Content-Type: text/html

Communicating After A Crisis: Lessons Learned from 9/11
Running head: COMMUNICATING IN THE AFTERMATH OF A CRISIS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM 9/11.






Communicating In The Aftermath of A Crisis:
Lessons Learned From 9/11




Terence (Terry) Flynn

Doctoral Student - Mass Communication Program
S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University

548 Clarendon St.
Syracuse, NY 13210
Phone: 315-477-9898 (voice mail)
E-mail: <a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D3068699%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_5104124%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>
 Abstract

The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001 were devastating examples of how a crisis can strike at the heart and soul of an organization. Crisis management literature provides the basis for understanding the steps that organizations should take but provides limited empirical evidence of what organizational variables contribute to the successful management of a crisis event. This study uses, for the first time, three indexes to measure organizational leadership, preparedness and demand during crises.

 INTRODUCTION

It was an almost unbelievable and incomprehensible textbook example of a crisis: an unpredictable, major threat that has had a negative effect on organizations, industry and the public (Coombs, 1999). From the moment that the first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, the world of crisis communication took center stage with news conferences, media briefings, employee meetings, toll-free hotlines, and websites. A state of panic swept the entire country, as reporters, government officials and media experts tried to make sense of the events. As the crisis widened, some organizations turned to their crisis manuals, while others turned to intuition and instinct. Some organizations showed clear and deliberate leadership, while others struggled to find their way.
As the dust began to settle, the importance of communicating in a crisis hit a fevered pitch. It was as equally important for the nation to hear from the President as it was for the president of an investment company to hear from her employees.   The country, the families, and the survivors of this horrific tragedy experienced a disruption that physically affected their basic assumptions and sense of the world. The immediate effect of this crisis, as Pauchant & Mitroff (1992) predicted, threatened the legitimacy of organizations, stopped or reversed their strategic missions, and disturbed the way people see the world and themselves.
As the rubble and debris were cleared away, and the organizations that were directly impacted by this crisis began the process of rebuilding, researchers have begun to uncover the best and the worst of communicating in a crisis. According to Ulmer and Sellnow (2000), if handled effectively, organizations have the potential to benefit from crises. In fact, there are indications that the crisis communication approach taken by some organizations, like the City of New York, are being held out as models of excellent crisis public relations. There are also organizations that failed to respond to their employees, their families, their customers in a manner that engendered trust and confidence.  The long-term survival of those organizations will be in jeopardy.

RESEARCH PROBLEM
 While the 9/11 tragedy stands alone in terms of the devastating impact it has had on individual businesses and the economy, it is a reminder for all organizations that: credo quai impossible - it is certain because it is impossible (Marra, 1997).   Just think about recent news stories that have dominated our water cooler conversations: workplace violence, school bus accidents, construction fatalities, financial embezzlement, the list is almost endless.  From Ford's finger pointing at Bridgestone to the Walkerton Ontario water crisis to Britain's hoof and mouth outbreaks, our daily newspapers and newscasts constantly report stories of mismanagement, malfunction, death and destruction.
Crisis events have a dramatic impact on an organization's ability to survive. As Penrose (2000) identified, about 40 per cent of Fortune 1000 industrial companies do not have an operational crisis plan and fully 80 per cent of companies without a comprehensive crisis plan vanish within two years of suffering a major disaster. So why is it that some organizations are capable of effectively limiting reputational damage during crisis events? Is it because they have good luck or is it because wise organizations know that crises will befall them; they just do not know when (Coomb, 1999).
The purpose of this study is to determine what, if any, changes in the demand for crisis public relations in organizations occurred in the aftermath of the World Trade Center crisis. Furthermore, it examined the role of leadership in both crisis preparedness and crisis management and the extent to which excellent organizations are lead by crisis leaders.  Finally, the study seeks to understand the level of demand for increased crisis preparedness in light of the World Trade Center tragedy by organizations.

THEORY
A critical review of crisis management and crisis communication literature over the last 20 years produces a great deal of instruction but little in the way of explanation or prediction. As such, there has been relatively little crisis public relations theory building despite the fact that organizations face crises everyday. The field of crisis communication management is deep in anecdotes and prescriptive models but rather shallow in theory development. Some researchers have had limited success looking to situational theory (Grunig, 1994), organizational theory (Massey, 2001), chaos theory (Murphy, 1996), and the excellence theory of public relations (Grunig, 1992) to help explain why and how organizations respond during crisis events.  Marra (1997) stated "many conventional and accepted public relations tactics do not contribute to managing crises well.  The current mindset of crisis public relations needs to be replaced with one that allows managers to practice excellent public
 relations (p. 2)."  As a student of J.E. Grunig at the University of Maryland, Marra positions his theory within the excellence theory of public relations. "Although the Excellence study did not specifically address crisis public relations, much of its literature review and findings are applicable to developing theory in crisis public relations" (p. 20). To be excellent Marra believes that crisis public relations must be strategic, have a two-way symmetrical focus, have the authority and autonomy to act quickly and that the senior public relations practitioner must be a member of the dominant coalition and report directly to the Chief Executive Officer (Marra, 1997).

Crisis Communication
A crisis according to Heath (1997) is an untimely event that may prevent management from accomplishing its efforts to create the understanding and satisfaction between the organization and interested parties needed to negotiate the mutually beneficial exchange of stakes. If unattended or poorly managed, the crisis can prevent the organization from making satisfactory progress toward achieving its mission. According to Williams and Olaniran (1994), crises vary in degree and probability but all share the threat of causing damage to companies which can be measured in terms of harm to the corporate image and actual financial losses. Furthermore, a crisis threatens the physical system of an organization (Pauchant & Mitroff, 1992).
Organizational crises are low-probability, high-impact events that threaten the viability of the organization and are characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly (Pearson, 1998).   Burnett (1994) states that crises provide myriad-learning opportunities for the organization. For example: How well do we adapt to unexpected threats? What changes, if any, in organization structure and policies would enhance our sensitivity and responsiveness to crisis situations?
Communication, according to Burning and Ledingham (2000), is a vehicle that organizations should use to initiate, develop, maintain and repair mutually productive organization-public relationships.  Therefore when taken together, crisis communication is best defined as the verbal, visual, and/or written interaction between the organization and its publics (often through the news media) prior to, during, and after the negative occurrence.  The communications are designed to minimize damage to the image of the organization (Fearn-Banks, 1996; Fearn-Banks, 2001).
An organization's crisis communication mindset is described by Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) as one in which the perceptions of senior executives determine cultural beliefs in the organization about the value and need for crisis management.  Pearson (1998) states that organizational crisis preparedness starts with executive perceptions about risk and risk-taking.  The most lucid explanation of the crisis mindset is best delivered by Habermas (1975) who clearly and concisely stated, "the crisis cannot be separated from the viewpoint of the one who is undergoing it" (p. 73).
In order to incorporate crisis communication into a more strategic framework, a number of researchers categorize this function as crisis management. Pearson & Clair (1998) define it as the systematic attempt to avoid organizational crises or to manage those crises that do occur.  To achieve that condition, organizations implement a crisis management plan, which consists of a full range of thoughtful processes and steps that anticipate the complex nature of crises (Caywood & Stocker, 1993). Included in those steps would be the designation of a crisis team, communication processes, stakeholder assessments, media relations initiatives, and post-crisis evaluations.

Leadership
"Leadership is a choice, not a position," said organizational author Stephen Covey. "We hear things happening among groups of people who were fleeing the wounded Twin Towers, strangers with a vision and a plan, rallying those too fearful to know what step to take next" ("Terrorist Attacks", 2001).
Leadership is about coping with change, setting a direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring-keeping people moving in the right direction, despite major obstacles to change, by appealing to basic but often untapped human needs, values, and emotions (Kotter, 1999).  For organizations, leadership is often regarded as the most critical factor in determining overall success or failure (Bass, 1999).  According to Grunig (1992), "excellent leaders provide a vision and direction for the organization, creating order out of the chaos" (p. 233).
During crisis events, organizational leaders become the catalyst of success or the millstone of failure.  Crises are about uncertainty and fear. Leadership is about anticipation, vision, flexibility and empowerment (Byrd, 1987).  Crisis leadership therefore is the ability of a senior manager to provide vision and direction during times of change and uncertainty. Effective leadership during times of crises can, as we have seen with New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, strengthen the resolve of the organization to survive and become stronger: shaken but resolute and determined to shape the future rather than merely adjusting to it ("Profiles in Leadership," 2001).



The Demand and Delivery of Crisis Public Relations
According to Grunig (1992), excellent organizations demand excellent public relations through the use of two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical practices. This demand, which was first illustrated in the Excellence Study, is also a critical element in the successful management of crises.  "CEO's and communicators mentioned crises again and again as catalysts for changes in management's view of communication: the Bhopal tragedy, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the oil embargo of the 1970s, and activist opposition to nuclear power plants are examples. These events served as wake-up calls to senior managers who previously placed little importance on public relations and communications management" (Dozier, Grunig & Grunig, 1995, p. 103).  For the purposes of this study, I propose to move beyond the classic question raised by Dozier, Grunig & Grunig, "What comes first, the demand or the delivery?" Rather, I take the position that the catastrophic crisis events of 9/11 will have increased the dominant coalition's demand for a more active crisis public relations practice from the organization's public relations department.

HYPOTHESES
H1:     Those organizations that demonstrate a high level of crisis leadership will have a high level of crisis preparedness, whether preparedness is measured before or after the 9/11 attacks.

        According to Penrose (2000), the success of crisis management programs rests with the senior management's willingness to engage in proactive planning initiatives.  Furthermore, Pearson and Clair (1998) showed that executive perceptions are the fundamental and initiating variable in determining potential outcomes from a crisis.  As Mitroff (2001) wrote, the best form of crisis leadership is to increase one's crisis preparedness. This high-level function, which resides in the executive suites, must have mechanisms and structures to prepare the organization for potential crises. Therefore, the increased crisis preparedness of the organization will be directly tied to the level of senior management leadership as the organization prepares for a crisis.

H2:     The higher the level of crisis leadership within an organization, the higher the level of demand for crisis public relations, whether before or after the 9/11 attacks.

H3:     The more an organization's senior management team demands crisis public relations, the more prepared the organization will be for a crisis. Furthermore, the demand for crisis preparedness will be greater after the 9/11 attacks than before the attacks.

The intent of H2 and H3 is to test the level demand for public relations within organizations regardless of the 9/11 attacks. The demand-delivery concept of public relations was first proposed by Dozier, Grunig & Grunig (1995) as a means of understanding the cycle of dependency between senior management (or as they call it, the dominant coalition) and the public relations department. "The demand-delivery linkage describes an ongoing relationship between communicators and the dominant coalition. When the dominant coalition expect communicators to think strategically to solve a problem or conflict with a key public, that reinforces the knowledge or expertise in the communication department to deliver communication excellence" (p. 16).

 METHOD
A self-administered survey questionnaire was e-mailed to students and graduates from an Independent Study Degree Program (ISDP), masters-level public relations program, at a northeastern university. A list of 133 participants was obtained from the chair of the Public Relations Department, comprising all students and graduates of the program over its seven-year history.
The profile of a typical ISDP student is:
A graduate holding a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university in liberal arts, mass communications, or public relations. He/she is an experienced professional in public relations or a related field whose current position and/or career advancement plans require expanded knowledge and experience in counseling and decision-making processes; a firmer grasp of management and finance; a global perspective; strategic planning; and leadership" (http://www.suce.syr.edu/Programs/Courses/distance/isdp/mscm/cmstud.html).

An e-mail message, introducing the researcher, was sent to all participants from the chair of the Public Relations Department, encouraging the students and graduates to participate in this research project.  Two days later, an e-mail message, which included the self-administered questionnaire as an attachment, was sent to all 133 participants by the researcher. After eliminating wrong e-mail addresses and job changes, the study population was eventually reduced to 125. Three follow-up e-mail messages were sent to all participants.  A total of 33 completed questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 26 per cent.
The average age of participants was 44 (range = 30 to 62). Of those that participated, 58 per cent had a master's degree and 36 per cent had a bachelor's degree. The majority of participants were female (61%), which is representative of the public relations industry. Most of the participants came from older and larger organizations: 70 per cent of the organizations were more than 25 years old while 55 per cent had more than 500 employees.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Measures
Crisis leadership was operationalized using a Crisis Leadership Index (Table 1) where participants were asked a series of questions regarding their organization's level of leadership during crisis events. This scale was adapted from Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) in which they tested the variables of leadership and organizational culture during crisis events.  Responses:  5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree (M = 3.4, SD = .68)
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
Crisis public relations demand was operationalized using a Crisis Public Relations Demand Index (Table 2) where participants were asked a series of questions regarding their organization's demand-delivery linkage during crisis events. This scale was constructed from a series of questions posed by Marra (1998) in order to further the research on crisis public relations excellence.  Responses:  5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree (M = 3.5, SD = .72).
TABLES 3-4 ABOUT HERE
Crisis preparedness was operationalized using two Crisis Preparedness Indexes (Tables 3 - 4) whereby the preparedness of the organization was measured by the presence or absence (1 = yes, 0 = no) of a series of commonly accepted crisis preparedness tools, before and after the 9/11 attacks. (Before 9/11: M = .44; After 9/11: M = .22).
RESULTS
Given that this study was exploratory in nature, it was important to begin the process of establishing a number of methods to measure crisis leadership, crisis demand and crisis preparedness. Researchers such as Pauchant and Mitroff (1992), Dozier, Grunig and Grunig (1995), Marra (1998), and Mitroff (2001) suggested a number of questions that could be used to test each variable, but no one instrument has been developed which would lead to the creation of these indexes.
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
Crisis Leadership Index (CLI)
Twelve variables were used as the basis of the CLI. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each question from "strongly agree" (5) to "strongly disagree"(1). A high reliability score was attained (Cronbach's alpha = .85) on the first analysis. In addition, the variables were almost all significantly inter-correlated using Pearson correlation coefficients as seen in Table 5.
TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
Crisis Demand Index (CDI)
Seven variables were used to create the CDI. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each question from "strongly agree" (5) to "strongly disagree" (1). A high reliability score was achieved (Cronbach's alpha = .80) on the first analysis. In addition, the variables were nearly all significantly inter-correlated using Pearson correlation coefficients as displayed in Table 6.

TABLES 7 - 8 ABOUT HERE
Crisis Preparedness Index (CPI)
Eleven variables were used as the basis of the CPI. Preparedness of the organization was measured by the presence or absence (1 = yes, 0 = no) of a series of commonly accepted crisis preparedness tools, before and after the 9/11 attacks. A high reliability score was attained for both before the 9/11 attacks (Cronbach's alpha = .88) and after the attacks (Cronbach's alpha = .82) on the first analysis for each scale. Table 7 shows that the Before 9/11 CPI was significantly inter-correlated using Pearson correlation coefficients. The After 9/11 CPI was moderately inter-correlated using Pearson correlation coefficients as seen in Table 8.
TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE
The first hypothesis predicted that the higher the level of crisis leadership within an organization, the higher the level of demand for crisis public relations, whether before or after the 9/11 attacks. This hypothesis achieved a significant Pearson correlation (r = .66, p< .01) thereby supporting the position that those organizations with a high level of crisis leadership will have a high level of crisis preparedness as displayed in Table 9.
The second hypothesis, the higher the level of crisis leadership within an organization, the higher the level of demand for crisis public relations whether before or after the 9/11 attacks was also supported.  As seen in Table 9, the two Indexes - Crisis Leadership and Crisis Demand, are also significantly correlated (r = .65, p< .01).
The third hypothesis, the more an organization's senior management team demands crisis public relations, the more prepared the organization will be for a crisis, whether before or after the 9/11 attacks, produced conflicting results.
Table 9 clearly shows no correlation (r = .26, p > .05) between the CDI and the Before 9/11 Crisis Preparedness Index, while it shows a moderate correlation (r = .44, p< .05) between the CDI and the After 9/11 Crisis Preparedness Index. The results in Table 10 show that when crisis demand is correlated with crisis preparedness after 9/11, controlling for preparedness before the attacks, there is a strong correlation (r = .57, p < .001). The conflicting results are apparent when you examine Table 11 which shows a significant difference between the Indexes (t = 4.7, p < .01) as evidenced by a dramatic decrease in mean scores between the Before and After Indexes (Before m = .44; After    m = .20).
TABLES 10-11 ABOUT HERE


DISCUSSION

As we have witnessed in September 2001, crises can strike at anytime. Crisis researchers have written many manuals and articles on how an organization should prepare for a crisis and yet, as Penrose (2000) identified only 40 per cent of Fortune 1000 companies have a crisis plan. Our participants yielded a higher response of 67 per cent, which is a significant difference from the previous studies. However crisis preparedness should not be considered independent of other factors in the organization.
Both Marra (1997) and Mitroff (2001) have suggested that it is the leadership of the organization that determines the level of crisis preparedness. Furthermore as Dozier, Grunig & Grunig (1995) stated, the higher the more demand for public relations the more prepared the organization will be in the event of a crisis.  This study supports those claims showing significant correlations between the Crisis Leadership Index and the Crisis Demand Index and a moderate correlation with the Crisis Preparedness Index.
One finding that needs further exploration is the dramatic decrease in preparedness from before 9/11 to after 9/11. The results may be explained by the timeliness of the study. The surveys were distributed and returned within 70 days of the 9/11 attacks and as such, it would appear that most organizations did not have an opportunity to think beyond the immediate crisis to make the improvements measured in the After 9/11 Index. As such, it would be important to use this Index at a later date to determine if in fact organizations have increased their crisis preparedness.
This study, while limited by the small sample size - 33 participants, has combined variables from Marra and Mitroff to develop a series of Indexes that are designed to measure the level of leadership, demand and preparedness during crises.  These instruments should be tested on a larger sample, within the public relations industry, to assess its reliability and validity.
While we are unable to make generalizations about these findings, the results are an important contribution to the body of crisis communication literature. This is the first study to use measuring instruments such as the Crisis Leadership Index, the Crisis Demand Index and the Crisis Preparedness Index as a means of assessing an organization's ability to lead and ready itself for a crisis.

  Table 1. Means and standard deviations for characteristics of crisis leadership.
Variables
Mean
Standard Deviation
N
The public relations department has authority to make decisions in crisis.
3.27
1.18
33
The organization's President/CEO should be visible at the crisis site.
4.06
1.05
32
The organization's President/CEO shouldn't be the only spokesperson in a crisis.
3.81
.983
33
The organization has a multi-disciplinary crisis management now in place.
3.27
1.23
33
The organization's key stakeholders are already identified.
3.79
.820
33
The organization has an established communication process to communicate with key stakeholders during a crisis.
3.21
1.22
33
Organizational crisis threats have been identified and are planned for.
3.03
1.16
33
The organization has a long-term commitment to crisis management.
3.12
1.24
33
We have learned from our last crisis.
3.64
.994
33
The public relations department has the necessary resources to manage a crisis tomorrow.
3.00
1.12
33
Our public relations department is absolutely ready for a crisis.
2.82
1.13
33
Our senior management team has the leadership and the vision to anticipate and plan for crises.
3.30
.952
33
Crisis Leadership Index**
3.35
.679
32
Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree

**Average of the above 12 variables.  Cronbach's alpha = .85

Table 2.  Means and standard deviations for characteristics of crisis demand.


Variables
Mean
Standard Deviation
N
The public relations department has the authority and resources to move quickly and act decisively during a crisis.
3.28
1.22
32
The public relations department will be able to set the communication strategy for the organization during a crisis.
3.60
1.21
32
The public relations department values and uses two-way communication with the organization's key stakeholders.
3.81
1.15
32
The crisis public relations strategies match the day-to-day communication strategies of the organization.
3.59
.980
32
Developing and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders is an important part of the organization's culture.
4.19
.737
32
As a result of the 9/11 attacks the senior management team relies more on the public relations department to prepare for a crisis.
3.00
1.10
32
There is now a greater demand for public relations within our organization
3.00
.983
32
Crisis Public Relations Demand Index**
3.50
.720
32
Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree

**Average of the above 7 variables.  Cronbach's alpha = .80

Table 3.  Percentages of crisis preparedness variables Before 9/11 Preparedness Index
Variables
%
Yes
(N=30)
Development of crisis scenarios
Identification of crisis spokesperson
Development of crisis response messages
Media training for crisis spokesperson
Crisis simulation exercises
Involved local regulators in crisis simulations
Have showed your crisis plan to your key stakeholders
Conducted thorough reviews of crisis response system
Implementation of a crisis issues anticipation system
A crisis management plan
A crisis management team

Before 9/11 Preparedness Index**
.33

.81

.50

.68

.23

.17

.26

.43

.19

.57

.67


.44

*1 = yes, 0= no
** mean score of "yes" responses to above 11 variables running from 0 to1.
Cronbach's alpha = .88
 Table 4. Percentage of crisis preparedness variables After 9/11 Preparedness Index.
Variables
%
Yes (N=33)
Updated Crisis Management Team*

Updated crisis scenarios*

Changed crisis spokesperson*

Developed new crisis response messages*

Conducted media training for crisis spokesperson*

Conducted crisis simulation exercises*

Contacted local regulators agencies*

Discussed crisis plan with key stakeholders*

Conducted a thorough review of crisis plan*

Updated crisis issues anticipation system*

Updated Crisis Management Plan*



After 9/11 Preparedness Index**
.36

.00

.27

.00

.00

.27

.27

.30

.21

.21

.21



.22
*1 = yes, 0 = no
** mean score of "yes" responses to above 11 variables running from 0 to1.
Cronbach's alpha = .82
 Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients for crisis leadership variables.
Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.The public relations department has authority to make decisions in crisis.*
-.12
(32)
.23
(33)
.38 b
(33)
.32
(33)
.33
(33)
.36 b
(33)
.45 a
(33)
.51 a
(33)
.21
(33)
.32
(33)
.26
(33)
.62 a
(32)
2. The organization's President/CEO should be visible at the crisis site.*
--
-.11
(32)
-.21
(32)
.20
(32)
.14
(32)
-.27
(32)
-.08
(32)
-.23
(32)
-.08
(32)
-.07
(32)
.01
(32)
.01
(32)
3. The organization's President/CEO shouldn't be the only spokesperson in a crisis.*
--
.33
(33)
.07
(33)
.24
(33)
.33
(33)
.22
(33)
.19
(33)
.26
(33)
.22
(33)
-.01
(33)
.41 b
(32)
4. The organization has a multi-disciplinary crisis management now in place.*
--
.09
(33)
.31
(33)
.41 b
(33)
.47 a
(33)
.65 a
(33)
.14
(33)
.19
(33)
.14
(33)
.55 a
(32)
5. The organization's key stakeholders are already identified.*
--
.67 a
(33)
.57 a
(33)
.64 a
(33)
.25
(33)
.44 a
(33)
.40 b
(33)
.61 a
(33)
.70 a
(32)
6. The organization has an established communication process to communicate with key stakeholders during a crisis.*
--
.66 a
(33)
.66 a
(33)
.38 b
(33)
.37 b
(33)
.44 a
(33)
.27
(33)
.75 a
(32)
7. Organizational crisis threats have been identified and are planned for.*
--
.65 a
(33)
.50 a
(33)
.56 a
(33)
.53 a
(33)
.62 a
(33)
.81 a
(32)
8. The organization has a long-term commitment to crisis management.*
--
.59 a
(33)
.52 a
(33)
.59 a
(33)
.52 a
(33)
.86 a
(32)
9. We have learned from our last crisis.*
--
.23
(33)
.25
(33)
.35 b
(33)
.64 a
(32)
10. The public relations department has the necessary resources to manage a crisis tomorrow.*
--
.72 a
(33)
.59 a
(33)
.67 a
(32)
11. Our public relations department is absolutely ready for a crisis.*
--
.49 a
(33)
.72 a
(32)
12. Our senior management team has the leadership and the vision to anticipate and plan for crises.*
--
.64 a
(32)
13. Crisis Leadership Index**
--
*Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree. **Average of the above 12 variables.  Cronbach's Alpha = .85.  a p<.01,  b p <.05
 Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients for Crisis Demand Index variables.
Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The public relations department has the authority and resources to move quickly and act decisively during a crisis*
.71 a
(32)
.59 a
(32)
.48 a
(32)
.26
(32)
.31
(32)
.19
(32)
.78 a
(32)
The public relations department will be able to set the communication strategy for the organization during a crisis.*
--
.52 a
(32)
.35
(32)
.34
(32)
.29
(32)
.14
(32)
.74 a
(32)
The public relations department values and uses two-way communication with the organization's key stakeholders.*
--
.53 a
(32)
.20
(32)
.41 b
(32)
.20
(32)
.76 a
(32)
The crisis public relations strategies match the day-to-day communication strategies of the organization.*
--
.33
(32)
.36 b
(32)
.30
(32)
.70 a
(32)
Developing and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders is an important part of the organization's culture.*
--
.32
(32)
.13
(32)
.50 a
(32)
As a result of the 9/11 attacks the senior management team relies more on the public relations department to prepare for a crisis.*
--
.56 a
(32)
.68 a
(32)
There is now a greater demand for public relations within our organization.*
--
.52 a
(32)
Crisis Demand Index**
--
*Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree
**Average of the above 7variables.
 Cronbach's Alpha = .80
 a p<.01,  b p <.05
 Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients for Crisis Preparedness Index (Before) variables.
Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Development of crisis scenarios*
.35
(30)
.57 a
(30)
.31
(30)
.78 a
(30)
.25
(30)
.85 a
(30)
.52 a
(30)
.44 b
(30)
.48 a
(30)
.50 a
(30)
.82 a
(30)
2. Identification of crisis spokesperson*
--
.50 a
(30)
.54 a
(30)
.28
(30)
.00
(30)
.29
(30)
.27
(30)
.23
(30)
.40 b
(30)
.53 a
(30)
.60
(30)
3. Development of crisis response messages*
--
.36 b
(30)
.39 b
(30)
-.09
(30)
.45 b
(30)
.47 a
(30)
.27
(30)
.47 a
(30)
.57 a
(30)
.69 a
(30)
4. Media training for crisis spokesperson*
--
.19
(30)
.10
(30)
.41 b
(30)
.43 b
(30)
.29
(30)
.60 a
(30)
.62 a
(30)
.67 a
(30)
5. Crisis simulation exercises*
--
.39 b
(30)
.59 a
(30)
.31
(30)
.18
(30)
.32
(30)
.39 b
(30)
.64 a
(30)
6. Involved local regulators in crisis simulations*
--
.14
(30)
.15
(30)
.04
(30)
.21
(30)
.32
(30)
.32
(30)
7. Had showed crisis plan to your key stakeholders*
--
.54 a
(30)
.54 a
(30)
.53 a
(30)
.43 b
(30)
.76 a
(30)
8. Conducted thorough reviews of crisis response*
--
.51 a
(30)
.77 a
(30)
.48 a
(30)
.75 a
(30)
9. Implementation of a crisis issues anticipation system*
--
.39 b
(30)
.13
(30)
.53 a
(30)
10. Had a Crisis Management Plan*
--
.67 a
(30)
.80 a
(30)
11. Had a Crisis Management Team*
--
.77 a
(30)
12. Before 9/11 Preparedness Index**
--
*1 = yes, 0 = no
** mean score of "yes" responses to above 11 variables running from 0 to1.
Cronbach's Alpha = .88
a p < .01,  b p < .05,
 Table 8. Pearson correlation coefficients for Crisis Preparedness Index (After) variables
Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Updated of crisis scenarios*
.23
(33)
.53 a
(33)
-.13
(33)
.67 a
(33)
.371
(33)
.32
(33)
.22
(33)
.53 a
(33)
.53 a
(33)
.49 a
(30)
2. Changed crisis spokesperson*
--
.29
(33)
-.03
(33)
.29
(33)
-.11
(33)
.27
(33)
.34
(33)
.34
(33)
.34
(33)
.01
(30)
3. Developed new crisis response messages*
--
-.11
(33)
.39 b
(33)
.24
(33)
.34
(33)
.35 b
(33)
.68 a
(33)
.51 a
(33)
.37 b
(30)
4. Conducted crisis simulation exercises*
--
.29
(33)
.29
(33)
-.12
(33)
-.09
(33)
-.09
(33)
-.09
(33)
-.16
(30)
5. Contacted local regulators in crisis simulations*
--
.69 a
(33)
.34
(33)
.02
(33)
.35 b
(33)
.35 b
(33)
.48 a
(30)
6. Discussed crisis plan with key stakeholders*
--
.19
(33)
-.15
(33)
.18
(33)
.18
(33)
.38
(30)
7. Conducted thorough reviews of crisis response*
--
.30
(33)
.46 a
(33)
.46 a
(33)
.47 a
(30)
8. Updated crisis issues anticipation system*
--
.46 a
(33)
.46 a
(33)
.02
(30)
9. Updated Crisis Management Plan*
--
.82 a
(33)
.33
(30)
10. Updated Crisis Management Team*
--
.23
(30)
11 Before 9/11 Preparedness Index**
--
*1 = yes, 0 = no
** mean score of "yes" responses to above 11 variables running from 0 to 1.
Cronbach's Alpha = .81

a p< 0.01, b p < 0.05

  Table 9.      Pearson correlation coefficients for Crisis Leadership, Demand and Preparedness Indexes.

Variable
Crisis Leadership Index
Before 9/11 Attacks Preparedness Index
After 9/11 Attacks Preparedness Index
Crisis Demand Index1
.65 a
(31)
.26
(29)
 .44 b
(32)
Crisis Leadership
Index2
--
.66 a
(29)
.45 a
(32)
Before Preparedness Index3
--
.48 a
(30)
After Preparedness Index4
--

1Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree
Average of the above 12 variables, Cronbach's Alpha = .80

2Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree
Average of the above 7 variables, Cronbach's Alpha = .85

31 = yes, 0 = no and mean score of "yes" responses to above variables running from 0 to1. Cronbach's Alpha = .88

41 = yes, 0 = no and mean score of "yes" responses to above variables running from 0 to 1. Cronbach's Alpha = .82

a p< 0.01, b p < 0.05
 Table 10.   Partial correlation coefficients for Crisis Leadership and Crisis Demand by Crisis Preparedness after 9/11 attacks, controlling for Crisis Preparedness before 9/11 attacks.

Variables correlated with Independent Variables
Control Variables
Partial correlation coefficient
Crisis Leadership Index*
Before 9/11 Attacks Preparedness Index***
.62 ¦
Crisis Demand Index**
After 9/11 Attacks Preparedness Index****
.57 ¦
*Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree.  Cronbach's alpha = .85

**Responses were coded: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,
2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree. Cronbach's alpha = .80

*** 1 = yes, 0 = no and mean score of "yes" responses running from 0 to 1. Cronbach's alpha = .88


****1 = yes, 0 = no and mean score of "yes" responses running from 0 to 1. Cronbach's alpha = .82

¦ p<.01

Table 11.  Correlated t-test for Crisis Preparedness Index, Before and After 9/11.

Variables
Mean
Standard Deviation
t value
df
Significance
Before 9/11 Attacks Preparedness Index*
.44
.31
4.7
29
p<.01
After 9/11 Attacks Preparedness Index*
.20
.23

*1 = yes, 0 = no and mean score of "yes" responses running from 0 to 1.



 References
Barney, J.B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 2, 656-665.

Bass, B.M. (1999). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Broom, G.M. & Dozier, D.M. (1990).  Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bruning, S.D., & Ledingham, J.A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26, 85-95.

Brunett, J.J. (1998). A strategic approach to managing crises. Public Relations Review, 24, 475-488.

Byrd, R.E. (1987). Corporate leadership skills: A new synthesis. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 34-43.

Caywood, C., & Stocker, K.P. (1993). The ultimate crisis plan. In J. Gottschalk (Ed.), Crisis-response: Inside stories on managing image under siege (pp. 409- 428). Detroit, MI: Gale Research.

Dozier, D.M., Grunig, L.A., & Grunig, J.E. (1995). Manager's guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coombs, W.T. (1999). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cutlip, S.M., A.H. Center, and G.M. Broom. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2001). Crisis communication: A review of some best practices. In R.L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 479-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Fearn-Banks, K. (1996). Crisis communications: A casebook approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Grunig, J.E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management.  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J.E. (1992). What is excellence in management? In J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 219-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J.E., and L.A. Grunig. (1992). Models of public relations and communications. In J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Heath, R.L. (1997). Strategic issues management: organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Kotter, J.P. (1999). On what leaders really do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing

Marra, F.J. (1997). New mindset required for excellent crisis public relations. Perth: Curtin University Working Paper Series.

Marra, F.J. (1998). Crisis communication plans: poor predictors of excellent crisis public relations. Public Relations Review, 24, 461-474.

Mitroff, I. I. (2001). Crisis leadership. Executive Excellence, 18, 19-20.

Pauchant, T.C. & Mitroff, I.I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Pearson, C.M. & Clair, J.A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review 23, 59-76.

Penrose, J.M. (2000). The role of perception in crisis planning. Public Relations Review, 26, 155-171.

Profiles in leadership. (2001, September 17). The Buffalo News, p. C4.
Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J.E., & Buffington, J. (1992). Corporate culture and public relations. In J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Syracuse University. (2001). Master of Science in Communication Management. Retrieved October 16, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.suce.syr.edu/Programs/Courses/distance/isdp/mscm/cmstud.html

Terrorist attacks: Giuliani as 'New York's Churchill'. (2001, September 17). Newsday, p. W.18.
Ulmer, R.R. & Sellnow, T.L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack In The Box as a case study.  Journal of Business Ethics, 25,
143-155.

Williams, D.E. & Olaniran, B.A. (1998). Expanding the crisis planning function: Introducing elements of risk communication to crisis communication practices. Public Relations Review, 24, 387-400.