Reliability in Chaos: Crisis Communication in State Emergency Management Agencies J. Suzanne ...

210 Pages·2006·1.67 MB·English

Reliability in Chaos:
Crisis Communication in State Emergency Management Agencies

J. Suzanne Horsley

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication.

Chapel Hill
2006

Approved by:

Lois A. Boynton, Ph.D.
Patricia A. Curtin, Ph.D.
Elizabeth Dougall, Ph.D.
Steven K. May, Ph.D.
James V. Porto, Ph.D.
© 2006
J. Suzanne Horsley
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ABSTRACT
J. Suzanne Horsley

Reliability in Chaos:
Crisis Communication in State Emergency Management Agencies
(Under the direction of Lois A. Boynton, Ph.D.)

Reliable public communication before, during, and after a crisis can save lives and
protect property, yet scholarly research has neglected crisis communication in the public
sector, particularly from an organizational perspective. To begin to fill this void, this
dissertation employed the qualitative methods of participant observation and in-depth
interviews to analyze the organizational practices of state emergency management agencies’
(SEMA) public affairs offices. An understanding of the roles that public affairs officers have
in supporting SEMA’s mission of disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
emerged from the data analysis. The public affairs office had two distinct personalities while
operating under routine conditions and under crisis conditions. As a result, this research
presents a new model to explain how SEMA public affairs offices shift into disaster mode.
Crisis Adaptive Public Information (CAPI) accounts for two distinct operational philosophies
and explains the transitional nature of this type of organization as it reacts to a crisis
stimulus. CAPI incorporates chaos theory as a means of interpreting a crisis event and the
concept of high reliability organizations as a means of interpreting the public affairs office’s
organizational behavior. This model considers the specific organizational environment of
SEMAs and provides a new theoretical foundation for further exploration of this vital area of
public communication.
iii
To Joe,
my enabler.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research and writing may be solitary enterprises, but this dissertation would not have
materialized without the help and support of a number of individuals. First and foremost, I
wish to thank Dr. Lois Boynton for her unwavering encouragement during my three years at
UNC-Chapel Hill and for being the best advisor that a graduate student could ask for. I thank
Dr. Pat Curtin for her constant support and understanding as well as her help and influence
on my selection of research methods. I wish to thank Dr. Jim Porto for introducing me to
high reliability theory, Dr. Elizabeth Dougall for working with me to further develop my
research interests, and Dr. Steve May for his insights on organizational research. Finally, my
graduate education and the methods of research used in this study would not have been
feasible without the financial support of the Triad Foundation’s Roy H. Park Doctoral
Fellowship, for which I am eternally grateful.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................ix

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1

II A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC SECTOR CRISIS
COMMUNICATION.......................................................................................38

III RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS...............................................63

IV RESULTS FROM PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION....................................74

V RESULTS FROM INTERVIEWS................................................................115

VI DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION............................................................144

APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................179

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................195

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.1. The public-private sector continuum............................................................................8

2.1. Environmental factors and corresponding actions made by HROs............................48

2.2. Organizational Attributes of the Equilibrium-Seeking
and Self-Organizing Organization...............................................................................57

4.1. Summary matrix of environmental and organizational characteristics
in SEMA public affairs................................................................................................76

4.2. Observed organizational attributes in SEMA’s public affairs office........................114

5.1. Summary matrix of environmental and organizational characteristics
in five SEMA public affairs offices...........................................................................116

5.2. Organizational attributes derived from interviews
with five SEMA public affairs officers......................................................................141

6.1. Comparison of organizational characteristics from state emergency management
public affairs offices and high reliability organizations............................................145

6.2. HRO attributes noted in six SEMA public affairs offices as a group.......................166
vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1. Government Communication Decision Wheel...........................................................27

4.1. Diagram of State Emergency Operations Center......................................................102

4.2. Diagram of Public Affairs Office with Key Joint Information Center Roles...........103

5.1. The level of organizational adaptability as a SEMA public affairs office
transitions from routine to crisis mode......................................................................142

6.1. The prevalence of High Reliability characteristics as an organization
transitions from routine to crisis operations...............................................................169

6.2. Organizational changes that occur as a SEMA public affairs office
transitions from routine to crisis modes.....................................................................171

6.3. The Crisis Adaptive Public Information Model........................................................173
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DFO – Disaster Field Office
DHS – Department of Homeland Security
EAS – Emergency Alert System
EMA – Emergency Management Agency
EOC – Emergency Operations Center
ESF – Emergency Support Functions
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
HRO – High Reliability Organization
JIC – Joint Information Center
KI – Potassium Iodide
NRC – Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PAO – Public Affairs Office
PIC – Public Inquiry Center, or Disaster Hotline
PIO – Public Information Officer
SEMA – State Emergency Management Agency

ix
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Crises come in all forms: big or small, domestic or international, long or short-term,
natural or man-made, creeping or sudden, and manageable or catastrophic. Many of the crisis
events transpiring since the beginning of the 21st century present new challenges for
government agencies in the United States. Long accustomed to dealing with concerns of
natural disasters, public safety issues, and routine traffic jams, government communicators
have more recently found themselves trying to talk about a serial sniper terrorizing the
nation’s capitol region, hijacked airplanes flying into icons of American capitalism and the
military, and a mysterious white powder that was coursing through the mails. Not only was
there a delay in public officials’ full understanding of these three crises, but no guidelines
existed for responding to these specific incidents. The public wanted reassurance, and they
needed answers.
Federal, state, and local government agencies became involved in all three crises, but
there was no true precedent for them to follow. Public safety was a real concern until the
serial killers were captured, the nation’s airports were secured, and the post offices were
cleared of anthrax spores. In the meantime, uncertainty prevailed for the public as well as the
investigators involved in each incident. The media clamored for information and ran expert
speculation alongside terse official statements. The public relied on the government to solve
the problems and prevent them from happening again; there is no other entity that can single-
1