CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Public Sector Leadership Crisis and Disaster Preparedness

A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

By

Israel Suarez

May 2020

ii

Copyright Page

Copyright by Israel Suarez 2020

iii

The graduate project of Israel Suarez is approved:

________________________________________ _______________

Dr. Elizabeth Trebow Date

________________________________________ _______________

Dr. Ariane David Date

________________________________________ _______________

Dr. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iv

Table of Contents

Copyright Page ii

Signature Page iii

Abstract vi

Introduction 1

Background 4

Review of the Literature 6

Varying Leadership styles 6

Servant Leadership 7

Leader Member Exchange Theory 7

Transformational Leadership 8

Public Sector Leadership Preparedness 9

Focus on Leaders and Followers 10

Organizational learning 12

Limitations in the research 13

Section Summary 15

Research Question and aim 16

Research Gap 16

Research Aim 16

Contribution 16

Research Design 17

Introduction and Approach 17

v

Participants and Sampling 18

Methods 18

Quantitative Comparative data collection 19

Qualitative Comparative data collection. 19

External and Internal Validity 20

Discussion 21

Project findings and significance 21

Knowledge-management, cohesiveness and crisis management 24

A Call for Further Research 25

Section Summary 29

Conclusion 30

References 32

Appendix A: Perceived Leadership Emergency Preparedness Survey 35

Appendix B: Perceived Emergency Preparedness Interview Questions 36

vi

Abstract

Public Sector Leadership Crisis and Disaster Preparedness

By

Israel Suarez

Master of Public Administration in Public Sector Management and Leadership

Leadership is a necessary component for public sector organizations during times of

organizational crisis. There has been a history of mistrust between government and the people

because of a lack of emergency preparedness and mismanagement during crisis situations. This

research study proposes recommendations for a comparison study between two neighboring

cities, the City of Pasadena and the City of South Pasadena regarding emergency preparedness

and perception of emergency preparedness from line staff and managers of both organizations.

1

Introduction

Leadership is a necessary component for public sector organizations during times

of organizational crisis. Governments across the United States are responsible for

managing programs to enhance the well-being of constituents. There are vivid examples

where a lack of leadership in the public sector during times of crisis caused major social

and economic losses (Kellis & Ran, 2015; Kellis & Ran, 2015). Public leaders play a

central role in the governance of crises, situations in which they are confronted with

enormous challenges (Sindhu, 2017). When public sector organizations fail or are

involved in crisis, if organizations fail to react properly it creates mistrust between the

public and public sector organizations (Mitchell & Scott G, 1987).

Hurricane Katrina broadcasted major leadership and emergency preparedness

failures by military personnel, federal employees, state employees, and local law

enforcement agencies (Englefield, Black D, Copsey A, & Knight, 2019). In the aftermath

of Hurricane Katrina, the media was spinning the news to show strong leadership (Swain,

2019). The public servants assigned to assist during the hurricane were shown to mistreat

hurricane survivors who remained in the city during the storm (Bowers, Hall, &

Srinivasan M., 2017). There were reports of unjust detentions, corruption, abuse, and

homicides of United States (US) citizens by law enforcement, military personnel,

contracted service providers, and more staff (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). This led to

citizens questioning the leadership of public employees, questioning of oversight, and

training of agencies involved in this mayhem (Waeger & Weber, 2019). There is an

assumption in the public sector that emergency response is immediate and planned

however, this has shown not to be the case. The perceptions of public servants during

2

emergencies vary compared to what was broadcasted in the media (Jong, Duckers L, &

Velden, 2016). These perceptions and actions have added to the longstanding issue of

mistrust between the public and government.

There has been a history of public-government mistrust that appears to split across

major administrative segments (Comfort, 1985). Data reveals a loss in faith in leadership

of government and public institutions. Trust in government declined from 80% trusting

the government in the 1950s to 33% in 1976 to, 24% in 2019 ( (Caulfield, 2018). The

decline in confidence is associated with American leadership not government institutions.

The public is disillusioned with what they view as incompetent, dishonest, inefficient,

corrupt, paternalistic and mad bureaucrats (Swain, 2019).

There is an assumption that government leaders are concerned with furthering

their own self-interest first and the wellbeing of the public during crisis (Wang & Ming-

feng, 2017). Trust is granted to leaders normally but, during crisis trust extended beyond

the scope of their normal duties (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).Leaders are

expected to successfully guide organizations through emergencies (Broekema, Porth, &

Torenvlied, 2019). Mullen (2016) argued that there is a leadership emergency

preparedness deficit and need for better leadership across government agencies. Research

regarding leadership in times of crisis in relation to public trust is necessary because there

are public sector agencies to this day without emergency or crisis plans (Caulfield, 2018).

Emergency preparedness is crucial for effective public leadership change

(Amble, 2019). Organizations are aware of potentially devastating effects of crisis and

when a crisis occurs the response will determine the trajectory of recovery and future

organizational performance (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). The literature also

3

sheds light on varying leadership styles during crisis, organizational change, public sector

crisis management and, emergency preparedness perceptions. Sommers (2009) raises a

good point on emergency preparedness, that public sector organizations exhibit a casual

relationship between pre-disaster planning and effective response to crisis.

This research examines the challenges associated with emergency preparedness

perception during crisis situations in the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena. The unit

of analysis chosen for the analysis of leadership challenges to better enhance emergency

preparedness was the local/municipal level. The next chapter of this project will consist

of a background section stating the history of leadership and emergency preparedness.

The second chapter will review the literature, the third chapter will explain the project’s

research question and aim. It will be followed by the presentation of the methodology, a

discussion of the limitations and various implications of this research, and a conclusion.

4

Background

There is a history of leadership failure in the public sector regarding emergency

preparedness in the United States. This leadership failure has caused a mistrust between

the public and prospects of the administrative state (Mitchell & Scott G, 1987). There

have been many instances of leadership failure in the past decade which undermines

effectiveness in representing the core values and expectations of United States citizens

faith in public service (Kellis & Ran, 2015). There have been systematic leadership

shortcomings across multiple levels of government including Federal, State, and Local

governments (Cohen, 2017). Leadership at each of these levels of government have

shown extreme cases of a lack of emergency preparedness and leadership during times of

crisis (Cohen et al., 2017).

The leaders at the forefront of crisis are mayors and governors. These politicians

play an essential role in leadership during aftermath of crises and disasters (Ilyas Sindhu,

Ahmad, & Hashmi, 2017). Mayors and governors differ in legislative power to evacuate

and restore public order after emergencies. These local and state incumbents however

face important challenges as emergency leaders. Disaster management requires

collaboration and cooperation between multiple organizations and requires leaders to

effectively communicate during recovery with a positive focus on the future (Waeger &

Weber, 2019). This creates strains on the crisis response network, as plans cannot always

prepare for emergency situations. For instance, the actual response network to Hurricane

Katrina, and 9/11 differed from the emergency and disaster plans that were in place

(Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016). The perceptions of staff working in these

organizations during emergencies have not been acknowledged.

5

The outcomes from Katrina were that leaders tried to create an image of strong

leadership and influence but, realistically involved in a situation of incompetence and

chaos in the City of New Orleans (Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016). Voters blamed the

Federal Government, State representatives blamed local government, and the media

blamed other public sector representatives (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). During crisis

situations it is somewhat of a normal occurrence, because(that, leaders and politicians

avoiding blame for crisis (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019) (Boin, Hart T, &

Preston, 2010). One instance can be seen during September 11th, 2001 (9/11) Mayor

Giuliani showed great leadership skills by holding press conferences with other

government officials (Grimsley, 2018). Giuliani shifted the blame to the police chief for a

lack of preparedness for the terrorist attack (Halem, 2018). Although crisis and

emergencies might not be preventable, having pubic sector organization staff all on the

same page of crisis preparedness would result in a better understanding on how to handle

a crisis when it occurs. The perceptions of public sector staff during crisis are crucial

because if a crisis does occur, some staff would not know what to do and exacerbate the

crisis at hand. This was shown in the example of Katrina multiple public sector agencies

did not react according to the emergency plan and it worsened a dreadful situation. The

next chapter will be a critique the current literature regarding emergency preparedness

perceptions among line staff and leaders of public sector organizations.

6

Review of the Literature

The purpose of this literature review is to view public sector leadership failures

pertaining to disaster and crisis preparedness and to propose solutions based off previous

research. It is critical to note the underlying causes of leadership as well as solutions for

failed leadership during crisis (Kellis & Ran, 2015). Effective leadership is essential for

the success of public sector organizations (Englefield,2019). There were two critical

bodies of knowledge to public sector leadership during crisis situations; the varying

leadership styles used in the public sector during crisis and public sector leadership crisis

preparedness. Knowing this, the first theme to be discussed will be various leadership

styles used by during times of crisis.

Varying leadership styles

Among public organizations there are many different leadership styles depending

on the organizational structure (Valero, 2015). Kellis & Ran (2014) found that there is a

mismatch in leadership approach to organization structure. Effective leaders understand

their environment and are aware of their organization’s strengths and weaknesses and;

there are many public sector leaders ill-equipped to handle varying crisis (Neil, Wagstaff

D, Weller, & Lewis, 2016). Effective leaders are also aware of the different styles of

leadership and some leadership styles are more effective than others. According to Jong,

Duckers L& Velden (2016) local leaders (Mayors and Governors) lead by

communicating. Collaborative forms of government are used to develop strategies to

create more resilient and diverse city governments (Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016).

The arrangement and existence of different leaders within city regions are crucial to

thrive in a changing environment (Ilyas Sindhu, Ahmad, & Hashmi, 2017). Local

7

governments require stakeholder engagement and collaboration to diagnose solutions

when compared to the federal government (Alagaraja, Cumberland, & Choi, 2015). The

first leadership style to be discussed pertaining to emergency preparedness is servant

leadership.

Servant Leadership

Greenleaf (1977) explained how Servant leadership can be used as a basis to

overcome organizational weaknesses and enhancing trust between leaders and members.

Servant leadership is defined as a leader who wants to serve first and consciously brings a

choice to aspire to lead. The difference from other leadership styles is that servant

leadership puts the needs of others before their own. The ten characteristics of servant

leadership are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,

foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people (Northouse et. al, 2016).

Servant leadership shares similar characteristics with leader member exchange theory.

Leader-member exchange theory

Leader-member exchange theory was coined by Dansereau, Graen, and Novak

(1975). Leader member exchange Theory was developed by Graen, Novak, and

Sommerkamp (1982). The theory focuses on members of a team working together as a

unit, team or department to change follower performance. Before leader member

exchange theory research strictly focused on the leader with no emphasis paid to the

followers. According to Harvard business school leaders need followers (Mullen, et

al.,2016). There is a natural human tendency to assume rank and authority. Men and

women do not differ in leadership effectiveness. Switzer (2016) found that men rate

8

themselves are more effective leaders when compared to women, while women are

perceived as more effective leaders by followers.

Dematthews (2016) focused on leader member exchange theory in relation to

crisis. Leader member exchange theory focuses on the leader to build trusting

relationships, establish rapport, and engaging followers in the decision-making process.

In the modern world there is a relationship between leader- member exchange theory and

subordinate satisfaction. Sindhu (2017) studied leader member exchange in relation to

organizational justice and the role of organizational change. Leader member exchange

proposed the influence of leaders on member’s behaviors. During times of crisis this can

be used to better support leaders decisions.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership has been used by various leaders and has been shown

to be effective for organizational change and crisis (Burns, 1978). According to

Northouse (2016) Transformational Leadership is defined as a leadership style used to tap

into the motives of followers in order to better reach the goals of followers.

Transformational leadership has been found to have a positive impact on organizations

during emergencies and build emergency preparedness by educating organizational

members of response plans (Mullen, 2016). Subordinates of transformational leadership

have an increased commitment to the organization, increased motivation, and

strengthened organizational citizenship. Humphries & Howard (2014) viewed the

effectiveness of transformational leadership in military and social service organizations.

A key portion of transformational leadership is emotional intelligence. Emotional

intelligence is the ability of an organization to develop their employee's capability to

9

respond to emotions when attempting to facilitate organization change (Cameron &

Mcnaughtan, 2014). Organizational change relates to crisis because during crisis

organizations face major change. A manager must take the role of leadership and handle

employees' negative emotions during times of crisis (Brooks, Vorley, & Williams, 2016).

This can be done by being aware of emotions, acknowledging the emotions, channel the

emotions, and finding solutions to the problem that caused the negative emotions

(Danserau, 1975). Luo (2014) found a positive a positive relationship between

transformational leadership styles of organizational departments and use of various

communication strategies. Communication between leaders and staff is essential for

organizational functioning. The next theme in the literature pertaining to crisis is the role

of leaders in fostering and maintaining crisis preparedness

Public Sector Leadership Crisis Preparedness

Today’s leaders must thrive in a world of turbulence and change; unstable

conditions generate crises emphasizing the need for crisis leadership preparedness

(Caulfield, 2018). During crisis, leadership becomes a group dynamic where leaders and

followers build up the reality of the situation and interact to facilitate a beneficial

outcome. Demerol and Capuche (2012) define crisis as unforeseen emergency events,

natural or manmade, that lead organizations to unstable or dangerous conditions

depending on the magnitude crisis involve individual group, or species of society.

Decision making during crisis situations is difficult due to time constraints,

organizational change, situational uncertainty, and limited situational control (Caulfield,

2018). Crisis Management involves four steps, mitigation, preparedness, response, and

recovery followed by its corresponding activities; emergency sheltering, search and

10

rescue, change assessment, and other emergency procedures (Comfort K, Boin, &

Demchak, 2010).

The types of information needed for effective decision making vary from

organization to organization (Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014); Comfort 2007) With

dramatic changes in environment, organizations must enhance their responsiveness to

maintain a competitive advantage and overcome uncertainty and ambiguity (Wang &

Ming-feng, 2017). Resources during emergencies do not guarantee organizational success

and finding alternative approaches becomes a major task for practitioners and academics

(Cohen, 2017). Creating effective organizational response under disasters is a challenge

to public agencies (Comfort K, Boin, & Demchak, 2010). The emergency response

process is hierarchal, reactive of agency operations, and demands careful consideration

(Hallunovi, 2014). Required interactive communication of information and coordination

of action among multiple agencies or between multiple jurisdictions to achieve effective

emergency response (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). The next portion of the literature will

focus on the role of leaders and followers during crisis (Boin, Hart T, & Preston, 2010).

Focus on Leaders and Followers

Leaders receive the most attention during crisis situations (Bowers, Hall, &

Srinivasan M., 2017). Organizations faced with a crisis will rely on the leader in place to

lead them out of the crisis but; when the crisis gets out of hand, these organizations

realize the current leader does not possess the necessary leadership style required to

manage the crisis effectively (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019). Broekema (2019)

adds the realities of crisis management are time is a factor, framing should not be the

priority, and everyone needs an emergency response plan. Leaders competencies during

11

crisis situations include clarity of decisions, decision making skills, problem solving

skills, adaptability, team development, communication, and situational acuity (Caulfield,

2018). It is difficult to know what persons will assume what roles during crisis situations

and what forms of actions assigned leaders will take (Cohen, 2017). Skilled followers are

necessary during leadership and times of crisis (Caulfield, 2018). Claufield (2018) adds

that skilled followers are balanced risk takers who achieve success with or without a

strong leader.

Politicians are at the forefront of organizations during crisis. Crisis responses are

often heavily criticized by the mass media and citizens leading to the resignation of high-

ranking political leaders (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Political Leaders often must

respond to external political pressure and act quickly on which crisis-related activities to

prioritize. Wang also found that a challenge of public leaders in meaning making lies in

effective communication while considering the politically charged issues of causation,

responsibility, and accountability.

Crisis differ in context thus; the public’s expectations of their leaders will vary

from crisis to crisis (Caulfield, 2018). Public leaders when confronted with the public

impact are held responsible for crises caused by others. Some of these include expressing

sympathy to victims, framing the meaning of the event, public sector organizational

change, regaining public confidence, and facilitating renewal through public

commitments (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Wang also found public leaders often blame

others for crisis situations and the media appoints winners and losers. When

responsibility is high, image restoration rather than regaining public confidence becomes

the main goal (Cohen, 2017). Mayors describe crisis situations as the most difficult

12

moment in their political careers (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). Mayors were touched by the

incidents they managed which builds trust in their leadership. The media plays a

significant role in how issues are framed and regardless of collective impact and political

responsibility media is always present (Boin, Hart T, & Preston, 2010).

Different strategic styles affect organizational crisis response capability. How

public organizations respond to crisis or emergencies is related to how satisfied citizens

are with public service (Wang, 2017). Organizational capabilities are developed around

resources and organizations are required to develop different capabilities while the

context and organizational environment change (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). The next

portion of this chapter will focus on organizational learning during emergencies.

Organizational Learning

Without learning, no change in behavior occurs and agency practices remain unchanged

(Comfort, 1985). During times of crisis leaders must engage in organizational learning

(Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019). Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied (2019) also state

organizational learning is a process which organization learn from crisis.

A portion of organizational learning is instrumental and political learning

(Comfort K, Boin, & Demchak, 2010). Comfort states instrumental learning is to develop

deeper knowledge and understanding of the causes of the crisis whereas; political

learning is refining political crisis management strategy, allocating blame, imitating

reputation damage and improving communication. During emergencies the environment

if often politicized due to stakeholders creating immense political pressure (Caulfield,

2018). Learning is important because of the devastating long lasting consequences of

crisis (Cohen, 2017). Through crisis induced learning organizations can improve crisis

13

response and incorporate prevention methods (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).

Caulfield also states political learning solutions are temporary and geared towards fixing

more short-term descaling and settling of crisis.

Learning during crisis situations entails trade-offs for public leaders in short time

frames because they must prioritize activities such as causes of crisis, collaboration of

stakeholders, adopting procedures, publishing media reports, organizing press meeting,

managing blame, and control reputational damage to the organization (Wang & Ming-

feng, 2017). The extent which learning occurs is a on a crisis to crisis basis and the

literature has yet to clarify the factors that explain the crisis induced learning (Young

Switzer, 2016). Wang also states, despite crisis induced learning being acknowledged as

a focal issue in the managing of crisis, crisis management research lacks a clear definition

and operationalization of what learning in the wake of a crisis entails. Most studies are

done post-crisis and entail continuous long-term learning by trial and error and

experimentation (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019). More research is needed on the

specific political learning process (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). The next portion of the

literature review is the limitations in existing research.

Limitations in existing Research

Although the literature has many strengths there were also limitations in existing

research. The first limitation would be a few old sources used to clarify meanings and

mistrust in government (Mitchell & Scott G, 1987). These old sources were used for

definitions of key terms and to because of a lack of qualitative data pertaining to public

sector emergency preparedness perceptions. This research also has very few case studies

14

that specifically focus on municipal governments. Most of the data used in this research

was gathered from state or federal government data (Jong, Duckers L, & Velden, 2016).

There is currently not enough research on finding the best leader-crisis fit (Wang

& Ming-feng, 2017). Although few articles about were included in this research, far more

supporting articles are necessary to create a program where a leader can be easily chosen

and assigned to a crisis when it occurs (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied, 2019).

Implementing such a program would also prove to be a difficult task. Most of the articles

found on organizational change depict organizational change negatively (Amble, 2019).

Future research is needed showing the positive impacts of organizational change relating

to emergencies.

The role of followers was briefly discussed, and more emphasis should be put on

research of followers and line staff during crisis (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).

One article used in this study focused specifically on the role of women and effective

leadership (Young Switzer, 2016). This article was the only article that spoke specifically

about various leadership styles between gender differences.

The last portion of the literature focused on public sector officials’ response to

crisis situations. As already stated, there is a lot of literature pertaining to this subject but,

not enough research focusing on municipal government agencies perceptions of

emergency preparedness from line staff and managers (Sommers, 2009). There is

currently not enough literature to suggest programs or pilot programs on how perceptions

impact decision makers and this need needs to be addressed (Broekema, Porth, &

Torenvlied, 2019).

15

Finally, the current research does not address the possible variation in perceptions

from lines staff and managers when it comes to current emergency preparedness effort’s

effectiveness. Lines staff may have a more accurate understanding of the current effort’s

short comings, but managers may not share their concerns. Therefore, further research

could uncover these dissonances and the extent to which there are variations in perceived

effectiveness, especially in local agencies. The last section of this chapter will be a

section summary.

Section Summary

The two overarching themes of the literature pertaining to this project are the

various leadership styles used during crisis situations, and leadership crisis preparedness

perceptions (Young Switzer, 2016). Effective leadership is essential for the success of

public sector organizations during crisis situations and recovery post-crisis (Englefield,

Black D, Copsey A, & Knight, 2019). There is currently not enough research on pre-

disaster planning. Sommers (2009) was one of the few authors that explored the

relationship between pre-disaster planning and effective response crisis. Sommers adds

that pre-disaster planning and success do not coincide and local managers adapting to

crisis is not evidence of emergency preparedness. The next chapter of this project will

consist of a research question and aim to explore the gap of emergency preparedness

perception among public sector employees. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on

the variations between managers and line staff’s perceptions of their city’s readiness and

preparedness to face emergencies and disasters.

16

Research Question and Aim

Research Gap

The literature has failed to view emergency preparedness perceptions among

managers and line staff. The perceptions might differ significantly when comparing the

two.

Aim

The aim of the project is to answer the following question: How different are the

perceptions of Pasadena and South Pasadena’s managers and line staff in when it comes

to emergency preparedness levels? The purpose of this project is to assess the perceived

deficits to the Cities’ emergency preparedness as well as the remedies they see fit to

implement to address them.

Contribution

This study’s contribution will focus on two municipal government agencies the

City of Pasadena and the City of South Pasadena. Viewing leadership emergency

preparedness from this dimension will provide greater insight about the strength and

impact of various leadership styles and how various leaders lead organizations during

crisis.

17

Research Design

Introduction and Approach

This study will have a significant effect on future research regarding emergency

preparedness perception levels. This research could help assist in both cities overall

preparedness levels during disasters, reduce dangers, reduce uncertainties, help cope with

stress, and have a speedy recovery plan. The close geographical proximity of these two

cities means that the two municipalities share similar hazards, demographics, and

potential emergencies. This will allow for a more detailed view and comparison of their

respective emergency preparedness plans and perceptions of preparedness.

This research will be conducted by using these two cities as case studies using a

mixed methods approach of both qualitative and quantitative data will be used to gather

the opinions of line staff members and managers on their perception of the cities

emergency preparedness for a crisis. Surveys will be given out to employees at both cities

and interviews will be conducted with employees asking for feedback on the current

perception of emergency preparedness.

Participants and Sampling

The participants selected for inclusion in this study were selected using both

purposive sampling and stratified random sampling (Suresh, 2011). Department

Managers from both perspective Cities will be interviewed thoroughly along with surveys

completed by line staff randomly selected from departments across both cities. Line staff

and managers will be sampled differently with managers picked out using purposive

sampling and; line staff using stratified random sampling. The primary focus is targeting

employees with 5 years of experience within the two cities (Pasadena and South

18

Pasadena), including at least five employees from each department. As these cities are

both relatively small in population purposive sampling will allow the researcher to collect

survey data from all personnel.

This data will provide information on leadership emergency preparedness during

crisis situations and perceptions by managers and line staff.

Methods

This study will be conducted using a mixed methods data collection methods.

Qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered. The first set of data collected for this

study will be gathered through comparative research using qualitative in-depth interviews

using open ended questions with department managers and line staff from both Municipal

agencies. This qualitative data will be compared and analyzed to determine if line staff

and managers have the same perception of emergency preparedness.

The second method of data collection will be quantitative and will be based on a survey

questionnaire that asks respondents to answer close ended questions that will rate level of

perceived emergency preparedness by managers.

Quantitative Comparative Data Collection.

A survey questionnaire was created to collect data from personnel within two

municipal governments relating to the perceived emergency preparedness effectiveness

across various departments. The unit of analysis for the quantitative survey questionnaire

will focus on managers and line staff personnel from various departments from both

agencies. There will be a 9 question survey asking participants from the study to rate

leadership’s emergency preparedness within each individual cities and departments.

19

The questions will analyze the respondent’s perception of crisis preparedness along

various dimensions: the perceived preparedness for various types of crisis, of available

resources. They also aim at exploring their perception of crisis response assets, the

presence and effectiveness of crisis management plans and training.

The scoring for the survey will be based on a 5-point Likert scale, which will range from

(1= Totally Agree to 5= Totally Disagree). This will be on a 5-point scale, which is

attached in the appendix. This survey will be passed out randomly to line staff across

various departments across both city governments.

Both cities employees will share their input on emergency preparedness perception. The

internal reliability of the survey of the instrument follows the accepted protocols

established for this data collection method. Internal reliability is a method of research that

shows consistency of peoples responses across items of measure (Research Methods in

Psychology, 2019). This survey will produce internal reliability based on inner

consistency. This will use items or survey questions to look at the results and provide

reliability of this dimension tool. The data from both surveys will be united and

compared using statistical differences among the units of analysis within each group.

Qualitative Comparison Data Collection

This study will also utilize in depth interviews with the managers and line staff

from both Municipal agencies. The data will be collected using One-on-One interviews

using face-to-face interactions if necessary, using phone conversations. This will give a

unique perspective of viewing emergency preparedness among managers and line staff

from both perspective cities. Each interview will last a minimum of 30 minutes using 10

specific open-ended questions emergencies, emergency preparedness, and training of

20

line staff for emergency situations. This data will be compared to the quantitative analysis

of how leaders perceive their emergency preparedness during crisis situations to how

followers view leaders and their organizations. Validity both internal and external will be

shown because it was in depth interviews with department heads asking specific open-

ended questions. This will allow for comparisons between the cities and across

departments within each perspective city to prepare for emergencies and crisis situations.

External and Internal Validity.

To show that this study is sound and valid, it is important to note the threats to

validity and explain how they are not limitations in the findings of this research.

Regarding external validity this study will be generalizable to other cities across the

United States and this study can be replicated. The demographics of both cities are

generalizable across the United States and data from both leaders and followers will be

useful in explaining emergency preparedness during crisis situations from the

perspectives of the managers and line staff. Also using surveys, case studies, and one on

one interviews produces high external validity because these types of data are based on

authentic responses rather than being manipulative and asking leading questions. The

threats to validity also need to be discussed. The selection bias might be an issue because

you are comparing two similar cities and specifically targeting employees within these

perspective cities. Each group of participants across both city departments will have

varying titles and unique perspectives on emergency preparedness within their

perspective organizations.

21

Discussion

Projected Findings and Significance

The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast perception of emergency

preparedness by leadership across two municipal governments the City of Pasadena and

the City of South Pasadena. The researcher explains that proposed findings would show

the perspective of perceives leadership effectiveness from line staff and managers of

public sector organizations to better enhance leadership emergency preparedness across

both units of analysis and nationwide. This unique study will result in findings that can be

applied nationwide across the United States for emergency preparedness and perceived

emergency preparedness effectiveness from all staff members

In the wake of crisis the public expect leaders to take center stage (Jong, 2017).

When crisis have low impact, the focus is of the media shifts from the general public

towards the victims and their families. Audiences attribute responsivity to public leaders

and as a consequence’s leaders are held responsibly when they are legally not (Jong,

Duckers L, & Velden, 2016).

The discussion of organizational change in relation to varying leadership styles in

recent crisis management literature adds to the structure and content of crisis

management systems to better understand how and why leadership styles are important to

emergency response. As the literature and case studies have shown, there is a history in

the United States where leaders across multiple organizations have failed during

emergencies and crisis situations (Luo & Jiang, 2014). There are numerous examples of

chaos, miscommunication, and mismanagement which in turn has had negative

22

consequences such as creating an image of mistrust between the public and public sector

employees (Caulfield, 2018).

Many of the leadership theories mentioned in the literature review help shed light on the

varying leadership styles associated during times of organizational change and

emergency preparedness across multiple organizations (Ilyas Sindhu, Ahmad, & Hashmi,

2017). Change can be triggered by crises, but crises also generate changes.

Organizational change is a vivid component of emergencies (Neil, 2016).

Organizational change is defined as the process which an organization changes its

structure, strategies, operational methods, technologies, or organizational culture to affect

change with the organization and the effects of the organization (Grimsley, 2018). During

times of crisis, change is inevitable (Boin, Hart T, & Preston, 2010), the culture of

organizations can shift from normal operations to crisis management (Wang 2017) and

many negative consequences may arise because of this.

One such consequence of organizational change is abusive supervision. In times

of crisis, leaders can tend to centralize information and directives rather than to let an

emerging informational structure, both formal and informal, take place (Boin, Hart T, &

Preston, 2010). Abusive, centralizing and controlling supervision styles are linked to

informational bottlenecks in times of crisis as well as other negative outcomes (Boin et al

2010, Comfort et al 2010 Pyc, 2016). Abusive supervision is an example of ineffective

leadership during crisis; Pyc , Meltzer, & Cong (2017) defines abusive supervision as

subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in sustained display

of hostile verbal, and nonverbal behaviors excluding physical contact.

23

Negative outcomes associated with ineffective leadership are exhaustion, physical

symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor job performance (Pyc, Meltzer,

& Cong, 2017). Employees have no other option than to accept misconduct from

managers, internalize this misconduct because of the power balance and experience

anxiety and depression (Hallunovi, 2014). During times of crisis negative emotions such

as anxiety and depression are responses to abusive supervision. Employees are unlikely

to react to supervisor mistreatment because of the power imbalance and risk of reprisal.

Abusive supervision reflects a lack of mutual respect, which employees could perceive as

violations of organizational justice (Humphries & Howard M, 2014).

Crises can lead organizational leaders to focus on how to be more efficient,

growing out, and reengineering of current systems (Oreg, Bartunek M, Gayoung, & Do,

2018). Organizational change is evident among public sector organizations, as most try to

adapt to a changing environment (Luo, 2014). Employees resist organizational change

because they fear negative outcomes and consequences.

The most common forms of organizational change are changes in leadership and

changes in organizational rules (Jong, Duckers L, & Velden, 2016). Receiving criticism

from lower management and is an essential skill that needs to be implemented during

crisis (Englefield, Black D, Copsey A, & Knight, 2019). The ability to challenge top

management decisions during change is critical for current leadership. Weak leadership

during organizational change often creates a hostile internal and external environment.

A key element to leadership and organizational change is the emotional impact on

management. This correlates to transformational leadership and emotional intelligence

(Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014). Emotional management helps combat fear, stress,

24

anxiety, frustrations and threats of followers. To generate positive changes leaders must

combat ostracism and despair, acknowledge threats, and generate support trust, and

loyalty from followers (Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014).

Managers play a critical role in communicating changes and providing feedback

to employees during times of change (Caulfield, 2018). During times of crisis these skills

are necessary. During emergencies, managers must communicate reason for change,

motivate employees to embrace change, establish visions about change, influence

employees, collect feedback from employees and create coalitions for change (Neil,

2016). According to Luo (2014) the reason managers fail to get employees onboard with

organizational change is because they are unaware of how to handle employees'

emotions. During times of crisis organizational change is inevitable and leaders must

know how to adjust to the situations at hand. The last theme in the literature that

combines various leadership styles and organizational change is public sector leadership

crisis preparedness.

Knowledge-management, cohesiveness and crisis management

As mentioned in the literature, for public sector organizations to prosper they

must be knowledgeable to embrace organizational change specifically during times of

crisis (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Organizational change includes crisis and emergency

management. The cohesiveness of employees during organizational change is crucial for

the success of employees, managers, and line staff. Ineffective leadership and abusive

supervision has detrimental effects on employees and this creates a hostile environment

for all staff members of public sector organizations (Broekema, Porth, & Torenvlied,

2019).

25

There is a power imbalance between supervisors and line staff where line staff has

no other option than to accept misconduct from managers and internalize the experienced

effects (Luo & Jiang, 2014). Line staff is unlikely to reprimand managers, and this

creates a lack of mutual respect between staff and managers (Cottrell, 2002). This is

where this study will find out information on the perception from staff on how to better

address issues pertaining to emergency preparedness (Dematthews, 2016). Followers are

aware that they should not question the nature of organizations, policies, to prevent from

facing reprimand (Humphries & Howard M, 2014). A leader or manager should not ask

an employee to do something that they are not willing to do themselves and provide

positive feedback when followers perform well (Cottrell, 2002).

According to Neil et al., (2016), leadership behaviors were not related to team

performance during a period of change and crisis but, cohesion and emotional

intelligence were. Middle managers and supervisors need to be trained in effective

communication to better handle crisis situations. Three decades of research indicate that

leadership outcomes depend on the situation (Caulfield, 2018). Considering crisis and

disasters there needs to be a shift in central government towards decentralizing power to

local governments because, local governments are responsible for their own emergency

planning and implementation of crisis management actions (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017).

A call for further research

Local governments are one of the most understudied institutions in emergency

management literature (Youngs & Cardno, 2015). There needs to be a shift from a

resource-based approach to a strategy-based approach for local governments emergency

preparation (Oreg, Bartunek M, Gayoung, & Do, 2018).

26

Public organizations make it difficult for emergency and crisis response because

they are bureaucratic and hierarchical (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). Ironically enough the

purpose of bureaucracy and hierarchy is effective oversight and control but; too many

structural constraints and rules affect organizational effectiveness and performance

(Cohen, 2017). The bureaucratic structure is about power rather than effective

performance, authority rather than creative solutions to complex problems, administrative

status rather than competent service (Wang & Ming-feng, 2017). More research

regarding the centralization reflex among leaders, especially in bureaucratic settings

could be beneficial for increased effectiveness of local emergency planning and response.

Ultimately, local government could use research to reinforce a strategic approach

to risks. This can help assemble and allocate organizational resources based on in internal

competencies and shortcomings to respond to internal and external emergencies (Bowers,

Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). Strategic crisis response would positively benefit local

government organizations. Organizations that only respond to external environment

conflict with strategic directions of crisis response (Caulfield, 2018). Further research

could assess how crisis leaders can prepare for external disturbances at the local level.

The public often uses social media to repost or retweet information posted by

governments. Cohen (2017) found a link between individuals confidence level in local

governments ability to manage a disaster and availability of sources of disaster

information. Integrating organizational action through mass timely communication is a

problem for public agencies in increasing the effectiveness of emergency response

(Grimsley, 2018). Administrative controls inhibit cooperative interaction among multiple

components of government (Comfort, 1985). Comfort also states, when communication

27

fails, costs increase, and government service becomes ineffective. Thus, further research

could target the use of social media in times of crisis and the strategies public leaders can

use to facilitate inter-agency cooperation.

Under stable conditions routine behavior is valued in government organizations;

behavior is regularized, predictable, and skilled (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017).

Bowers also adds during crisis routine behavior is inappropriate and ineffective. The

simultaneous search for information by multiple agencies at multiple levels of

government saves time in gathering information but requires time for the assimilation and

application of information to coordinate proper decision making (Comfort K, Boin, &

Demchak, 2010). Organizations rarely allocate resources to prepare for crisis

management (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). Bowers also states a framework

should be created to offer a crisis response leadership matrix to aid organization in

selecting the right leader for optimal response and recovery based on the most effective

leadership style given organizational culture and crisis dynamics. The role of transparent

communication is important during emergencies (Cameron & Mcnaughtan, 2014). It is

crucial for municipal governments to develop and maintain information channels with

their residents including active web-based technology and social media (Balfour & Guy,

2009). Further research on bottlenecks, sustainable communication channels and leaders

roles during crisis can facilitate better crisis preparedness.

Youngs, Howard, Cardno, & Carol (2015) proposed creating a leadership

development program to help managers become effective leaders in New Zeland among

school Principals. Young found that coaching and mentoring have many key advantages

on leadership on both the individual and organizational level. The program would include

28

face to face opportunities among already experienced managers using cohorts of ten to

twenty people. They would start the meeting by clarifying expectations coaching in small

groups, engaging in projects, and getting off to a timely start (Cameron & Mcnaughtan,

2014). Networking space among managers and leaders to discuss common issues is

significant in improving their leadership styles. This idea could be modeled relating to

leadership emergency preparedness across multiple public sector agencies utilizing great

leaders and how they would handle emergencies and crisis. Further research could look

into creating similar programs to better train managers to become effective leaders.

Cohen (2017) recommended municipalities to better prepare for emergencies by

creating and advancing a communication system that provides information during

emergencies. The programs aim would be to targets the needs of citizens. No single

government agency can respond to every demand for service (Comfort, 1985).

Emergency response is interorganizational and as the severity of emergencies increases

also does the jurisdiction. Inter-jurisdictional aspects of crisis is yet another dimension

that could be further looked into by scholars and crisis-management researchers.

Viewing leadership emergency preparedness from this dimension will provide

greater insight about the strength and impact of various leadership styles and each

individual emergency plans. Although much of the findings would be generalizable

future research should include viewing this type of study on larger scale organizations

and viewing the feasibility of creating a federally mandated emergency response plan

from this data. The perceptions of emergency preparedness vary greatly between line

staff and managers and more research needs to be done on this subject matter.

29

Section summary

This discussion covered the projected findings and significance of this project.

The projected findings would give future researchers greater insight on perceived

emergency preparedness versus actual emergency preparedness. The discussion also

provides good insight on how organizational change and crisis preparedness are related.

Organizational change is a result of crisis and rapid change in technology. Organizations

must embrace the change especially during times of crisis. This research shows the power

imbalance between organizational leaders and line staff members and how the rift in

communication can have a significant impact on crisis preparedness. A call for further

research should focus on the bureaucratic and hierarchical structures within organizations

and how they impact emergency preparedness. In all, although much of the findings are

generalizable future research should include this type of research on larger scale

organizations to show the true knowledge of public sector organizations actual

perceptions of crisis preparedness.

30

Conclusion

The literature points to a gap in the research, which has failed to look at

the perceptions of emergency preparedness among line staff and managers. To collect

primary research data that focuses on two municipal governments with similar

demographics in the state of California, the researcher’s hypothesis is that the data will

show how leadership and crisis preparedness is perceived differently by city department

managers and line staff members. The findings will then be compared from both cities to

show how crisis preparedness is perceived from line staff members. This research’s

findings will give future researchers insight on the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of

leaders pertaining to emergency preparedness for public sector organizations.

The mistrust between the public and public administrators can be remedied by

leadership effectiveness and can be salvaged during times of crisis rather than

exasperating the issue. Using the data obtained from this study will provide momentum

for emergency preparedness training and development of line staff and department

managers to become effective leaders among organizations within the public sector. The

two cities chosen are neighboring cities however, the results can be generalized across the

United States. Sommers (2009) argues that planning for emergencies discourages

organizations from recognizing to the unique challenges of each individual crisis.

This primary research however will give an original and relevant view of the

research study and the accuracy of the data will be high. There is no consensus in the

best leadership approach is the best for organizational change or emergency (Kellis &

Ran, 2015). Some authors argue that relationship-based theories of leadership such as

31

transformational leadership are necessary but insufficient in the public sector and; leaders

must also use value-based leadership to support their relationships (Grimsley et al. 2018).

Due to the rapid technology change it can be difficult to have the proper

leadership influence on organizations (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan M., 2017). However,

technology has made it easier to communicate and search for information regarding

emergency and crisis preparedness (Cohen, 2017). Effective leadership during crisis

situations combines technical knowledge, effective communication, management skills,

and a positive attitude to coordinate specialized professionals. Without the ability to

influence others leadership does not exist (Humphries & Howard M, 2014). This research

can provide public managers and leaders with a better understanding of what strategic

styles they should adopt to improve crisis response and emergency preparedness and; to

make it known that not all managers are good fits for emergencies (Sommers, 2009).

Using the knowledge line staff members have regarding emergencies and emergency

preparedness might further enhance future research on emergency preparedness. Using

the perceptions of emergency preparedness would better create a system to coordinate

among government agencies emergency crisis plan.

32

References

Alagaraja, M., Cumberland, D., & Choi, N. (2015). The mediating role of leadership and

people management practices on HRD and Organizatinonal Performance. Human

Resource Development International, 220-234.

Amble, B. (2019, Ocober 2). Management Issues. Retrieved from management-

issues.com: https://www.management-issues.com/news/228/uk-public-services-

suffering-from-lack-of-leadership-development/

Balfour, D., & Guy, A. (2009). Unmasking Administrative Evil. New York: Sage.

Bowers, M., Hall, R., & Srinivasan M., M. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership

style: The missing combination for selecting the right leader for effective crisis

management. Business Horizons, 551-563.

Broekema, W., Porth, J., & Torenvlied, R. (2019). Public leaders' organizational learning

orientations in the wake of a crisis and the role of public service motivation.

Safety Science, 200-209.

Brooks, C., Vorley, T., & Williams, N. (2016). The role of civic leadership in fostering

economic resillience in City Regions. Policy Studies, 1-16.

Burns, & James, M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cameron, K., & Mcnaughtan, J. (2014). Positive Organiaztional Change. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 445-462.

Caulfield, J. L. (2018). Using Case Work as a Pretest to Measure Crisis Leadership

Preparedness. Journal of Management Education, 704-730.

Cohen, O. (2017). Building resilience: The relationship between information provided by

municipal authorities during emergency situations and community resilience.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 119- 125.

Comfort, L. (1985). Integrating Organzational Action in Emergency Management;

Strategies for Change. University of Pittsburgh, 155-164.

Cottrell, D. (2002). Monday Morning Leadership. Texas: Cornerstone Leadership

Institute.

Danserau, F. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership Within Formal

Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 46-78.

Dematthews, D. (2016). Effective Leadership is not Enough: Criticial Approaches to

Closing the Racial Discipline Gap. The Clearing House, 7-13.

Englefield, E., Black D, S., Copsey A, J., & Knight, A. (2019). Interpersonal

competencies define effective conservation leadership. Biological Conservation,

18-26.

Greenleaf, r. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power

and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Grimsley, S. (2018, Feburary 6). What Is Organizational Change? - Theory & Example.

Retrieved from study.com: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-

organizational-change-theory-example-quiz.html

Guide, M. S. (2019, October 20th). MSG. Retrieved from Management Study Guide:

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/importance_of_leadership.htm

Halem, J. (2018). Optimism: A Building Block for Organizational Change. Medical

Care, 967- 968.

Hallunovi, A. (2014). Ethics in Public Administration. Inernational Review, 201-215.

33

Humphries, J., & Howard M, R. (2014). Developing Effective Leadership Competencies

in Military Social Workers. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, 3-8.

Ilyas Sindhu, M., Ahmad, H. M., & Hashmi, S. H. (2017). Leader-member exchangfe

relatonship and organiaztional justice: Moderating role of organizational change.

International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 276-282.

Jong, W. (2017). Meaning making by public leaders in times of crisis: An assesment.

Public Relations Review, 1025-1035.

Jong, W., Duckers L, M., & Velden, P. G. (2016). Leadership of Mayors and Governors

during Crises: A Systemic Review on Tasks and Effectiveness. Journal of

Contingencies & Crisis Management, 47-59.

Kellis, D., & Ran, B. (2015). Effective leadership in managing NPM-based change in the

public sector. Journal of Organizational Change, 614-626.

Luo, Y., & Jiang, H. (2014). Effective Public Relations in Organizational Change: A

study of Multinationals in Mainland China. Journal of Public Relations Research,

134-160.

Mitchell, T., & Scott G, W. (1987). Leadership Failures, the Distrusting Public, and

Prospects of the Administrative State. Public Administration Review, 445-453.

Mullen, J. (2016). Being a Good Follower: An Important Component of Effective Public

Health Leadership. Public Health Reports, 739-741.

Neil, R., Wagstaff D, C., Weller, E., & Lewis, R. (2016). Leader Behaviour, Emotional

Intelligence, and Team Performance at a UK Governnment Executive Agency

During Organizational Change. Journal of Change Management, 97-122.

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Oreg, S., Bartunek M, J., Gayoung, L., & Do, B. (2018). An Affect-Based Model of

Recipients' Responses to Organizational Change Events. Academy of

Management Review, 65-9.

Pyc, L., Meltzer, D., & Cong, L. (2017). Ineffective Leadership and Employees' Negative

Outcomes: The Mediating Effect of Anxiety and Depression. International

Journal of Stress Management, 196-215.

Research Methods in Psychology. (2019, December 1). Retrieved from opentextbc:

https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/reliability-and-validity-of-

measurement/

Sommers, S. (2009). Measuing Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for

Organizational Crisis Planning. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management, 12-23.

Suresh, K. (2011). Design, data analysis and sampling techniques for clinical research.

Academy of Neurology, 287-290.

Swain, R. (2019). Leadership lessons through the lens of historical military leaders: A

pedagogical approach to teaching leadership theories and concepts in a Masters of

Public Administration Course. Teaching Public Administration, 234-252.

Valero, J. (2015). Effective Leadership in Public Organizations: The Impact of

Organizational Structure in Asian Countries. Journal of Contemporary Eastern

Asia, 69-79.

Waeger, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Change:

An Open Polity Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 336-359.

34

Wang, C.-y., & Ming-feng, K. (2017). Strategic Styles and Organizational Capability in

Crisis Response in Local Government. Administration & Society, 798-826.

Young Switzer, J. (2016). Women and Effective Leadership. Juniata Voices, 199-208.

Youngs, H., & Cardno, C. (2015). Features of Effective Leadership Development

Provisions for experienced New Zealand Principals. ISEA, 53-68.

35

Appendix A

Perceived Leadership Emergency Preparedness Survey

Which Category best fits your job title:

I am a supervisor/executive in the City[ ] Elected official[ ] Line staff [ ] Emergency

Response Team of my City [ ] None of the above, please specify

Please Circle the numeric response for each of the following questions

#

Questions Scale

1 I believe my city has enough resources to

face a natural disaster?

1 2 3 4 5

2 I believe that leadership has demonstrated

the proper approach to disaster

management?

1 2 3 4 5

3 Overall my city is efficient in its emergency

response system?

1 2 3 4 5

4 Overall my city is prepared to face a major

disaster?

1 2 3 4 5

5 Overall the community within the city is

prepared for an emergency or crisis

situation?

1 2 3 4 5

6 During a crisis situation residents of the city

would still receive municipal services?

1 2 3 4 5

7 There are proper communication networks

within the City to send out emergency

related information?

1 2 3 4 5

8 There are numerous opportunities for

emergency preparedness training and

development within my city?

1 2 3 4 5

9

(optional)

I am involved in managing daily

emergencies?

1 2 3 4 5

1=Totally Disagree 2= Somewhat Disagree 3= Do not agree, nor disagree 4 =Somewhat Agree 5= Totally agree

36

Appendix B

Perceived Emergency Preparedness Interview Questions

Which Category best fits your job title:

I am a supervisor/executive in the City[ ] Elected official[ ] Line staff [ ] Emergency

Response Team of my City [ ] None of the above, please specify

1. How do you feel your department perceives leadership during times of crisis?

2. Do you feel that your department and city are prepared for a crisis/ emergency?

Explain.

3. Do you have faith in the mayor’s ability to lead the transfer from routine to

crisis? Why or why not?

4. During a crisis situation residents of the city would still receive municipal

services? Why, or why not?

5. Based on your experience are there enough resources within the city to face a

natural disaster?

6. Are there proper communication networks within the city to send out

emergency related information to residents?

7. Are there opportunities for emergency preparedness training and development

within your city? Explain.

8. Are there sufficient facilities for protections such as shelters in this community

where people can go during crisis? If so, are they ready for a crisis?

9. Have you ever discussed in your department the emergency response plans?

Explain. If not, do you know what the emergency response plans are?

10. Are you involved, or have you been involved in an emergency or crisis

situation? If so, could you please explain how it was handled and if it could

have been handled differently.