Innovation and Change: Influences of Pre-Disaster Leadershipin a Post-Disaster Environment

Susan E. Parker, PhDDeputy University Librarian, UCLA Library

© Susan E. Parker, 2011

Introduction

Leaders of libraries are like leaders of other

organizations in their need for tools to navigate the seas

of change. Academic libraries and their parent institutions

find that the pressure to adapt and change is a constant,

and the imperative has never been greater for leaders to

meet and master the challenges of change. Successful

organizational transformation requires employees to overcome

their fear of, and resistance to, change (Kotter, 1995;

Shapiro, 2003). We need leaders whose skills include their

ability to lead and advance their libraries through change

by inspiring creativity and innovation and emphasizing

qualities like persistence and resilience (Conner, 2006).

A disaster, whether naturally caused or human made, is

the ultimate in unexpected and abrupt change for any

organization. Certain theories of organizational change

apply to crises, disaster, and disaster survivors. When a

disaster imposes its sudden and unanticipated changes, an

organization’s new circumstances force realignment of the

mental models that individuals previously applied to their

customary work environment. Accounts of disasters have

yielded a litany of informative and often moving narratives

about the steps through which leaders moved the staff of

their organization through response and recovery. The

inspiration, creativity, and drive of leaders and dedicated

staff members is at the heart of each of these success

stories, and the process of recovery incorporates learning

to change individuals’ mental models and behaviors (Shapiro,

2003).

What motivates and influences the efforts of employees

to bring back an organization after a crisis or a disaster

and retool it to operate afresh? Could a leader harness that

energy or mindset and inject it into the environment in

order to drive adaptive growth in an organization that faces

pressures to change as part of the environment of its

regular operations?

The examination of innovative responses from an

organization that has faced

disaster successfully can help to demonstrate that the

urgent nature of catastrophe offers an environment in which

mental models can expand to generate new practices,

structures, and behaviors (Alire, 2000a; Kuhn, 1970; Rogers,

1995). In order to understand what motivated library

employees to create changes through innovative responses to

a specific disaster, this study concerns itself with the

Morgan Library at Colorado State University as one example

of a library whose employees devised a number of new tools

and workflows to deal with the challenges of recovery from a

major disaster. One of the tools, RapidILL, was such a

successful innovation that it continued and evolved beyond

the period of recovery, starting in 1997, to become a

successful lending consortium today (Colorado State

University Libraries, 2011).

Morgan Library employees contributed to a book about

their experiences that was issued while the disaster

recovery was still underway. Those fresh accounts were

important to understanding what went into the library’s

recovery. The author also went to the library ten years

after the disaster occurred and asked employees themselves

to discuss what motivated their pre- and post-disaster

activities. A picture emerged of the significance of the

motivation and trust that the library’s leaders provided

well before the disaster hit. Morgan Library employees

emphatically noted that their ability to innovate in the

face of disaster and massive change was the result of the

leadership’s efforts to establish an environment where

experimentation and trial and error were safe and welcome.

Employees who trusted their leaders to provide that safe

space were among those who felt the most freedom to create

new services and tools after the flood.

Background of the Study

In order to better understand how a library organization

generates learning and innovation in times of crisis or

extreme change, it was important to study a library that had

experienced a period of intense change followed by, and

directly connected to, innovative outputs. For the purposes

of this study, the Morgan Library at Colorado State

University in Fort Collins, Colorado was an excellent

candidate.

In the aftermath of a devastating 500-year flood that

swept through Fort Collins on the night of July 28, 1997,

the Morgan Library was launched into a period of disaster

recovery that resulted in the restoration of the library and

its collections and services. The signal characteristic of

the disaster response was the dedication of the library’s

staff to

restore services and resources to the university community,

and one of the most interesting outcomes of their response

was innovation.

Flooding in the streets led to overflowing creeks. The

force of the water that surged across the campus and pushed

through the parking lot behind the library caved in the wall

on the west side of the library building’s lower level

(Lunde and Smith, 2010). The flood filled the newly

renovated basement of the Morgan Library to within six

inches of the ten-foot high ceiling. (Alire, 2000—what do

you do when it happens to you). The library’s periodical

collection was underwater: about 500,000 bound journals,

government documents, and microforms were damaged, about

half of them beyond salvage or repair, at a time before

these resources were widely available in online databases.

The water knocked out the electrical power, and without air

conditioning systems to maintain a constant temperature or

humidity, collections of books and archives throughout the

entire building were exposed to the humidity generated by

the waterlogged basement, creating a very real threat of

mold infestation (Alire, 2000 what do you do).

Library administrators were on site that very evening,

and in the following days they helped to organize and lead

the library’s response. The first order of business was to

pump the water out of the 77,000 square foot lower level of

the library and to clean up, remove, and discard the damaged

books, furniture, and computer equipment. The condition of

the books and other materials in the rest of the building

had to be assessed, and decisions had to be made about

whether they would be restored or replaced.

It was soon clear that much of the collection was lost or

damaged, and even though the books that remained were

organized into a storage facility for retrieval as needed,

that was not a substantial enough resource to support the

university’s curriculum and research needs. The students and

faculty needed books as well as periodicals and other

library services, regardless of the situation and in

addition to the library’s focus on recovery. Library staff

established temporary operations and other measures, but

while it was of some use to rely on available electronic

periodical databases and interlibrary loan, more access to a

broader set of materials was needed. In addition, the high

volume of donated books to be reviewed for disposition—along

with the effort of coordinating the replacement of the lost

periodicals—was overwhelming the library’s processing staff,

generating the need to create and manage an entirely new set

of workflows.(Smith 2000 upstairs/downstairs)

The library staff members responsible for gaining access

to resources no longer available at the Morgan Library

generated a creative response: they invented RAPID/ILL, a

service that supplemented borrowing by generating and

organizing newly established arrangements with other

libraries that were willing to expedite delivery of journal

articles to Colorado State users’ computer desktops through

electronic means (Delaney, 2000). This was a nascent

practice at the time, and it was intended as a temporary

solution to the loss of the Morgan Library’s periodicals

collection. It has since become an industry best practice,

and a growing one at that.

Theoretical Background

of the Study

This study uses the psychological construct of mental

models (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Mental models are fundamental

to cognition and reasoning. Individuals interpret the world

and events through their mental models. Organizational

psychologists use mental models in examining learning in

organizations and reasoning and sensemaking in individuals

who work in organizations (Weick, 1995).

Organizational learning theory is rooted in the mental

models concept. Argyris and Schon (1978) argue that the

single and double feedback loops that are fundamental to

learning are based in mental models. Senge’s (1990) theory

of the learning organization relies on the idea that

individuals’ mental models affect their learning and their

capacity and desire to create; when individual employees

experience learning and generate new ideas, this contributes

to the growth of the organization as a whole system.

Mental models are the unique internal representations

that portray or demonstrate an individual’s view of a

situation (Senge, 1990). Mental models are so deeply

internalized that most people create and apply them without

conscious thought. As individual people view and interpret

problems through the lens of their own mental models, they

tend to reify familiar frameworks. Within an organizational

setting, this preference for relying on the same models and

interpretations can prevent, problematize, or place

boundaries around individual imagination and the creation

or adoption of new practices.

Learning influences the structure of mental models and

opens the imagination to stimulate new responses to change

or crisis. This generates new input and new output, and it

forms a new feedback loop that takes in new learning,

emotions, and behavioral changes (Huy, 1999, 2005).

Individual learning demands the testing and restructuring of

knowledge (Argyris and Schon, 1978). Organizational learning

occurs when a single loop of information and feedback

contributes to gains in organizational progress based on

individuals’ normal expectations. Double-loop learning

contains adjustments to expectations about outcomes and

performance, based on the intake of new information and new

outcomes. Double-loop learning generates creativity.

Experimentation with new ideas and untested protocols

facilitates double-loop learning, and this enables

individuals in organizations to develop new priorities and

strategies (Argyris and Schon, 1978). They adjust and

understand the environment in terms of a new set of norms.

A crisis or an extreme event at work can be a catalyst

for many feelings among employees, including fear,

excitement, and even resistance. Emotions like this are

central to the process of organizational learning and change

(Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002). The disruption of regularized

routines and settings influences individuals’ sensemaking

efforts for contextualizing their experience within the

organization, and it triggers emotions (Weick, 1995;

Dougherty and Drumheller, 2006). Combined with pressure

applied to mental models and the effort of situational

sensemaking, these emotions can exert a heavy influence on

people’s perception of change and their ability or

willingness to act in response to it (Shapiro, 2003). In

fact, emotion itself is what binds individuals and

organizations together (Gabriel, 2000).

The realm of study involving the influence of individual

employees’ emotions upon innovation in the workplace is

relatively new and gaining in importance. Efforts to study

the importance of leaders’ emotions and employees’ emotions

are situated within the study of leadership styles, largely

described in efforts to understand and document the impact

of leaders’ behaviors and emotions on employees’ behaviors

and emotions (Gooty, et al., 2010). There are also important

efforts to critique as well as to validate the connection

between the learning individuals gain or achieve within an

organization and the growth and learning that is embedded

into the organization itself (Lipshitz and Popper, 2000;

Vince and Saleem, 2004).

Affective Events Theory (AET) proposes that emotional

experiences inform individual attitudes and judgments, and

that these in turn influence behaviors (Weiss and

Cropanzano, 1996). For example, participants in a study

described their behaviors and emotions during disaster

recovery, and the findings showed that positive emotional

affect is likely to promote engagement with problems and

problem solving, including the multiple problems and

pressures that need resolution during disaster recovery

(Grawitch, et al., 2003).

Huy’s (1999) multilevel emotional capability theory

concentrates on the connection between emotion and change,

linking cognition and action to organizational learning and

change. During a period of change or during a crisis, when

leaders and organizations deploy actions and engage

processes in tune with their employees’ reported emotions,

the environment becomes a space where individual and

organizational capacity for creativity and renewal have

expanded (Huy, 2005). If emotions motivate action based on

learning, thus facilitating change, it is desirable for

leaders to find ways to build the emotional capability of

employees to imagine, create, and adopt change—even in

advance of a disaster or a crisis (Pauen, 2006).

Leaders need tools to help them transform intense

organizational experiences into positive applications of

employees’ intentionality, creativity, and innovation.

Leadership that is attuned to employees’ feelings about

change and disaster will help them adjust their mental

models about change and also help to motivate them to assume

activities that feed their capacity to contribute to

disaster response and change efforts (Mitroff, 2005). This

type of leadership can build employees’ psychological

resilience and confidence for handling crises. It will help

to develop the organizational capacity and creativity that

is needed to anticipate and plan for disasters, identify

their warning signals, and respond to change effectively.

While it is not well understood how sudden and unplanned

change affect the ability of employees to respond with

creativity, this study uses the Morgan Library’s disaster

recovery to learn the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and

recollections of employees who survived a workplace

disaster. This information should help us to understand how

these employees’ experiences and feelings influenced

learning, and how and why they contributed this learning

into innovative responses during the library’s recovery.

Organizational learning, innovation in organizations, and

mental models and workplace change are the subject of a wide

body of literature. The investigation of psychological and

sociological phenomena related to disaster and disaster

victims has included survivor case studies, interviews,

crisis management reviews, and post traumatic distress

studies (Barbash, 2003; Buenza and Stark, 2003; Dombrowsky,

1998; Ellis, 2002; Kirschenbaum et al., 2005). A good deal of

this literature emphasizes factual recounting of the events

in a disaster, favoring journalistic style and substance

over scholarship . Most of the knowledge base is

theoretical. It includes systems theories (Gladwell, 2002;

Shapiro, 2003), and theories about learning in organizations

(Argyris and Schon, 1978; Senge, 1996). Very little of this

literature is supported with empirical research from the

perspectives of people who have experienced extreme change

in an organizational setting. Chreim’s work (2006) is an

exception, and some dissertations are beginning to

contribute empirical research conducted with disaster

survivors or group behavior among disaster survivors

(Kennedy, 2004).

This study offers a unique qualitative psychological

examination of individuals’ perspectives about their

experience and participation in disaster-driven

organizational change. Published accounts of the Morgan

Library disaster and its aftermath come from members of the

library staff and library leaders. These are used as

triangulation to strengthen the reliability of the study. A

strong interview protocol adds to the study’s robustness. A

rigorous analytical procedural approach helped to extract

meaningful constructs from the data. Finally, narrative sets

the scene and places participants’ comments into context,

giving the reader the opportunity to experience what

happened through the eyes of the library employees who have

shared their lived experience (Creswell, 1994).

The goal of this study is to clarify how mental models,

organizational learning, and innovation work together to

create change in a specific circumstance. This requires the

use of both theoretical and applied understanding.

Organizational change combines the individual processes of

reasoning and sensemaking with visible behaviors (Argyris

and Schon, 1978; Senge, 1996). This investigation analyzes

the results of individual interviews and questionnaires with

actual participants in the Morgan Library’s disaster

recovery. The objective is to learn from them how they

responded to the event and to the changes it thrust upon

their work and their organization.

It is important to uncover meaningful survivors’ language

for discussing this and other cases of organizational

learning through periods of change. Organizations are more

vulnerable than ever to crises and disasters, and they must

be prepared to deliver effective and innovative responses.

With so much at stake, even routine changes can seem

threatening and out of control from an employee perspective

(Kotter, 1996), but extreme crises can provoke even more

intense emotions and feelings of exposure. This is an

opportunity to explore the lived experiences of employees

who successfully worked to recover and improve their

organization’s operations following a disaster. This is our

chance to hear directly from them about their emotions and

their acceptance of change. It should be possible to

understand from their descriptions of their experience how

they shifted their mental models—of change, and of

organizational culture—and how that brought about their

creation of innovations, one of which has evolved into a

worldwide interlibrary lending consortium (Colorado State

University, 2011).

Study Questions and

Methodology

This case study considers three research questions

(Parker, 2007):

1. How do employees describe their experience of

surviving, responding to, and recovering from their

organization’s disaster?

2. How does this sudden imposition of a disaster alter

employees’ mental models and their ability to accept

and respond to change?

3. What factors in the experience of responding to an

organizational disaster promote employee innovation

and learning during the disaster recovery period?

Question 1 seeks to learn about the participants’

experience in the Morgan Library

disaster and recovery. The participants’ own words are the

important data. The invitation to describe their experiences

will be as open-ended as possible in order to garner the

participants’ own vocabulary and descriptors.

Question 2 will use some of the participant-generated

descriptors to examine their responses and adaptation to

sudden change.

Question 3 will help to explore employees’ disaster

experiences and identify the relationship of experience to

learning, innovation, and change. What influenced employees’

mental models and behavior? What were their decision making

processes, and how did they change their mental models of

work in the post-disaster recovery period?

This is an instrumental case study. It relies upon

qualitative methodology. It is the best way to understand

lived experiences, and it is necessary in order to generate

the rich, thick description that is required for a valid and

reliable study (Creswell, 1998; Geertz, 1973). Review of the

disaster recovery experiences of the employees of the Morgan

Library will help to provide understanding of organizational

systems, learning organizational theory, mental models, and

theories about innovation in stressful settings (Kuhn, 1970;

Rogers, 1995; Senge, 1996; Wheatley, 1999). The only way to

obtain valid information about the experiences, thoughts,

and feelings of participants in the disaster is by asking

them directly in an interview or via a questionnaire. We

need to hear from them what motivated and inspired them to

create innovations (Chreim, 1996).

Significance of the Study

This examination of the lived disaster recovery

experiences of the employees of Morgan Library can provide a

newly rich understanding of how change influences mental

models and learning in organization. It will contribute

knowledge to the study of organizational systems and

leadership, especially theories about innovation in

stressful settings and learning in organizations (Kuhn,

1970; Rogers, 1995; Senge, 1996; Wheatley, 1999). Seeking

information directly from participant survivors is the only

way to know what they experienced and what emotions they

felt, including what motivated and inspired them to apply

innovations to their organization’s recovery (Chreim, 2006).

This study places the experience of these survivors

into the scholarly record. It joins the previously published

accounts of members of the organization (Alire, 1998, 2000a,

b, c, 2003; Bush, 2000; Carpenter, 2000; Cocheneur et al.,

2000; Delaney, 1998a, b, 2000; Lunde 1998a, b, 1999a, b;

Lunde and Smith, 2009, 2010; Lunde et al., 2000; Morthart,

1997; Schmidt, 1999; Smith, et al., 2006; Switzer, 1998;

Wessling, 2000; Wessling and Delaney, 2000, 2003). The story

of the employees who join the current study will serve as a

further example of their innovative organizational disaster

response, since not everyone who participated in the

disaster recovery has provided their recollections in

publications. While it is possible that some of the

employees who have written about the disaster also may

choose to participate in this study, it gives others who

were there for the disaster and recovery an opportunity to

contribute to the advancement of knowledge in disaster

recovery and to the psychology of learning and change in

organizations.

Definition of Terms

Disaster. A disaster is a sudden or unexpected

catastrophic event or circumstance that causes significant

human, financial, or property losses (Pearson and Clair,

1998; Simola, 2005). The disaster at the center of this

study is the flood that tore through Fort Collins, Colorado

on July 27, 1997 and ruined the collections of the Morgan

Library at Colorado State University. Examples of words that

are used in this study to represent the condition of

disaster include crisis, emergency, catastrophe, and extreme

circumstance.

Disaster recovery. Disaster recovery is a process that

includes the activities beginning with immediate response to

a disaster or crisis, and the activities that continue

following the immediate response (Wellheiser and Scott,

2002). Recovery is a relative term; not all organizations

recover from a disaster.

Disaster planning. Disaster planning is a pre-disaster

activity in organizations (Wilkinson, Lewis, and Dennis,

2010). Disaster plans can be amended to include the

information learned as a result of surviving a disaster.

Learning organization. Senge (1996) identifies a learning

organization as one that prioritizes the capture and

assessment of knowledge gained through daily work and

experience within the organization, and applying it

selectively to improve the organization and how it

functions.

Organizational systems theory. Organizational systems theory

is the study of organizations as whole systems. It has been

shaped in the work of Wheatley (1999), who sees parallels in

natural and human-made systems, and in the work of Conner

(2006), Gladwell (2002), and Shapiro (2003), who specify a

critical mass of support and individuals’ ability to absorb

change as key requirements for successful organizational

change or learning.

Mental models. Mental models are the shorthand constructs

that anindividual devises to explain how the world works

(Argyris and Schon, 1978; Senge, 1996). Mental models are

not completely accurate representations of pheomena,

experiences, or concepts. Because mental models are unique

to each individual, they are incomplete and change based on

environmental inputs and individual perceptions.

Innovation. Innovation represents the application of a

creative change. In disasters there is an opportunity for

new ideas to emerge and gain acceptance, and there is

increased willingness to risk failure in hope that

experimentation may contribute to progress or improvement.

Kuhn’s classic work introduced this idea (1970), while

Rogers (1995) contributes to the study of the adoption of

creativity in organizations, and Borghini (2005)

investigates the ways in which disruptions can promote new

processes, inventions, and viewpoints.

Assumptions and

Limitations of the Study

Assumptions

Not all organizations recover from disaster or regroup.

This case was chosen as an example of a reasonably

successful disaster recovery; other cases where recovery was

less successful or not at all successful should also be

studied to learn about the influence of mental models and

change.

Not all cases are like this one. Every organization,

and every disaster, is unique.

This study assumes that organizations are to be

understood as systems.

Strengths

The strongest aspects of design and analysis in this

study are the engagement of participant survivors and the

experience of the researcher as a manager with experience in

leading disaster planning and recovery efforts in library

organizations. The researcher also has experience in

conducting interviews and analyzing textual data. Also

strong are the triangulation capabilities built into the

case study method and supported by published accounts in

professional literature by the survivors of the disaster

under study. The interview questions allow for replication

of the study, with editing to customize specifics to any

different disaster setting and circumstances. One further

strength is the involvement of participant survivors as they

received opportunities to review their statements and to

add, subtract, or revise information.

Limitations

Qualitative research offers limited generalizability.

It gives a unique interpretation of events and theories. A

case study usually includes a small sample size (Yin, 2003).

The assumptions of this study, the method of selecting

participants, and the researcher’s bias and values are all

attributes that may enhance replication in different

settings (Creswell, 1994).

The basic facts related in individual participants’

statements, self-presentation, and recollections can be

verified, but exaggerations are difficult to detect (Yin,

2003). Recollections may have faded or altered in the ten

years since the flood. This type of reporting accuracy is

not the point of the study, but it suggests that a future

study could examine participants’ perceptions against

reality and attempt to understand the meaning of gaps

between the two.

The success of qualitative research and analysis

depends on the researcher’s insights and pattern recognition

ability (Patton, 2002). It was challenging to write the case

in such a way as to make clear the scope of the disaster

that faced the Morgan Library organization while focusing on

the primary concern of an instrumental case study: the

theories that make up the case.

This research relied on volunteers. They compose a

self-selected group. It is important to note that the

participants are primarily those who were present during the

flood recovery and who had active roles in it. Except for

one participant, the researcher did not include any other

participants who have since left the library. This study

identifies the differences between employees’ perspectives,

and between the perspectives of employees and leaders.

Literature Review:

Research Disasters

This section reviews and describes literature

concerning organizational change, learning, innovation, and

emotions as they are related to the study of disasters and

post-disaster behaviors in organizations. This includes

important sources about disaster responses in libraries.

Theories about mental models, change, organizational

learning, and affective experience in organizations will be

considered. Literature supporting the methodological

approach of this study will be discussed. Also included is

literature that presents different perspectives on disaster

research or identifies gaps or needs in disaster research.

This review of the literature demonstrates that there

is a disaster research tradition dating from the early 20th

century in several disciplines. These include sociology,

anthropology, organizational management, psychiatry, and

psychology. Sociology and anthropology focus on

understanding how disaster phenomena affect social

structures; organizationl management strives to learn from

case studies of individual events; psychiatry has emphasized

epidemiological concerns. The bulks of psychological

research on disaster has been heavily weighted toward the

examination of traumatic exposure or to reporting narratives

of individual cases. This leaves a gap in the literature

that this study tends to address, and it leaves room for

future studies to investigate the behavior of disaster

survivors whose exposure to traumatic events has not

prevented them from responding to disaster, change, and

extreme stress in ways that apply and promote learning and

enhance organizational survival.

Research on Disaster in Organizations

Disaster search is cross disciplinary, and it is a

relatively young field in which interest has begun to

increase. The world in the early 21st century has become a

more unpredictable place, especially after the September 11,

2001 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane

Katrina, the tsunami in Japan, worldwide recession, and

floods and cluster tornadoes in the midwest. We are

increasingly affected by environmental and technological

disasters, natural disaster related to population movements,

terrorism, war, and social and economic uncertainty

(Lalonde, 2007). These have had significant impacts on

library organizations. More researchers have become

attracted to studying the problem of disaster as it affects

individuals and organizations. Crisis and disaster are

social and organizational phenomena recognized by

sociologists, anthropologists, historians, psychologists,

and organizational management experts.

Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology and anthropology have sought to define

disaster as a phenomenon. Their methodologies attempt to

achieve an understanding of the individual and social

experiences of disaster and how this affects organizations

and social structures. Sociologists originated much early

work in disaster research, attempting to define disaster and

establish useful methodologies for studying it (Drabek,

1986; Quarantelli, 1978; Quarantelli and Dynes, 1985).

Killian (1956) produced a now classic piece that examines

significant methodological problems for disaster study.

Killian recommended 50 years ago that researchers should

develop a systematic disaster study methodology by studying

disasters in the field during or after their occurrence, and

by designing strong tools for participant selection,

anonymity protection, and triangulation of data resources.

Stallings (2002) echoes the need to use techniques that

mitigate bias and enhance reliability and validity.

Anthropology has relied upon first person reports

(Ellis, 2002), and has inspired the widespread use of

qualitative investigative methods like ethnography. These

and other methods, such as participant observation, have

been adopted by psychologists, management experts, and other

researchers. Applied anthropology contributes to knowledge

about disaster management, but anthropological disaster

research often considers occurrences in the developing parts

of the world, unlike other social sciences, which tend to

focus on Europe and the United States (Oliver-Smith, 1996).

Anthropological research defines disaster as a process

or an event that combines a population and destructive

agents (Oliver-Smith, 1996). Anthropologists study how

individuals, groups, and organizations adjust to stress. One

topical focus is the assessment of the impact of high

technology disasters in the developing world. There are

sociopsychological problems involving the vulnerability and

victimization of people developing areas, and about the

politicization of the distribution or withholding of aid to

vulnerable populations.

The impact of disaster and the cultural expression of

postdisaster stress may be studied through somatization and

folk illness, or through the construction of cultural

meanings following a disaster in which there is a search for

an explanation for tragic losses or radical change (Marsella

and Christopher, 2004). Disaster survivors emphasize their

cultural traditions and must fight the contestation of their

interpretations of suffering.

Management and Business History

Management studies have contributed case studies in

disaster research. Sometimes the purpose of a business case

study is to tell the story of an event, such as the Triangle

Shirtwaist Factory fire (Pence, et al., 2003). Sometimes

there is a stronger disciplinary thrust. Case studies and

data analysis can help us to learn something concrete about

process improvement or something bigger, such as how leaders

have directed disaster responses and recoveryin their

organizations. Investigations of disasters or human interest

stories are like that of the Malden Milles fire in Farnham

(2000), and others reviewed in Useem (1998). Additional work

includes participants observation, personal accounts, and

techniques like content and speech analysis (Seeger and

Ullman, 2001, 2003).

Psychiatric Epidemiology and Disaster Psychology

Researchers in psychiatry and psychology have engaged

primarily with the mental health aspects of public and

organizational emergencies. They investigate and measure the

effects of traumatic exposure and stress, looking for ways

to treat those who suffer negative effects from exposure to

disaster. They produce case studies. For example, a study of

how the disaster plan unfolded at St. Vincent’s Hospital in

Manhattan on September 11, 2001 reflects the post-terrorist

era concern about disaster preparedness in critical care

institutions (Kirschenbaum, et al., 2005). In another case,

well before the Columbine shootings, mental health experts

investigated the effects of a schoolhouse shooting on the

attitudes of the surviving school employees (Schwarz and

Kowalski, 1993).

The study of disaster mental health goes back to the

earliest studies of anxiety. The history of psychological

investigation of traumatic exposure began with Freud’s

identification of anxiety neurosis as a separate clinical

group diagnosed as anxiety hysteria (Brill, 1910). The study

of post traumatic stress and PTSD is also grounded in the

study of war and battle fatigue, Holocaust survivors,

survivors of school shootings, and survivors of natural and

human-made disasters.

Among the topics disaster psychiatry investigates are

psychopathology and diagnoses and the causes,

classification, and treatment of behavior, adjustment, mood,

and personality disorders (Garakani, et al., 2004; North,

2003). After studying disasters like the Oklahoma City

Federal Building bombings, North observes that coping

strategies, vulnerability, and personal resilience influence

the development of different kinds of individual

psychological responses to exposure to specific events. Some

mental health problems may occur, including PTSD, major

depression, substance abuse, anxiety disorders, and

somatization. In fact, disaster stories have been used as a

traditional teaching tools in the mental health community

(Reyes and Elhai, 2004).

Some mental health clinicians study and validate tests

designed to measure post traumatic stress, including such

self reporting tools as the Impact of Events Scale and the

Missisippi Scale (Green, 1991; Inkelas, et al., 2000).

Research is also contained in clinical psychology

dissertations, such as DeRosa’s (1995) investigation of PTSD

and suvivor’s objective experiences following an explosion

that killed 25 employees in a processing plant in a small

rural town. Disaster psychologists have tended to focus on

community response to disaster, crisis communication,

training for first responders and citizens, and critical

incident debriefing or critical incident stress management

(Gist and Lubin, 1989).

Disaster Study in Industrial/Organizational Psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology (I/O) is just

beginning to examine the post-disaster behavior of

individuals in organizations. I/O psychologists are in the

unique position of being able to understand, synthesize, and

apply what has been learned in the different fields of

disaster research. The focus of I/O investigations should be

to understand how people manage before, during, and after

unexpected events in their organizations (Weick and

Sutcliffe, 2001). Among the major themes that are central to

such study are change, crisis leadership, organizational

disaster response, the affective and learning experiences of

survivors, and disaster prevention, preparation, and

recovery. I/O psychologists serve as consultants to

organizations that are planning for disaster or in need of a

post-crisis response strategy (Knoteck, 2006). I/O

psychologists also have begun to create case studies of

organizations and disaster recovery.

Pearson and Clair (1998) have written one of the most

important assessments of the state of the study of crises

and disasters, arguing persuasively for the need to make a

legitimate place in psychological and management research

for the study of the effect of disasters and crises on

organizational systems. A psychological perspective on

organizational crisis can focus on cognitive perspectives,

emphasizing the important role that individuals play in

responding to organizational crises. Pearson and Clair

(1998) argue that management studies should improve their

empirical rigor and help to develop a crisis management

model: psychologists have an understanding of how to apply

cognitive theories about learning, mental models, and

sensemaking to uncover individuals’ perspectives and

experiences in organizational crises.

Research can provide information that is vital to

organizations’ failure or survival. In order to develop a

comprehensive model of the crisis management process, it is

necessary to view organizations as systems. Leaders can

apply strategies to influence system performance.

Several issues remain unresolved, according to Pearson

and Clair (1998). For example, there is little empirical

testing in most crisis management literature. Researchers

can measure success and failure outcomes or perform

longitudinal observations of crisis management teams.

Investigations of whether the leadership skills, strategies,

and approaches useful in crises mirror those that are needed

for routine operations.

Simola (2005) points out that organizational crisis

management has received little attention in psychological

literature, despite the existence of theoretical frameworks

in community and health psychology. Like Pearson and Clair,

Simola argues for the increased study of organizational

crisis management among psychologists, using a systems

oriented approach. In order to promote organizational health

during periods of crisis and change, stabilization and

resilience protect core values and provide the base for a

common understanding for progress and change in response to

threats and opportunities. Crisis prepared organizations

openly face the reality that change and crisis will come.

They engage inactivities that prepare them for crisis and

disaster. Among these are prevention, risk assessment, the

creation of business continuity and disaster plans, and

communication plans. The disaster plan includes procedures

for forming and communicating with the disaster team,

assessing a crisis and its magnitude, containment, and

responding to organizational constituents and stakeholders.

Simola (2005) argues that psychologists can help to

educate leadrrs and other members of organizations about the

need for crisis management preparation. I/O psychologists

can provide education and training, conduct risk assessments

and postcrisis audits, or even coach leaders and

organization members during or after a disaster. Simola

proposes qualitative research in crisis management because

of the necessary focus on individuals and their behavior.

Regardless of the methodology or discipline, an effective

combination of approaches is needed.

Theoretical Literature

Responding to the need to include crisis and disaster

management in psychological research, this study identifies

and applies theories as tools for understanding how

individuals respond in conditions of organizational stress.

The fundamental theoretical literature supporting this study

comes from research on learning and performance in

organization situations influenced by change or disaster.

Change

Two widely known models of change are most relevant to

the study of individuals in organizations. These come from

the work of Lewin (1951) and Kotter (1995). Lewin offers a

general model of the stages of change. Change is a technical

problem that can be solved with a tool or a formula. Stages

of change as people move through process, modify beliefs and

attitudes as they adjust to change or facilitate it. Lewin

proposes three stages of change. In the unfreezing stage,

the individual is aware of his or her values or beliefs. The

changing stage is a transitional period in which the

individual explores new beliefs and attitudes and may adopt

one or several. In the refreezing stage, the individual

incorporates new beliefs, values, and attitudes.

Kotter (1995) identifies and discusses eight steps for

transforming organizations. His model reveals that the

creation of change through a deliberate process is neither

simple nor rapid. The first step, creating a sense of

urgency, is the most important effort in creating a disaster

response and recovery plan for an organization. The

organization’s readiness to respond to such an occurrence

depends on the leader’s ability to identify risks and take

action to prevent them or mitigate the damage they can

cause.

Leaders often rationalize that when there is a low

probability of a disaster occurrence, their organization’s

exposure to danger from potential crises is minimal (Smits

and Ally, 2003). Failure to plan actually increases their

exposure. Leaders develop an organizational process and

capacity. Once the leader identifies the sense of urgency

for creating a plan, the members of the organization need to

identify its vulnerabilities. Eventually, the organization

will reach a tipping point where it becomes evident that

planning efforts are far less costly or difficult than

facing a disaster without preparation.

Chreim (2006) explains that employees respond to change

differently based on their experience with it. When

employees believe that change is valid or necessary, they

become more open to it. An individual’s view of change

evolves with exposure to different kinds and amounts of

change. Successful experience in weather or mastering

change, as Bandura (1997) predicts, enhances one’s belief in

his or her ability to undertake future changes with success.

This builds organizational readiness for change.

Organizations with a strong change culture also develop

characteristics that demonstrate strong resilience. Chreim

(2006) argues that this makes it essential for managers to

understand how individual interpret the introduction of

change. Managers should create readiness for change by

providing learning experiences to establish skills and self-

efficacy. Readiness should be promoted, and change framed,

as opportuities that are consistent with the values of the

organization. Resistance ot change should be met with a

review of goals and mutually agreed upon values.

Learning and Mental Models

Argyris and Schon (1978) describe single loop learning

as a response to changes in the environment. Single loop

learning is limited to sustaining organizational norms. It

facilitates the detection and correction of errors, but it

doesn’t contribute to a redesign of the system. Double loop

learning is necessary to change or modify the status quo and

to promote organizational learning. It is helpful in

increasing shared sensemaking, restructuring organizational

norms, and setting new priorities.

Senge (1996) furthers the analysis of learning in

organizations. He assimilates and advances the double loop

learning concepts of Argyris and Schon (1978) by presenting

the five dimensions of a learning organization. It is

essential to Senge’s view that organizations are understood

as systems. Change and learning in organizations comes as a

result of systems thinking. In order to promote learning in

organizations, individuals must develop personal mastery,

develop and foster shared mental models, and participate in

team learning experiences.

One approach is to apply the skills of reflection and

inquiry to uncover the mental models that people in the

organization carry about disaster planning and preparedness

(Senge, 1996). Discussion and inquiry help to test

assumptions about the need for disaster plans and what they

should include; once tested and refined, the act of building

meaning around the planning vision will include everyone in

the organization (Senge, et al., 1994). Kotter (1996)

reinforces the importance of developing a shared vision,

because it helps to create actions that lay the groundwork

for future improvement.

Self-Efficacy and Resilience

Bandura (1997) refers to self-efficacy, the

individual’s confidence that she or he perform a task with

success. Self-efficacy is needed for goal setting and life

event management. The sense of self-efficacy varies by

situation and task, but change provides opportunities to

develop self-efficacy. People need to have the experience of

successfully completing a task and seeing another person’s

successful performance of the task. People also need to

receive encouragement about completing the task. Self-

efficacy increases as the confidence of the individual

increases through this process. A strong sense of self-

efficacy is essential to building the kind of resilience

that is fundamental in coping with crisis and change.

Conner (2006) acknowledges that resilience is a means

of improving our ability to respond to and assimilate

change. Change itself creates a sense of urgency, but

individuals may interpret this as a crisis or as an

opportunity, depending on how the change disrupts or coheres

with their expectations. Conner discusses five

characteristics or attitudes that contribute to the

development of resilience: a positive outlook; a sense of

life as complex but rich with opportunity; a clear vision of

achieving one’s goals; flexibility in dealing with

uncertainty; and developing structured approaches and a

proactive stance when it comes to tackling problems.

Organizations that offer individuals the opportunity to

develop these perspectives and abilities will increase their

bench strength for achieving a positive disaster or crisis

response.

Emotions in the Workplace

Huy (1999, 2005) posits a theory of emotional

capability to describe how change influences affective

processes. For example, radical change—including crisis and

disaster—provokes emotions and can prompt a paradigm shift.

Under the influence of emotions that arise from confronting

change, individuals may experiences challenges to their

mental models and assumptions. This can, in turn, engender

feelings of uncertainty and defensiveness. If the change is

perceived to conflict with the individual’s values or

expectations, they resist it, but if the individual

perceives the change as stimulating or positive, he or she

is more open and receptive to it.

Learning occurs at this juncture of receptivity. In

combination with action, such as team activities, this

builds emotional resilience and strength, resulting in an

increase in emotional intelligence (Huy, 1999). When this

process is promoted in individuals, it can increase the

emotional capability of organizations. This, in turn,

sponsors an increase in total receptivity to change,

including radical changes brought about by disasters. Huy’s

research results in a model that supports the Affective

Events Theory (AET) of Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), who

propose that people require time to assimilate change events

and process them before they adjust. This is similar to

Lewin’s (1951) model of unfreezing, changing, and

refreezing.

The research on emotions in the workplace demonstrates

that leaders of organizations must recognize the powerful

effect of change, whether planned or unplanned, on

employees’ emotions. However, since emotions stimulate and

facilitate learning, they have a legitimate place in

planning and preparing for all kinds of change (Ashkenasy

and Daus, 2002). It is logical for leaders to choose

behaviors and rhetoric that help to enable employees to gain

a positive view of change overall, as well as specific

situational changes (Ullmer and Sellnow, 2002).

Rogers (2003) and Borghini (2005) offer explanations

about how new ideas spread. Kuhn (1970) shows how crises and

challenges to paradigmatic or rote thinking are necessary to

stimulate the creation of new ideas, knowledge, technology,

or actions. Echoing Lewin’s unfreezing phase (1951), Rogers

shows how innovation and new ideas spread from innovators

and early adopters, who resemble the incubators and

advocates in Shapiro’s (2003) tipping point theory, and the

activists and supporters who help to build Conner’s theory

of resilience (2006).

Rogers (2003) diagrams an “S” curve to show how a small

set of early adopters select a new idea or technology and

then influence an increasing number of later adopters until

the adoption is widespread. When applied to the current

study, this implies that there is a decision making process

on the behalf of individuals who introduce or adopt new

ideas, technology, and solutions. Among the stages of

diffusions are included awareness, interest, evaluation,

trial and adoption (or rejection and discontinuation). These

all describe active individual engagement and choice-making.

Rogers’s theory clearly shows that knowledge and

experimentation are necessary elements of one’s decision to

accept or reject a new product, idea, or technology.

Borghini (2005) interprets creativity in organizations

as a process in which shared sensemaking, shared cognition,

and shared mental models support progress. These shared

understandings result from the application of mental models

to interpret reality and create shared meaning about an

experience or culture. The knowledge base of the

organization is advanced as shared knowledge that is found

in mental models, norms, workflows, routines, and

organizational culture and values. Because creativity and

innovation are achieved through a shared language and

cultural currency, those who study them should use the tools

of social science disciplines, including ethnography and

other qualitative methodologies.

Research Design

This is an instrumental case study. The purpose of an

instrumental case study as a technique of qualitative

research is to examine a specific issue that the particular

case demonstrates (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). Case study

has a long and storied history as a form of inquiry in

numerous disciplines, including medicine, psychology, law,

education, business, sociology, and anthropology (Creswell,

1998). The in-depth study of a case can provide help for

others who may encounter a similar situation or occurrence

(Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).

An instrumental case study focuses on gathering insight

into an issue, theory, process, or phenomenon (Stake, 1995).

The case itself is a tool to illuminate that understanding.

This distinguishes an instrumental case study from an

intrinsic case study, which is uses the study of a case in

order to learn the details of that particular case.

Instrumental case studies have made increasingly frequent

appearances in social science research during the past

decade (Barzelay, et al., 2003; Boberg, 2006, Lundholm,

2004; O’Connor, 2001).

Yin (2003) describes a case study as an empirical

inquiry in which a researcher explores the relationship

between context and phenomenon. In addition, case stud

employs different sources of evidence. For this

investigation, a single case study was chosen instead of a

multiple case study as a means of providing for the first

time an in-depth empirical inquiry into the experiences of

workers in an organization that has recovered from a

disaster. Yin refers to this as a “revelatory case” (p. 43).

The design of this case study utilizes typical tools

for qualitative case study analysis. Case studies use

multiple sources of data for triangulation as a means of

improving reliability and validity (Leedy and Ormrod, 2003).

Interviews with some participants provide one source of

data. Additional data comes from questionnaires filled out

by other participants. Other sources of information include

written and published accounts, including newspaper and

professional journal articles, presentations at professional

conferences, photographs, and unpublished documents from the

library and

the library staff. Participants and witnesses can only see

from their own vantage point, and while they are giving

their honest recollection of events, it is helpful to have

multiple additional sources to check factual statements and

distinguish these from opinion. The variety of sources from

representing different vantage points contributes to the

dimension and complexity of the case, making it possible to

provide deep understanding of it. This improves the

likelihood of drawing valid and useful conclusions from the

evidence.

The methodological triangulation of data provided in

this study is strong. The design incorporates interviews,

questionnaires, and documentary analysis of published and

unpublished records. These different sources of data should

reveal converging patterns that help to identify the most

credible explanations or findings (Leedy and Ormord, 2005;

Stake, 1995). The study permits the collection of rich,

thick description, and it calls for review by an outside

expert. This enhances the capability of the study to yield

findings that may be useful in understanding disaster

recovery and innovation in other organizations.

Deep understanding of phenomena and experience is an

aim of qualitative research (Patton, 2002). It emphasizes

the value of understanding uniquely individual cases or

contexts (Stake, 1995). In fact, Stake argues a specific

contribution of case study research lies in choosing cases

for their ability to provide transferable understanding, and

not for their typicality. For Yin (2003), this analysis is

the means by which a case demonstrates or even generates

theory.

--maybe use 48-50 in diss itself in beginning.

Selection of Participants

Purposeful sampling, or inviting those who make up the

population of employees of the Morgan Library who had direct

or indirect exposure to the library’s disaster recovery from

the 1997 flood. About 100 employees were working at the

library at the time of the interviews for this study. Seven

participated in interviews, and three additional volunteers

completed the questionnaire. There is no ideal number for a

sample in qualitative research (Patton, 2002). Small sample

size promotes credibility through triangulation of

perspectives within the participant group. Adding the

consultation of published and non-published information from

other sources further improves the study’s reliability. None

of these approaches alone would be as reliable as they are

in combination (Stake, 1995).

Sampling logic used in quantitative research demands a

statistically representative sample to avoid bias;

qualitative studies require samples that ensure the capture

of richly detailed information, sometimes from a single

source (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003). This sample constitutes

individuals who are the sole experts and authorities on

their experience. No one else can answer the question: what

was your experience of living through this library’s

recovery from the flood of 1997?

Participants were members of the Morgan Library staff

who agreed to discuss their organizational roles and

experiences during and after the disaster in semi-

structured, individual interviews, or to tell their

experiences by responding to a written questionnaire.

Employees from all levels of responsibility and job

classification were invited to participate. The focus was on

those who still work in the organization, but who were

present during the disaster response period. This study does

not attempt to include those who were in the organization

during the recovery period, but who have since retired or

otherwise left the library.

Findings

Major Thematic Groups

Coding of the results generated six thematic areas for

analysis: change and innovation; behavior and speech of the

dean of the library and other administrators; significant

challenges and accomplishments; motivation; disagreements

with University leadership and recovery contractors; and

thoughts and activities related to disaster planning for the

future.

Change and Innovation (Research Questions 1, 2, 3)

Participants’ reports about their experiences with

change and innovation included descriptions about the

demands of their efforts in responding to disaster, and new

work they took on as a result of the disaster. These

comments included descriptions of what changed in their

jobs, what changes they implemented or participated in

implementing, and what contributed to the pressure to

improvise. Several participants remarked that the University

President’s mandate to ready the campus for the fall

semester placed added pressure on their efforts to restore

library services. Fran noted that she began to plan

alternative ways to provide services. Heather recalled

hiring additional temporary staff and working from 7 a.m.

until 10 p.m. to process requests. Meanwhile, Dana report

that “I felt that we were working under extreme pressure.”

Chris was stimulated by the challenge, noting that while

change can be painful, “it is not always bad.”

Leadership Behaviors and Speech (Research Questions, 2, 3)

The participants’ comments about the Library’s

leadership during disaster response and recovery include the

influence of the behaviors and speech of the library’s dean

as well as the behaviors and speech of other administrators

and managers in the library. Participants made a point of

describing the importance they placed on what leaders did

and said. Laura spoke about having trust and confidence in

the assistant deans and other supervisors. Heather and Fran

recalled that the library’s administrator provided a chance

for everyone to be heard. Jeremy noted that despite having

some disagreements with the dean of the library, he was

aware of and admired the way that she stood up for the

library. Claire was stimulated by the way she felt the dean

moved the library forward.

Significant Challenges and Accomplishments (Research

Questions 1, 2, 3)

Participants spoke freely about the challenges and

accomplishments they identified in working to respond to and

recover from the disaster. They described the hard work and

pressures of the first days and weeks, followed by the

creative demands of relocating library services and

operations and establishing internet connectivity. They

described the experimentation and learning that followed the

redesign and reconstitution of the library’s services in the

absence of a working book collection on campus. Laura spoke

about the project to acquire, sort, and add gift books,

which was an entirely new disaster-related operation.

Vanessa described how learning from previous work led to the

conception and implementation of innovations like the RAPID

interlibrary loan service. Participants also discussed how

they felt about responding to the demands of the library’s

disaster-related challenges.

Motivation (Research Question 2)

Participants identified a number of things that

motivated their hard work during the disaster response and

recovery period. Among these were the speech and behavior of

leaders in the library, the opportunity to apply their

unique professional knowledge and skills to problem solving,

the impact of strongly held professional or work values, and

feelings of loyalty and obligation to the students and

faculty who depend on the library. A very significant and

frequently mentioned motivator for employees of the library

at all organizational levels was their trust in, respect

for, and reliance upon other employees who worked with them.

As Fran said, “It comes down to people.”

Disagreements with University Leadership and Contractors

(Research Question 2, 3)

Comments about behaviors, speech, and decision making

at the university’s leadership level were almost uniformly

distinct and separate from comments about the influence of

the speech and behaviors of the library’s leaders. The

participants who commented most about this referred to

direct conflicts or philosophical disagreements they had

with members of the university’s leadership team and with

recovery contractors, insurance representatives, and other

officials who operated outside of the library and made

decisions about recovery activities and expenditures. Laura

was among those who were unhappy that the library staff

trained the recovery contractors’ workers, but otherwise had

no control over the quality of their work. As the

participants with the most responsibility for dealing with

the university’s leaders, Marta understandably had the most

to say about these conflicts and her efforts to obtain the

resources the library staff needed. Marta stated directly

that her discomfort with some of the decisions the

university administration expected her to support regarding

the recovery contractor’s standards and the disbursement of

insurance funds influenced her decision to resign before the

library’s recovery was complete.

Disaster Planning and Expectations for the Future (Research

Question 3)

Participants talked to some extent about their

contributions to the library’s future disaster planning, and

they commented on how they thought the library organization

had learned from its wide range of disaster recovery

activities over a number of years. Laura remembered how it

seems as though they learned “not to sweat the small stuff.”

Marta and Fran both reported that among the flood’s benefits

was an increased awareness about planning and preparation.

Heather reported that she became more comfortable with

having less control over change.

Expected Findings

The study was expected to show a shift in the mental

models of Morgan Library employees who received

organizational support for taking risks and experimenting.

Also, it was anticipated that organizational learning would

be detected in the form of new tools and service models

developed through double loop learning, or trial and error.

Another expected finding was that there would be a

relationship between employees’ affect, their perception of

leaders’ responsiveness to their emotional needs, and

successful disaster innovation activity. There was support

for all of these expectations in the comments of the

participants. These were reinforced by comments made by

other Morgan Library employees who wrote independently in

published resources.

Unexpected Findings

Among the unexpected findings was the identification of

the strength of employees’ affective bonds with members of

their work groups and how this supported the development of

learning and innovation as powerful tools applied in the

Library’s strong response to the flood. Participants who

were involved in interlibrary loan activities, especially as

RapidILL evolved, unexpectedly described very powerful

personal connections. Heather described her relationship

with her supervisor as being like a professional marriage,

and she noted her sense of loss when this supervisor later

left the library for another position. Vanessa was both

friend and coworker to Heather and her supervisor; they

worked side by side for many years. Even after leaving the

library and then returning following the flood, Vanessa

spoke of the emotions she felt when Heather became the head

of the Interlibrary Loan Department, and Vanessa herself

assumed a new position in the RapidILL office. One of the

most important discoveries was the library’s own pre-

disaster tradition of experimenting with new practices and

services, especially when technology could be applied to

enhance the end user services of the library (Delaney, 2000;

Wessling, 2000).

Revision of

Coding and Themes

An outside evaluator reviewed the findings and

discussed the coding with the researcher. The evaluator is a

professor of cultural anthropology and an expert in

ethnographic research methodology. The evaluator found the

participants’ expressions of their affective experiences to

be striking and significant. She recommended coding these in

a separate category from the others. This observation was

instrumental in making a further meaningful interpretation

of the data. It unraveled the problem of how to categorize

participants’ descriptions of their feelings, as they don’t

fit entirely within the categories or codes first

identified.

Next, the researcher compiled the participants’

comments about their affective experiences. Reviewing the

remarks in this new way, the outside evaluator observed that

they tell a compelling story about the participants’

affective connection to their colleagues. Following the

first coding assignments, these comments had been situated

primarily on categories describing leadership, challenges,

and motivation. This re-sorting shows how they form a

category separate and distinct from others. They assume a

value that is greater than the participants’ descriptions to

challenges, and they are more significant than any single

aspect of an individual’s motivation.

Following this coding reorganization, there emerged

powerful, shared, and often repeated statements of

appreciation for the efforts of everyone who worked

together. Dana reported how working together well as part of

a team inspired her. Darlene commented that everyone in the

library pulled together. Heather described a strong work

group relationship, referring to her bond with her

supervisor as like a “professional marriage.” Even though

these kinds of comments were found among all the

participants’ reports, they were strongest among the staff

who were involved in what would become RapidILL, the

library’s strongest and most enduring post-flood innovation.

This is likely because of the long-term personal and working

relationships shared among that group of employees.

This examination and discussion revealed the prominence

of the affective experience of work team members in the

emergence and development of innovations in the flood

recovery at the Morgan Library. It is evident that other

factors, including leaders’ behaviors and speech, influenced

the response of the library’s staff to change and disaster.

How people felt about working together had a profound

influence on the development and application of learning in

the Morgan Library organization. Participants described

having close working relationships with others, or they

commented positively about their appreciation for others’

work. They further indicated that these positive feelings

made them more inclined to listen to each other and try out

new ideas. Teams were already accustomed to applying

experimentation in this context of mutual regard and

connection (Delaney, 2000). Dana observed, “There was no

idea that was too far out,” and Vanessa said she was

inspired by a supervisor “who never met an idea she didn’t

like.” This kind of atmosphere encourages employees to try

different approaches and exposes them to different mental

models. It helps them to develop shared problem-solving

models, which in turn is likely to evolve into shared mental

models. There was a shift in the mental models of library

employees who received positive organizational support for

risk taking and experimenting. Perhaps this aspect of the

organizational culture is what equipped the Morgan Library

staff to handle the disaster and to introduce innovations

that responded to it.

Implications

In the Morgan Library, an atmosphere of experimentation

and innovation was already in place at the time of the flood

(Delaney, 2000; Wessling and Delaney, 2003). Even so, it was

the affective ties between employees that made the

application of new ideas central to the library’s disaster

response and recovery efforts. Strength of affective bonds

among members of work teams was vital to building the

motivation to try new things and experiment with new

services and practices. It is not so much the collective

“wisdom of teams” (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) that

generates knowledge building under stress, but group

members’ feelings of trust in working with each other, the

longevity of the work group, and the involvement of leaders

who encourage and understand their efforts. Leaders’

responsiveness to staff emotional needs supported learning

and innovation.

A bond had developed among people in the library who

had worked together over time, especially those who had

already been involved in trying new services and models,

such as taking advantage of technology to create a paperless

interlibrary loan delivery service (Delaney, 2000). New

tools and services were created through trial and error:

double loop learning. In addition, the dean of the library

acted as a model leader on whom the librarians and staff

could rely to provide resources and information and to

listen to their feelings. The experience of successful

fulfillment in that arena led to the increased willingness

of the library’s staff and customers to accept and adopt

further electronic innovations (Wessling, 2000). This

evidence in turn fueled further investment in

experimentation by the library’s leaders and supervisors.

Prior experience with implementing changes under less

stressful conditions also provided evidence about what

library resources and functions could not be replaced easily

with technology. One of the heaviest pressures on 21st

century libraries is managing a balance between the

availability of both electronic and print resources. Some

library stakeholders want the convenience of electronic

resources, while others prefer to use printed matter,

especially in humanistic fields that have not been well

represented online. A library that develops experience in

providing resources that its users and staff want and need

is a library that will develop strong tools with which to

ride the tides of change successfully.

Implications and

Significance of the Findings

This research suggests that innovation—especially team-

driven—can be facilitated by an organization’s (or a single

leader’s) support of collaboration and experimentation.

Employees who have experienced or are aware of their

organization’s history of collaboration and experimentation

find it easier to attempt new things. This effect is

enhanced when it is accompanied by strong social and

emotional connections among employees. Learning the behavior

of developing circumstantially-based solutions promotes

assessment of existing routines.

Affective Ties, Performance, Learning, and Innovation

In relating how stock and bond traders acted to restore

trading activities after the 9/11 attacks, Beunza and Stark

(2003) describe a situation similar to that in the post-

flood Morgan Library. Traders did not wait for outsiders to

restore services. They assumed new tasks, even clerical

ones, and actively worked to find new ways to do their jobs.

They were committed to their work, but also to each other,

as group members whose social network was as important as

their technical knowledge. Their social knowledge of one

another combined with their work relationships to form the

glue of their creative response efforts. Even though

disaster plans were in place, this previous planning alone

was not enough to support restored trading. This required

the spontaneous actions of the traders. Buenza and Stark

show that by proactively reconfiguring all resources

available to them, including their work-based social

networks, the traders made the recovery itself an innovative

act.

Knowing what to do in an emergency is important. It

becomes desirable and feels more urgent to act when people

know each other personally. Kiehl (2004) shows that the

social bonds that can develop among members of work teams

contribute to the learning process by providing a crucial

emotional element. Interpersonal processes and connections

can enhance one’s willingness to adapt mental models. This

“locker room learning (Kiehl, 2004, p. 6) is a process that

occurs during everyday work activities. It makes team

members more willing to try out each others’ ideas and helps

team members opt for and subscribe to change.

In the case of the Morgan Library, many employees knew

each other well, babysat for one another’s children, and

even participated in each other’s weddings. Some had worked

in the library long enough to have held jobs first as

members and later as supervisors of the same or related work

groups. These relationships, built over time, contributed to

the development of a certain amount of shared social and

intellectual capital, including mental models, expertise,

and decision making processes, that allowed them to

anticipate each other’s responses to situations and to

emphasize and value coordination with one another (Lim and

Klein, 2006). This added up to trust, an essential

combination of character and competence (Covey, 2006). Along

with their combined technical and experiential work

expertise, many of these employees included shared values,

problem solving models, and trust—all nonverbal

understandings that bound them together. These rich

resources extended their outreach to one another and

facilitated their active engagement with recovery vendors

and consultants. For example, Lauren recalled that “We

developed new kinds of partnerships with vendors.” Heather

referred to her experience as one of “letting go.”

The participants in this study were not the only

library employees who noted how the strength of

interpersonal connections was important in the flood

response and recovery. In the chapters written for their

book (Alire, 2000a), other library staff members also

remarked that although some interpersonal relationships

among staff suffered under the stress of the disaster, the

recovery was facilitated by the stability of strong personal

relationships that employees had built with one another.

These connections, developed over time through shared

experience, “are invaluable in disaster situations,” and

“that foundation of trust and respect helps to ease the

stress of disaster decision making” (Lange, 2000, p. 355).

Feeling of being overwhelmed occurs simultaneously with excitement about the challenges and opportunities (urgency)

Experimentation and learning develops resilience and can produce positive responses to unexpected shifts and changes

Trust promotes engagement and effort

Work becomes a continuous process of creating something new for the members of the organization

Not every unit or work group in the library organization will act with the same amount of energy, creativity, flexibility and innovation

Do not expect the entire organization to move and develop asone: not all units and employees experience a uniform sense of trust, willingness to experiment, or learning speed

Organizational success in responding to threat or change canbe described with the following formula: Organizational Learning (Capacity to Innovate) =

Affective Experience of Individuals in Work Groups x Experimentation

Organizational success in responding to threat or change canbe described with the following formula:

Organizational Learning (Capacity to Innovate) =

Affective Experience of Individuals in Work Groups x Experimentation

CONCLUSION

Leadership should comprise a set of activities that include preparing the individuals in your organization to handle theunexpected. The unexpected can manifest as a natural disaster or a fiscal crisis. It may also live in and around organizations as the constant pressure of change.

So in expecting to lead: Build a culture of opportunity and reward flexibility

and experimentation Publicize and normalize experimentation Try new ideas within team and group structures that

promote relationships, collaboration, and learning

Replace bureaucratic structure as much as possible withcreative, affective structure of work groups and teams

Develop a strategic plan, a disaster plan, a business continuity plan, and work plans that specify response and recovery assignments

Share decision making Practice disaster drills Acknowledge the efforts of those who work through a

disaster

Unexpected benefits of disaster (change): As many as 95% of disaster survivors reported that they gained something positive from their involvement that they would not have experienced otherwise (McMillen, 1999).

Regarding unexpected leadership:

Unexpected circumstances demand it, but we should plan for change and uncertainty

People who already occupy leadership positions must lead during an overwhelming and unexpected event or occurrence

People who are in roles where they did not expect to take on leadership responsibilities often must step up and act as leaders in extraordinary circumstances

Unexpected leadership is . . . Advanced leadership from the library that has a significant and positive impact on the parent organization. The Library may not be the usual orexpected source for this kind of creativity, but becomes onethrough its unexpected leadership or by the example it sets. Examples: disaster response and recovery, administrative reorganizations, leadership in curriculum revision, significant assessment results, or community partnerships

References

Alire, C. A. (1998), “And on the 8th day . . . Managing during the first week of library disaster recovery”, ColoradoLibraries, Vol. 24 (Fall), pp. 10-12.

Alire, C. A. (Ed.), (2000a), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY.

Alire, C. A. (2000b), “Media relations”, In Alire, C. (Ed.),Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp.123-146.

Alire, C. A. (2000c), “What do you do when it happens to you? Managing a major library disaster”, In Alire, C. A. (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 3-31.

Alire, C. A. (2003), The silver lining: Recovering from the shambles of a disaster”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 38, pp. 101-107.

Akurem C, (

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Ashkanasy, N. M. and Daus, C. S. (2002), “Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, pp. 76-86.

Barbash, T. (2003), On Top of the World: Cantor Fitzgerald, Howard Lutnick, and 9/11: A Story of Loss and Renewal, HarperCollins, NY.

Beunza, D. and Stark, D. (2003), “The organization of responsiveness: Innovation and recovery in the trading roomsof lower Manhattan”, Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 1, pp. 135-164.

Borghini, S. (2005), “Organizational creativity: Breaking equilibrium and order to innovate”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, pp. 19-33.

Bush, C. (2000), “It was a dark and stormy night: A technical services overview”, In Alire, C. A. (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 255-282.

Carpenter, K. H. (2000), “Dealing with disaster: An interview with Camila Alire”, Library Administration and Management, Vol. 14, pp. 188-190.

Chreim, S. (2006), “Postscript to change: Survivors: Retrospective views of organizational changes”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, pp. 315-335.

Cochenour, D., Copeland, N. and Farmer, J. (2000). “Data, data, they want the data”, In Alire, C. (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 283-303.

Colorado State University Libraries (2011), “RapidILL: Public information”, https://rapid2.library.colostate.edu/Public/AboutRapid, Accessed May 29, 2011.

Covey, Steven M. R. with Rebecca R. Merrill (2006), The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything, Free Press, NY.

Creswell, J. W. (1994), Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Delaney, T. G. (1998a), “The day it rained in Fort Collins, Colorado: Flood damage and ILL at Colorado State

University”, Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, Vol. 8, 59-70.

Delaney, T. G. (1998b), “Necessity is the mother of virtuality”, Colorado Libraries, Vol. 24 (Fall), pp. 13-15.

Delaney, T. (2000), “There is no normal anymore: Interlibrary loan/document delivery services during disasterrecovery”, In C. A. Alire (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 197-217.

Dombrowsky, W. R. (1998), “Again and again: Is a disaster what we call a ‘disaster’?” In Quarantelli, E. L. (Ed.), What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question, Xlibris, Philadelphia,pp. 19-30.

Dougherty, D. S. and Drumheller, K. (2006), “Sensemaking andemotions in organizations: Accounting for emotions in a rational(ized) context”, Communication Studies, Vol. 57, pp. 215-238.

Enssle, H. (1998), “Security following a disaster: The experience at Colorado State University”, Colorado Libraries, Vol. 24 (Fall), pp. 16-18.

Gabriel, Y. (2000), “Psychoanalytic contributions to the study of the emotional life of organizations”, Administration and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 291-314.

Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture”, In Geertz, C. (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, NY, pp. 3-30.

Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., and Gupta, A. (2010),“Leadership, affect, and emotions: A state of the science review”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 979-1004.

Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C. and Elliott, D. K. (2003), “Promoting creativity in temporary problem-solving groups:

The effect of positive mood and autonomy in idea-generating performance”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 7, pp. 200-213.

Huy, Q. N. (1999), “Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 24, pp. 325-345.

Huy, Q. N. (2005). “Emotion management to facilitate strategic change and innovation: How emotional balancing andemotional capability work together”, In Hartel, C. E. J., Zerbe, W. J., and N. M. Ashkanasy, N. M. (Eds.), Emotions in Organizational Behavior,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-316.

Johnson-Laird, P. (1983), Mental Models, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Kennedy, M. E. (2004). Emergent Groups and Disaster Subculture: A University’s Response to the July 27, 1997 Flood, PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University.

Kiehl, J. K. (2004), Learning to Change: Organizational Learning and Knowledge Transfer, PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University.

Kirschenbaum, L., Keene, A., O’Neill, P., Westfal, R. and Astiz, M. E. (2005), “The experience at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Manhattan, on September 11, 2001: Preparedness, response, and lessons learned”, Critical Care Medicine: The Official Journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, Vol 33, pp. S48-S52.

Kotter, J. P. (1996), Leading Change., Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Kuhn, T. (1970), “The structure of scientific revolutions”, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Lange, H. R. (2000), “Technical services: Business-as-usual under unusual circumstances”, In Alire, C. A. (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 337-359.

Lederer, N. and Ernest, D. J. (2002), “Managing the media during a library crisis”, American Libraries, Vol. 33 (December), pp. 32-33.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, NY.

Lim, B.-C. and Klein, K. J. (2006), “Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 403-418.

Lipshitz, R., and Popper, M. (2000), “Organizational learning in a hospital”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 36, pp. 345-361.

Lunde, D. B. (1998a), “Aftermath of a disaster: Establishinga rebinding program”, New Library Scene, Vol. 17 (June), pp. 10-13.

Lunde, D. B. (1998b), “The disaster at Colorado State University Libraries: Recovery and restoration of the collection”, Colorado Libraries, Vol. 24 (Fall), pp. 22-26.

Lunde, D. B. (1999a), “What do you do with 426,500 wet books: Or, options for restoring a water-damaged collection”, Library Journal, Vol. 124 (No. 20, December supplement), pp. 6-7.

Lunde, D. B. (1999b), “When disaster strikes: A case study: Colorado State University Libraries, July 28, 1997”, Serials Librarian, Vol. 26, pp. 363-382.

Lunde, D. B. and Smith, P. A. (2009). “Disaster and security: Colorado State Style”, Library and Archival Security, Vol.22, pp. 1-16.

Lunde, D. B. and Smith, P. A. (2010), “Response and recoveryfrom a 500-year water disaster”, In Wilkinson, F. C., Lewis,L. K., and Dennis, N. K., Comprehensive Guide to Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery, Chicago, Association of Collegeand Research Libraries, pp. 109-116.

McMillen, J. C. (1999), “Better for it: How people benefit from adversity”, Social Work, Vol. 44, pp. 455-468.

Mitroff, I. I. (2005), Why Some Companies Emerge Stronger and Better from a Crisis: 7 Essential Lessons for Surviving Disaster, American Management Association, NY.

Moorhart, T. (1997), “Mudy waters bring the library blues and enhanced electronic access to journals”, Serials Review, Vol. 23 (Winter), pp. 79-82.

Norris, F. H. (2006), “Disaster research methods: Past progress and future directions”, Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 19, pp. 173-184.

Parker, S. E. (2007), Organizational learning, innovation, and employees’ mental models of change following a disaster: A case study of the Morgan Library at Colorado State University, PhD Dissertation, CapellaUniversity.

Pauen, M. (2006), “Emotion, decision, and mental models”, InHeld, C., Knauff, M. and Vosgerau, G. (Eds.), Mental Models and the Mind: Current Developments in Cognitive Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 173-188.

Pearson, C. M. and Claire, J. A. (1998), “Reframing crisis management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 59-73.

Peck, D.

Rogers, E. M. (1995), The Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., Free Press, London.

Schmidt, F. C. (1999?), “Disasters, plans, clean-up, and recovery—The Colorado State Experience”, FDLP Desktop: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Federal Depositoyr Library Conference, Article #31. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/proceedings/99pro31.html

Seeger, M. W. and Ulmer, R. R. (2001), “Virtuous responses to organizational crisis: Aaron Feuerstein and Milt Cole”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 31, pp. 369-376.

Senge, P. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed., Currency/Doubleday, NY.

Shapiro, A. (2003), Creating Contagious Commitment: Applying the Tipping Point to Organizational Change, Strategy Perspective, Hillsborough, NC.

Smith, P. (2000), “Upstairs/downstairs: Implementing a processing center for restoring the collection”, In Alire, C. (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 316-382.

Smith, P. and Haynes, E. (2000), “Shadow dancing with insurance: Repurchasing books declared a total loss”, In E. Alire (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 497-515.

Smith, P., Oehlerts, B., Jaeger, G., and Belskis, S. (2006),“Repurchasing journals lost in a major disaster: Library andvendor perspectives”, Serials Review, Vol. 32, pp. 26-34.

Switzer, T. R. (1998), “The crisis was bad, but the stress is killing me!”, Colorado Libraries, Vol. 24 (Fall), pp. 19-21.

Ulmer, R. R. and Sellnow, T. L. (2002), “Crisis management and the discourse of renewal: Understanding the potential for positive outcomes of crisis”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 28, pp. 316-365.

Vince, R. and Saleem, T. (2004), “The impact of caution and blame on organizational learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 35, pp. 133-154.

Weick, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Weiss, H. M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work”, in Staw,B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-74.

Wellheiser, J.G. and Scott, J. (2002), An Ounce of Prevention: A Handbook on Disaster Contingency Planning for Archives, Libraries, and Record Centers, Scarecrow, Lanham, MD.

Wessling, J. (2000), “Public services: Holding up the storefront”, In Alire, C. (Ed.), Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Handbook, Neal-Schuman, NY, pp. 149-167.

Wessling, J. and Delaney, T. (2000, November), “After the flood, Colorado State reaps a harvest of invention”, AmericanLibraries, Vol. 31 (November), pp. 36-37.

Wessling, J. and Delaney, T. (2003), “RAPID: A new level of collaboration for ILL”, Colorado Libraries, Vol. 29, pp. 22-24.

Wheatley, M. (1999), Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, 2nd ed., Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

Wilkinson, F., Lewis, L., and Dennis, N. (2010), Comprehensive Guide to Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery, ACRL, Chicago.

Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Peck on trust

Resources on trust, emotional intelligence, problem solving style, innovation, disaster, self efficiency, motivation, work teams, emotional capability, change, organizational learning, mental models.