Running head: FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM 1
Facing Disaster: Responding to the Storm
Joanna D. Dillman
Queens University of Charlotte
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM2
Abstract
Organizational crises have been described as “specific, unexpected and non-routine,
organizationally-based event or series of events which creates high levels of uncertainty and
threat or perceived threat to an organization’s high priority goals” (Seeger, et al., 1998, p. 233).
Often times operations may cease, leaving facilities closed and key personnel distracted,
incapacitated, or missing. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, key personnel were missing,
broadcast, radio and cellular telephone communications systems were down, and transportation
systems were seriously disrupted. However, there is potential for positive discourse following a
crisis that emphasizes the opportunities inherent to crises. Crises and disasters can serve as
powerful forces of organizational change and, in some cases, renewal. “Discourse of renewal
emphasizes learning growth and opportunity following crises of all types” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p.
18). There are four theoretical objectives central to the discourse of renewal: “organizational
learning, ethical communication, a prospective rather than retrospective vision, and sound
organizational rhetoric” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 18-19). The purpose of this paper is to examine
the post-Katrina communication of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System
according to the discourse of renewal framework.
Keywords: discourse of renewal, Hurricane Katrina, community and technical colleges
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM3
Facing Disaster: Responding to the Storm
Everything can change in an instant. In a blink of an eye, Hurricane Katrina did just that
to the gulf coast region. Almost eleven years following this horrific storm, Katrina’s devastation
can still be felt by the communities it affected. Although many businesses were lost in the storm,
some were resilient and utilized this crisis as a change-inducing event. The purpose of this paper
is to examine the post-Katrina communication of the Louisiana Community and Technical
College System according to the discourse of renewal framework.
Organizational crises have been described as “specific, unexpected and non-routine,
organizationally-based event or series of events which creates high levels of uncertainty and
threat or perceived threat to an organization’s high priority goals” (Seeger, et al., 1998, p. 233).
Often times operations may cease, leaving facilities closed and key personnel distracted,
incapacitated, or missing. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, key personnel were missing,
broadcast, radio and cellular telephone communications systems were down, and transportation
systems were seriously disrupted. “Established structures, routines, procedures, rules,
relationships, norms and belief systems often break down or are judged as insufficient given the
conditions of the crisis. In this way, crises are high uncertainty events that challenge the ability
of managers to predict their consequence” (Seeger, et. al, 2005, p. 79). Although business
continuity is typically the primary goal of crisis management, systems disrupted by crisis are less
stable, vulnerable to criticism and susceptible to further crises.
Much of the research on crisis communication focuses on managing the threat to the
image or reputation of the organization during a crisis. However, there is also potential for
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM4
positive discourse following a crisis that emphasizes the opportunities inherent to crises. Crises
and disasters can serve as powerful forces of organizational change and, in some cases, renewal.
Crisis, for example, may point out untrue assumptions, unforeseen interactions and
vulnerabilities. Crisis may also precipitate consensus, cooperation and support (Seeger and
Ulmer, 2001, 2002; Ulmer and Sellnow, 2002). Weichk (1988, p. 305) characterizes crises as
“low probability/high consequence events that threaten the most fundamental goals of the
organization. Because of their low probability, these events defy interpretations and impose
severe demands on sensemaking.” “The ways in which participants, stakeholders and leaders
frame and make sense of these events, as reflected in post-crisis discourse, shape both the nature
and degree of change” (Seeger, et. al, 2005, p. 79).
“Discourse of renewal emphasizes learning growth and opportunity following crises of
all types” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 18). There are four theoretical objectives central to the
discourse of renewal: “organizational learning, ethical communication, a prospective rather than
retrospective vision, and sound organizational rhetoric” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 18-19). The
organizational learning component requires the organization that emerged successfully from the
crisis to learn from the event. “It is also important that the organization illustrates to
stakeholders how its learning will help ensure that it will not experience a similar crisis in the
future” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). A second key factor in creating a renewing response is
communicating ethically before, during, and after the crisis. When faced with an organizational
crisis, “it strips an organization’s ethical framework to its most basic elements…” (Seeger &
Ulmer, 2001, p. 369). Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) explain “the goods of survival and
competiveness with the caveat that how one protects and promotes these goods makes all the
difference in the identity of a company and the character of a given business and professional
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM5
communication ethics commitment” (p. 176). “Organizations that institute strong, positive value
positions, such as openness, honesty, responsibility, accountability, and trustworthiness, with key
organizational stakeholders before a crisis happens are best able to create renewal following the
crisis” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). “The third feature of a renewing response is communication
focused on the future rather than the past” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). Although many theories
emphasize image or reputation through a focus on who is responsible or a retrospective vision,
organizations that want to create a renewing response are more prospective and emphasize
focusing on the future. “They learn from their mistakes, infuse their communication with bold
optimism, and stress rebuilding rather than issues of blame or fault” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19).
The final component of this theory requires effective organizational rhetoric involving
“leadership with vision and a strong, positive reputation to effectively frame the crisis for
stakeholders and persuade them to move beyond the event” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 20).
Methodology
This study employs a case study method to develop descriptions of how the events,
decision-making processes and external communications of the Louisiana Technical and
Community College System (LCTCS) were handled following the Hurricane Katrina crisis.
Case studies are widely employed in the examination of crises (see Turner, 1976; Benoit, 1995;
Sellnow, et. al, 2002). In this study, I will focus specifically on the leadership’s actions and
messages from LCTCS to create a post-crisis discourse of renewal. In this manner, the LCTCS
case serves as an example of how post-crisis communication can function to create a mediated
message of organizational renewal. The data for this study includes Katrina experience’s from
LCTCS System Office leaders, campus deans, and other relevant personnel as documented in
authored papers (Collins, et. al, 2008; Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007) as well as personal
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM6
interviews, and print media sources following the storm. Key events in the case and coherent
themes of communication are described from the perspectives of organizational crisis and
renewal. Specifically, I explain the scale of harm associated with this event, the initial framing
of the crisis by the institution, the reservoir of good will generated for the institution and the
ways in which questions of cause and blame functioned. Observations regarding the institution’s
messages and the associated change with LCTCS are discussed and highlighted.
Findings
The Louisiana Community and Technical College System (LCTCS) “was created in
1999, [by the State of Louisiana,] as a means of providing an educational alternative to
individuals who did not choose to pursue a four-year degree, but rather wanted to attain an
associate degree, certificate, or diploma, which would ultimately lead them to the world of work”
(Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 24). The LCTCS was comprised of seven community
colleges, two technical community colleges, and forty technical college campuses spread out in
sixty of the sixty-four parishes within Louisiana. At the time of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana
Technical College campuses operated under a centralized structure promoting “a one-college-
with-40-campuses concept managed by districts” (Collins, et. al, 2008, p. 187). “Collectively,
the LCTCS institutions enroll[ed] about 60,000 students in credit and occupational training
programs each semester” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 24). The organization employed
three thousand full-time and twenty-five hundred part-time faculty and staff in August 2005.
With robust enrollment and indications that additional funding would be infused into the two-
year system by the Louisiana legislature to support growth and new initiatives, the picture for
two-year education was promising” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 24).
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM7
Preparing for hurricanes and other severe weather is a common occurrence for Louisiana
residents. When LCTCS officials saw the forecasts for Hurricane Katrina’s trajectory and
strength, four days prior to landfall, precautions were taken. First, the institution’s phone tree
was updated with pertinent and various contact methods for essential personnel. “This simple
precautionary step would prove invaluable to the organization following the storm as cellular
telephone service was inoperable in excess of two weeks” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p.
25). Secondly, the institution’s two large community colleges and fours campuses of the
Louisiana Technical College located within Greater New Orleans Metropolitan Area were
instructed to secure all facilities and “hunker down”. Third, as the hurricane approached the
Gulf of Mexico, LCTCS leaders closed relevant institutions located within the projected path
through at least Tuesday, August 30th. The purpose was to allow students, faculty and staff
ample opportunity to secure personal belongings or evacuate if necessary. With all possible
precautions taken, “the plan was to communicate after the storm passed to begin assessing
damage and initiating the plan for the recovery” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 25).
Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005 as a very large storm. At its peak, maximum
winds stretched 25 to 30 nautical miles and its extremely wide swath of hurricane force winds
extended at least 75 nautical miles to the east from the center. Windspeeds over 140 miles per
hour were recorded in southeast Louisiana, with gusts as high as 100 miles per hour in New
Orleans. A large storm surge ranging from 10 to 28 feet devastated coastal areas across
southeastern Louisiana and coastal Mississippi. The surge and battering waves smashed into
levees, which collapsed, causing extensive flooding throughout the New Orleans region.
Ultimately, 80 percent of New Orleans and large portions of nearby parishes became flooded,
and the floodwaters did not recede for weeks. Rainfall exceeded 8 to 10 inches along the
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM8
hurricane’s path. “Twenty-two million tons of debris resulted from Katrina, which is enough to
fill the Empire State Building forty times” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 26).
Hurricane Katrina was nothing less than total devastation to the gulf coast area. “In
higher education, about 84,000 students were displaced, which includes 39.6 percent of the
enrollment of the LCTCS; 1400 system employees were also displaced” (Villadsen & de los
Santos, 2007, p. 26). The system’s two community colleges in the impacted area suffered
damage to 80% of campus buildings and was inundated with flood waters of over six feet. Three
campuses of the Louisiana Technical College, Sidney Collier, Slidell, and Sullivan, were also
affected. The Sidney Collier campus, located in the lower Ninth Ward, was completely
destroyed. The Slidell campus was flooded with over eight feet of water. Lastly, the Sullivan
campus, sustained facility damage due to the high winds. The main office of LCTCS, located in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, sustained only minimal damage. However, Hurricane Katrina was as
much a communication disaster as it was a natural and bureaucratic disaster. Power outages in
the Baton Rouge area, lack of gasoline in excess of a week, as well as information technology
failures caused severe communication gaps. No one, not even the State of Louisiana, could have
anticipated the widespread devastation or the amount of time that would pass before people
could even re-enter the region.
Once the initial shock over the magnitude of the storm passed, communication began.
Essential personnel were contacted to determine whether they were safe and to ascertain their
location. The chief executive officers then began the task of locating personnel in the affected
areas. Due to power outage and the lack of telephone coverage in the area, the Sullivan campus
dean convened his leadership team, drafted a list of all faculty and staff belonging to the campus,
and preceded to personally visit each member’s home to ascertain their safety. Meanwhile, in
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM9
Baton Rouge, all higher education leaders were convened by the Louisiana Board of Regents to
share information and discuss coordination of services to assist with the recovery of the region
and the affected students, faculty, and staff.
LCTCS established a call center to identify displaced employees and students, to gather
contact information, and to answer questions. The number to the call center was posted on the
website, provided on voice recordings on all office phones, and communicated through the
Louisiana Board of Regents. “Next, a website was launched to provide status reports and the
most up-to-date information to employees and students affected by the hurricane” (Villadsen &
de los Santos, 2007, p. 27). Those outside of the state would be able to access the internet.
Public service announcements were developed and distributed statewide to inform students and
employees about contacting their colleges. “Ads were also placed in Dallas Morning News,
Houston Chronicle, Atlanta Constitution Journal, Times Picayune (New Orleans), The Advocate
(Baton Rouge), and The News Star (Monroe) to communicate with displaced staff and students”
(Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 27).
Outside of the critical external communications, the system established hurricane updates
to inform legislators, stakeholders, and national organizations about what was occurring during
the aftermath of the storm and throughout the recovery. As this disaster unfolded, there was
overwhelming support from organizations and colleges across the country offering financial
assistance. LCTCS immediately established guidelines for an LCTCS Hurricane Katrina Relief
Fund. Phone calls were made to the United States Department of Education and the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to provide them with a status
report on the affected institutions. Weekly meetings with the chancellors of the affected
institutions were also scheduled, and one of the most important actions was to have phone
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM10
meetings with the Florida Community College System leadership to discuss the recovery, as
Florida had also experienced a series of major disasters a few years earlier.
Although faculty and staff were dispersed across the country, many evacuated to the
Greater Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area. So meetings for faculty, staff and students of the
affected institutions were hosted to provide information and answer questions. At the Sullivan
campus, the campus dean held staff meetings daily at the picnic tables located behind the facility
to assess damage and ascertain critical needs to resume operations.
Once the lines of communication were open, but limited, the focus shifted to operations.
A base of operations was established by LCTCS at a central location to serve faculty, staff, and
students. Information technology personnel quickly established temporary offices, setting up
computers, telephone lines, establishing Blackberry services for key personnel, and working with
the institutions to re-establish information technology connectivity. One of the tasks of
immediate importance was the processing of payroll for the displaced employees. One of the
system’s community colleges was not a part of the centralized payroll as the other institutions
within the system were. Unfortunately, the college’s facilities and back-up data facilities could
not be accessed due to flood waters. However, payroll staff from various LCTCS institutions
congregated and manually inputted data for the college’s 900 employees and successfully
processed payroll timely.
For the Sullivan campus, the dean provided the facility parking lot to an electrical
company immediately following the storm which enabled power to be restored to the came
within two weeks. Phone lines at the Sullivan campus was restored one month past Katrina.
According to the dean, the campus negotiated for three weeks with local businesses to assist with
the reopening of the campus, and then told to stop by the LTC central office. “We were told that
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM11
all negotiations would come from Baton Rouge. No one would enter the physical building until
air samples were taken” (M. Murphy, personal communication, April 3, 2016). The dean
arranged for air samples to be taken during the fourth week of recovery.
Next on the list were student services. “Of all the challenges that had to be addressed, it
was paramount to attend to the students whose lives had been completely disrupted” (Villadsen
& de los Santos, 2007, p. 28). Parameters were established to address financial aid
disbursements that occurred prior to Hurricane Katrina and to address the matter of students re-
enrolling at other institutions and accessing remaining funds. “The Board of Regents urged, and
all of higher education agreed, to allow students to re-enroll in other two-year or four-year
institutions during the fall 2005 semester without regard for the payment of additional tuition or
the presentation of transcripts, as most records were not accessible to students or staff”
(Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007, p. 29). Supplying records and tuition issues were to be
addressed in the spring of 2006.
“Providing continuity to assist students with achieving their academic goals was a very
difficult issue to address because each student issue was unique” (Villadsen & de los Santos,
2007, p. 29). For example, many nursing students in the final semester of their program were
displaced across the country. To meet these students’ needs, the system academic staff worked
the institutional leadership and the institutions across the country where students were displaced.
“The Sloan Semester offered by the Southern Regional Education Board was also invaluable, as
it allowed students to enroll in online courses free of charge” (Villadsen & de los Santos, 2007,
p. 29). The Lumina Foundation for Education and Scholarship America provided services by
establishing a relief fund enabling students who re-enrolled in another institution to access
assistance through the financial aid office at the institution where they were relocating. In
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM12
addition, counseling was provided by some LCTCS institutions to assist the many grieving
students and employees in coming to terms with the life-changing event.
Prior to the realization of major budget challenges, public postsecondary education
institutions agreed to continue paying displaced faculty and staff until a determination could be
made about the fiscal outlook for the state. Further, “if displaced employees relocated to others
areas of the state, they could provide teaching or administrative services to a higher education
institution located within the region, but would not get paid twice for providing those services.
This employment arrangement was to be reported to the home institution” (Villadsen & de los
Santos, 2007, p. 29). Many displaced employees continued to receive salary and benefits until
November 2005.
The Sullivan campus reopened on October 10, 2007 with an enrollment of 495 students
and expanded program offerings as a result of the closure of the Slidell campus. Both affected
community colleges were able to rebuild and open for the spring 2006 semester. “With all that
the system, its institutions, employees, and students have gone through, the LCTCS continued
“Changing Lives, and Creating Futures” on the long road of recovery” (Villadsen & de los
Santos, 2007, p. 29).
Discussion
The discourse of renewal describes, explains, and provides a prescriptive approach to
communicating during a crisis. As mentioned earlier, there are four theoretical objectives central
to the discourse of renewal: organizational learning, ethical communication, a prospective rather
than retrospective vision, and sound organizational rhetoric. This study will analyze the post-
Katrina communication of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System according to
the discourse of renewal framework.
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM13
Organizational Learning
“A central feature in crisis communication literature is that learning is essential to an
effective response” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19). The organizational learning component requires
the organization that emerged successfully from the crisis to learn from the event. Crisis can
create an opportunity for an organization to confront its problems or deficiencies.
In the LCTCS case, Hurricane Katrina prompted the system and its institutions to craft
more relevant disaster recovery plans and regular meetings to discuss and update if necessary.
The recovery plans include communication plans required before and after a disaster, facility
checklists to conduct when the threat is known and after, and finally work assignments to key
personnel to ensure essential functions of the institution can be moved to temporary location if
the need arises.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina made the LCTCS realize the centralized structure
promoting “a one-college-with-40-campuses concept managed by districts” (Collins, et. al, 2008,
p. 187) was no longer effective. Under the centralized structure, campus leaders could not work
with local officials to make location-related decisions; i.e. campus closures in the event of
emergencies, responding to local workforce needs, etc. Ulmer, et. al (2007) states, “It is also
important that the organization illustrates to stakeholders how its learning will help ensure that it
will not experience a similar crisis in the future” (p. 19). The lessons learned resulted in a
proposal from the LCTCS to Louisiana legislators, one of its’ stakeholders, to fundamentally
alter the form, structure and direction of the LTC campuses. Approved legislative changes gave
greater autonomy to individual colleges so they may better serve Louisiana communities.
Ethical Communication
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM14
A second key factor in creating a renewing response is communicating ethically before,
during, and after the crisis. When faced with an organizational crisis, “it strips an organization’s
ethical framework to its most basic elements…” (Seeger & Ulmer, 2001, p. 369). The discourse
of renewal theory believes ethical communication “involves having strong stakeholder
relationships, a provisional response to the crisis, and communication that meets the ethical
standard of significant choice” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 230).
Arnett, et. al (2009) describes “the good as a central value or set of values manifested in
communicative practices that we seek to protect and promote” (p. 2). In discourse of renewal,
relationships with stakeholders are considered one the “goods” an organization must protect.
“Organizations that institute strong, positive value positions, such as openness, honesty,
responsibility, accountability, and trustworthiness, with key organizational stakeholders before a
crisis happens are best able to create renewal following the crisis” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 19).
In the LCTCS case, the system had numerous stakeholders that included state legislation,
students, employees, businesses and industry. Prior to the storm, LCTCS has developed strong
positive relationships its stakeholders as evident by support of legislation, student enrollment,
employee and business and industry surveys. Evidence shows LCTCS continue to value these
relations during the aftermath of the storm as well. This is evident by the establishment of the
call center, a temporary base of operations to address immediate concerns, timely processing of
payroll, constant communication with legislators and local officials, student counseling services,
and partnerships with other higher education institutions to assist student’s continue their
education while the system recovered from the storm. These relationships served as a reservoir
of goodwill and support that helped the system get through the crisis. Without these
relationships, an important component of the system’s crisis response would have been missing.
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM15
“Renewal and ethics also focus more on provisional or instinctive responses to crisis
rather than on strategic communication” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p 232). Strategic communication
can be seen as unethical when it is designed to protect the image of the organization by
employing spin to deflect blame from the organization. Renewal is often based on a leader’s
established ethical character. “These leaders often respond in provisional or instinctive ways
deriving from long-established patterns of doing business. Typical of the Discourse of Renewal
is an immediate and instinctive response based on the positive values and virtues of a leader
rather than a strategic response that emphasizes escaping issues of responsibility or blame”
(Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p 233). Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) explain “the goods of survival and
competiveness with the caveat that how one protects and promotes these goods makes all the
difference in the identity of a company and the character of a given business and professional
communication ethics commitment” (p. 176).
In the LCTCS case, it was obvious a natural disaster had caused the crisis. During the
lengthy recovery process, there were ample opportunities to place blame for the delay. However,
LCTCS leaders did not engage in the blame game. Instead it focused on an immediate response
to the crisis, supportiveness of victims, and the emerging themes of rebuilding and renewal in all
communications. Throughout the study’s findings, the actions of the Sullivan campus dean were
documented. Mr. Mickey Murphy is a former drill sergeant in the United State Army. He was a
very prominent figure in the Bogalusa area. These characteristics appeared to have served him
well during Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. Once the safety was his crew was ascertained, he
began engaging the employees to help rebuild the campus. Instead of waiting for state resources
as the Slidell campus did, Mr. Murphy utilized the knowledge of his carpentry, welding, and
HVAC instructors to get the campus operational within six weeks for the storm. The survival
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM16
characteristics were not observed from the Slidell campus dean. Instead, she waited until she
received directives from Baton Rouge on how to proceed. The lengthy delay caused more
damage to the campus facilities. Ultimately, the Slidell campus was permanently closed and
would later be required to be demolished.
Ulmer, et. al (2007) “advocate the ethic of significant choice as a criterion for ethical
crisis communication. Nilsen (1974) argues for clear and unbiased communication in order for
citizens to make rational choices and decisions.” (p. 233). The opportunity to make significant
choices is crucial to effective crisis communication.
During the recovery period following Hurricane Katrina, LCTCS could have withheld
information or provided biased information to students who desired to continue their education at
another institution. Essentially, the system would be directing its customers to another provider.
However, it was evident the system went over and beyond to inform students on ways to
continue their academic goals. The invaluable establishment of partnerships with the American
Association of Community Colleges, which acted as a clearinghouse for the many offers of
support from two-year institutions; the Southern Regional Education Board, which offered a
special semester allowing students to enroll online; and the communication of these partnerships
provided the students a choice in the matter.
Prospective Vision
A third feature of a renewing response is communication focused on the future rather
than the past. “These organizations focus on the future, organizational learning, optimism, their
core values, and rebuilding rather than on issues of blame or fault” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p 234).
Organizations focusing on renewal are typically optimistic and building a vision for the future.
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM17
Review of the communications from LCTCS following the aftermath shows an emerging
theme focused on rebuilding and renewal. Even when recovery effort delays and the budget
constraints were realized, the organization remained optimistic. Throughout the crisis, LCTCS
remained focused on its vision to changing lives and creating futures through education.
Effective Organizational Rhetoric
The final component of the discourse of renewal theory requires effective organizational
rhetoric involving “leadership with vision and a strong, positive reputation to effectively frame
the crisis for stakeholders and persuade them to move beyond the event” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p.
20). Cheney and Lair (2005) explain: “Organizational rhetoric involves drawing attention to
issues and concerns in contemporary organizational life with a focus on issues of persuasion and
identification” (p. 75). “The Discourse of Renewal involves leaders structuring a particular
reality for organizational stakeholders and publics. We advocate that organizational leaders who
hope to inspire others to imitate and embrace their views of crisis as an opportunity to establish
themselves as models of optimism and commitment” (Ulmer, et. al, 2007, p. 234).
LCTCS placed the importance on students and employees during the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Institutional leaders, starting with the System President, set the tone for
rebuilding and renewal. This was accomplished by focusing on the human equation in all crisis
communications. Secondly, campus leaders, like Mr. Mickey Murphy, used rhetoric to convince
employees to split their time between rebuilding their homes and rebuilding the campus. This
focus enabled both employees and students to move past the crisis.
Conclusion
Rather than protecting or repairing the image of the organization following a crisis, the
discourse of renewal emphasizes learning from the crisis, ethical communication,
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM18
communication that is prospective in nature, and effective organizational rhetoric. The Discourse
of Renewal focuses on an optimistic, future-oriented vision of moving beyond the crisis rather
than determining legal liability or responsibility for the crisis. What makes these responses so
effective is they mobilize the support of stakeholders and give these groups a vision to follow in
order to overcome the crisis.
Conventional wisdom suggests that crises are primarily negative events creating severe
hardship and organizational decline. The ability of organizations like LCTCS to survive, rebuild
and even renew themselves will depend on the ability to learn from these events, maintain
openness and accountability, and constitute compelling and meaningful communications that
promote cooperation, support, and renewal. For LCTCS, Hurricane Katrina was not only a time
of destruction and loss, but also a time of change and renewal.
Recommendations
No one could have imagined or prepared for the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.
How one reacts to the devastation is another story. Arnett, Fritz, and Bell (2009) explain “the
goods of survival and competiveness with the caveat that how one protects and promotes these
goods makes all the difference in the identity of a company and the character of a given business
and professional communication ethics commitment” (p. 176).
The LCTCS case study presented above outlines how commitment to ethical
communications can be implemented during a crisis situation. However, I believe the goods of
survival could have been protected better with further leadership empowerment. As Ulmer, et. al,
(2007) explains, “leaders often respond in provisional or instinctive ways deriving from long-
established patterns of doing business. Typical of the Discourse of Renewal is an immediate and
instinctive response based on the positive values and virtues of a leader rather than a strategic
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM19
response that emphasizes escaping issues of responsibility or blame” (p 233). As outlined with
the Sullivan campus, the campus leader felt empowered and responsible to get the campus to
operational status. Granted, this could have been due to his background and personality traits.
As outlined with the Slidell campus, the campus leader did not feel empowered and rather
depended on the system’s office to give direction on next steps. This decision ultimately caused
the campus to close permanently.
I believe the problem was resolved when LCTCS decided to propose change in the
organizational structure of the LTC to allow more autonomy at the campus level. The proposal
was later approved by state legislators.
Implications
LCTCS took the opportunity to fundamentally reframe the Hurricane Katrina crisis by
focusing on the opportunities that arose. By changing the organization structure, should a crisis
occur in the future, campus deans will have the autonomy and empowerment to work with local
officials on the immediate needs of the campus which could result in a quicker recovery time.
Suggestions for Future Research
Few examples of post-crisis discourse of renewal have been examined and more research
is needed. Additional work is needed to identify the conditions necessary for discourse of
renewal theory. It is unclear if the methods can be implemented in every crisis situation.
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM20
References
Arnett, R. C., Bell, L. M., & Fritz, J. M. (2009). Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and
Difference. Sage Publications.
Benoit, W.L. (1995), Accounts, Excuses and Apologies, University of New York Press, Albany,
NY.
Cheney, G., & Lair, D. J. (2005). Theorizing about rhetoric and organizations: Classical,
interpretive, and critical aspects. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging
organizational theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 55– 84). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Collins, K. R., Savage, R., & Wainwright, W. (2008). “Facing Disaster: A Tale of Two Colleges,
One System, and Their Response to Hurricane Katrina”, Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 32(3), 184-202.
Nilsen, T. R. (1974). Ethics of speech communication (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). “Virtuous responses to organizational crisis: Aaron
Feuerstein and Milt Cole”, Journal of Business Ethics, 31(4), 369-376.
Seeger, M., & Ulmer, R. (2002). “A post-crisis discourse of renewal: The cases of Malden Mills
and Cole Hardwoods”. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(2), 126-142.
Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-crisis discourse and
organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Org Change Mgmt Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 78-95.
FACING DISASTER: RESPONDING TO THE STORM21
Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L., and Ulmer, R.R. (1998), “Communication, organization and
crisis”, in Roloff, M.E. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 21, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 231-75.
Sellnow, T., Seeger, M.W. and Ulmer, R.R. (2002), “Chaos theory, informational needs and the
North Dakota floods”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 30, pp. 269-92.
Turner, B. (1976), “The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 378-97.
Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2002). “Crisis management and the discourse of renewal:
Understanding the potential for positive outcomes of crisis”, Public Relations
Review, 28(4), 361-365.
Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2007). Effective crisis communication: Moving
from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Villadsen, A. W., & de los Santos, G. E.,. (2007). Hoping for the Best While Preparing for the
Worst: Disasters, Emergencies, and the Community College. Phoenix, AZ: League for
Innovation in the Community College.
Weick, K. E. (1988). “Enacted Sensemaking In Crisis Situations”. J Management Studies Journal of
Management Studies, 25(4), 305-317.
Top Related