Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 933–937 (2011)

Published online 25 April 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.758

Introduction Introduction to the special issue: Terrorism,

* Correspondence to:yThis paper and the ed(grant) Officer with th

Copyright # 2011

disaster, and organizational science

KEITH JAMES*,y

Department of Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.

Summary Here, the editor introduces the special issue on organizations’ preparation for and response to disaster andterrorism. The topic and meta-constructs within it are defined. The papers included in the special issue areoutlined. The methodological and conceptual variety and strengths of the new empirical papers aresummarized, as are some major gaps in current knowledge and paradigms that became clear from the fullset of submissions to the special issue—those that were rejected, as well as those accepted. Together, thepapers in this special issue set the stage for potential important future advances in the science of disaster/terrorism preparation and response by organizations. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: disaster; terrorism; organizational science

Introduction

Improved understanding of how organizations can prepare for and respond to disaster and terrorism is clearly needed

to enhance their and their employees’ safety and success, as well as for maintaining the well-being of society as a

whole (Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism [CSTCT], 2002; James, 2008). The unique

dynamics of disaster and terror events render such catastrophes distinct in processes, worker outcomes, and

organizational effects even compared to other types of crises. On the other hand, the extreme nature of the dangers

and demands that disaster/terror pose for organizations could allow them to be used to illuminate fundamental

scientific and practical knowledge.

Catastrophic events that challenge organizations seem to be appearing in the news nearly daily—for example: (1)

The summer 2010 BP oil platform explosion and fire in the Gulf of Mexico was followed by weeks of spilling oil.

Eleven workers died. Many businesses sustained major disruptions and financial losses, while BP suffered major

damage to its public image. (2) Terrorism occurred in 2010 in Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq,

Israel, Ireland (Northern), Pakistan, Russia, and Yemen, among other countries. (3) Major flooding (in, e.g., North

and South America; Queensland, Australia; Pakistan) yielded damage and disruption to businesses (along with all

other aspects of society), and major response efforts by governments and non-profit organizations. (4) Earthquakes in

China, Chile, Fiji, Haiti, and New Zealand in 2010 necessitated responses—including providing aid to employees—

from organizations in all sectors. (5) Drug-cartel driven violence is repeatedly and increasingly affecting

organizations (including international ones) operating in Mexico.

Despite the visibility of such catastrophes and crises, though, to this point the organizational sciences have

devoted surprisingly little attention to understanding organizations and terrorism or disaster. This special issue is

intended to begin to help address this manifest gap in the organizational science literature.

Keith James, Department of Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, U.S.A. E-mail: keithj@pdx.eduiting of the special issue were completed while the author was on leave from Portland State University to serve as a Programe United States government’s National Science Foundation.

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 17 March 2011, Accepted 25 March 2011

934 K. JAMES

Disaster/terrorism and organizations

Terrorism and disaster prevention and response deal with events that are, by definition, substantially novel, sudden,

and rare, but also highly destructive (i.e., catastrophic) when they do occur. Those characteristics make

organizations’ efforts to address disaster/terrorism difficult to study and may make them seem less important to

research than the many other issues that large numbers of organizations frequently face. Rareness and novelty do not

mean that either organizations, or organizational scientists can afford to ignore disasters and terrorism, though (e.g.,

CSTCT, 2002; James, 2008; Weitzman, 2009).

As the example events listed above illustrate, virtually every organization is at risk from disasters and terrorism;

and very many will eventually be required to play a role in addressing their aftermath whether they want to or not. It

seems sound to conclude, therefore, that we need to bring all of organizational science to bear on understanding the

organizational exigencies created by catastrophic events and their aftermath. That organizational science has failed

thus far to do so was a major stimulus for the development of the special issue.

Development of the special issue

The call for papers asked for submission of empirical papers on either preparation by organizations and their

members for terrorism/disaster events, or response by organizations to such events when they do occur. Preparation

involves, for instance: risk- and impact-assessments; planning of efforts to mitigate anticipated event impacts; plans

for operations during events; and plans for recovery from event impacts that do occur. Very few of the manuscripts

submitted addressed organizational preparation for disaster/terrorism. Response involves such things as putting the

types of plans just outlined into effect; or efforts to promote organizational recovery after-the-fact. The latter

implicates flexibility and innovativeness within effective preparation toward the ultimate goals of adaptability,

survival, and long-term sustainability. Almost all of the submission dealt with responses, and the accepted papers

reflect that skew.

Twenty-two empirical papers were submitted for the special issue. At least four post-deadline requests for

permission to submit were received and denied. Three reviewers were assigned to each of the 22 manuscripts. Initial

reviews resulted in eight revise-and-resubmit judgments, and 14 rejections. Two manuscripts were never modified. A

second round of review yielded three rejections, and three (with additional revisions) ultimate acceptances. I invited

one commentary on each empirical paper. Out of the entire experience of developing and preparing the special issue,

I crafted a theory paper of my own designed to help catalyze and guide development of the science of organizations

and disaster/terrorism. It was also peer reviewed, with Neal Ashkanasy serving as the Action Editor. Together with

this introductory paper, those seven papers make up the special issue.

Disaster and terrorism: How similar, how different?

One important question for an organizational science of disaster/terrorism is the extent to which natural disasters and

terrorism can or should be addressed together in theory, research, and in practice. Are there sufficient similarities to

the challenges that they present to organizations for it to make sense to consider them together—at least some of the

time—or do they differ so much that they generally require separate treatments both scientifically and in practice?

The answer I offer in my theory paper (James, 2011) is that they do have common characteristics and implications

that make it sensible to consider them together, yet they also differ in some ways that are also important to consider.

Addressing either terrorism or disaster tests the resilience and skills of individuals; both put extreme demands on

the resources and process of organizations; and both increase requirements for coordination among organizations.

For instance, Carmeli, Waldman, and Halevi’s (2011), and Kastenmueller et al. (2011) papers address how terrorism

can stress individuals, and how workers’ and organizations’ responses to such stress influences employee,

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 933–937 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/job

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: TERRORISM, DISASTER 935

organizational, and societal outcomes. In my theory paper, however, I also argue that the distinctive characteristics of

different catastrophic events (e.g., degree of human causation; extremity) also need to be included in an

organizational science of disaster/terrorism.

One of my disappointments in editing this special issue was, in fact, that almost all papers submitted dealt with

terrorism events and outcomes; only three of 22 looked at organizations and disasters. All of the latter were judged

by their reviewers to be substantially flawed, yielding a set of major papers on only organizations and terrorism. One

conclusion I offer, therefore, is that organizational science needs to attend much more to disasters and organizations,

as well as to both similarities and differences between and within the categories of terrorism and disaster (see the

James theory paper, 2011).

Contents of the special issue: A reflexive-critique

Constructs and conceptualizations widely employed in the organizational sciences and of both scientific and

practical importance are invoked in each of the major papers. Each of the papers also adds relatively novel (at least

for the organizational sciences) constructs, yielding innovative studies (see, e.g., Peus, 2011, commentary on the

Carmeli et al., 2011).

Across the three papers, the methodological variety on exhibit is an important contribution. Collectively, the

empirical papers exhibit the triangulation of methods that seems of particular value for advancing organizational

science, in general, and work on organizations and disaster/terrorism, in particular (see Kochan, Guillen, Hunter, &

O’Mahony, 2009; and Sechrest & Sidani, 1995, for further discussion of methodological triangulation).

Carmeli et al.’s study, for example, has a qualitative core supplemented by quantitative analyses. Stein, Steinley,

and Cropanzano, (2011), on the other hand, execute the type of quantitative analysis of large-sample field data that

tends to be considered the gold standard in the organizational sciences. Their study is also interesting

methodologically in its creative use of an archival data set. Of course, as Patient (2011) notes in his commentary, the

distinctive sample and setting for Stein et al.’s data raises some questions about generalizability; Patient provides

suggestions for follow-up work.

Kastenmueller et al. (2011), on the other hand, use an experimental design approach that contributes relatively strong

causal evidence about the topic of terrorism and employee networking behavior. Three (somewhat) converging studies

also strengthens their evidence. Both the experimental- and multi-study approaches tend to be seen more in social

psychology, for example, than in the organizational sciences. Experimentation has its weaknesses for an applied science

(see Woolley’s commentary, 2011); more methodological triangulation (either within a single paper or across papers)

that includes experimentation would benefit the organizational sciences, however.

A concern I had with the three new empirical papers included here (this held across all submitted papers, accepted or

rejected) is that the focus of all is largely on public-sector organizations—the exception being some of Kastenmueller

et al.’s participants. As noted previously, all types of organizations are impacted by, and have roles in dealing with,

disaster and terrorism. My theory paper that ends this special issue incorporates organization type among the constructs

needed for knowledge development, demonstration of generalizability, and organizational application.

A similar disappointment (again, across all submitted papers) was that individual-level constructs, actions, and

outcomes were the sole focus of all of the major papers. Individual-level constructs are clearly important to workers’

and organizations’ outcomes from disaster or terrorism events, and should be studied more. Organizational-level,

team-level, and inter-organizational level constructs and processes are also critical, though, to general organizational

science knowledge (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), and relative to disaster/terrorism, in particular (James, 2011;

Woolley, 2011), and should be addressed in future theories and studies on this that topic.

Related to the preceding, the theoretical models—including the Terror-Management Theory (TMT) model that all

three empirical papers have in common—are limited in contents, depth, and scope. A couple of points of

background in the interest of full disclosure: First, I suggested to authors of two of the three papers that they add

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 933–937 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/job

936 K. JAMES

TMT. The third paper, by Stein et al., was always rooted primarily in TMT. Second, one of TMT’s originators and

constant proponents—Jeffrey Greenberg—chaired my dissertation committee.

TMT’s relevance to the different papers in this issue, despite their substantial topical and methodological

differences, demonstrates the potential that it has for organizational science. Stein et al., in fact, provide important

evidence, relevant even outside of organizational science, that TMT-effects extend beyond the laboratory, where they

have been largely studied. The other two empirical papers also indicate that (assuming replicability/extensions) the

TMT framework has value beyond the specific foci of either paper.

That said, I have some skepticism about the extent and quality of TMT-derived approaches to disaster/terrorism,

and other organizational topics. A fundamental concern for me is that TMT generally, despite some occasional

broadenings, reduces all motivation to a need to overcome an innate fear of death. I doubt that all organizational

behavior (or behavior in any setting) is really driven primarily or solely by that need (see Ryan & Deci, 2004 for more

on this point). In my theoretical paper in this special issue (James, 2011), I explore the strengths and weakness of

various theories that have been applied to organizations and disaster/terrorism, and begin addressing major gaps in

relevant constructs and linkages with a new, heuristic conceptual model.

Conclusion

Organizational science should attend to disaster and terrorism and the risks and opportunities that they present. The

Call for Papers for this special issue included questions of this sort that submissions might address: ‘‘What, exactly,

are the distinctive organizational. . . demands generated by catastrophe and chaos? How can the need to be ready and

able to respond to the punctuated equilibrium of disasters be reconciled with the requirements for functionality

during ‘normal’ times? What tools, techniques, or systems might help organizations and their members plan for and

successfully navigate disasters?’’ Readers of this special issue will see that some questions from the Call were,

indeed, taken on in the empirical papers, others are considered conceptually in the commentaries, and all of them as

well as new ones inform the final theory paper.

I extend great thanks to the many scholars who provided thorough and thoughtful reviews. Also, thanks to Neal

Ashkanasky for his mix of high standards and supportiveness. Together, we who contributed to the creation of this

special issue hope that readers find it both interesting, and a stimulus to new work on the critical issue of organizations in

a dangerous world in which any of us might suddenly be subjected to the challenges of disaster or terrorism.

Author biography

Keith James received his Ph.D. in Social Psychology and Organizational Behavior from the University of Arizona.

He is currently Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Portland State University. He studies

organizational creativity, innovation and transformation; sustainability; organizations and disaster; work health;

and identity-culture. This paper was completed while he was a Grant Program Officer with the National Science

Foundation.

References

Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism [CSTCT]. (2002). Making the nation safer: The role of scienceand technology in countering terrorism. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 933–937 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/job

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: TERRORISM, DISASTER 937

James, K. (2008). Creative anti-terrorism strategies: Promoting collective efficacy for hazardous material trucking terrorismprevention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 24–31.

James, K. (2011). The organizational science of disaster/terrorism prevention and response: Theory-building toward the future ofthe field. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 1013–1032.

Kastenmueller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Aydin, N., Tattersall, A. J., Peus, C., Bussmann, P., . . . Fischer, P. (2011). Terrorism threat andnetworking: Evidence that terrorism salience decreases occupational networking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,961–977.

Kochan, T. A., Guillen, M. F., Hunter, L. W., & O’Mahony, S. (2009). Introduction to the special research forum – Public policyand management research: Finding the common ground. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1088–1100.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal,and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patient, D. L. (2011). Pitfalls of administering justice in an inconsistent world: Some reflections on the consistency rule. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 32, 1008–1012.

Peus, C. (2011). Money over man versus caring and compassion? Challenges for today’s organizations and their leaders. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 32, 955–960.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Avoiding death or engaging in life as accounts of meaning and culture: Comment onPyszczynski et al. (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 120, 473–477.

Sechrest, L., & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?Evaluation and Program Planning,18, 77–87.

Stein, J. H., Steinley, D., & Cropanzano, R. (2011). How and why terrorism corrupts the consistency principle of organizationaljustice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 984–1007.

Waldman, D. A., Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2011). Beyond the red tape: How victims of terrorism perceive and react togovernmental responses to their suffering. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 938–954.

Weitzman, M. L. (2009). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics andStatistics, 91, 1–19.

Woolley, A. W. (2011). Responses to adversarial situations and collective intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,978–983.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 32, 933–937 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/job