A Study of Organizational Reponses to Dilemmas in Interorganizational Emergency Management

Elizabeth J. Carlson, Marshall Scott Poole, Natalie J. Lambert, John C. Lammers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Organizational scholars have traditionally used conceptual definitions to classify situational tensions such as dialectics, dilemmas, contradictions, and paradoxes. We propose instead to use organizational members’ reactions to define and distinguish among different forms of tensions. In the present study, we propose a model in which dilemmas vary in terms of press (the sense of urgency that they invoke) and balance (the degree to which both sides of the dilemma are regarded as equally important and urgent). Depending on the degree of press and balance, organizations are predicted to undertake various response strategies. To evaluate this model, we studied a large sample of members’ descriptions of organizational responses to dilemmas in the Dutch crisis response system (N = 149). Results indicated variation in press and balance, and while some participants enacted dilemmas as choices, others enacted dilemmas in ways that acknowledged and tried to address both alternatives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)287-315
Number of pages29
JournalCommunication Research
Volume44
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

management
dialectics
Emergency

Keywords

  • contradiction
  • dilemma
  • emergency management
  • organizational communication
  • paradox
  • tension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Communication
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

A Study of Organizational Reponses to Dilemmas in Interorganizational Emergency Management. / Carlson, Elizabeth J.; Poole, Marshall Scott; Lambert, Natalie J.; Lammers, John C.

In: Communication Research, Vol. 44, No. 2, 01.03.2017, p. 287-315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4e3cf9cd1fbd4175bb6c88e147505514,
title = "A Study of Organizational Reponses to Dilemmas in Interorganizational Emergency Management",
abstract = "Organizational scholars have traditionally used conceptual definitions to classify situational tensions such as dialectics, dilemmas, contradictions, and paradoxes. We propose instead to use organizational members’ reactions to define and distinguish among different forms of tensions. In the present study, we propose a model in which dilemmas vary in terms of press (the sense of urgency that they invoke) and balance (the degree to which both sides of the dilemma are regarded as equally important and urgent). Depending on the degree of press and balance, organizations are predicted to undertake various response strategies. To evaluate this model, we studied a large sample of members’ descriptions of organizational responses to dilemmas in the Dutch crisis response system (N = 149). Results indicated variation in press and balance, and while some participants enacted dilemmas as choices, others enacted dilemmas in ways that acknowledged and tried to address both alternatives.",
keywords = "contradiction, dilemma, emergency management, organizational communication, paradox, tension",
author = "Carlson, {Elizabeth J.} and Poole, {Marshall Scott} and Lambert, {Natalie J.} and Lammers, {John C.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0093650215621775",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "287--315",
journal = "Communication Research",
issn = "0093-6502",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Study of Organizational Reponses to Dilemmas in Interorganizational Emergency Management

AU - Carlson, Elizabeth J.

AU - Poole, Marshall Scott

AU - Lambert, Natalie J.

AU - Lammers, John C.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Organizational scholars have traditionally used conceptual definitions to classify situational tensions such as dialectics, dilemmas, contradictions, and paradoxes. We propose instead to use organizational members’ reactions to define and distinguish among different forms of tensions. In the present study, we propose a model in which dilemmas vary in terms of press (the sense of urgency that they invoke) and balance (the degree to which both sides of the dilemma are regarded as equally important and urgent). Depending on the degree of press and balance, organizations are predicted to undertake various response strategies. To evaluate this model, we studied a large sample of members’ descriptions of organizational responses to dilemmas in the Dutch crisis response system (N = 149). Results indicated variation in press and balance, and while some participants enacted dilemmas as choices, others enacted dilemmas in ways that acknowledged and tried to address both alternatives.

AB - Organizational scholars have traditionally used conceptual definitions to classify situational tensions such as dialectics, dilemmas, contradictions, and paradoxes. We propose instead to use organizational members’ reactions to define and distinguish among different forms of tensions. In the present study, we propose a model in which dilemmas vary in terms of press (the sense of urgency that they invoke) and balance (the degree to which both sides of the dilemma are regarded as equally important and urgent). Depending on the degree of press and balance, organizations are predicted to undertake various response strategies. To evaluate this model, we studied a large sample of members’ descriptions of organizational responses to dilemmas in the Dutch crisis response system (N = 149). Results indicated variation in press and balance, and while some participants enacted dilemmas as choices, others enacted dilemmas in ways that acknowledged and tried to address both alternatives.

KW - contradiction

KW - dilemma

KW - emergency management

KW - organizational communication

KW - paradox

KW - tension

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012893856&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012893856&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0093650215621775

DO - 10.1177/0093650215621775

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85012893856

VL - 44

SP - 287

EP - 315

JO - Communication Research

JF - Communication Research

SN - 0093-6502

IS - 2

ER -