Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
Public Sector Leadership Crisis and Disaster Preparedness
A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership
By
Israel Suarez
May 2020
iii
The graduate project of Israel Suarez is approved:
________________________________________ _______________
Dr. Elizabeth Trebow Date
________________________________________ _______________
Dr. Ariane David Date
________________________________________ _______________
Dr. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, Chair Date
California State University, Northridge
iv
Table of Contents
Copyright Page ii
Signature Page iii
Abstract vi
Introduction 1
Background 4
Review of the Literature 6
Varying Leadership styles 6
Servant Leadership 7
Leader Member Exchange Theory 7
Transformational Leadership 8
Public Sector Leadership Preparedness 9
Focus on Leaders and Followers 10
Organizational learning 12
Limitations in the research 13
Section Summary 15
Research Question and aim 16
Research Gap 16
Research Aim 16
Contribution 16
Research Design 17
Introduction and Approach 17
v
Participants and Sampling 18
Methods 18
Quantitative Comparative data collection 19
Qualitative Comparative data collection. 19
External and Internal Validity 20
Discussion 21
Project findings and significance 21
Knowledge-management, cohesiveness and crisis management 24
A Call for Further Research 25
Section Summary 29
Conclusion 30
References 32
Appendix A: Perceived Leadership Emergency Preparedness Survey 35
Appendix B: Perceived Emergency Preparedness Interview Questions 36
vi
Abstract
Public Sector Leadership Crisis and Disaster Preparedness
By
Israel Suarez
Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership
Leadership is a necessary component for public sector organizations during times of
organizational crisis. There has been a history of mistrust between government and the people
because of a lack of emergency preparedness and mismanagement during crisis situations. This
research study proposes recommendations for a comparison study between two neighboring
cities, the City of Pasadena and the City of South Pasadena regarding emergency preparedness
and perception of emergency preparedness from line staff and managers of both organizations.
1
Introduction
Leadership is a necessary component for public sector organizations during times
of organizational crisis. Governments across the United States are responsible for
managing programs to enhance the well-being of constituents. There are vivid examples
where a lack of leadership in the public sector during times of crisis caused major social
and economic losses (Kellis & Ran, 2015; Kellis & Ran, 2015). Public leaders play a
central role in the governance of crises, situations in which they are confronted with
enormous challenges (Sindhu, 2017). When public sector organizations fail or are
involved in crisis, if organizations fail to react properly it creates mistrust between the
public and public sector organizations (Mitchell & Scott G, 1987).
Hurricane Katrina broadcasted major leadership and emergency preparedness
failures by military personnel, federal employees, state employees, and local law
enforcement agencies (Englefield, Black D, Copsey A, & Knight, 2019). In the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina, the media was spinning the news to show strong leadership (Swain,
2019). The public servants assigned to assist during the hurricane were shown to mistreat
hurricane survivors who remained in the city during the storm (Bowers, Hall, &
Srinivasan M., 2017). There were reports of unjust detentions, corruption, abuse, and
homicides of United States (US) citizens by law enforcement, military personnel,
contracted service providers, and more staff (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). This led to
citizens questioning the leadership of public employees, questioning of oversight, and
training of agencies involved in this mayhem (Waeger & Weber, 2019). There is an
assumption in the public sector that emergency response is immediate and planned
however, this has shown not to be the case. The perceptions of public servants during
2
emergencies vary compared to what was broadcasted in the media (Jong, Duckers L, &
Velden, 2016). These perceptions and actions have added to the longstanding issue of
mistrust between the public and government.
There has been a history of public-government mistrust that appears to split across
major administrative segments (Comfort, 1985). Data reveals a loss in faith in leadership
of government and public institutions. Trust in government declined from 80% trusting
the government in the 1950s to 33% in 1976 to, 24% in 2019 ( (Caulfield, 2018). The
decline in confidence is associated with American leadership not government institutions.
The public is disillusioned with what they view as incompetent, dishonest, inefficient,
corrupt, paternalistic and mad bureaucrats (Swain, 2019).
There is an assumption that government leaders are concerned with furthering
their own self-interest first and the wellbeing of the public during crisis (Wang & Ming-
feng, 2017). Trust is granted to leaders normally but, during crisis trust extended beyond
the scope of their normal duties (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).Leaders are
expected to successfully guide organizations through emergencies (Broekema, Porth, &
Torenvlied, 2019). Mullen (2016) argued that there is a leadership emergency
preparedness deficit and need for better leadership across government agencies. Research
regarding leadership in times of crisis in relation to public trust is necessary because there
are public sector agencies to this day without emergency or crisis plans (Caulfield, 2018).
Emergency preparedness is crucial for effective public leadership change
(Amble, 2019). Organizations are aware of potentially devastating effects of crisis and
when a crisis occurs the response will determine the trajectory of recovery and future
organizational performance (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). The literature also
3
sheds light on varying leadership styles during crisis, organizational change, public sector
crisis management and, emergency preparedness perceptions. Sommers (2009) raises a
good point on emergency preparedness, that public sector organizations exhibit a casual
relationship between pre-disaster planning and effective response to crisis.
This research examines the challenges associated with emergency preparedness
perception during crisis situations in the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena. The unit
of analysis chosen for the analysis of leadership challenges to better enhance emergency
preparedness was the local/municipal level. The next chapter of this project will consist
of a background section stating the history of leadership and emergency preparedness.
The second chapter will review the literature, the third chapter will explain the project’s
research question and aim. It will be followed by the presentation of the methodology, a
discussion of the limitations and various implications of this research, and a conclusion.
4
Background
There is a history of leadership failure in the public sector regarding emergency
preparedness in the United States. This leadership failure has caused a mistrust between
the public and prospects of the administrative state (Mitchell & Scott G, 1987). There
have been many instances of leadership failure in the past decade which undermines
effectiveness in representing the core values and expectations of United States citizens
faith in public service (Kellis & Ran, 2015). There have been systematic leadership
shortcomings across multiple levels of government including Federal, State, and Local
governments (Cohen, 2017). Leadership at each of these levels of government have
shown extreme cases of a lack of emergency preparedness and leadership during times of
crisis (Cohen et al., 2017).
The leaders at the forefront of crisis are mayors and governors. These politicians
play an essential role in leadership during aftermath of crises and disasters (Ilyas Sindhu,
Ahmad, & Hashmi, 2017). Mayors and governors differ in legislative power to evacuate
and restore public order after emergencies. These local and state incumbents however
face important challenges as emergency leaders. Disaster management requires
collaboration and cooperation between multiple organizations and requires leaders to
effectively communicate during recovery with a positive focus on the future (Waeger &
Weber, 2019). This creates strains on the crisis response network, as plans cannot always
prepare for emergency situations. For instance, the actual response network to Hurricane
Katrina, and 9/11 differed from the emergency and disaster plans that were in place
(Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016). The perceptions of staff working in these
organizations during emergencies have not been acknowledged.
5
The outcomes from Katrina were that leaders tried to create an image of strong
leadership and influence but, realistically involved in a situation of incompetence and
chaos in the City of New Orleans (Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016). Voters blamed the
Federal Government, State representatives blamed local government, and the media
blamed other public sector representatives (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). During crisis
situations it is somewhat of a normal occurrence, because(that, leaders and politicians
avoiding blame for crisis (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019) (Boin, Hart T, &
Preston, 2010). One instance can be seen during September 11th, 2001 (9/11) Mayor
Giuliani showed great leadership skills by holding press conferences with other
government officials (Grimsley, 2018). Giuliani shifted the blame to the police chief for a
lack of preparedness for the terrorist attack (Halem, 2018). Although crisis and
emergencies might not be preventable, having pubic sector organization staff all on the
same page of crisis preparedness would result in a better understanding on how to handle
a crisis when it occurs. The perceptions of public sector staff during crisis are crucial
because if a crisis does occur, some staff would not know what to do and exacerbate the
crisis at hand. This was shown in the example of Katrina multiple public sector agencies
did not react according to the emergency plan and it worsened a dreadful situation. The
next chapter will be a critique the current literature regarding emergency preparedness
perceptions among line staff and leaders of public sector organizations.
6
Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to view public sector leadership failures
pertaining to disaster and crisis preparedness and to propose solutions based off previous
research. It is critical to note the underlying causes of leadership as well as solutions for
failed leadership during crisis (Kellis & Ran, 2015). Effective leadership is essential for
the success of public sector organizations (Englefield,2019). There were two critical
bodies of knowledge to public sector leadership during crisis situations; the varying
leadership styles used in the public sector during crisis and public sector leadership crisis
preparedness. Knowing this, the first theme to be discussed will be various leadership
styles used by during times of crisis.
Varying leadership styles
Among public organizations there are many different leadership styles depending
on the organizational structure (Valero, 2015). Kellis & Ran (2014) found that there is a
mismatch in leadership approach to organization structure. Effective leaders understand
their environment and are aware of their organization’s strengths and weaknesses and;
there are many public sector leaders ill-equipped to handle varying crisis (Neil, Wagstaff
D, Weller, & Lewis, 2016). Effective leaders are also aware of the different styles of
leadership and some leadership styles are more effective than others. According to Jong,
Duckers L& Velden (2016) local leaders (Mayors and Governors) lead by
communicating. Collaborative forms of government are used to develop strategies to
create more resilient and diverse city governments (Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016).
The arrangement and existence of different leaders within city regions are crucial to
thrive in a changing environment (Ilyas Sindhu, Ahmad, & Hashmi, 2017). Local
7
governments require stakeholder engagement and collaboration to diagnose solutions
when compared to the federal government (Alagaraja, Cumberland, & Choi, 2015). The
first leadership style to be discussed pertaining to emergency preparedness is servant
leadership.
Servant Leadership
Greenleaf (1977) explained how Servant leadership can be used as a basis to
overcome organizational weaknesses and enhancing trust between leaders and members.
Servant leadership is defined as a leader who wants to serve first and consciously brings a
choice to aspire to lead. The difference from other leadership styles is that servant
leadership puts the needs of others before their own. The ten characteristics of servant
leadership are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people (Northouse et. al, 2016).
Servant leadership shares similar characteristics with leader member exchange theory.
Leader-member exchange theory
Leader-member exchange theory was coined by Dansereau, Graen, and Novak
(1975). Leader member exchange Theory was developed by Graen, Novak, and
Sommerkamp (1982). The theory focuses on members of a team working together as a
unit, team or department to change follower performance. Before leader member
exchange theory research strictly focused on the leader with no emphasis paid to the
followers. According to Harvard business school leaders need followers (Mullen, et
al.,2016). There is a natural human tendency to assume rank and authority. Men and
women do not differ in leadership effectiveness. Switzer (2016) found that men rate
8
themselves are more effective leaders when compared to women, while women are
perceived as more effective leaders by followers.
Dematthews (2016) focused on leader member exchange theory in relation to
crisis. Leader member exchange theory focuses on the leader to build trusting
relationships, establish rapport, and engaging followers in the decision-making process.
In the modern world there is a relationship between leader- member exchange theory and
subordinate satisfaction. Sindhu (2017) studied leader member exchange in relation to
organizational justice and the role of organizational change. Leader member exchange
proposed the influence of leaders on member’s behaviors. During times of crisis this can
be used to better support leaders decisions.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has been used by various leaders and has been shown
to be effective for organizational change and crisis (Burns, 1978). According to
Northouse (2016) Transformational Leadership is defined as a leadership style used to tap
into the motives of followers in order to better reach the goals of followers.
Transformational leadership has been found to have a positive impact on organizations
during emergencies and build emergency preparedness by educating organizational
members of response plans (Mullen, 2016). Subordinates of transformational leadership
have an increased commitment to the organization, increased motivation, and
strengthened organizational citizenship. Humphries & Howard (2014) viewed the
effectiveness of transformational leadership in military and social service organizations.
A key portion of transformational leadership is emotional intelligence. Emotional
intelligence is the ability of an organization to develop their employee's capability to
9
respond to emotions when attempting to facilitate organization change (Cameron &
Mcnaughtan, 2014). Organizational change relates to crisis because during crisis
organizations face major change. A manager must take the role of leadership and handle
employees' negative emotions during times of crisis (Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016).
This can be done by being aware of emotions, acknowledging the emotions, channel the
emotions, and finding solutions to the problem that caused the negative emotions
(Danserau, 1975). Luo (2014) found a positive a positive relationship between
transformational leadership styles of organizational departments and use of various
communication strategies. Communication between leaders and staff is essential for
organizational functioning. The next theme in the literature pertaining to crisis is the role
of leaders in fostering and maintaining crisis preparedness
Public Sector Leadership Crisis Preparedness
Today’s leaders must thrive in a world of turbulence and change; unstable
conditions generate crises emphasizing the need for crisis leadership preparedness
(Caulfield, 2018). During crisis, leadership becomes a group dynamic where leaders and
followers build up the reality of the situation and interact to facilitate a beneficial
outcome. Demerol and Capuche (2012) define crisis as unforeseen emergency events,
natural or manmade, that lead organizations to unstable or dangerous conditions
depending on the magnitude crisis involve individual group, or species of society.
Decision making during crisis situations is difficult due to time constraints,
organizational change, situational uncertainty, and limited situational control (Caulfield,
2018). Crisis Management involves four steps, mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery followed by its corresponding activities; emergency sheltering, search and
10
rescue, change assessment, and other emergency procedures (Comfort K, Boin, &
Demchak, 2010).
The types of information needed for effective decision making vary from
organization to organization (Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014); Comfort 2007) With
dramatic changes in environment, organizations must enhance their responsiveness to
maintain a competitive advantage and overcome uncertainty and ambiguity (Wang &
Ming-feng, 2017). Resources during emergencies do not guarantee organizational success
and finding alternative approaches becomes a major task for practitioners and academics
(Cohen, 2017). Creating effective organizational response under disasters is a challenge
to public agencies (Comfort K, Boin, & Demchak, 2010). The emergency response
process is hierarchal, reactive of agency operations, and demands careful consideration
(Hallunovi, 2014). Required interactive communication of information and coordination
of action among multiple agencies or between multiple jurisdictions to achieve effective
emergency response (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). The next portion of the literature will
focus on the role of leaders and followers during crisis (Boin, Hart T, & Preston, 2010).
Focus on Leaders and Followers
Leaders receive the most attention during crisis situations (Bowers, Hall, &
Srinivasan M., 2017). Organizations faced with a crisis will rely on the leader in place to
lead them out of the crisis but; when the crisis gets out of hand, these organizations
realize the current leader does not possess the necessary leadership style required to
manage the crisis effectively (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019). Broekema (2019)
adds the realities of crisis management are time is a factor, framing should not be the
priority, and everyone needs an emergency response plan. Leaders competencies during
11
crisis situations include clarity of decisions, decision making skills, problem solving
skills, adaptability, team development, communication, and situational acuity (Caulfield,
2018). It is difficult to know what persons will assume what roles during crisis situations
and what forms of actions assigned leaders will take (Cohen, 2017). Skilled followers are
necessary during leadership and times of crisis (Caulfield, 2018). Claufield (2018) adds
that skilled followers are balanced risk takers who achieve success with or without a
strong leader.
Politicians are at the forefront of organizations during crisis. Crisis responses are
often heavily criticized by the mass media and citizens leading to the resignation of high-
ranking political leaders (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Political Leaders often must
respond to external political pressure and act quickly on which crisis-related activities to
prioritize. Wang also found that a challenge of public leaders in meaning making lies in
effective communication while considering the politically charged issues of causation,
responsibility, and accountability.
Crisis differ in context thus; the public’s expectations of their leaders will vary
from crisis to crisis (Caulfield, 2018). Public leaders when confronted with the public
impact are held responsible for crises caused by others. Some of these include expressing
sympathy to victims, framing the meaning of the event, public sector organizational
change, regaining public confidence, and facilitating renewal through public
commitments (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Wang also found public leaders often blame
others for crisis situations and the media appoints winners and losers. When
responsibility is high, image restoration rather than regaining public confidence becomes
the main goal (Cohen, 2017). Mayors describe crisis situations as the most difficult
12
moment in their political careers (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). Mayors were touched by the
incidents they managed which builds trust in their leadership. The media plays a
significant role in how issues are framed and regardless of collective impact and political
responsibility media is always present (Boin, Hart T, & Preston, 2010).
Different strategic styles affect organizational crisis response capability. How
public organizations respond to crisis or emergencies is related to how satisfied citizens
are with public service (Wang, 2017). Organizational capabilities are developed around
resources and organizations are required to develop different capabilities while the
context and organizational environment change (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). The next
portion of this chapter will focus on organizational learning during emergencies.
Organizational Learning
Without learning, no change in behavior occurs and agency practices remain unchanged
(Comfort, 1985). During times of crisis leaders must engage in organizational learning
(Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019). Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied (2019) also state
organizational learning is a process which organization learn from crisis.
A portion of organizational learning is instrumental and political learning
(Comfort K, Boin, & Demchak, 2010). Comfort states instrumental learning is to develop
deeper knowledge and understanding of the causes of the crisis whereas; political
learning is refining political crisis management strategy, allocating blame, imitating
reputation damage and improving communication. During emergencies the environment
if often politicized due to stakeholders creating immense political pressure (Caulfield,
2018). Learning is important because of the devastating long lasting consequences of
crisis (Cohen, 2017). Through crisis induced learning organizations can improve crisis
13
response and incorporate prevention methods (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).
Caulfield also states political learning solutions are temporary and geared towards fixing
more short-term descaling and settling of crisis.
Learning during crisis situations entails trade-offs for public leaders in short time
frames because they must prioritize activities such as causes of crisis, collaboration of
stakeholders, adopting procedures, publishing media reports, organizing press meeting,
managing blame, and control reputational damage to the organization (Wang & Ming-
feng, 2017). The extent which learning occurs is a on a crisis to crisis basis and the
literature has yet to clarify the factors that explain the crisis induced learning (Young
Switzer, 2016). Wang also states, despite crisis induced learning being acknowledged as
a focal issue in the managing of crisis, crisis management research lacks a clear definition
and operationalization of what learning in the wake of a crisis entails. Most studies are
done post-crisis and entail continuous long-term learning by trial and error and
experimentation (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019). More research is needed on the
specific political learning process (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). The next portion of the
literature review is the limitations in existing research.
Limitations in existing Research
Although the literature has many strengths there were also limitations in existing
research. The first limitation would be a few old sources used to clarify meanings and
mistrust in government (Mitchell & Scott G, 1987). These old sources were used for
definitions of key terms and to because of a lack of qualitative data pertaining to public
sector emergency preparedness perceptions. This research also has very few case studies
14
that specifically focus on municipal governments. Most of the data used in this research
was gathered from state or federal government data (Jong, Duckers L, & Velden, 2016).
There is currently not enough research on finding the best leader-crisis fit (Wang
& Ming-feng, 2017). Although few articles about were included in this research, far more
supporting articles are necessary to create a program where a leader can be easily chosen
and assigned to a crisis when it occurs (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019).
Implementing such a program would also prove to be a difficult task. Most of the articles
found on organizational change depict organizational change negatively (Amble, 2019).
Future research is needed showing the positive impacts of organizational change relating
to emergencies.
The role of followers was briefly discussed, and more emphasis should be put on
research of followers and line staff during crisis (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).
One article used in this study focused specifically on the role of women and effective
leadership (Young Switzer, 2016). This article was the only article that spoke specifically
about various leadership styles between gender differences.
The last portion of the literature focused on public sector officials’ response to
crisis situations. As already stated, there is a lot of literature pertaining to this subject but,
not enough research focusing on municipal government agencies perceptions of
emergency preparedness from line staff and managers (Sommers, 2009). There is
currently not enough literature to suggest programs or pilot programs on how perceptions
impact decision makers and this need needs to be addressed (Broekema, Porth, &
Torenvlied, 2019).
15
Finally, the current research does not address the possible variation in perceptions
from lines staff and managers when it comes to current emergency preparedness effort’s
effectiveness. Lines staff may have a more accurate understanding of the current effort’s
short comings, but managers may not share their concerns. Therefore, further research
could uncover these dissonances and the extent to which there are variations in perceived
effectiveness, especially in local agencies. The last section of this chapter will be a
section summary.
Section Summary
The two overarching themes of the literature pertaining to this project are the
various leadership styles used during crisis situations, and leadership crisis preparedness
perceptions (Young Switzer, 2016). Effective leadership is essential for the success of
public sector organizations during crisis situations and recovery post-crisis (Englefield,
Black D, Copsey A, & Knight, 2019). There is currently not enough research on pre-
disaster planning. Sommers (2009) was one of the few authors that explored the
relationship between pre-disaster planning and effective response crisis. Sommers adds
that pre-disaster planning and success do not coincide and local managers adapting to
crisis is not evidence of emergency preparedness. The next chapter of this project will
consist of a research question and aim to explore the gap of emergency preparedness
perception among public sector employees. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on
the variations between managers and line staff’s perceptions of their city’s readiness and
preparedness to face emergencies and disasters.
16
Research Question and Aim
Research Gap
The literature has failed to view emergency preparedness perceptions among
managers and line staff. The perceptions might differ significantly when comparing the
two.
Aim
The aim of the project is to answer the following question: How different are the
perceptions of Pasadena and South Pasadena’s managers and line staff in when it comes
to emergency preparedness levels? The purpose of this project is to assess the perceived
deficits to the Cities’ emergency preparedness as well as the remedies they see fit to
implement to address them.
Contribution
This study’s contribution will focus on two municipal government agencies the
City of Pasadena and the City of South Pasadena. Viewing leadership emergency
preparedness from this dimension will provide greater insight about the strength and
impact of various leadership styles and how various leaders lead organizations during
crisis.
17
Research Design
Introduction and Approach
This study will have a significant effect on future research regarding emergency
preparedness perception levels. This research could help assist in both cities overall
preparedness levels during disasters, reduce dangers, reduce uncertainties, help cope with
stress, and have a speedy recovery plan. The close geographical proximity of these two
cities means that the two municipalities share similar hazards, demographics, and
potential emergencies. This will allow for a more detailed view and comparison of their
respective emergency preparedness plans and perceptions of preparedness.
This research will be conducted by using these two cities as case studies using a
mixed methods approach of both qualitative and quantitative data will be used to gather
the opinions of line staff members and managers on their perception of the cities
emergency preparedness for a crisis. Surveys will be given out to employees at both cities
and interviews will be conducted with employees asking for feedback on the current
perception of emergency preparedness.
Participants and Sampling
The participants selected for inclusion in this study were selected using both
purposive sampling and stratified random sampling (Suresh, 2011). Department
Managers from both perspective Cities will be interviewed thoroughly along with surveys
completed by line staff randomly selected from departments across both cities. Line staff
and managers will be sampled differently with managers picked out using purposive
sampling and; line staff using stratified random sampling. The primary focus is targeting
employees with 5 years of experience within the two cities (Pasadena and South
18
Pasadena), including at least five employees from each department. As these cities are
both relatively small in population purposive sampling will allow the researcher to collect
survey data from all personnel.
This data will provide information on leadership emergency preparedness during
crisis situations and perceptions by managers and line staff.
Methods
This study will be conducted using a mixed methods data collection methods.
Qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered. The first set of data collected for this
study will be gathered through comparative research using qualitative in-depth interviews
using open ended questions with department managers and line staff from both Municipal
agencies. This qualitative data will be compared and analyzed to determine if line staff
and managers have the same perception of emergency preparedness.
The second method of data collection will be quantitative and will be based on a survey
questionnaire that asks respondents to answer close ended questions that will rate level of
perceived emergency preparedness by managers.
Quantitative Comparative Data Collection.
A survey questionnaire was created to collect data from personnel within two
municipal governments relating to the perceived emergency preparedness effectiveness
across various departments. The unit of analysis for the quantitative survey questionnaire
will focus on managers and line staff personnel from various departments from both
agencies. There will be a 9 question survey asking participants from the study to rate
leadership’s emergency preparedness within each individual cities and departments.
19
The questions will analyze the respondent’s perception of crisis preparedness along
various dimensions: the perceived preparedness for various types of crisis, of available
resources. They also aim at exploring their perception of crisis response assets, the
presence and effectiveness of crisis management plans and training.
The scoring for the survey will be based on a 5-point Likert scale, which will range from
(1= Totally Agree to 5= Totally Disagree). This will be on a 5-point scale, which is
attached in the appendix. This survey will be passed out randomly to line staff across
various departments across both city governments.
Both cities employees will share their input on emergency preparedness perception. The
internal reliability of the survey of the instrument follows the accepted protocols
established for this data collection method. Internal reliability is a method of research that
shows consistency of peoples responses across items of measure (Research Methods in
Psychology, 2019). This survey will produce internal reliability based on inner
consistency. This will use items or survey questions to look at the results and provide
reliability of this dimension tool. The data from both surveys will be united and
compared using statistical differences among the units of analysis within each group.
Qualitative Comparison Data Collection
This study will also utilize in depth interviews with the managers and line staff
from both Municipal agencies. The data will be collected using One-on-One interviews
using face-to-face interactions if necessary, using phone conversations. This will give a
unique perspective of viewing emergency preparedness among managers and line staff
from both perspective cities. Each interview will last a minimum of 30 minutes using 10
specific open-ended questions emergencies, emergency preparedness, and training of
20
line staff for emergency situations. This data will be compared to the quantitative analysis
of how leaders perceive their emergency preparedness during crisis situations to how
followers view leaders and their organizations. Validity both internal and external will be
shown because it was in depth interviews with department heads asking specific open-
ended questions. This will allow for comparisons between the cities and across
departments within each perspective city to prepare for emergencies and crisis situations.
External and Internal Validity.
To show that this study is sound and valid, it is important to note the threats to
validity and explain how they are not limitations in the findings of this research.
Regarding external validity this study will be generalizable to other cities across the
United States and this study can be replicated. The demographics of both cities are
generalizable across the United States and data from both leaders and followers will be
useful in explaining emergency preparedness during crisis situations from the
perspectives of the managers and line staff. Also using surveys, case studies, and one on
one interviews produces high external validity because these types of data are based on
authentic responses rather than being manipulative and asking leading questions. The
threats to validity also need to be discussed. The selection bias might be an issue because
you are comparing two similar cities and specifically targeting employees within these
perspective cities. Each group of participants across both city departments will have
varying titles and unique perspectives on emergency preparedness within their
perspective organizations.
21
Discussion
Projected Findings and Significance
The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast perception of emergency
preparedness by leadership across two municipal governments the City of Pasadena and
the City of South Pasadena. The researcher explains that proposed findings would show
the perspective of perceives leadership effectiveness from line staff and managers of
public sector organizations to better enhance leadership emergency preparedness across
both units of analysis and nationwide. This unique study will result in findings that can be
applied nationwide across the United States for emergency preparedness and perceived
emergency preparedness effectiveness from all staff members
In the wake of crisis the public expect leaders to take center stage (Jong, 2017).
When crisis have low impact, the focus is of the media shifts from the general public
towards the victims and their families. Audiences attribute responsivity to public leaders
and as a consequence’s leaders are held responsibly when they are legally not (Jong,
Duckers L, & Velden, 2016).
The discussion of organizational change in relation to varying leadership styles in
recent crisis management literature adds to the structure and content of crisis
management systems to better understand how and why leadership styles are important to
emergency response. As the literature and case studies have shown, there is a history in
the United States where leaders across multiple organizations have failed during
emergencies and crisis situations (Luo & Jiang, 2014). There are numerous examples of
chaos, miscommunication, and mismanagement which in turn has had negative
22
consequences such as creating an image of mistrust between the public and public sector
employees (Caulfield, 2018).
Many of the leadership theories mentioned in the literature review help shed light on the
varying leadership styles associated during times of organizational change and
emergency preparedness across multiple organizations (Ilyas Sindhu, Ahmad, & Hashmi,
2017). Change can be triggered by crises, but crises also generate changes.
Organizational change is a vivid component of emergencies (Neil, 2016).
Organizational change is defined as the process which an organization changes its
structure, strategies, operational methods, technologies, or organizational culture to affect
change with the organization and the effects of the organization (Grimsley, 2018). During
times of crisis, change is inevitable (Boin, Hart T, & Preston, 2010), the culture of
organizations can shift from normal operations to crisis management (Wang 2017) and
many negative consequences may arise because of this.
One such consequence of organizational change is abusive supervision. In times
of crisis, leaders can tend to centralize information and directives rather than to let an
emerging informational structure, both formal and informal, take place (Boin, Hart T, &
Preston, 2010). Abusive, centralizing and controlling supervision styles are linked to
informational bottlenecks in times of crisis as well as other negative outcomes (Boin et al
2010, Comfort et al 2010 Pyc, 2016). Abusive supervision is an example of ineffective
leadership during crisis; Pyc , Meltzer, & Cong (2017) defines abusive supervision as
subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in sustained display
of hostile verbal, and nonverbal behaviors excluding physical contact.
23
Negative outcomes associated with ineffective leadership are exhaustion, physical
symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor job performance (Pyc, Meltzer,
& Cong, 2017). Employees have no other option than to accept misconduct from
managers, internalize this misconduct because of the power balance and experience
anxiety and depression (Hallunovi, 2014). During times of crisis negative emotions such
as anxiety and depression are responses to abusive supervision. Employees are unlikely
to react to supervisor mistreatment because of the power imbalance and risk of reprisal.
Abusive supervision reflects a lack of mutual respect, which employees could perceive as
violations of organizational justice (Humphries & Howard M, 2014).
Crises can lead organizational leaders to focus on how to be more efficient,
growing out, and reengineering of current systems (Oreg, Bartunek M, Gayoung, & Do,
2018). Organizational change is evident among public sector organizations, as most try to
adapt to a changing environment (Luo, 2014). Employees resist organizational change
because they fear negative outcomes and consequences.
The most common forms of organizational change are changes in leadership and
changes in organizational rules (Jong, Duckers L, & Velden, 2016). Receiving criticism
from lower management and is an essential skill that needs to be implemented during
crisis (Englefield, Black D, Copsey A, & Knight, 2019). The ability to challenge top
management decisions during change is critical for current leadership. Weak leadership
during organizational change often creates a hostile internal and external environment.
A key element to leadership and organizational change is the emotional impact on
management. This correlates to transformational leadership and emotional intelligence
(Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014). Emotional management helps combat fear, stress,
24
anxiety, frustrations and threats of followers. To generate positive changes leaders must
combat ostracism and despair, acknowledge threats, and generate support trust, and
loyalty from followers (Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014).
Managers play a critical role in communicating changes and providing feedback
to employees during times of change (Caulfield, 2018). During times of crisis these skills
are necessary. During emergencies, managers must communicate reason for change,
motivate employees to embrace change, establish visions about change, influence
employees, collect feedback from employees and create coalitions for change (Neil,
2016). According to Luo (2014) the reason managers fail to get employees onboard with
organizational change is because they are unaware of how to handle employees'
emotions. During times of crisis organizational change is inevitable and leaders must
know how to adjust to the situations at hand. The last theme in the literature that
combines various leadership styles and organizational change is public sector leadership
crisis preparedness.
Knowledge-management, cohesiveness and crisis management
As mentioned in the literature, for public sector organizations to prosper they
must be knowledgeable to embrace organizational change specifically during times of
crisis (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Organizational change includes crisis and emergency
management. The cohesiveness of employees during organizational change is crucial for
the success of employees, managers, and line staff. Ineffective leadership and abusive
supervision has detrimental effects on employees and this creates a hostile environment
for all staff members of public sector organizations (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied,
2019).
25
There is a power imbalance between supervisors and line staff where line staff has
no other option than to accept misconduct from managers and internalize the experienced
effects (Luo & Jiang, 2014). Line staff is unlikely to reprimand managers, and this
creates a lack of mutual respect between staff and managers (Cottrell, 2002). This is
where this study will find out information on the perception from staff on how to better
address issues pertaining to emergency preparedness (Dematthews, 2016). Followers are
aware that they should not question the nature of organizations, policies, to prevent from
facing reprimand (Humphries & Howard M, 2014). A leader or manager should not ask
an employee to do something that they are not willing to do themselves and provide
positive feedback when followers perform well (Cottrell, 2002).
According to Neil et al., (2016), leadership behaviors were not related to team
performance during a period of change and crisis but, cohesion and emotional
intelligence were. Middle managers and supervisors need to be trained in effective
communication to better handle crisis situations. Three decades of research indicate that
leadership outcomes depend on the situation (Caulfield, 2018). Considering crisis and
disasters there needs to be a shift in central government towards decentralizing power to
local governments because, local governments are responsible for their own emergency
planning and implementation of crisis management actions (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017).
A call for further research
Local governments are one of the most understudied institutions in emergency
management literature (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). There needs to be a shift from a
resource-based approach to a strategy-based approach for local governments emergency
preparation (Oreg, Bartunek M, Gayoung, & Do, 2018).
26
Public organizations make it difficult for emergency and crisis response because
they are bureaucratic and hierarchical (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Ironically enough the
purpose of bureaucracy and hierarchy is effective oversight and control but; too many
structural constraints and rules affect organizational effectiveness and performance
(Cohen, 2017). The bureaucratic structure is about power rather than effective
performance, authority rather than creative solutions to complex problems, administrative
status rather than competent service (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). More research
regarding the centralization reflex among leaders, especially in bureaucratic settings
could be beneficial for increased effectiveness of local emergency planning and response.
Ultimately, local government could use research to reinforce a strategic approach
to risks. This can help assemble and allocate organizational resources based on in internal
competencies and shortcomings to respond to internal and external emergencies (Bowers,
Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). Strategic crisis response would positively benefit local
government organizations. Organizations that only respond to external environment
conflict with strategic directions of crisis response (Caulfield, 2018). Further research
could assess how crisis leaders can prepare for external disturbances at the local level.
The public often uses social media to repost or retweet information posted by
governments. Cohen (2017) found a link between individuals confidence level in local
governments ability to manage a disaster and availability of sources of disaster
information. Integrating organizational action through mass timely communication is a
problem for public agencies in increasing the effectiveness of emergency response
(Grimsley, 2018). Administrative controls inhibit cooperative interaction among multiple
components of government (Comfort, 1985). Comfort also states, when communication
27
fails, costs increase, and government service becomes ineffective. Thus, further research
could target the use of social media in times of crisis and the strategies public leaders can
use to facilitate inter-agency cooperation.
Under stable conditions routine behavior is valued in government organizations;
behavior is regularized, predictable, and skilled (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).
Bowers also adds during crisis routine behavior is inappropriate and ineffective. The
simultaneous search for information by multiple agencies at multiple levels of
government saves time in gathering information but requires time for the assimilation and
application of information to coordinate proper decision making (Comfort K, Boin, &
Demchak, 2010). Organizations rarely allocate resources to prepare for crisis
management (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). Bowers also states a framework
should be created to offer a crisis response leadership matrix to aid organization in
selecting the right leader for optimal response and recovery based on the most effective
leadership style given organizational culture and crisis dynamics. The role of transparent
communication is important during emergencies (Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014). It is
crucial for municipal governments to develop and maintain information channels with
their residents including active web-based technology and social media (Balfour & Guy,
2009). Further research on bottlenecks, sustainable communication channels and leaders
roles during crisis can facilitate better crisis preparedness.
Youngs, Howard, Cardno, & Carol (2015) proposed creating a leadership
development program to help managers become effective leaders in New Zeland among
school Principals. Young found that coaching and mentoring have many key advantages
on leadership on both the individual and organizational level. The program would include
28
face to face opportunities among already experienced managers using cohorts of ten to
twenty people. They would start the meeting by clarifying expectations coaching in small
groups, engaging in projects, and getting off to a timely start (Cameron & Mcnaughtan,
2014). Networking space among managers and leaders to discuss common issues is
significant in improving their leadership styles. This idea could be modeled relating to
leadership emergency preparedness across multiple public sector agencies utilizing great
leaders and how they would handle emergencies and crisis. Further research could look
into creating similar programs to better train managers to become effective leaders.
Cohen (2017) recommended municipalities to better prepare for emergencies by
creating and advancing a communication system that provides information during
emergencies. The programs aim would be to targets the needs of citizens. No single
government agency can respond to every demand for service (Comfort, 1985).
Emergency response is interorganizational and as the severity of emergencies increases
also does the jurisdiction. Inter-jurisdictional aspects of crisis is yet another dimension
that could be further looked into by scholars and crisis-management researchers.
Viewing leadership emergency preparedness from this dimension will provide
greater insight about the strength and impact of various leadership styles and each
individual emergency plans. Although much of the findings would be generalizable
future research should include viewing this type of study on larger scale organizations
and viewing the feasibility of creating a federally mandated emergency response plan
from this data. The perceptions of emergency preparedness vary greatly between line
staff and managers and more research needs to be done on this subject matter.
29
Section summary
This discussion covered the projected findings and significance of this project.
The projected findings would give future researchers greater insight on perceived
emergency preparedness versus actual emergency preparedness. The discussion also
provides good insight on how organizational change and crisis preparedness are related.
Organizational change is a result of crisis and rapid change in technology. Organizations
must embrace the change especially during times of crisis. This research shows the power
imbalance between organizational leaders and line staff members and how the rift in
communication can have a significant impact on crisis preparedness. A call for further
research should focus on the bureaucratic and hierarchical structures within organizations
and how they impact emergency preparedness. In all, although much of the findings are
generalizable future research should include this type of research on larger scale
organizations to show the true knowledge of public sector organizations actual
perceptions of crisis preparedness.
30
Conclusion
The literature points to a gap in the research, which has failed to look at
the perceptions of emergency preparedness among line staff and managers. To collect
primary research data that focuses on two municipal governments with similar
demographics in the state of California, the researcher’s hypothesis is that the data will
show how leadership and crisis preparedness is perceived differently by city department
managers and line staff members. The findings will then be compared from both cities to
show how crisis preparedness is perceived from line staff members. This research’s
findings will give future researchers insight on the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of
leaders pertaining to emergency preparedness for public sector organizations.
The mistrust between the public and public administrators can be remedied by
leadership effectiveness and can be salvaged during times of crisis rather than
exasperating the issue. Using the data obtained from this study will provide momentum
for emergency preparedness training and development of line staff and department
managers to become effective leaders among organizations within the public sector. The
two cities chosen are neighboring cities however, the results can be generalized across the
United States. Sommers (2009) argues that planning for emergencies discourages
organizations from recognizing to the unique challenges of each individual crisis.
This primary research however will give an original and relevant view of the
research study and the accuracy of the data will be high. There is no consensus in the
best leadership approach is the best for organizational change or emergency (Kellis &
Ran, 2015). Some authors argue that relationship-based theories of leadership such as
31
transformational leadership are necessary but insufficient in the public sector and; leaders
must also use value-based leadership to support their relationships (Grimsley et al. 2018).
Due to the rapid technology change it can be difficult to have the proper
leadership influence on organizations (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). However,
technology has made it easier to communicate and search for information regarding
emergency and crisis preparedness (Cohen, 2017). Effective leadership during crisis
situations combines technical knowledge, effective communication, management skills,
and a positive attitude to coordinate specialized professionals. Without the ability to
influence others leadership does not exist (Humphries & Howard M, 2014). This research
can provide public managers and leaders with a better understanding of what strategic
styles they should adopt to improve crisis response and emergency preparedness and; to
make it known that not all managers are good fits for emergencies (Sommers, 2009).
Using the knowledge line staff members have regarding emergencies and emergency
preparedness might further enhance future research on emergency preparedness. Using
the perceptions of emergency preparedness would better create a system to coordinate
among government agencies emergency crisis plan.
32
References
Alagaraja, M., Cumberland, D., & Choi, N. (2015). The mediating role of leadership and
people management practices on HRD and Organizatinonal Performance. Human
Resource Development International, 220-234.
Amble, B. (2019, Ocober 2). Management Issues. Retrieved from management-
issues.com: https://www.management-issues.com/news/228/uk-public-services-
suffering-from-lack-of-leadership-development/
Balfour, D., & Guy, A. (2009). Unmasking Administrative Evil. New York: Sage.
Bowers, M., Hall, R., & Srinivasan M., M. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership
style: The missing combination for selecting the right leader for effective crisis
management. Business Horizons, 551-563.
Broekema, W., Porth, J., & Torenvlied, R. (2019). Public leaders' organizational learning
orientations in the wake of a crisis and the role of public service motivation.
Safety Science, 200-209.
Brooks, C., Vorley, T., & Williams, N. (2016). The role of civic leadership in fostering
economic resillience in City Regions. Policy Studies, 1-16.
Burns, & James, M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cameron, K., & Mcnaughtan, J. (2014). Positive Organiaztional Change. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 445-462.
Caulfield, J. L. (2018). Using Case Work as a Pretest to Measure Crisis Leadership
Preparedness. Journal of Management Education, 704-730.
Cohen, O. (2017). Building resilience: The relationship between information provided by
municipal authorities during emergency situations and community resilience.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 119- 125.
Comfort, L. (1985). Integrating Organzational Action in Emergency Management;
Strategies for Change. University of Pittsburgh, 155-164.
Cottrell, D. (2002). Monday Morning Leadership. Texas: Cornerstone Leadership
Institute.
Danserau, F. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership Within Formal
Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 46-78.
Dematthews, D. (2016). Effective Leadership is not Enough: Criticial Approaches to
Closing the Racial Discipline Gap. The Clearing House, 7-13.
Englefield, E., Black D, S., Copsey A, J., & Knight, A. (2019). Interpersonal
competencies define effective conservation leadership. Biological Conservation,
18-26.
Greenleaf, r. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power
and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Grimsley, S. (2018, Feburary 6). What Is Organizational Change? - Theory & Example.
Retrieved from study.com: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-
organizational-change-theory-example-quiz.html
Guide, M. S. (2019, October 20th). MSG. Retrieved from Management Study Guide:
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/importance_of_leadership.htm
Halem, J. (2018). Optimism: A Building Block for Organizational Change. Medical
Care, 967- 968.
Hallunovi, A. (2014). Ethics in Public Administration. Inernational Review, 201-215.
33
Humphries, J., & Howard M, R. (2014). Developing Effective Leadership Competencies
in Military Social Workers. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, 3-8.
Ilyas Sindhu, M., Ahmad, H. M., & Hashmi, S. H. (2017). Leader-member exchangfe
relatonship and organiaztional justice: Moderating role of organizational change.
International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 276-282.
Jong, W. (2017). Meaning making by public leaders in times of crisis: An assesment.
Public Relations Review, 1025-1035.
Jong, W., Duckers L, M., & Velden, P. G. (2016). Leadership of Mayors and Governors
during Crises: A Systemic Review on Tasks and Effectiveness. Journal of
Contingencies & Crisis Management, 47-59.
Kellis, D., & Ran, B. (2015). Effective leadership in managing NPM-based change in the
public sector. Journal of Organizational Change, 614-626.
Luo, Y., & Jiang, H. (2014). Effective Public Relations in Organizational Change: A
study of Multinationals in Mainland China. Journal of Public Relations Research,
134-160.
Mitchell, T., & Scott G, W. (1987). Leadership Failures, the Distrusting Public, and
Prospects of the Administrative State. Public Administration Review, 445-453.
Mullen, J. (2016). Being a Good Follower: An Important Component of Effective Public
Health Leadership. Public Health Reports, 739-741.
Neil, R., Wagstaff D, C., Weller, E., & Lewis, R. (2016). Leader Behaviour, Emotional
Intelligence, and Team Performance at a UK Governnment Executive Agency
During Organizational Change. Journal of Change Management, 97-122.
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Oreg, S., Bartunek M, J., Gayoung, L., & Do, B. (2018). An Affect-Based Model of
Recipients' Responses to Organizational Change Events. Academy of
Management Review, 65-9.
Pyc, L., Meltzer, D., & Cong, L. (2017). Ineffective Leadership and Employees' Negative
Outcomes: The Mediating Effect of Anxiety and Depression. International
Journal of Stress Management, 196-215.
Research Methods in Psychology. (2019, December 1). Retrieved from opentextbc:
https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/reliability-and-validity-of-
measurement/
Sommers, S. (2009). Measuing Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for
Organizational Crisis Planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 12-23.
Suresh, K. (2011). Design, data analysis and sampling techniques for clinical research.
Academy of Neurology, 287-290.
Swain, R. (2019). Leadership lessons through the lens of historical military leaders: A
pedagogical approach to teaching leadership theories and concepts in a Masters of
Public Administration Course. Teaching Public Administration, 234-252.
Valero, J. (2015). Effective Leadership in Public Organizations: The Impact of
Organizational Structure in Asian Countries. Journal of Contemporary Eastern
Asia, 69-79.
Waeger, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Change:
An Open Polity Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 336-359.
34
Wang, C.-y., & Ming-feng, K. (2017). Strategic Styles and Organizational Capability in
Crisis Response in Local Government. Administration & Society, 798-826.
Young Switzer, J. (2016). Women and Effective Leadership. Juniata Voices, 199-208.
Youngs, H., & Cardno, C. (2015). Features of Effective Leadership Development
Provisions for experienced New Zealand Principals. ISEA, 53-68.
35
Appendix A
Perceived Leadership Emergency Preparedness Survey
Which Category best fits your job title:
I am a supervisor/executive in the City[ ] Elected official[ ] Line staff [ ] Emergency
Response Team of my City [ ] None of the above, please specify
Please Circle the numeric response for each of the following questions
#
Questions Scale
1 I believe my city has enough resources to
face a natural disaster?
1 2 3 4 5
2 I believe that leadership has demonstrated
the proper approach to disaster
management?
1 2 3 4 5
3 Overall my city is efficient in its emergency
response system?
1 2 3 4 5
4 Overall my city is prepared to face a major
disaster?
1 2 3 4 5
5 Overall the community within the city is
prepared for an emergency or crisis
situation?
1 2 3 4 5
6 During a crisis situation residents of the city
would still receive municipal services?
1 2 3 4 5
7 There are proper communication networks
within the City to send out emergency
related information?
1 2 3 4 5
8 There are numerous opportunities for
emergency preparedness training and
development within my city?
1 2 3 4 5
9
(optional)
I am involved in managing daily
emergencies?
1 2 3 4 5
1=Totally Disagree 2= Somewhat Disagree 3= Do not agree, nor disagree 4 =Somewhat Agree 5= Totally agree
36
Appendix B
Perceived Emergency Preparedness Interview Questions
Which Category best fits your job title:
I am a supervisor/executive in the City[ ] Elected official[ ] Line staff [ ] Emergency
Response Team of my City [ ] None of the above, please specify
1. How do you feel your department perceives leadership during times of crisis?
2. Do you feel that your department and city are prepared for a crisis/ emergency?
Explain.
3. Do you have faith in the mayor’s ability to lead the transfer from routine to
crisis? Why or why not?
4. During a crisis situation residents of the city would still receive municipal
services? Why, or why not?
5. Based on your experience are there enough resources within the city to face a
natural disaster?
6. Are there proper communication networks within the city to send out
emergency related information to residents?
7. Are there opportunities for emergency preparedness training and development
within your city? Explain.
8. Are there sufficient facilities for protections such as shelters in this community
where people can go during crisis? If so, are they ready for a crisis?
9. Have you ever discussed in your department the emergency response plans?
Explain. If not, do you know what the emergency response plans are?
10. Are you involved, or have you been involved in an emergency or crisis
situation? If so, could you please explain how it was handled and if it could
have been handled differently.