Citation Download PDF

International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration

Volume 8, Issue 4, May 2022, Pages 17-27

---

Clarifying Status of Latency in Disaster and Crisis Management through Understanding Core Human Effective Components: Implications for Decreasing Distress, Increasing Resiliency and Better Decision Making Process

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.84.1002  
URL: https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.84.1002 

Saied Sehhat¹, Bijan Yavar^2*, Ali Delavar³, Ahmad Jafarnejad Chaghoshi⁴

.

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration and Insurance, Management and Accounting Faculty, Allameh Tabataba’i University, I.R.IRAN
² PhD Candidate in Business Administration: Behaviour and Human Resource Management, Management and Accounting Faculty, Allameh Tabataba’i University, I.R.IRAN
³ Full Professor, Department of Deliberation and Measuring, Psychology and Education Faculty, Allameh Tabataba’i University, I.R.IRAN
⁴ Full Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Management Faculty, Tehran University, I.R.IRAN

*- Corresponding Author: Bijan Yavar, email: yavar637@email.com

Abstract: The statement of Latency in management Strategy in the Mindset of disaster or crisis managers (management) can cause misunderstanding intentionally or unintentionally in distinguishing a Disaster from a Crisis. Mitigating the consequences depends on whether the cause of the disorder is understood clearly or not! Many serious accidents such as Fukushima, Bhopal, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island show vast consequences, although different but primarily related to a similar factor, which is “Human Deficiency”. Literature shows, although leadership and top management and processes and mechanisms and good strategies are existent, yet problems remain. The fact is that there are fewer studies formulated in this field, from the crisis management strategies point of view, this is the deficiency. The article aims to shed light on the Importance and how to better understand Latency in management Strategy at Management levels, and to better say by the Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) for better knowing and understanding the reality to better act based on the real management strategy in the Mindset (Based on the mind bandwidth). In addition, to understand whether ignoring ignorance is a good management strategy in time of crisis and will it buy time and be effective in not accurate managers or the other way around. Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) are extracted from the Native Human Effective Components (NHECs) that are refined among different Human Effective Components (HECs) based on the literature reviewed in an article recently published by the authors of this article which can help to better understand the latency in management. These components may be generated and be shaped in the crisis managers’ minds’ bandwidth which can be used as a precautionary action to be avoided not to cause more situations that are complex through increase of resiliency and decrease of distress. As a conclusion, we understand that reality may be completely different from what could be assumed, understood and seen. It should be considered that actions are always based on the disaster and crisis Managers’ understanding. For better understanding, the reality we propose a method, Model or a taxonomy that to some extent clarifies and focuses on the statement of latency in management strategy process. This Structure, model or taxonomy shows how and through which windows (Soft, Semi Soft and Hard Spheres) we can get into it and to say how to better understand the function of latency in management strategy by special consideration of CNHECs which can help us to distinguish a crisis from a disaster. It is important to know that by a good Recognition and revealing and also by Better Understanding Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs), the disaster and crisis managers can Increase Resiliency and Decrease Distress especially in time of occurrences of different kinds of sudden emergencies generated from different kinds of hazards.

Keywords: Disaster, Crisis, Management, Management Strategy, Latency in Management, Disaster Management, Crisis Management, Core Native Human Effective Components, Resiliency, Distress, Model, Taxonomy, Decision Making Process

1. Introduction

The business sphere has observed and then learnt through existence of crisis constantly that occurrence of crisis can be anywhere, anyhow, anytime and with alerting stage of nearly zero with a sudden occurrence (Heller and Darling, 2012). Since the crisis is a turning and changing point, or to better say a point for change, to have negative or positive consequences, we support this by what Heller and Darling (2012) have proposed: a crisis although having large negative effects can also have positive effects in the firms’ future life only when it will take its chance and opportunity to make good and correct decisions in implementing good operations. In other words it can be a positive or negative step forward depending on the reaction of the Leadership and top managements’ decision which is based and entirely depends on their mind set called the Mind Bandwidth that can directly or indirectly affect the status of latency in management strategy as which can be point out as the importance of the study.

Figure 1: Michael Smithson and Bijan Yavar, “Taxonomy of three main components among CNHEC’s” consisting of “Management Level Skills”, “Ignorance” and “Mind bandwidth” in Crisis Management (Managers) effective on resiliency and distress in sudden emergencies in metropoles (Sehhat, Saied, Bijan Yavar, Ali Delavar, Ahmad Jafarnejad Chaghoshi, 2022).

When facing a disorder based on the “Mind Bandwidth” context, the leadership and top management can have the Sense of acceptance (Heller and Darling, 2012) or either sense of Ignorance. If it will be the sense of acceptance in the proper time and in the right place this will put them on the right track and help them work on the risk to avoid a further crisis in the future.

By consideration and concentration on Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) such as the example shown in figure no.1 which are extracted from the Native Human Effective Components (NHECs) by this means we can better understand the context and better know what may happen to better act in disasters and crisis.

2. Literature Review

We believe that If the risks of disasters and crisis occurrences will stay in a latent order in the leadership and top management mindset there will be no way or to better say it will be too difficult to get to know and guess it. This could be because there is a latent awareness on strategies which is really known to be wrong by a higher level managers and there is a will to keep it still latent (latency in management strategy) and show everything is in order which is not.

The other important fact, which is of high importance and will affect the status of latency in management strategy, is ignoring the problem or disorder, which has occurred. This problem is especially important when human factors are in scope (Yavar, Mirtaheri, 2009) and Ignoring the Ignorance is a more Complicated factor which is the “act of neglecting the Ignorance” (Smithson, 1989) that is an incorrect management strategy that may end in disorder and problematic complexity.

As we assume the status and stages of latency are different. The stage that we are going to discuss is the latency in management strategy in the leadership and top management level which can be one of the most important status, stages and shapes of latency both when unintentionally or either specifically intentionally generated and caused which can be mentioned as the Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs).

As we may know, the leadership and the top management have the leading and pioneering role. in the company, firm, enterprise or whatsoever, also in disaster and crisis management if the leadership or top management tend to keep everything still in a latent mode, which they may be clever enough to do so, and the monitoring process could not notice it, there will be less chance to identify it. Related to that avoiding such a condition (latency in management strategy) especially where caused intentionally (i.e. for saving measures) will be a complex situation not easily recognizable.

In different disasters and crisis without any exception, especially sudden Emergencies with no doubt, the role of Human Effective Components (HECs), Native Human Effective Components (NHECs) and especially, Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) are of high importance. Among these CNHECs, “level of management skills”, “Ignorance” and manager’s “Mind bandwidth” are the most important and those with vital importance.

Native Human Effective Components (NHECs) are all those specific human effective components related to a specific and special space and location. (Which can be a metropolitan area and a metropolis) Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) is referred to those Native Human Effective Components (NHECs) that are more effective among the other components.

These three Specified CNHECs can affect the crisis management and managers also the level of latency in planning, strategy, management, and as such through a complexity of reactions (i.e. A. Affective, B. Behavioral and C. Cognitive Reactions) to increase resiliency and decrease distress in metropolitan urban areas. The time limitation is also an important issue for consideration.

Among Native Human Effective Components (NHEC’s) especially status of “Ignorance” and the disaster and crisis managers “Mind Bandwidth” and of course “level of management skills” which can shape and form a new format will be called by the authors the “Core Native Human Effective Components” (CNHEC’s) from now on. These three CNHECs can be a turning point especially towards success or failure and can cause more complexity or either simplicity for latency or clearness in sudden emergencies where disaster or crisis management is implemented.

Why to be latent? Without consideration of unintentionally or intentionally generating a latent context, there are many reasons for this. as an example different psychological and mental disorders (such as: Egocentrism, Narcissism, etc.), different physical illnesses, cultural aspects, geography and status of spatial concern, political matters, economical aspects (money saving and decreasing costs and as such) etc. these factors and much more (which can as well be proposed for future research) can usually help the person to preserve and cause a latent environment to better help him to reach what he has intended where he will face less problem (of course in his own thoughts) to be a responsible person (if the status of latency is intentionally generated).

Speaking from the unintentionally caused latent context and view point in management strategy there is an effect which usually indirectly and unintentionally motivates the leadership and top management towards a context of latency which is the “Black swan effect”.

The crisis shows up to twinkle in the safest assumptions of all cooperation. (Nurmi and darling, 1997 as cited in Heller and Darling 2012) which is been specified as “Black Swan”, and we here in after refer as “Black Swan Effect” which will be completely explained in the discussion section. This is one of the theories which is of high importance and based on that we will argue about the “White swan effect”.

Through the literature we understand that although leadership and management are existent and their components are in place but yet there are many problems and deficiencies to deal with and latency of management strategies still remains undiscovered since there is insufficient research on this. Meaning that the management strategies in reality are completely different from those adjusted previously. In other words the management strategies that are implemented by the leadership and top management are different then what has been formulated and a company or whatsoever should go through that and then everything will be shown in a way to be exactly what it should have been.

What and why do the leadership and top management tend to neglect and also ignore and also put the problems in a latent context of management strategy is a lack that should be paid attention and should be under study. Meaning that the management strategy should be clear and the strategies in mind of the leadership and top management should be the same as preplanned or if changed to be clear and understood by the others not to be latent and to be mentioned that this change in management strategy is because of certain reasons which it may not really be for that and the cause is really some matters that are latent (which benefits the leadership and top management and not all) for whatsoever reason it may be (decreasing the costs, insurance challenges, etc.).

In this article by an existing crisis condition analysis, Fukushima is exemplified as a sample of Leadership and top management deficiency (Human deficiency) preparing the management strategy in a latent context (Dobi, 2008) and to pretend that the crisis is a disorder affected by the tsunami (the disaster).

If we have a close look to Fukushima power plant crisis we can understand and easily recognize all the three kinds of Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) and their subcategories mentioned in figure no. 1 consisting of: “Management Level Skills”, “Ignorance” and “Mind bandwidth” in Crisis Management (Managers) which are effective on resiliency and distress in sudden emergencies in metropoles.

Finally as a conclusion and to conclude we propose a way to better understand the latency in management strategy to better understand the reality to better act through Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs).

3. Methodology

The type of reviewing method used in the article has been a combination of a systematic, scoping and an integrative review processes to get to a better result that are as the following:

• Systematic Review Process

The review process section aimed to uncover the evidence, try to confirm current practice and to address any variation if available and also try to identify new practices and also as mentioned in this research to Identify and inform areas for future research.

Of course some conflicting results were identified and investigated, which produced statements to guide decision-making for example we can mention the core native human effective components (CNHECs) and as such. The other case was that the authors had to integrate some reviews in relation to time, which was systematic review formulated to review the articles for time series and this review was integrated with other parts to reach to a better conclusion.

• Scoping Review Process

In scoping review process, the following was under consideration:

Identifying the types of available evidence in disaster and crisis management and also to clarify key concepts and also to look for definitions in the literature such as resiliency and stress (distress) and to review how research is conducted in the field of disaster and crisis management. Identify and defining key characteristics or factors related to concepts in relation to disaster and crisis management. Working on the Determination of the possibility of systematic review for human effective components and other related fields to Identify and analyze knowledge gaps.

• Integrative Review Process

Mainly to generate and refine a theory and to combine the researches overall. The integrative review process has been used to come to a reliable and reasonable conclusion. The methodological part of this review is characterized by accurately describing how the relevant literature was selected (which database, which search terms, which inclusion/exclusion criteria) and how it was analyzed and summarized which is called a review protocol.

The Scientific databases used for this research were databases such as: “Scopus”, “web of science”, “science direct”, “Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)”, “JSTOR”, “ebsco”, etc. The relevant articles are selected by key search criteria and key words used. Such as human impact, human efficiency, human factor, human error, human effective components, resiliency, stress, distress, uncertainty, ambiguity, also terms related to Human Effective Components (HEC). Also all those terms that are used in table number1 which can affect the disaster and crisis managers and management process, managers and Crisis Management, Sudden crisis, risk, sustainability and sustainable development framework and as such keywords in crisis and emergencies and also from different databases to include where necessary.

4. Result and Discussion

Based on the Literature review, the researches undertaken and related theories existent we have hereby formulated propositions as the following:

4.1 Based on the Chaos Theory

Proposition 1. The leadership and top management with a latent management mindset (mind bandwidth) especially in emergency situations are chaotic people and can be the most dangerous people since they don’t worry and care to put people at risk at all, based on their Intension.

Proposition 2. If the leadership and top management act Chaotic, they are not systematic. (So they intend to help management to stay in a latent manner).

Proposition 3. If there is no process to understand and control the effects of the crisis managers’ mindset and mind bandwidth, outcomes especially the wrong decisions for sure facing a chaos and an emergency (accidents, incidents, crisis, disasters and catastrophes) will be definite.

For a better understanding, we hereby explain the status, statement and context of latency in management strategy possible based on the mind bandwidth of crisis managers as the following table (Table No. 1):

Table 1: some possibilities of latency strategy based on mind bandwidth. Which are of higher importance in crisis managers especially in metropolitan areas (Contribution)

4.2 Based on the Situational Crisis Communication (SCC) Theory

Proposition 4. Preventable Cluster is the inclination stage in SCC Theory for latency in management strategy and by focusing on this cluster the statement of latency can be better understudy and can help for future planning.

Proposition 5. Latency in management strategies in the leadership and top management level specifically in the Mindset (based on their Mind band width) would be one of the most Important Issues to face with based on the Preventable Cluster which makes the identification of a Crisis or a Disaster much more difficult.

4.3 Based on Black Swan Effect Theory

Proposition 6. Assumptions (even though save assumptions) in leadership and top management mindset (Which is caused by mind Bandwidth) can affect statement of latency in management and can drive it to a higher level of latency which can be too dangerous and not easy to handle which should be under research (Future research).

Proposition 7. Distinguishing the white swan effect from the black swan effect can generate a better perspective for the organizations’ future crisis management strategies and planning processes. Based on the findings we understand that for being successful to identify a disaster or a crisis from each other for better understanding the reality and to propose better alternatives to solve the problems and to better act, we can mainly focus on the processes which can affect the leadership and top management (Managers). This will help to overcome the latency of management strategy (mainly and firstly in the mindset based on the mind bandwidth) in this level. For this, an idea as a model, which is proposed as a process (Yavar et al. 2014). This process in our point of view is divided into 3 main individual phases which are as the following:

• Intension and Thinking Phase,
• Proposing and Decision Phase, and
• Implementation Phase

Which explained and illustrated in figure number 2. That can also be affected by the three main Core native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) consisting of “Management Level Skills”, “Ignorance” and “Mind bandwidth” in Crisis Management (Managers) effective on resiliency and distress in sudden emergencies in metropoles.

As seen in this figure it is assumed that if the disorder can be identified in the Intension and Thinking phase in a leadership or top management level the better and easier it is to find out to which direction will the activates and decisions aim to go to. The next important thing understood is that the main strategies which are about to be implemented will be reviled.by this means in this phase we can get to know whether there is and intent to put the disorder into a latent form or not. The other thing is that whether the management strategy is going to be in danger of being latent! This can be a precautionary action especially in disasters and crisis managers to increase resiliency and decrease distress.

Of course, it is obvious that realizing and understanding the existent or coming up disorder in this phase is too difficult but very helpful and vital. In this phase if latency is the main challenge, we can enter more people in the thinking process so that the more they are, the less the possibility of being able to be changed into a latent context based on the existing strategy or if intended to be changed it will be identified and recognized in the right time.

The second phase is the proposing and decision making phase. In this phase, the disorders will most probably be Understandable because the decisions will show what is going to happen. However, the only fact is to understand what the decisions exactly are.

Figure 2: How to Distinguish the Reality Based on Latency in Management Strategy

Source: Yavar Bijan, K.A. Mouhed Ali (2014)

A risk manager can easily understand to which direction the company or whatsoever we may name it, will most probably move towards by the decisions made. (Smithson, 1989), but if he intends others not to know about the crisis managers’ purposes it will be a complex situation.

Finally the third phase, which is the implementation or acting phase. which although is easier to understand but there is no time or to better say lesser time to act and now the time is over and the results will be coming up next. Therefore, as we can see the faster, we get to know the problem; especially in the first phase, the better, we can control the disorder and avoid the latency in management strategy context to understand the reality and based on that, better act in the future. 

1 – The more the disaster and crisis experts and mangers will get in the process of thinking and discussion before the decision making process (with consideration of Chaos, SCC and Black Swan Effect Theory) the more accurate and logical the decisions will be and the more difficult generating latency in management strategies will be by the leadership and top management.

2 – Specifically in Fukushima 2011, we get to know that reality (crisis: meaning the latency in management strategy based on human deficiency which was to save money instead of replacement of the reactors which should have been changed based on many circumstances) seems completely different from what we see and may assume (as a disaster: meaning the tsunami).

3 – Findings show that depending on firstly, “Human Factor” and related to that “Human Error”, which is mainly based on “Human Efficiency” (especially mindset) appeared in the leadership and top management status and stage, secondly, environment and thirdly, the system (Strategies, protocols, processes, etc.) the organization, enterprise or Whatsoever, can be at risk of crisis in different levels. Therefore, it may face misunderstanding for getting to know the reality and the originality of an event which can be based on the level and reasons of latency in management strategies. This can for sure affect resiliency and distress and be effective for taking actions. This depends on disaster and crisis managers’ mind bandwidth and sense of accepting or ignoring (or even ignoring ignorance in the context of uncertainty -Smithson, 1989) the problems. In addition, turning these problems into a latent context in relation to management strategies in the level of leadership and top management. Which will increase the risk of the organization in being in danger of a crisis. Alternatively, whether there is a will in turning the condition into a positive status. to say that it depends on the leadership and the top management mindset (Mind Bandwidth) and how they tend to understand disasters and crisis as a turning point and opportunity for being successful or not.

4 – The management strategies in reality are completely different from those adjusted previously. For as an example there is a will to show that “what is”, meaning the “present” (implemented) management strategies and “what should have been”, meaning the “past” (pre-planned) management strategies are the same which are not (i.e. Fukushima case) in those cases where the latency in management strategies are intentionally caused.

“Human efficiency” and “context of culture” which the level of management especially top management is influenced by in disaster and crisis management system and process can be an important subject for future and more in depth researches. This can help revealing the realities on latency in management strategies and how they are being influenced, especially at the level of the leadership and top management that can be of high importance and can help better actions to be taken through good quality decision-making processes.

5 – Three main Core native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) consisting of “Management Level Skills”, “Ignorance” and “Mind bandwidth” is effective on the status of latency in Crisis Management (Managers) which are directly effective on the increase of resiliency and the decrease of distress in sudden emergencies in a space such as a metropoles.

5. Conclusion

As a concussion and logically speaking, we understand that reality may be completely different from what is assumed, understood and seen. To better, understand the reality the researchers as authors in this article propose a method, Model, structure and a Taxonomy that aims to focus and concentrate on the statement of latency in management strategy. This process shows how and through which windows (Soft, Semi Soft and Hard Spheres) we can get into it and to say how to better understand the function of latency in management strategy in disaster and crisis managers by special consideration of CNHECs which can help us to distinguish a crisis from a disaster and moreover. It’s important to know that by a good Recognition and revealing and also by Better Understanding Core Native Human Effective Components (CNHECs) not only the status of latency in crisis management (managers) will be recognized and revealed but also the disaster and crisis managers can Increase Resiliency and Decrease Distress. By this means, a better Decision Making Process will be executed by the disaster and crisis mangers in the disaster and crisis management system that can be very helpful and of course vital. This fact can be even more important especially in time of occurrences of different kinds of sudden emergencies generated from different kinds of hazards.

References

• Birkmann, J, 2006. Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. Institute for Environment and Human Security Journal,5: 7-54.
• Dobi, Sándor and Linda Bugár (2008), Japanese Management Strategies, 6th International Conference on Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking, May 30-31, Budapest, Hungary.
• Heller, L. & Darling, J., 2012. Anatomy of crisis management: Lessons from the infamous Toyota Case, European Business Review Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2,151-168. CrossRef
• Meshkati,Najmedin, 1991. Human Factor in Large-Scale Technological Systems’ Accidents: Three Mile Island (TMI), Bhopal, Chernobyl, Industrial crisis quarterly, 5: 133-154. CrossRef
• Yavar, Bijan, 2012. SoTech Risks an important context to be taken into consideration, International Disaster and Risk Conference (IDRC), page 233, Davos, GRF Press.
• Yavar, Bijan, and Mirtaheri, Maisam, 2009. Lessons Learnt from Chabahar Free Trade and Industrial Zone Disaster Management Master Plan as a Sustainable Development Framework, Proceeding of International Disaster and Risk Conference, Pages: 180-190 Chengdu, China.
• Adger W. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography. 2000; 24(3):347-364.
• Adger W. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography. 2009; 79(4):387-404. CrossRef
• Adger W, Hughes T, Folke C, Carpenter S, Rockström J. Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters. Science. 2005; 309(5737):1036-1039.
• Ahmed R, Seedat M, van Niekerk A, Bulbulia S. Discerning Community Resilience in Disadvantaged Communities in the Context of Violence and Injury Prevention. South African Journal of Psychology. 2004; 34(3):386-408. CrossRef
• Allenby B, Fink J. toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies. Science. 2005; 309(5737):1034-1036.
• Anderies J, Janssen M, Ostrom E. A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecology and Society. 2004; 9(1). CrossRef
• Brock W, Maler K, Perrings C. Resilience and sustainability: The economic analysis of nonlinear systems. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems, Humans and Nature. 1st ed. Washington, D.C: Island Press; 2002.
• Bruneau M, Chang S, Eguchi R, Lee G, O’Rourke T, Reinhorn A et al. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities. Earthquake Spectra. 2003; 19(4):733-752.
• Chenoweth L, Stehlik D. Building resilient communities: Social work practice and rural Queensland. Australian Social Work. 2001; 54(2):47-54. CrossRef
• Chilingar GV, Shin S, Haroun M, Albannay A, Wittle K, Meshkati N, et al. Improving Acidizing Operations. Journal of Sustainable Energy Engineering. 2013 Sep 1; 1(3):193–7.
• Clarvis M, Bohensky E, Yarime M. Can Resilience Thinking Inform Resilience Investments? Learning from Resilience Principles for Disaster Risk Reduction. Sustainability. 2015 Jul 13; 7(7):9048–66.  CrossRef
• Comfort L. Shared Risk: Complex Systems in Seismic Response. 1st Ed. New York: pergamon; 1999.
• Community and Regional Resilience Institute, A Carri Report, Definitions of Community Resilience: an Analysis, Florida: Meridian Institute; 2013.
• Drakaki M, Tzionas P. Investigating the impact of site management on distress in refugee sites using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021 Jun; 60:102282.
• Egeland B, Carlson E, Sroufe L. Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology. 1993; 5:517–28. CrossRef
• Godschalk DR. Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Natural Hazards Review. 2003 Aug; 4(3):136–43.
• Gordon JE. Structures: or, why things don’t fall down. Middlesex, Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1986.
• Griffin R, Moorhead G. Organizational Behavior, Managing People and Organizations. 11th ed. Mason: South Western Publications; 2014.
• Gunderson L, Folke C. Resilience—Now More than Ever. Ecology and Society. 2005; 10(2). CrossRef
• Heller VL, Darling JR. Anatomy of crisis management: lessons from the infamous Toyota Case. European Business Review. 2012 Mar 2; 24(2):151–68.
• Holling CS. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1973 Nov; 4(1):1–23. CrossRef
• Horgan J. A Review of: “Bruce Bongar, Lisa M. Brown, Larry E. Beutler, James N. Breckenridge, and Philip G. Zimbardo (Eds.).Psychology of Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence. 2007; 20(1):159-161.
• Islam S ul. Antecedents of project managers’ turnover intention: Psychological distress as mediator. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies. 2019 Dec 23; 5(6).
• Klein R, Nicholls R, Thomalla F. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Environmental Hazards. 2003; 5:35–45. CrossRef
• Kulig J, Edge D, Townshend I, and Lightfoot N, Reimer W. COMMUNITY RESILIENCY: EMERGING THEORETICAL INSIGHTS. Journal of Community Psychology. 2013; 41(6):758-775.
• Kunreuther H, Adam Zachary Rose. The economics of natural hazards. Cheltenham, Uk ; Northampton, Ma, Usa: Edward Elgar Pub; 2004.
• Longstaff P. Security, resilience, and communication in unpredictable environments such as terrorism, natural disasters, and complex technology. 2005, editor. New York: Syracuse;
• Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, et al. Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science [Internet]. 2007 Sep 14 [cited 2019 Aug 13]; 317(5844):1513–6. Available from: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5844/1513/tab-pdf     Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.
• Multi-hazard Business Continuity Management, Guide for small and medium enterprises. I. L. O.; 2011.
• Myer RA, Conte C, Peterson SE. Human impact issues for crisis management in organizations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 2007 Nov 13; 16(5):761–70. CrossRef
• Meshkati N. Lessons of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident for Sustainable Energy Generation: Creation of the Safety Culture in Nuclear Power Plants around the World. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 2007 May 24; 29(9):807–15.
• Meshkati N. Human factors in large-scale technological systems’ accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, and Chernobyl. Industrial Crisis Quarterly. 1991 Jun; 5(2):133–154. CrossRef
• Mileti D. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. 1st ed. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press; 1999.
• Mumford L. the culture of cities. 1st ed. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1938.
• Myer RA, Conte C, Peterson SE. Human impact issues for crisis management in organizations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 2007 Nov 13; 16(5):761–70.
• Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology [Internet]. 2007 Dec 22; 41(1-2):127–50. CrossRef
• Paton D, Johnston D. Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 2001 Oct; 10(4):270–7.
• Perrings C, Maler KG, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson BO, editors. Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: an ecological synthesis. In: Biodiversity loss: economic and ecological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. p. 44–83.
• PERRINGS C. Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and Development Economics. 2006 Jul 13; 11(4):417–27. CrossRef
• Pfefferbaum B, Reissman D, Pfefferbaum R, Klomp R, Gurwitch R. Building resilience to mass trauma events. In: Handbook on injury and violence prevention interventions. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2005.
• ROSE A. Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environmental Hazards. 2007; 7(4):383–98.
• Sehhat, Saied, Bijan Yavar, Ali Delavar, Ahmad Jafarnejad Chaghoshi, “Understanding Core Native Human Effective Components in Crisis Management will Increase Resiliency and Decrease Distress especially in sudden crisis as a Sustainable Development Framework. A Review Study”. Health in Emergencies & Disasters Quarterly. 2022; spring, Volume 7. Issue 4.
• Smithson M. Ignorance and Uncertainty, Emerging Paradigms. 1st Ed. New York: Springer-verlag Publications; 1989.
• Sonn C, Fisher A. Sense of community: Community resilient responses to oppression and change. Journal of Community Psychology. 1998; 26:457–72.
• Sihver L, Yasuda N. Causes and Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Accidents. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science. 2018 Mar 5; 4(2). CrossRef
• Timmerman P, Toronto. O. Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society – a Review of Models and Possible Climatic Applications. 1981.
• Van Meerbeek K, Jucker T, Svenning J. unifying the concepts of stability and resilience in ecology. Journal of Ecology. 2021; 109(9):3114-3132.
• Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig AP. Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-ecological Systems. Ecology and Society [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2019 Feb 26]; 9(2). CrossRef
• Waller MA. Resilience in ecosystemic context: Evolution of the concept. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2001; 71(3):290–7.
• Wilson S, Pearson LJ, Kashima Y, Lusher D, Pearson C. Separating Adaptive Maintenance (Resilience) and Transformative Capacity of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society. 2013; 18(1). CrossRef
• Yavar Bijan, K.A. Mouhed Ali, Is it a Disaster or a crisis? The context of latency in management strategy. Proceedings of the 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrative Risk Management – The Role of Science, Technology and Practice, IDRC Davos. Davos, Switzerland: Global Risk Forum (GRF); 2014. p. 768–71.
• Yavar Bijan, Sehat S, Dehghanan H, Mahmoudzadeh SM, Shirchi M. Human efficiency (Performance) a way towards increasing the quality of metropolitan crisis management. In: the 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities. Davos, Switzerland: Global Risk Forum (GRF); 2016. p. 649–654.
• Youngs, Jr., PhD G, O’Neill, PhD H. Strategies for resilience: A qualitative analysis of rural community leaders’ advice on disaster recovery. Journal of Emergency Management. 2008; 6(5):71.  CrossRef