Organizational Differences in Hazard Mitigation Investment Decision Making: Inside the Organization

  • Daniel J. Alesch
  • Lucy A. Arendt
  • William J. Petak
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Hazards book series (ENHA)

Abstract

In this chapter, we present three critical categories of factors that we believe influence whether, why, and how individual hospital organizations make extreme hazard mitigation investment decisions. Each category reflects internal organizational concerns and perspectives. We describe each category from a theoretical perspective, drawing on relevant academic literature. Then, we augment our description of each category with examples drawn from our qualitative research. As stated earlier, the examples capture decision making by California hospitals facing the decision to comply with SB 1953, by hospitals facing seismic threats in Oregon and Washington, and by hospitals facing hurricane threats in Louisiana and Mississippi. In this way, our examples illustrate the impact of the critical categories beyond the environment of SB 1953. The three categories are: (1) organizational leadership, (2) organizational strategy, and (3) economic. They are intended to be illustrative, rather than exhaustive. The unit of analysis is the individual organization and its key decision makers, usually the members of the top management team (i.e., the CEO, CFO, COO, and other members of the C-suite).

Keywords

Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazard Mitigation Hospital Organization Northridge Earthquake Acute Care Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alesch D, Holly J, Mittler E, Nagy R (2001) Organizations at risk: what happens when small business and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters? Technical report. Public Entity Risk Institute, FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker VL III, Mueller GC (2002) CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Manag Sci 48:782–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Evans JR (1997) Applied production and operations management, 5th edn. West Publishing, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  4. Hambrick D, Mason P (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9:193–206Google Scholar
  5. Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci 15(8):534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hess DB, Arendt LA (2006) Critical care in crisis: decision making in New Orleans’ hospitals. In: Natural Hazards Center (ed), Learning from catastrophe: quick response research in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 177–213. Boulder, COCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Katz D, Kahn RL (1978) The social psychology of organizations, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Mills-Peninsula Health Services (2010) Earthquake safety. http://www.mills-peninsulanews.org/technology/
  9. Molpus J (November 2004) M.D. or MBA? The two sides of a healthcare CEO. Executive Survival Guide. Retrieved 25 Nov 2005 from: http://www.healthleaders.com/survival/article/60166
  10. Petak WJ, Alesch DJ (2004) Organizational decision making with respect to extreme events: healthcare organizations respond to California’s SB 1953. In: Bruneau M (ed) Research progress and accomplishments: 2003–2004 (MCEER-04-SP01), University of Buffalo, State University of New York, Multidisciplinary center for earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, May 2004Google Scholar
  11. Porter M (1980) Competitive strategy. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Sharfman MP, Meo M, Ellington RT (2000) Regulation, business, and sustainable development: the antecedents of environmentally conscious technological innovation. Am Behav Sci 44:277–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Waller MJ, Huber GP, Glick WH (1995) Functional background as a determinant of executives’ selective perception. Acad Manag J 38:943–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wiersema MF, Bantel KA (1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad Manag J 35:91–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Woo G (2002) Natural catastrophe probable maximum loss. British Actuarial Journal, vol. 8 (Part V):943–959Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Alesch
    • 1
  • Lucy A. Arendt
    • 1
  • William J. Petak
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-Green BayGreen BayUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations