Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:17:33.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance factors in critical incident management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Rosslyn Heinecke
Rosslyn Heinecke*
Affiliation:
Department of School Education, NSW
Get access

Extract

This paper explores resistance and contextual variables which impinge on the successful implementation, adoption and management of critical incidents. Time constraints and uncertainty are two constant and overriding forces within the critical incident framework. These implicit pressures interact within different levels of the culture of the organisation, school or community. Two distinct yet interactive levels are discussed. They are the idiographic or personal domain, and the nomothetic or social system domain. The idiographic dimension includes personality variables as well as the role of the key stakeholders in critical incident management. The nomothetic dimension involves the organisation's social system, which has process variables and linkage mechanisms which need to be understood so that successful critical incident management can be ensured.

Resistance, or refusal to comply, has been a common pervading and often intangible force in schools in relation to the management of critical incidents. My perception of this opposition to the design and implementation of critical incident management plans has been the driving force for me to think about reasons why this is so, to collect research and to write this paper.

On a continuum, resistance and its opposite, acceptance, represent the endpoints of a critical incident management perspective. Opposition or resistance to a new idea, in this case, critical incident management, can be counteracted by guidance, knowledge and involvement. These are the principles of two well known models of problem solving: the Discount Hierarchy used in the NSW Child Protection Program (1988) and the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM, Loucks etal., 1975).

Type
Field reports
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 3 , November 1993 , pp. 75 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amundson, N.E., & Borgen, W.A. (1988). Factors that help and hinder in group employment counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 25 (3), 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, K., O'Callahan, W., & Marmar, C.R. (1991). Debriefing Red Cross disaster personnel. The Multiple Stressor Debriefing Model. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4 (4), 581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
Clark, A.W. (1980). Action research: Theory, practice and values. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1, 151–157.Google Scholar
Developing a critical incident management plan: A guide for schools. (1991). Department of School Education, South Coast Region: Wollongong.Google Scholar
DSM 111 R (1987). American Psychiatric Association: Washington.Google Scholar
Dunn, W., Hobear, B., & Zaltman, G. (1982). In Keeves, J.P., Educational research methodology and measurement. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press: New York.Google Scholar
Grief and loss workshop: Living with a loss. (1991). Department of School Education, South Coast Region: Wollongong.Google Scholar
Hazel, P. (1992). Personal communication, March 1992.Google Scholar
Heinecke, R., & Spence, R. (1991). Children and loss: A proactive model for schools. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Keeves, J.P. (1988). Educational research methodology and measurement. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Loucks, S.F., Newlove, B. W., & Hall, G.E. (1975), Measuring levels of use of the innovation. A manual for trainers, interviewers and raters. Austin, Texas: South West Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Musgrave, P.W. (1976). In Edgar, D.E. (Ed.), Curriculum, culture and change in sociology of Australian education. A book of readings. McGraw Hill: Sydney.Google Scholar
NSW Child Protection Program. (1988).Google Scholar
Nicholson, N., & West, M.A. (1987). Managerial job change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Potter, C. (1989). What is culture? Leadership and Development Journal, 10 (3), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Print, M. (1988). Curriculum development and design. Allen and Unwin: Sydney.Google Scholar
Rochford, E., Burke, J., & Blocker, T. (1991). Coping with natural hazards as stressors. Environment and Behavior, 23 (2), 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edition. Free Press: New York.Google Scholar
Walker, G. (1990). Crisis care in critical incident debriefing. Eleventh Annual Conference of the Association for Death, Education and Counselling. Death Studies, 1, 14 (2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetchler, J.L., & Vaughn, K.A. (1991). Perceptions of primary supervisor interpersonal skills. A critical incident analysis. Contemporary Family Therapy & International Journal, February, 13 (1), 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar