steven Fellows ([email protected]) is a Ph.D. candidate in organizational behavior at Boston University School of Management. His research addresses the potential of transitions for facilitating growth and development as individuals construct new identities and leaders use disruptive events as catalysts for sensemaking and orga- nizational change.
396 JulyAcademy of Management Review
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management 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.
