Facing Disaster: Responding to the Storm - Web viewFacing Disaster: Responding to the Storm....

Running head: FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM 1

Facing Disaster: Responding to the Storm

Joanna D. Dillman

Queens University of Charlotte

FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM2

Abstract

Organizational crises have been described as “specific, unexpected and non-routine,

organizationally-based event or series of events which creates high levels of uncertainty and

threat or perceived threat to an organization’s high priority goals” (Seeger, et al., 1998, p. 233).

Often times operations may cease, leaving facilities closed and key personnel distracted,

incapacitated, or missing. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, key personnel were missing,

broadcast, radio and cellular telephone communications systems were down, and transportation

systems were seriously disrupted. However, there is potential for positive discourse following a

crisis that emphasizes the opportunities inherent to crises. Crises and disasters can serve as

powerful forces of organizational change and, in some cases, renewal. “Discourse of renewal

emphasizes learning growth and opportunity following crises of all types” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p.

18). There are four theoretical objectives central to the discourse of renewal: “organizational

learning, ethical communication, a prospective rather than retrospective vision, and sound

organizational rhetoric” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 18-19). The purpose of this paper is to examine

the post-Katrina communication of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System

according to the discourse of renewal framework.

Keywords: discourse of renewal, Hurricane Katrina, community and technical colleges


Facing Disaster: Responding to the Storm

Everything can change in an instant. In a blink of an eye, Hurricane Katrina did just that

to the gulf coast region. Almost eleven years following this horrific storm, Katrina’s devastation

can still be felt by the communities it affected. Although many businesses were lost in the storm,

some were resilient and utilized this crisis as a change-inducing event. The purpose of this paper

is to examine the post-Katrina communication of the Louisiana Community and Technical

College System according to the discourse of renewal framework.

Organizational crises have been described as “specific, unexpected and non-routine,

organizationally-based event or series of events which creates high levels of uncertainty and

threat or perceived threat to an organization’s high priority goals” (Seeger, et al., 1998, p. 233).

Often times operations may cease, leaving facilities closed and key personnel distracted,

incapacitated, or missing. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, key personnel were missing,

broadcast, radio and cellular telephone communications systems were down, and transportation

systems were seriously disrupted. “Established structures, routines, procedures, rules,

relationships, norms and belief systems often break down or are judged as insufficient given the

conditions of the crisis. In this way, crises are high uncertainty events that challenge the ability

of managers to predict their consequence” (Seeger, et. al, 2005, p. 79). Although business

continuity is typically the primary goal of crisis management, systems disrupted by crisis are less

stable, vulnerable to criticism and susceptible to further crises.

Much of the research on crisis communication focuses on managing the threat to the

image or reputation of the organization during a crisis. However, there is also potential for


positive discourse following a crisis that emphasizes the opportunities inherent to crises. Crises

and disasters can serve as powerful forces of organizational change and, in some cases, renewal.

Crisis, for example, may point out untrue assumptions, unforeseen interactions and

vulnerabilities. Crisis may also precipitate consensus, cooperation and support (Seeger and

Ulmer, 2001, 2002; Ulmer and Sellnow, 2002). Weichk (1988, p. 305) characterizes crises as

“low probability/high consequence events that threaten the most fundamental goals of the

organization. Because of their low probability, these events defy interpretations and impose

severe demands on sensemaking.” “The ways in which participants, stakeholders and leaders

frame and make sense of these events, as reflected in post-crisis discourse, shape both the nature

and degree of change” (Seeger, et. al, 2005, p. 79).

“Discourse of renewal emphasizes learning growth and opportunity following crises of

all types” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 18). There are four theoretical objectives central to the

discourse of renewal: “organizational learning, ethical communication, a prospective rather than

retrospective vision, and sound organizational rhetoric” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 18-19). The

organizational learning component requires the organization that emerged successfully from the

crisis to learn from the event. “It is also important that the organization illustrates to

stakeholders how its learning will help ensure that it will not experience a similar crisis in the

future” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). A second key factor in creating a renewing response is

communicating ethically before, during, and after the crisis. When faced with an organizational

crisis, “it strips an organization’s ethical framework to its most basic elements…” (Seeger &

Ulmer, 2001, p. 369). Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) explain “the goods of survival and

competiveness with the caveat that how one protects and promotes these goods makes all the

difference in the identity of a company and the character of a given business and professional


communication ethics commitment” (p. 176). “Organizations that institute strong, positive value

positions, such as openness, honesty, responsibility, accountability, and trustworthiness, with key

organizational stakeholders before a crisis happens are best able to create renewal following the

crisis” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). “The third feature of a renewing response is communication

focused on the future rather than the past” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). Although many theories

emphasize image or reputation through a focus on who is responsible or a retrospective vision,

organizations that want to create a renewing response are more prospective and emphasize

focusing on the future. “They learn from their mistakes, infuse their communication with bold

optimism, and stress rebuilding rather than issues of blame or fault” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19).

The final component of this theory requires effective organizational rhetoric involving

“leadership with vision and a strong, positive reputation to effectively frame the crisis for

stakeholders and persuade them to move beyond the event” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 20).

Methodology

This study employs a case study method to develop descriptions of how the events,

decision-making processes and external communications of the Louisiana Technical and

Community College System (LCTCS) were handled following the Hurricane Katrina crisis.

Case studies are widely employed in the examination of crises (see Turner, 1976; Benoit, 1995;

Sellnow, et. al, 2002). In this study, I will focus specifically on the leadership’s actions and

messages from LCTCS to create a post-crisis discourse of renewal. In this manner, the LCTCS

case serves as an example of how post-crisis communication can function to create a mediated

message of organizational renewal. The data for this study includes Katrina experience’s from

LCTCS System Office leaders, campus deans, and other relevant personnel as documented in

authored papers (Collins, et. al, 2008; Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007) as well as personal


interviews, and print media sources following the storm. Key events in the case and coherent

themes of communication are described from the perspectives of organizational crisis and

renewal. Specifically, I explain the scale of harm associated with this event, the initial framing

of the crisis by the institution, the reservoir of good will generated for the institution and the

ways in which questions of cause and blame functioned. Observations regarding the institution’s

messages and the associated change with LCTCS are discussed and highlighted.

Findings

The Louisiana Community and Technical College System (LCTCS) “was created in

1999, [by the State of Louisiana,] as a means of providing an educational alternative to

individuals who did not choose to pursue a four-year degree, but rather wanted to attain an

associate degree, certificate, or diploma, which would ultimately lead them to the world of work”

(Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 24). The LCTCS was comprised of seven community

colleges, two technical community colleges, and forty technical college campuses spread out in

sixty of the sixty-four parishes within Louisiana. At the time of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana

Technical College campuses operated under a centralized structure promoting “a one-college-

with-40-campuses concept managed by districts” (Collins, et. al, 2008, p. 187). “Collectively,

the LCTCS institutions enroll[ed] about 60,000 students in credit and occupational training

programs each semester” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 24). The organization employed

three thousand full-time and twenty-five hundred part-time faculty and staff in August 2005.

With robust enrollment and indications that additional funding would be infused into the two-

year system by the Louisiana legislature to support growth and new initiatives, the picture for

two-year education was promising” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 24).


Preparing for hurricanes and other severe weather is a common occurrence for Louisiana

residents. When LCTCS officials saw the forecasts for Hurricane Katrina’s trajectory and

strength, four days prior to landfall, precautions were taken. First, the institution’s phone tree

was updated with pertinent and various contact methods for essential personnel. “This simple

precautionary step would prove invaluable to the organization following the storm as cellular

telephone service was inoperable in excess of two weeks” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p.

25). Secondly, the institution’s two large community colleges and fours campuses of the

Louisiana Technical College located within Greater New Orleans Metropolitan Area were

instructed to secure all facilities and “hunker down”. Third, as the hurricane approached the

Gulf of Mexico, LCTCS leaders closed relevant institutions located within the projected path

through at least Tuesday, August 30th. The purpose was to allow students, faculty and staff

ample opportunity to secure personal belongings or evacuate if necessary. With all possible

precautions taken, “the plan was to communicate after the storm passed to begin assessing

damage and initiating the plan for the recovery” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 25).

Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005 as a very large storm. At its peak, maximum

winds stretched 25 to 30 nautical miles and its extremely wide swath of hurricane force winds

extended at least 75 nautical miles to the east from the center. Windspeeds over 140 miles per

hour were recorded in southeast Louisiana, with gusts as high as 100 miles per hour in New

Orleans. A large storm surge ranging from 10 to 28 feet devastated coastal areas across

southeastern Louisiana and coastal Mississippi. The surge and battering waves smashed into

levees, which collapsed, causing extensive flooding throughout the New Orleans region.

Ultimately, 80 percent of New Orleans and large portions of nearby parishes became flooded,

and the floodwaters did not recede for weeks. Rainfall exceeded 8 to 10 inches along the


hurricane’s path. “Twenty-two million tons of debris resulted from Katrina, which is enough to

fill the Empire State Building forty times” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 26).

Hurricane Katrina was nothing less than total devastation to the gulf coast area. “In

higher education, about 84,000 students were displaced, which includes 39.6 percent of the

enrollment of the LCTCS; 1400 system employees were also displaced” (Villadsen & de los

Santos, 2007, p. 26). The system’s two community colleges in the impacted area suffered

damage to 80% of campus buildings and was inundated with flood waters of over six feet. Three

campuses of the Louisiana Technical College, Sidney Collier, Slidell, and Sullivan, were also

affected. The Sidney Collier campus, located in the lower Ninth Ward, was completely

destroyed. The Slidell campus was flooded with over eight feet of water. Lastly, the Sullivan

campus, sustained facility damage due to the high winds. The main office of LCTCS, located in

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, sustained only minimal damage. However, Hurricane Katrina was as

much a communication disaster as it was a natural and bureaucratic disaster. Power outages in

the Baton Rouge area, lack of gasoline in excess of a week, as well as information technology

failures caused severe communication gaps. No one, not even the State of Louisiana, could have

anticipated the widespread devastation or the amount of time that would pass before people

could even re-enter the region.

Once the initial shock over the magnitude of the storm passed, communication began.

Essential personnel were contacted to determine whether they were safe and to ascertain their

location. The chief executive officers then began the task of locating personnel in the affected

areas. Due to power outage and the lack of telephone coverage in the area, the Sullivan campus

dean convened his leadership team, drafted a list of all faculty and staff belonging to the campus,

and preceded to personally visit each member’s home to ascertain their safety. Meanwhile, in


Baton Rouge, all higher education leaders were convened by the Louisiana Board of Regents to

share information and discuss coordination of services to assist with the recovery of the region

and the affected students, faculty, and staff.

LCTCS established a call center to identify displaced employees and students, to gather

contact information, and to answer questions. The number to the call center was posted on the

website, provided on voice recordings on all office phones, and communicated through the

Louisiana Board of Regents. “Next, a website was launched to provide status reports and the

most up-to-date information to employees and students affected by the hurricane” (Villadsen &

de los Santos, 2007, p. 27). Those outside of the state would be able to access the internet.

Public service announcements were developed and distributed statewide to inform students and

employees about contacting their colleges. “Ads were also placed in Dallas Morning News,

Houston Chronicle, Atlanta Constitution Journal, Times Picayune (New Orleans), The Advocate

(Baton Rouge), and The News Star (Monroe) to communicate with displaced staff and students”

(Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 27).

Outside of the critical external communications, the system established hurricane updates

to inform legislators, stakeholders, and national organizations about what was occurring during

the aftermath of the storm and throughout the recovery. As this disaster unfolded, there was

overwhelming support from organizations and colleges across the country offering financial

assistance. LCTCS immediately established guidelines for an LCTCS Hurricane Katrina Relief

Fund. Phone calls were made to the United States Department of Education and the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to provide them with a status

report on the affected institutions. Weekly meetings with the chancellors of the affected

institutions were also scheduled, and one of the most important actions was to have phone


meetings with the Florida Community College System leadership to discuss the recovery, as

Florida had also experienced a series of major disasters a few years earlier.

Although faculty and staff were dispersed across the country, many evacuated to the

Greater Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area. So meetings for faculty, staff and students of the

affected institutions were hosted to provide information and answer questions. At the Sullivan

campus, the campus dean held staff meetings daily at the picnic tables located behind the facility

to assess damage and ascertain critical needs to resume operations.

Once the lines of communication were open, but limited, the focus shifted to operations.

A base of operations was established by LCTCS at a central location to serve faculty, staff, and

students. Information technology personnel quickly established temporary offices, setting up

computers, telephone lines, establishing Blackberry services for key personnel, and working with

the institutions to re-establish information technology connectivity. One of the tasks of

immediate importance was the processing of payroll for the displaced employees. One of the

system’s community colleges was not a part of the centralized payroll as the other institutions

within the system were. Unfortunately, the college’s facilities and back-up data facilities could

not be accessed due to flood waters. However, payroll staff from various LCTCS institutions

congregated and manually inputted data for the college’s 900 employees and successfully

processed payroll timely.

For the Sullivan campus, the dean provided the facility parking lot to an electrical

company immediately following the storm which enabled power to be restored to the came

within two weeks. Phone lines at the Sullivan campus was restored one month past Katrina.

According to the dean, the campus negotiated for three weeks with local businesses to assist with

the reopening of the campus, and then told to stop by the LTC central office. “We were told that


all negotiations would come from Baton Rouge. No one would enter the physical building until

air samples were taken” (M. Murphy, personal communication, April 3, 2016). The dean

arranged for air samples to be taken during the fourth week of recovery.

Next on the list were student services. “Of all the challenges that had to be addressed, it

was paramount to attend to the students whose lives had been completely disrupted” (Villadsen

& de los Santos, 2007, p. 28). Parameters were established to address financial aid

disbursements that occurred prior to Hurricane Katrina and to address the matter of students re-

enrolling at other institutions and accessing remaining funds. “The Board of Regents urged, and

all of higher education agreed, to allow students to re-enroll in other two-year or four-year

institutions during the fall 2005 semester without regard for the payment of additional tuition or

the presentation of transcripts, as most records were not accessible to students or staff”

(Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 29). Supplying records and tuition issues were to be

addressed in the spring of 2006.

“Providing continuity to assist students with achieving their academic goals was a very

difficult issue to address because each student issue was unique” (Villadsen & de los Santos,

2007, p. 29). For example, many nursing students in the final semester of their program were

displaced across the country. To meet these students’ needs, the system academic staff worked

the institutional leadership and the institutions across the country where students were displaced.

“The Sloan Semester offered by the Southern Regional Education Board was also invaluable, as

it allowed students to enroll in online courses free of charge” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007,

p. 29). The Lumina Foundation for Education and Scholarship America provided services by

establishing a relief fund enabling students who re-enrolled in another institution to access

assistance through the financial aid office at the institution where they were relocating. In


addition, counseling was provided by some LCTCS institutions to assist the many grieving

students and employees in coming to terms with the life-changing event.

Prior to the realization of major budget challenges, public postsecondary education

institutions agreed to continue paying displaced faculty and staff until a determination could be

made about the fiscal outlook for the state. Further, “if displaced employees relocated to others

areas of the state, they could provide teaching or administrative services to a higher education

institution located within the region, but would not get paid twice for providing those services.

This employment arrangement was to be reported to the home institution” (Villadsen & de los

Santos, 2007, p. 29). Many displaced employees continued to receive salary and benefits until

November 2005.

The Sullivan campus reopened on October 10, 2007 with an enrollment of 495 students

and expanded program offerings as a result of the closure of the Slidell campus. Both affected

community colleges were able to rebuild and open for the spring 2006 semester. “With all that

the system, its institutions, employees, and students have gone through, the LCTCS continued

“Changing Lives, and Creating Futures” on the long road of recovery” (Villadsen & de los

Santos, 2007, p. 29).

Discussion

The discourse of renewal describes, explains, and provides a prescriptive approach to

communicating during a crisis. As mentioned earlier, there are four theoretical objectives central

to the discourse of renewal: organizational learning, ethical communication, a prospective rather

than retrospective vision, and sound organizational rhetoric. This study will analyze the post-

Katrina communication of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System according to

the discourse of renewal framework.


Organizational Learning

“A central feature in crisis communication literature is that learning is essential to an

effective response” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). The organizational learning component requires

the organization that emerged successfully from the crisis to learn from the event. Crisis can

create an opportunity for an organization to confront its problems or deficiencies.

In the LCTCS case, Hurricane Katrina prompted the system and its institutions to craft

more relevant disaster recovery plans and regular meetings to discuss and update if necessary.

The recovery plans include communication plans required before and after a disaster, facility

checklists to conduct when the threat is known and after, and finally work assignments to key

personnel to ensure essential functions of the institution can be moved to temporary location if

the need arises.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina made the LCTCS realize the centralized structure

promoting “a one-college-with-40-campuses concept managed by districts” (Collins, et. al, 2008,

p. 187) was no longer effective. Under the centralized structure, campus leaders could not work

with local officials to make location-related decisions; i.e. campus closures in the event of

emergencies, responding to local workforce needs, etc. Ulmer, et. al (2007) states, “It is also

important that the organization illustrates to stakeholders how its learning will help ensure that it

will not experience a similar crisis in the future” (p. 19). The lessons learned resulted in a

proposal from the LCTCS to Louisiana legislators, one of its’ stakeholders, to fundamentally

alter the form, structure and direction of the LTC campuses. Approved legislative changes gave

greater autonomy to individual colleges so they may better serve Louisiana communities.

Ethical Communication


A second key factor in creating a renewing response is communicating ethically before,

during, and after the crisis. When faced with an organizational crisis, “it strips an organization’s

ethical framework to its most basic elements…” (Seeger & Ulmer, 2001, p. 369). The discourse

of renewal theory believes ethical communication “involves having strong stakeholder

relationships, a provisional response to the crisis, and communication that meets the ethical

standard of significant choice” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 230).

Arnett, et. al (2009) describes “the good as a central value or set of values manifested in

communicative practices that we seek to protect and promote” (p. 2). In discourse of renewal,

relationships with stakeholders are considered one the “goods” an organization must protect.

“Organizations that institute strong, positive value positions, such as openness, honesty,

responsibility, accountability, and trustworthiness, with key organizational stakeholders before a

crisis happens are best able to create renewal following the crisis” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19).

In the LCTCS case, the system had numerous stakeholders that included state legislation,

students, employees, businesses and industry. Prior to the storm, LCTCS has developed strong

positive relationships its stakeholders as evident by support of legislation, student enrollment,

employee and business and industry surveys. Evidence shows LCTCS continue to value these

relations during the aftermath of the storm as well. This is evident by the establishment of the

call center, a temporary base of operations to address immediate concerns, timely processing of

payroll, constant communication with legislators and local officials, student counseling services,

and partnerships with other higher education institutions to assist student’s continue their

education while the system recovered from the storm. These relationships served as a reservoir

of goodwill and support that helped the system get through the crisis. Without these

relationships, an important component of the system’s crisis response would have been missing.


“Renewal and ethics also focus more on provisional or instinctive responses to crisis

rather than on strategic communication” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p 232). Strategic communication

can be seen as unethical when it is designed to protect the image of the organization by

employing spin to deflect blame from the organization. Renewal is often based on a leader’s

established ethical character. “These leaders often respond in provisional or instinctive ways

deriving from long-established patterns of doing business. Typical of the Discourse of Renewal

is an immediate and instinctive response based on the positive values and virtues of a leader

rather than a strategic response that emphasizes escaping issues of responsibility or blame”

(Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p 233). Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) explain “the goods of survival and

competiveness with the caveat that how one protects and promotes these goods makes all the

difference in the identity of a company and the character of a given business and professional

communication ethics commitment” (p. 176).

In the LCTCS case, it was obvious a natural disaster had caused the crisis. During the

lengthy recovery process, there were ample opportunities to place blame for the delay. However,

LCTCS leaders did not engage in the blame game. Instead it focused on an immediate response

to the crisis, supportiveness of victims, and the emerging themes of rebuilding and renewal in all

communications. Throughout the study’s findings, the actions of the Sullivan campus dean were

documented. Mr. Mickey Murphy is a former drill sergeant in the United State Army. He was a

very prominent figure in the Bogalusa area. These characteristics appeared to have served him

well during Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. Once the safety was his crew was ascertained, he

began engaging the employees to help rebuild the campus. Instead of waiting for state resources

as the Slidell campus did, Mr. Murphy utilized the knowledge of his carpentry, welding, and

HVAC instructors to get the campus operational within six weeks for the storm. The survival


characteristics were not observed from the Slidell campus dean. Instead, she waited until she

received directives from Baton Rouge on how to proceed. The lengthy delay caused more

damage to the campus facilities. Ultimately, the Slidell campus was permanently closed and

would later be required to be demolished.

Ulmer, et. al (2007) “advocate the ethic of significant choice as a criterion for ethical

crisis communication. Nilsen (1974) argues for clear and unbiased communication in order for

citizens to make rational choices and decisions.” (p. 233). The opportunity to make significant

choices is crucial to effective crisis communication.

During the recovery period following Hurricane Katrina, LCTCS could have withheld

information or provided biased information to students who desired to continue their education at

another institution. Essentially, the system would be directing its customers to another provider.

However, it was evident the system went over and beyond to inform students on ways to

continue their academic goals. The invaluable establishment of partnerships with the American

Association of Community Colleges, which acted as a clearinghouse for the many offers of

support from two-year institutions; the Southern Regional Education Board, which offered a

special semester allowing students to enroll online; and the communication of these partnerships

provided the students a choice in the matter.

Prospective Vision

A third feature of a renewing response is communication focused on the future rather

than the past. “These organizations focus on the future, organizational learning, optimism, their

core values, and rebuilding rather than on issues of blame or fault” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p 234).

Organizations focusing on renewal are typically optimistic and building a vision for the future.


Review of the communications from LCTCS following the aftermath shows an emerging

theme focused on rebuilding and renewal. Even when recovery effort delays and the budget

constraints were realized, the organization remained optimistic. Throughout the crisis, LCTCS

remained focused on its vision to changing lives and creating futures through education.

Effective Organizational Rhetoric

The final component of the discourse of renewal theory requires effective organizational

rhetoric involving “leadership with vision and a strong, positive reputation to effectively frame

the crisis for stakeholders and persuade them to move beyond the event” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p.

20). Cheney and Lair (2005) explain: “Organizational rhetoric involves drawing attention to

issues and concerns in contemporary organizational life with a focus on issues of persuasion and

identification” (p. 75). “The Discourse of Renewal involves leaders structuring a particular

reality for organizational stakeholders and publics. We advocate that organizational leaders who

hope to inspire others to imitate and embrace their views of crisis as an opportunity to establish

themselves as models of optimism and commitment” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 234).

LCTCS placed the importance on students and employees during the aftermath of

Hurricane Katrina. Institutional leaders, starting with the System President, set the tone for

rebuilding and renewal. This was accomplished by focusing on the human equation in all crisis

communications. Secondly, campus leaders, like Mr. Mickey Murphy, used rhetoric to convince

employees to split their time between rebuilding their homes and rebuilding the campus. This

focus enabled both employees and students to move past the crisis.

Conclusion

Rather than protecting or repairing the image of the organization following a crisis, the

discourse of renewal emphasizes learning from the crisis, ethical communication,


communication that is prospective in nature, and effective organizational rhetoric. The Discourse

of Renewal focuses on an optimistic, future-oriented vision of moving beyond the crisis rather

than determining legal liability or responsibility for the crisis. What makes these responses so

effective is they mobilize the support of stakeholders and give these groups a vision to follow in

order to overcome the crisis.

Conventional wisdom suggests that crises are primarily negative events creating severe

hardship and organizational decline. The ability of organizations like LCTCS to survive, rebuild

and even renew themselves will depend on the ability to learn from these events, maintain

openness and accountability, and constitute compelling and meaningful communications that

promote cooperation, support, and renewal. For LCTCS, Hurricane Katrina was not only a time

of destruction and loss, but also a time of change and renewal.

Recommendations

No one could have imagined or prepared for the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.

How one reacts to the devastation is another story. Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) explain “the

goods of survival and competiveness with the caveat that how one protects and promotes these

goods makes all the difference in the identity of a company and the character of a given business

and professional communication ethics commitment” (p. 176).

The LCTCS case study presented above outlines how commitment to ethical

communications can be implemented during a crisis situation. However, I believe the goods of

survival could have been protected better with further leadership empowerment. As Ulmer, et. al,

(2007) explains, “leaders often respond in provisional or instinctive ways deriving from long-

established patterns of doing business. Typical of the Discourse of Renewal is an immediate and

instinctive response based on the positive values and virtues of a leader rather than a strategic


response that emphasizes escaping issues of responsibility or blame” (p 233). As outlined with

the Sullivan campus, the campus leader felt empowered and responsible to get the campus to

operational status. Granted, this could have been due to his background and personality traits.

As outlined with the Slidell campus, the campus leader did not feel empowered and rather

depended on the system’s office to give direction on next steps. This decision ultimately caused

the campus to close permanently.

I believe the problem was resolved when LCTCS decided to propose change in the

organizational structure of the LTC to allow more autonomy at the campus level. The proposal

was later approved by state legislators.

Implications

LCTCS took the opportunity to fundamentally reframe the Hurricane Katrina crisis by

focusing on the opportunities that arose. By changing the organization structure, should a crisis

occur in the future, campus deans will have the autonomy and empowerment to work with local

officials on the immediate needs of the campus which could result in a quicker recovery time.

Suggestions for Future Research

Few examples of post-crisis discourse of renewal have been examined and more research

is needed. Additional work is needed to identify the conditions necessary for discourse of

renewal theory. It is unclear if the methods can be implemented in every crisis situation.


References

Arnett, R. C., Bell, L. M., & Fritz, J. M. (2009). Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and

Difference. Sage Publications.

Benoit, W.L. (1995), Accounts, Excuses and Apologies, University of New York Press, Albany,

NY.

Cheney, G., & Lair, D. J. (2005). Theorizing about rhetoric and organizations: Classical,

interpretive, and critical aspects. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging

organizational theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 55– 84). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Collins, K. R., Savage, R., & Wainwright, W. (2008). “Facing Disaster: A Tale of Two Colleges,

One System, and Their Response to Hurricane Katrina”, Community College Journal of

Research and Practice, 32(3), 184-202.

Nilsen, T. R. (1974). Ethics of speech communication (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). “Virtuous responses to organizational crisis: Aaron

Feuerstein and Milt Cole”, Journal of Business Ethics, 31(4), 369-376.

Seeger, M., & Ulmer, R. (2002). “A post-crisis discourse of renewal: The cases of Malden Mills

and Cole Hardwoods”. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(2), 126-142.

Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-crisis discourse and

organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Org Change Mgmt Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 78-95.


Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L., and Ulmer, R.R. (1998), “Communication, organization and

crisis”, in Roloff, M.E. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 21, Sage, Thousand Oaks,

CA, pp. 231-75.

Sellnow, T., Seeger, M.W. and Ulmer, R.R. (2002), “Chaos theory, informational needs and the

North Dakota floods”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 30, pp. 269-92.

Turner, B. (1976), “The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters”,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 378-97.

Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2002). “Crisis management and the discourse of renewal:

Understanding the potential for positive outcomes of crisis”, Public Relations

Review, 28(4), 361-365.

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2007). Effective crisis communication: Moving

from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Villadsen, A. W., & de los Santos, G. E.,. (2007). Hoping for the Best While Preparing for the

Worst: Disasters, Emergencies, and the Community College. Phoenix, AZ: League for

Innovation in the Community College.

Weick, K. E. (1988). “Enacted Sensemaking In Crisis Situations”. J Management Studies Journal of

Management Studies, 25(4), 305-317.

Date post:	01-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngothuan
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

Facing Disaster: Responding to the Storm - Web viewFacing Disaster: Responding to the Storm....

Documents