Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resource sufficiency, organizational cohesion, and organizational effectiveness of emergency response

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main problem facing emergency managers during disasters are insufficient manpower and limited material resources. In emergency situations, the issue of inadequate resources arises from multiple emergency response teams who have different disaster perceptions, and end up allocating assets in an inefficient manner. These varying assessments are a result of erratic levels of involvement by the disaster management, which lead to the weakness of organizational cohesion. This study took Kaohsiung City in southern Taiwan as the subject and conducted a survey through questionnaires to explore the correlations among resource sufficiency, organizational cohesion, and organizational effectiveness in the emergency response. The questionnaires were then analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, reliability analysis and path analysis. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) Resource sufficiency should be the main priority for emergency response because of its direct correlation with organizational effectiveness, which in turn mediates the organizational cohesion; (2) Senior executives directly affect organizational cohesion and the organizational effectiveness; (3) Quality and quantity of the equipment and personnel have causal relationship with organizational effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1964) Human capital. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas S (2010) Relationship between psychological climate and turnover intentions and its impact on organisational effectiveness: a study in Indian organizations. IIMB Manage Rev 22:102–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockman BK, Morgan RM (2006) The Moderating effect of organizational cohesiveness in knowledge use and new product development. J Acad Market Sci 34(3):295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JP (1977) On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In: Goodman PS, Pennings JM (eds) New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 13–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Carron AV (1982) Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and consideration. J Sport Psychol 4:123–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Carron AV, Brawley LR (2000) Cohesion conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Res 31(1):89–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso EM, Epley N, Bazerman MH (2006) The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. J Personal Soc Psychol 91(5):857–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman P, Mikkelson L, Larocque L (1991) Network coverage: administrative collegiality and school district ethos in high-performing districts. Can J Educ 16(2):151–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne KP (1986) Sustainable competitive advantage: what it is and what it isn’t. Bus Horiz 22:54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue AK, Joyce PG (2001) A Framework for analyzing emergency management with an application to federal budgeting. Public Adm Rev 61(6):728–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards RL (1986) Using multidimensional scaling to test the validity of behaviorally anchored rating scales: an organizational example involving the competing values framework. Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany

  • Fatout M, Rose S (1995) Task groups in the social services. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayol H (1949) General and industrial management (trans: Storrs C). Pitman, London (Original Work Published in 1916)

  • Gladstein DL (1984) Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 29:499–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1995) Multivariate data analysis with reading, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang CF, Hsueh SL (2007) A study on the relationship between intellectual capital and business performance in the engineering consulting industry: a path analysis approach. J Civil Eng Manage 13(4):265–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson P, Wistow G, Schulz R, Hardy B (2003) Interagency and interprofessional collaboration in community care: the interdependence of structures and values. J Interprof Care 17:69–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalliath TJ, Bluedorn AC, Gillespie DF (1999) A confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values instrument. Educ Psychol Meas 59(1):143–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Leunes AD, Nation JR (1989) Sport psychology: an introduction. Nelson- Hall, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine JM, Moreland RL (1990) Progress in small group research. Annu Rev Psychol 41:585–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichterman JD (2000) A “community as resource” strategy for disaster response. Public Health Rep 115(2/3):262–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert RL (1961) New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning FJ, Fullerton TD (1988) Health and well-being in highly cohesive units of the U.S. army. J Appl Soc Psychol 18(6):503–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalisin MD, Karau SJ, Charnchai T (2004) Top management team cohesion and superior industry returns—an empirical study of the resource-based view. Group Organ Manage 29(1):125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RE (1988) Beyond rational management. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J (1983) A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manage Sci 29:363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick P (1957) Leadership in administration: a sociological interpretation. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw ME (1981) Group dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea GP, Guzzo RA (1987) Group effectiveness: what really matters? Sloan Manage Rev 28(3):25

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith D (2000) Crisis management teams: issues in the management of operational crises. Int J Risk Manage 2(3):61–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor FW (1911) The principles of scientific management. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JC, Bowers DG (1974) Survey of organizations. University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Thacher D (2005) The local role in homeland security. Law Soc Rev 39(3):635–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomer JF (1987) Organizational capital: the path to higher productivity and well-being. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Towne HR (1886) The engineer as economist. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 7:428–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiker W (1989) Developing personal managerial support groups. Health Care Super 7(2):43–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace WA, De Balogh F (1985) Decision support systems for disaster management. Public Adm Rev 45:134–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton RD, Dutton JM, Cafferty TP (1969) Organizational context and interdepartmental conflict. Adm Sci Q 14(4):522–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O (1975) Market and hierarchies. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalom ID (1995) The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl GA (1998) Leadership in organization, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng W, Yang B, McLean GN (2010) Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge management. J Bus Res 63:763–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our gratitude to EMS members who participated in this study and “2007 Kaohsiung City Reinforcement Disaster Prevention and Protection Plan” sponsored by Kaohsiung City Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Civil Engineering and Mitigating Technology of Disasters, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Chung-Fah Huang

  2. Department of Architecture, Ming Chuan University, 5 De-Ming Rd., Kuei-shang, Taoyuan County, 333, Taiwan

    Jieh-Jiuh Wang

  3. Graduate School of Civil Engineering and Mitigating Technology of Disasters, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Tai-Jun Lin

Authors
  1. Chung-Fah Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jieh-Jiuh Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tai-Jun Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jieh-Jiuh Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, CF., Wang, JJ. & Lin, TJ. Resource sufficiency, organizational cohesion, and organizational effectiveness of emergency response. Nat Hazards 58, 221–234 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9662-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9662-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation