![](img/base/ba59.jpg) |
![Home](img/navig/nghp.gif) | ![Overview](img/navig/ng2.gif) | ![Data Collection](img/navig/ng6.gif) | ![Ext Resources](img/navig/ng5.gif) | ![About Us](img/navig/ng10.gif) | ![](img/base/ba.gif) | | If you have any feedback on how we can make our new website better please do contact us. We would like to hear from you. | |
|
|
![](img/base/ba60.jpg) |
![](img/base/ba301.jpg) |
|
|
![](img/base/ba61.jpg) |
|
At the bottom of this page, the results of the research are outlined in reverse chronological order. Some commercially sensitive aspects of the diagnostic instrument are not shown on this website.
A short introduction to the "Psychology in Crisis Management" is available here.
What does the diagnostic instrument measure?
The instrument measures three factors that represent distinct clusters of behaviours and attitudes that are important to be demonstrated by a crisis manager or crisis leader. In essense, these factors represent the organisational crisis management capability from a behavioural and attitudinal perspective.
![CrisisManagement-full](images/CrisisManagement-full.jpg?683) ![Public-Relations-Crisis-Management__-It%27s-All-in-The-Response](images/Public-Relations-Crisis-Management__-It%27s-All-in-The-Response.jpg?683)
Why do we need this diagnostic assessment?
- To understand from a psychological perspective how managers and leaders are likely to behave before, during, and after a crisis situation.
- To predict how crisis managers and leaders are likely to change, or adapt, their mindset and ingrained behavioural patterns.
- To help those individuals recognize their strengths and weaknesses with a view to controlling their actions and behaviour in critical situations.
What are the benefits?
- Quick identification of core psychological enablers of and barriers to effective crisis management.
- Confidential, non-threatening diagnostic for individuals as a precursor for personal development measures.
- Assessment of organisational crisis management capability by combining individual scores
And what are the practical applications?
- Assessment at times of relative stability to identify the organisation’s potential weaknesses in terms of crisis management and leadership capability.
- Development of management personnel into roles with significant ‘trouble-shooting’ responsibility.
- Precursor for executive education and coaching.
- Succession planning for senior management and board members
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Since 2013: In early 2013, the results were discussed with an expert panel. Subsequently, some additional confirmation factor analyses were provide greater assurance that the most stable structural model was in fact selected - and other, less stable rival models dismissed. The outcome was again subjected to external examination,and the Researcher was awarded a PhD for this work in 2014. The research, especically the efforts to conduct a large-scale G-Study, in different countries and organisational contexts, is ongoing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Third and fourth Quarter 2012: The statistical results and the rigorous instrument development process as such provided strong support for the validity of the psychological construct "organisational trust behaviour in crisis management".
A series of analytical procedures and statistical tests on demographic variables (gender, education, and age) as well as organisational variables (hierarchical position, work experience, and management experience) supported seven out of eight research hypotheses.
- Gender and education were found to have no significant association with the test item/factor scores.
- In contrast, age, hierarchy, and work/management experience were significant predictors for the test items/factors (measuring managerial attitudes and behaviours) and the control scales (measuring managerial skills and competencies and existing organisational trust).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Second Quarter 2012: The statistical results and the emerging factor solution were interpreted substantively, in order to ensure that the results make sense in the "real world". The items with salient loadings on the factors represented each a common theme and could explain coherently the psychological meaning/substance of the respective factor.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First Quarter 2012: The analytical procedures comprised descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical significance was determined at the 95% level. Whilst most research hypotheses were supported, some require further research into the underlying construct.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The empirical data for a selection of 80 items with a development sample of 377 US managers in the fourth quarter of 2011 were subjected to exploratory factor analysis, with various rotational methods and factor extraction techniques. Parallel analysis with real-data perputations supported the decision as to how many factors to retain. Ultimately, a four-factor solution emerged that was successfully tested against the classical Thurstonian criteria of "Simple Structure".
The demographic characteristics of the development sample were as follows:
Gender mix: 55% male, 44% female, 1% no data
Age profile: average age 40.2 years (SD 11.0)
Education: 79% at least four-year college education, with 23% Masters or higher degrees
Hierarchy: 20% top management, 69% middle management, 11% no management responsibility
Work experience: average 17.1 years (SD 10.9)
Management experience: average 9.0 years (SD 6.9)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As of September 2011, a large set of discrete items was been developed, all which are linked to one or more specific responses from the focus group/survey results. A rigourous quality assurance is an integral part of this process. A further round of IRA studies confirmed the match of individual items with the respective behavioural category, again, with all results being statistically highly significant (p<.0001).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Update August 2011:
The Inter-Rater Agreement (IRA) study showed satisfactory results. The two groups of independent judges confirmed the high-level behavioural categories, at a statistically highly significant level (average Kappa of 0.4, p<.0001) with upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of up to 0.7. The results provided a robust foundation for the further development and validation of discrete items for the future psychometric instrument.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Update June 2011:
In the third, fourth and fifth iteration, the following seven high level behavioural categories were established. These categories are currently being validated by a group of independent, experienced managers and leaders.
Category
|
Description:
The manager/leader inspires others’ trust in his/her ability to …
|
Emotional Intelligence and Resilience (EIER)
|
…demonstrate awareness of self and others, with the ability to listen, understand and relate to concerns and fears, and yet remain in control of own emotions.
|
Trust-based Empowerment of Others (TBEO)
|
…identify the right people or teams for the right tasks, convey his/her confidence in them and delegate appropriate decision-making authority; recognize their performance and remain positive throughout.
|
Thoughtful and Responsible Resource Management (TRRM) **
|
…visibly plan and organize the allocation of scarce resources and resolve resourcing issues; ensure appropriately tight monitoring and control procedures, without unduly compromising the authority delegated to others.
|
Unwavering Steadfastness in Adversity (USTA)
|
…demonstrate focus on agreed priorities and persistence in pursuing the best available options; maintain composure and resistance to undue pressures by the various stakeholders.
|
Strategic Lateral Thinking with Best-Outcome Orientation (SLBO)
|
…demonstrate a vision despite and beyond the existing adversity, with creative ideas to reach the longer-term objectives; thereby explain the need for change, outlining and negotiating options and applying judgment.
|
Unambiguous and Purposeful Communication (UPCO)
|
…convey general information, ideas, issues, options and decisions clearly, timely, and in a manner appropriate to the situation and the audience; and to ensure clarity of thought and clarity of purpose of actions taken at all times.
|
Decision-Making under Pressure and Constraints (DMPC) **
|
…make decisive moves as appropriate in the given situation, consider all available information (or lack of) in reaching the decision-making point, and accept ownership and accountability for decisions taken.
|
** TRRM and DMPC were subsequently merged into DMRC (Decision-Making under Resource Constraints)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Update May 2011:
Important Management and Leadership Behaviour in Crisis
In the first and second iteration of the content analysis, the following 14 preliminary categories were established:
Preliminary Category
|
Counts
|
Communication
|
25
|
Empowerment
|
25
|
Emotional Intelligence
|
24
|
Steadfastness
|
23
|
Calmness
|
21
|
Strategic lateral thinking
|
21
|
Clarity
|
16
|
Decisiveness and Decision making process
|
14
|
Thoughtful Resource Management
|
13
|
Visibility, Monitoring, Control
|
13
|
Best-Outcome Orientation
|
12
|
Information processing
|
11
|
Listening
|
9
|
Trust and Confidence
|
5
|
Other
|
33
|
Grand Total
|
265
|
![](img/base/ba302.jpg) |
|