Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Table of Contents
Problem Area
3
Problem Formulation
5
Method
6

Theory Selection
6

Data Collection
7

Method of Analysis
7
Leadership
8

A Social Constructionist Approach to Leadership
8

The Relation of Leadership
10

The Holographic Approach
11
Crisis Management
13

Knowledge/Awareness
13

Adaption
14

Complexity Absorption
15

Crisis Communication
16
The Japanese Context
17

Japanese Values and Leadership
17

Crisis Management in Japan
18

Naoto Kan as Prime Minister
19
Analysis of Prime Minister Kan’s Speeches
21

Influencing Reality Construction
21

Tending Stakeholder Relationships
22

Self-Representation
24
Concluding Discussion
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
26
1
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake

Constructing Shared Visions
26

Relationships in the Communication Process
26

Prime Minister Kan as a Leader
27

Conclusion
28
Bibliography
29
Appendix
31

31
Message from Prime Minister Naoto Kan, March 25, 2011
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
2
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Problem Area
On March 11, 2011, an earthquake struck near the coast of Honsu, Japan, causing a following
tsunami to flood the country, and a possible meltdown of the nuclear power plant, Fokushima. The
Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has, subsequently, given several speeches and statements to the
Japanese people and the rest of the world, attempting to manage the crisis situation. However,
various media have criticised Kan for the crisis communication performed. Firstly, there has been
criticism concerning the information, which the Japanese people are given, as it does not correlate
with what is happening and with how foreign governments are reacting. The Japanese government
has advised people to evacuate to at least 20 km away from the plant, whereas the US military will
not allow troops to get within 80 km of the damaged reactors1, and the Spanish and British
governments have joined the US in taking wider precautions than the Japanese2. Subsequently, the
mistrust towards the Japanese government is growing among the population in Tokyo3, because
they are told that everything is under control and that there is no danger but, still, the government
expands the evacuation zone surrounding Fukushima, which sends conflicting messages4.
Secondly, there has been criticism concerning Prime Minister Kan as a leader, arguing that even
though he wants to appear as one, he fails to be one. He has been criticised for not knowing what is
happening and, thereby, not having control over the situation. For example, journalists have
overheard him asking Tepco5 executives ‘What the hell is going on?’ and in terms of media
questions, he has not answered them himself, but for the most part left them to the Chief Cabinet
Secretary and Tepco executives6. A Danish professor from Copenhagen University, who has
studied modern Japanese social studies, has stated that she sees a problem in the official statements
from the Prime Minister, as
he tells what they know, but the problem is that they don’t know very much, because
much of the information is guesswork. There may be some professionals who know
1
”How bad is the nuclear threat in Japan?”, CNN, March 17 2011
2
”Japan earthquake: Fukushima nuclear alert level raised”, BBC, March 19 2011
3
Hornung, ”JP i Japan: Japanernes tillid er væk”, Jyllandsposten, March 18 2011
4
”Sandheden er første offer i en atomkrise”, Jyllandsposten, March 16 2011
5
Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Co) is the power company that runs the Fukushima nuclear power plant
6
Tatsumi, ”Viewpoint: Japan plant – who is in charge?”, BBC, April 1 2011
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
3
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
much about nuclear power plants, but that is not necessarily the way you communicate
it as a politician, and then it seems as if they don’t know too much, or they won’t say
what they know7.
Moreover, the Prime Minister has appointed a number of non-government advisors, demonstrating
his distrust in Tepco and METI8, and critics have, subsequently, argued that too many advisors have
created confusion in the communication process within government, making it harder for Kan to
make decisions9. This corresponds with the critics who argue that the Japanese government has
been indecisive and slow in tackling the crisis10. Kan’s leadership skills during the crisis and the
lack of coherence between what he says and what actually occurs in Japan are two major points of
criticism of the Prime Minister’s crisis communication, and this is not only a problem for the Prime
Minister, but for the Japanese society at large, as the people seem to be losing thrust in the leader
whom they have elected.
7
Foght, ”Kan man tro på Japans oplysninger?”, Jyllandsposten, March 15 2011 (own translation)
8
METI (the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) is responsible in the case of a nuclear accident (Hayashi 2005:
1)
9
Tatsumi, ”Viewpoint: Japan plant – who is in charge?”, BBC, April 1 2011
10
”Japan earthquake: Fukushima nuclear alert level raised”, BBC, March 19 2011 + ”Japan nuclear: PM Naoto Kan
signals ’maximum alert’”, BBC, March 29 2011
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
4
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Problem Formulation
In the previous section, it was established that the lack of coherence between the statements from
the Japanese Prime Minister Kan and what actually is occurring in Japan is a problem. It was,
furthermore, established that Kan’s handling of the crisis has not lived up to people’s expectations
and, therefore, the research problem of this project is the crisis communication performed by the
Prime Minister. Though analysis of his speeches given after the earthquake, I will seek to answer
the research question:
How can the Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan improve his crisis communication during
the current crisis in Japan?
This project has a social constructionist ontological position and understands reality as being
socially constructed, and not objective and given (Sjöstrand et al 2001: 28). Thus, all aspects of
social reality are defined through ongoing actions, negotiations and agreements between individuals
(28), including leadership and crisis communication. The reality, which we construct, becomes our
framework for making sense of said reality (40-41), and the actions and negotiations, we participate
in, are influenced by our own understandings of the world. Moreover, subject and object are
regarded as an inseparable relation (31), and this relation is the medium for creating understanding
(16). Subsequently, Kan’s crisis communication, and how the Japanese people perceive it, is
context dependant, why an understanding of said context is necessary. As the articles utilised in the
previous section are from Western sources, an examination of leadership and crisis management in
Japan is, additionally, needed in order to determine whether the problems outlined in the articles are
actual problems in Japan, or if Prime Minister Kan is expected to act in this manner. Finally,
theories on leadership and crisis communication will help me to determine how Kan has created
mistrust among the Japanese people and, subsequently, how he can improve it.
Consequently, answering the following sub-questions will help me to answer the research question.
-
In what context does Prime Minister Kan perform his crisis communication?
-
How is leadership and crisis management carried out in Japan?
-
How has Kan created mistrust among the Japanese people in his speeches?
-
How does the literature suggest Kan can improve his leadership and crisis communication?
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
5
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Method
In this section, I will explain my choices concerning selection of theories, collection of data and
method of analysis. The topic of the project was chosen on the basis of the massive media publicity
there has been concerning Prime Minister Kan’s crisis communication.
Theory Selection
In order to answer the sub-question ‘In what context does Prime Minister Kan perform his crisis
communication?’, theory on the context is necessary. It concerns theory on Japanese values and
norms, as they influence how followers perceive Kan’s crisis communication. I have chosen to use
theory by Morgan, as he is recognised in organisational literature, and as his theory is relatively
new (from 2006). I am aware that this literature is not everlasting, but it is the most up-to-date
literature on Japanese values, I could obtain. I have also deemed it useful to have literature from
Japanese authors, as they have a better understanding than Morgan does on the topic. I acknowledge
that these authors may have various motives behind what they write, but as I have only used them to
achieve a Japanese perspective, I have considered them reliable. Moreover, I recognise that this
literature is fairly old (from 1988 and 1999), but I have chosen to include it, as I argue that a
Japanese point of view will help understand Japanese values. I acknowledge that I cannot gain a
complete understanding of a Japanese context, but this will provide at least some knowledge on the
topic. Additionally, the context concerns theory on the relationship between the Prime Minister and
the Japanese people and, therefore, I have included theory on Kan’s time as Prime Minister in order
to understand how the Japanese people perceived him before the earthquake struck.
To answer the sub-question ‘How is leadership and crisis management carried out in Japan?’, I have
included literature on this. Besides theory from Morgan, the section comprises of a 2010 report
from the Japanese government, a 2005 report from Hayashi from the Disaster Prevention Research
Institute of Kyoto University in Japan, and an article by Tatsumi, who is a Japanese native and
Senior Associate at the East Asia Program at the Henry L. Stimson Center (Stimson). Her article is
relevant because it addresses the specific issue at hand, and useful because she is Japanese.
Regarding the sub-questions ‘How has Kan created mistrust among the Japanese people in his
speeches?’ and ‘How does the literature suggest Kan can improve his leadership and crisis
communication?’, I have enclosed theory on leadership and crisis management, which are chosen
on the basis of a social constructionist view. Due to a limited number of pages allowed in the
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
6
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
project, I have not included a section specifically explaining the position of social constructionism
but, instead, leadership and crisis management are explained from this position in a manner, I have
deemed sufficient for the project.
Data Collection
As the project aims to examine Kan’s crisis communication, I have chosen to analyse the speeches
he has given since the earthquake. There are seven speeches from the first month following the
earthquake, March 11 until April 12 2011, and I consider this sufficient data to base my conclusions
on. The speeches were relatively easy to obtain, as they are accessible online. However, one of the
speeches, the one given on March 25, is no longer accessible on the website. I have enclosed a copy
as appendix, and in my analysis, I will examine possible reasons for its removal. As I analyse
written speeches, I recognise that I disregard the visual effects of Kan’s crisis communication, just
as I am aware that the speeches have been translated, and that little information may be lost in
translation.
Method of Analysis
Firstly, Morgan’s examination of Japanese organisational culture will be explained, as the
leadership and crisis management theories argue that organisational culture is important (cf.
Leadership and Crisis Management). It has not been possible for me to examine this aspect myself
and, subsequently, I have deemed Morgan’s contribution on the topic sufficient. Secondly, analysis
of Kan’s speeches will be provided. This analysis section is divided into three parts, and each part
discusses certain areas exposed in the theory section; influencing reality construction, tending
stakeholder relationships, and self-representation. I have chosen not to engage in discourse analysis,
as I argue that one can lose sight of the ‘bigger picture’ when too much attention is given to
discourse. Instead, the analysis of the speeches will be based on how well Prime Minister Kan’s
crisis communication corresponds with what the theories suggest. Following the analysis of the
speeches, a concluding discussion will complete the project. Here, the aspects clarified in the
analysis will be related to the theory.
Finally, the footnote citation style applied in the Problem Area was to provide information of the
articles, i.e. who wrote it and what media published it. This was done because this information is
significant for the problem of the project, and it will be attended to in the discussion section. In the
rest of the project, however, an author-date citation style will be applied.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
7
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Leadership
As this project aims to determine how Prime Minister Kan has created mistrust from the Japanese
people in his crisis communication and leadership, recognised theory on leadership will be provided
in this section11. As the project has a social constructionist position, the chosen theories will
facilitate an understanding of leadership from a social constructionist point of view. Leadership is
widely recognised as the most important topic in the field of organisational behaviour (Haslam
2001: 58) and, as such, it is a term well studied and researched. This has resulted in various theories
on leadership, which can be broadly divided into two groups; theories that analyse leadership as a
set of characteristics possessed by leaders, i.e. trait approaches, and theories that analyse the
interactive relationship between leaders and followers, that is, process approaches (Charteris-Black
2007: 3). These approaches have been criticised for denying respectively the role of context and the
role of the individual (Haslam 2001: 60). Leadership will here be seen as a phenomenon, which is
constantly in flux, and which emerges in human interactions; i.e. which is socially constructed
(Sjöstrand et al 2001: 1).
A Social Constructionist Approach to Leadership
Alvesson argues that understanding leadership calls for a careful consideration of the social context
in which the process of leadership occurs, that is, leadership is “a complex social process in which
the meanings and interpretations of what is said and done are crucial” (2002: 94) and, thereby, not
just a leader acting and followers responding (94). In this project it is, therefore, necessary to
understand the social context in which Prime Minister Kan performs his crisis communication.
Leadership “can be defined as about influencing the construction of reality – the ideas, beliefs and
interpretations of what and how things can and should be done, in light of what the world looks
like” (114). Sjöstrand et al support this, as they argue that the social construction of uncertainty is
fundamental for leadership, because the presence of uncertainty implies the recognition that
unexpected situations will continually arise (2001: 8). Hence, in organised contexts there must be
some means of handling unforeseen situations, so leaders serve to some extent the purpose of
11
As the literature concerns companies, the terms ’leadership’ and ’management’ are both used. I distinguish leaders
from managers because they rely on their personal abilities and work with visions and agendas by affecting people’s
feelings and thinking, which managers do not (Alvesson 2002: 100). However, management also concerns trying to
create commitment to goals (101), why I have deemed it applicable to the situation in Japan. The term ‘subordinate’
also appears in management theory; I have chosen to use the term ‘follower’ in this project
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
8
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
solving this problem (8). A leader has the obligation to cope with any ambiguities caused by an
unexpected problem and “such managerial discretion reflects a general understanding that allows
and encourages managers to develop the specific settings of a particular organization” (8). A
significant source of uncertainty is the heterogeneous character of human beings, e.g. differences in
expectations, beliefs, experiences etc., and members in a context behave to a large extent on the
basis of a private standpoint, acting in accordance with what they consider to be important (9).
Consequently, leaders are to provide some structure and, thereby, bridge various distances between
heterogeneous people, and “managerial leadership can then be interpreted as the involvement of
managers in creating, encouraging and supporting particular expectations, perspectives and
activities present in an organization populated by interacting, dissimilar individuals” (9). In
successful leadership, a leader can exercise considerable influence, particularly during major crises
where the situation is open for the reframing of ideas, beliefs and meanings (Alvesson 2002: 116).
Thus, successful leadership can attach positive meanings to the intentions, acts and arrangements of
the leader (106), and a successful leader has an appeal to people and is able to make visions, goals
and constructions of reality be perceived as legitimate and meaningful. Alvesson emphasises the
capacity of creating totality as important for a leader (112). Therefore, a leader should induce a
common orientation in order to make followers identify with the organisation and, thereby, have a
sense of loyalty towards it (112). According to Haslam, the leader is an active part of the group and
he or she needs to construct an identity for the group in order to be successful. Haslam exemplifies
this with the leader rhetorically strengthening us and them categories, so the leader and the in-group
are described positively (2001: 69). However, it is not merely the leader who constructs the
situation. Other members also contribute, but they do so from weaker positions and do, therefore,
not have the same influence (Alvesson 2002: 115), just as there are certain values in an organisation
that contribute to the expectations of a leader. Expectations are, subsequently, related to the culture
in the organisation (113-114), and “leadership must be understood as taking place in a cultural
context and all leadership acts have their consequences through the (culturally guided)
interpretation of those involved in the social process in which leaders, followers and leadership acts
are expressed” (101). The challenge for Prime Minister Kan is, subsequently, to construct a shared
set of expectations, beliefs and ideas among the Japanese people and, because they are in a crisis
situation, the opportunity to influence expectations is enhanced.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
9
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
The Relation of Leadership
An understanding of leadership calls for an interpretation of the relation and context of interaction
between the leader and the followers (114). Sjöstrand et al emphasise that it is the character and
content of a relation that is significant in management, and not classifications and categorisations,
such as leader/follower (2001: 16). Subsequently, relations are the “medium for creating and
recreating understandings, which makes both leaders and followers … part of the preconditions
for the emergence of managerial leadership” (16). Moreover, subject and object are an inseparable
relation, and not two independent entities. That is, the leader and the specific context, i.e. the
situation, the followers, etc., are connected, because the very meaning of subject implies a
relationship to an object (31). The leader and the led share an interactive wholeness in which
leadership is an inter-subjective phenomenon (32). Alvesson addresses a cultural approach to
leadership, in which organisational culture frames leadership, and in which any possible effect of
leadership is a consequence of how people interpret and develop meaning to leadership (2002: 97).
There has to be congruence between the management style of the leader and the expectations of the
followers, that is, the practical actions of leaders have to correspond with the assumptions of the
followers and how they relate to the ideas and arrangements of the leader (99). It is, hence, the
interpretations and meanings of followers that are basic for the effects of leadership acts (104), and
it is the frameworks and norms of the followers that ‘decide’ what works in terms of leadership.
Thus, “the cultural context guides the manager to how leadership should be carried out” (107).
Prime Minister Kan should, therefore, attempt to construct reality in a manner that encourages the
Japanese people to back him. However, the construction has to be guided by a set of shared beliefs
and values among the Japanese people, in order for them to support him.
The interpretation of followers also applies to the notion of charismatic leadership. According to
Alvesson, charismatic leadership emerges when a person has extra-ordinary influence and can get
support for a radical vision. This often occurs in a crisis, where a group of followers are more or
less spellbound by the person, and are willing to suspend critical thinking to develop strong faith in
the project of the charismatic leader (105). The characteristics of a charismatic leader are to be
deemed as exceptional by followers, to enjoy great personal loyalty, to have a mission or a vision,
and to be able to face and solve a crisis (110). Following the social constructionist stance, the
leader’s behaviour and qualities are not enough in determining if a leader is charismatic, which
Alvesson argues is the same as determining that he or she is successful in the sense of having far
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
10
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
reaching influence and loyalty; the context and the characteristics of the followers are also
significant (111). Prime Minister Kan has, according to Alvesson, a greater opportunity in
succeeding as a leader, because Japan is in crisis.
The Holographic Approach
According to Morgan, effective leaders are able to remain open and flexible until they have a
comprehensive view of the situation, because they are aware that new insights often arise when a
situation is approached from different angles (2006: 4). He argues that leaders should not direct too
strict targets for followers, but merely provide guidelines, as intelligence is a decentralised
emergent phenomenon, and that the behaviour of intelligent systems requires a sense of direction,
i.e. visions, norms, values, limits or ‘reference points’, which can guide behaviour. However, “these
“reference points” must be defined in a way that creates a space in which many possible actions and
behaviors can emerge” (92), as “cybernetic12 points of reference create space in which learning
and innovation can occur” (92). Hence, this creates double-loop thinking, which, according to
Morgan, is important for an organisation to evolve (92). Cybernetic reference points should be core
values in an organisation, as they allow self-regulating behaviour to occur by giving space.
Subsequently, a manager13 will be free to choose whatever action or behaviour, he or she finds
suitable for the situation at hand, which will cause sustained innovation at a local level and create a
potential for double-loop learning (92). An organisation that allows for this kind of innovation from
below can, following Morgan, use the information and ideas to influence the operating rules of the
organisation (94), and the process allows innovation to be driven from all directions and,
subsequently, learning evolves to higher levels (95).
Morgan emphasises that leaders in an organisation with this approach have to be aware of the
importance of understanding the limits that should be placed on behaviour (95). That is, specific
12
Cybernetics concerns the ability of a system to engage in self-regulating behaviour depending on processes of
information exchange involving negative feedback. The system monitors aspects of its environment, relates this
information to the norms that guide system behaviour, and detects and corrects significant deviations from these norms.
When the system has the capacity to question the appropriateness of its actions, a self-questioning ability, it can
influence the norms that guide its actions; it becomes able to learn to learn, which Morgan refers to as double-loop
learning (82-84)
13
Here, the term ‘manager’ is used because Morgan describes an organisation where leaders should exercise
management from below, so that managers, who are subordinates of leaders, can engage in double-loop thinking
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
11
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
targets can dominate attention and obliterate other useful aspects of the situation (95), and Morgan
argues that by emphasising the limits of a situation instead of the goals, a creative redefinition of
the space, in which positive patterns of behaviour unfold, can be created (96).
In line with the social constructionist approach to leadership outlined above, Morgan provides
organisational principles and designs that can support the philosophy of self-organising, and he
calls this the holographic approach. Here, the qualities of the whole are infolded in all the parts of
an organisation, and this can be achieved through focus on organisational culture14 (99). Hence, the
visions, values and sense of purpose that are in the organisation should be used in a manner that
helps every individual in said organisation to understand and absorb the mission and challenge of
the entire organisation (99). Morgan argues that if an individual appreciates the entire
organisation’s vision, core values, operating norms and other dimensions of corporate culture, this
individual creates a capacity to embody and act in a manner that represents the whole (99) and,
consequently, culture has a major influence on the effectiveness of management (100). In line with
cybernetic learning, Morgan emphasises the importance of the cultural codes fostering an open and
evolving approach to the future, i.e. “visions, values, and other dimensions of culture must create
space in which productive innovation can occur” (100).
Following Morgan, Prime Minister Kan can influence the beliefs, behaviour, ideas, values and
norms of the Japanese through his position as leader, but he should do it in the framework of the
shared ideals, the Japanese people possess, and he should do it in a manner that provides space for
innovation.
14
Even though Morgan addresses organisations, I have deemed the theory applicable to the situation in Japan, because
it concerns the individual understanding the challenge of the whole organisation, i.e. a shared mission, which is useful
in this project
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
12
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Crisis Management
Just as in the section on leadership, this section will provide recognised theories on crisis
management and crisis communication in order to determine aspects of Kan’s crisis communication
that can create mistrust and, subsequently, propose ways to improve it. In line with the ontological
position of the project, a social constructionist orientation has been the basis of the selection of
theories.
According to Gilpin and Murphy, there are two approaches to crisis management; mainstream crisis
management and complexity-based crisis management (2008: 157). Mainstream crisis management
has a traditional worldview and argues that future events can be predicted and controlled. Certainty
and stability are the desired outcomes of a crisis and this can be achieved through detailed planning
and centralised responsibility (158). Complexity-based crisis management, on the other hand, views
the world as uncertain and unstable, and regards organisations as constantly being in flux (158),
which is consistent with the social constructionist position of this project. Crisis preparation is a
matter of improvisation, as it is not possible to plan or control a crisis, because there are too many
external factors (108). The primary aim of crisis management is to limit the loss of organisational
assets and to restore organisational legitimacy by engaging in double-loop learning (109). Gilpin
and Murphy suggest three dimensions, which they believe are most central to an organisation in
regard to crisis management: Knowledge/awareness, adaptability and complexity absorption (158).
Knowledge/Awareness
Gilpin and Murphy argue that all crisis management begins with the acquisition of knowledge, and
that relationships with stakeholders are important means of acquiring this knowledge, because these
relationships create feedback loops that encourage organisational learning (160). In traditional
organisations with a mainstream approach to crisis management, determined objectives in the
relationships with stakeholders constrain change and, thereby, create negative feedback loops.
Moreover, codified information and procedures are used to coordinate members in an impersonal
manner (160-161). Contrary, an adaptive organisation, which promotes change, creates positive
feedback loops by focusing people’s attention to the impacts their decisions have on the situation
and, subsequently, innovation in encouraged (160). Personal relationships where people achieve
coordination by sharing beliefs and values are prevalent, which create adaption and improvisation
(161). Therefore, “when leaders are able to embrace small changes throughout their organizations,
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
13
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
which propagate in an exceptional manner, the organizations become highly adaptive and are able
to evolve” (160). An approach that enhances adaption and improvisation is highly effective for
crisis preparedness (161) and, moreover, members in such an organisation will be increasingly
capable of self-organising in times of crisis (162) (cf. Leadership).
A leader is not a separate part of an adaptive organisation; he or she becomes both a liaison
responding to the concerns of the followers, and a diffusion agent communicating new assumptions
through the organisational network of relationships (163). These assumptions are created through
organisational culture. Subsequently, “an explicit crisis plan is less important than coordinating a
sense of what an organization stands for – that is, making explicit an attractor that guides how the
organization will navigate the uncertainties and rapidly changing circumstances of a crisis” (163).
The relationship between communication, culture and crisis is significant in crisis response (165),
and ongoing communication between leader and followers generates a solid familiarity with the
organisation for all members (159), that is, knowledge and awareness emerge. The challenge for
Prime Minister Kan is, therefore, to create knowledge and awareness among the Japanese people, so
they have a common set of beliefs and values to follow in times of uncertainty and crisis. However,
as organisational culture has to be present before a crisis in order to make use of it, it is not
something Kan can begin constructing in his crisis communication. He can, conversely, influence
the reconstruction of the current organisational culture among the Japanese people in a manner that
encourages the Japanese people to back him (cf. Leadership).
Adaption
Where the knowledge/awareness aspect concerns pre crisis management, adaption is useful during a
crisis. According to Gilpin and Murphy, extensive knowledge of the organisation as well as its
networks and the context in which it operates, can lead to effective improvisation in times of crisis
(171). They define effective improvisation as a “simple, experimental, unstable process that rely
on quickly created new knowledge and iterative execution to produce adaptive, but unpredictable
outcomes” (171), and argue that improvisation is suited to a complex, changing environment (170171). In order to be successful in improvising, members of an organisation should be aware of their
mutual interdependencies, be conscious of each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and have the
ability to rapidly draw distinctions and intuit patterns (170). However, improvisation is in itself not
enough to ensure a good outcome, it has to grow out of team decision-making process that fosters
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
14
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
shared intuition (164). That is, the improvisation and adaptability to new situations are guided by
organisational culture.
Complexity Absorption
In times of crisis, people lose control, and persons who are affected by the crisis look to the people
in charge to create actions that reduce the harm of the crisis (172). Following the complexity based
approach to crisis management; leaders should tolerate uncertainty, ambiguity and change, because
in seeking to restore the status quo or demonstrate control over ultimately uncontrollable
circumstances, leaders can neglect more productive ways of handling the situation at hand. Hence,
focus should be on a leader’s ability to guide an organisation in crisis in a positive direction (172173). Gilpin and Murphy argue, “organizations that tolerate a variety of potential responses to crisis
and pursue a range of possible outcomes often adapt more successfully to turbulent times than those
that hold on to stability” (173). Thus, organisations should approach crisis in a manner that accepts
rapid change and involves multiple and sometimes conflicting representations of environmental
variety, i.e. complexity absorption. This approach runs counter to traditional crisis management
approaches, which advice that organisations develop one detailed crisis plan, because they disregard
flexibility and adaptability, and because it is more useful to preserve options than to commit
resources to relatively narrow possibilities in an unpredictable time of crisis (173-174). Despite the
indirectness in using influence rather than control, organisations that practice complexity-based
management can, to some extent, shape their own future, because order emerges from unstable
conditions (175). Order is a result of organisational culture, that is, organisational culture shapes the
behavioural patterns that emerge over time (175). Subsequently, enactment is achieved through
acceptance of ambiguity, which only is possible when the organisation can rely on adaptability
(159).
On the basis of the above, it is evident that both leadership theory and theory on crisis management
emphasise the importance of constructing a solid organisational culture, which members identify
with and have loyalty toward. If this is obtained, members will be able to improvise successfully in
times of crisis, because they have common goals and beliefs. Prime Minister Kan should,
subsequently, use his position as a leader to influence the reconstruction of organisational culture to
encourage the Japanese people to support him in a manner than corresponds with the norms set out
by the organisational culture. In the following, more specific guidelines in terms of crisis
communication will be provided.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
15
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Crisis Communication
Ulmer et al suggest that effective crisis communicators take immediate contact with stakeholders
and communicate early about the crisis (2007: 40). The relationships between stakeholders and the
crisis communicator are critical and should be characterised by open and honest dialogue (35). Even
though the severity of the crisis is unknown, effective crisis communicators still communicate early
and consistently with stakeholders about how the organisation is moving forward (40) and,
furthermore, when information is not available, answering questions is much more valuable than
being perceived as inaccessible (41). Moreover, the crisis communicator should be able to explain
the corrective actions to stakeholders so that they feel confident that corrections have been made
(42). According to Ulmer et al, “the condition most conducive to panic isn’t bad news; it is
conflicting messages from those in authority” (44) so, consequently, if people feel they are not told
everything, panic will emerge. However, if the communicator does not know much, there should be
a level of ambiguity in the crisis communication instead of immediately responding to questions
with certainty, if this information later can be retracted (45).
Thus, Prime Minister Kan should tend his stakeholder relationships, i.e. the relation with the
Japanese people, and make sure that they feel confident that he is doing everything in his power to
handle the crisis. Additionally, he should make them feel, they are being told everything and make
sure there are no conflicting messages.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
16
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
The Japanese Context
Following the social constructionist stance, leadership can only fully be understood by considering
the social context in which the process occurs (cf. Leadership). Therefore, a presentation of
leadership and cultural values in Japan will be given in order to provide a context for Prime
Minister Kan’s crisis communication. I recognise that I cannot fully grasp Japanese culture or
generalise leadership to all of Japan, but I can provide some understanding of patterns or styles used
in the country, just as I can identify some Japanese values, which will aid me in understanding the
social context. Next, crisis management in Japan will be examined, and an overview of government
strategies will be provided. Finally, an exposition of Naoto Kan’s time as Prime Minister of Japan
will be presented in order to understand the relationship between him and the Japanese people
before the earthquake struck.
Japanese Values and Leadership
According to Morgan, management in Japan is hierarchical, yet harmonious, as Japanese people do
not necessarily experience a feudal system as demeaning. Instead, hierarchy is viewed as a system
of mutual service, because the Japanese have another relation between subordination and selfrespect than is the case in the West (Morgan 2006: 121). There is a collaborative spirit with
considerable emphasis on shared concerns and mutual help, and authority relations are often
paternalistic and highly traditional (118). Japanese authors share this interpretation. For example,
Shuji outlines that the predominating pattern in all corporate organisations in Japan is teamwork
(1988: 36), and Kao et al agree that there is a strong inclination of all members in a group to share
responsibility, and an intense feeling of group belongingness in Japan, even though there are clear
status differences in organisations (1999: 36). Japanese people do not like personal responsibility;
whether it is recognition or blame, there is an aversion to making a specific individual accountable
(Shuji 1988: 132).
There is much communication between the top and the subordinates in Japan, and a successful
leader is regarded as kind, generous, broad-minded, and capable of thinking of the interests of the
whole group (115). Hence, a successful leader is not aggressive in the manner known from the
West, because the person who pushes his own candidacy is far less likely to be chosen as a leader in
Japan (116).
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
17
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Morgan argues that Japanese mechanisms of management control are subtle, implicit and internal,
but simultaneously thorough, highly disciplined and demanding, yet very flexible (2006: 93). From
a Japanese management perspective, objectives appear from a fundamental process of
understanding the values, through which an organisation should be operating. That is, if leaders are
able to absorb the basic philosophy of the organisation, and how it wants its staff to operate,
appropriate behaviour will become apparent in any given situation (92), and there will be no need
for direction (94). Morgan argues that this is radically different from how management is
approached in the West, where management by objective is prevalent (93). Consequently, many
aspects of Japanese leadership have a holographic approach and promote learning through
innovation (cf. Leadership).
Crisis Management in Japan
Japan does not use ICS15 in times of crisis; instead various agencies will lead the national
emergency response, depending on what crisis the nation faces (Hayashi 2005: 1). In the case of a
natural disaster, both the Cabinet Office, Disaster Management Section (CAO) and the Fire and
Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) will take charge, and in the case of a nuclear accident,
METI will be responsible (1) (cf. Problem Area). Subsequently, there is no unified emergency
management that takes care of interagency coordination, and as the manner, in which the various
emergency management agencies handle crises, varies from each agency; there is no common
framework for crisis management at a national government level in Japan (1-2). According to
Hayashi from the Disaster Prevention Research Institute of Kyoto University, this practice of
emergency management is fragmented (1). Hayashi proposes that the practice is a result of Japan’s
preference for ‘preventive measures’ over ‘preparedness measures’, and the consequence is that
post-crisis management is practiced in a rather ad hoc manner (2).
A 2010 report from the Japanese government outlines that the Cabinet, with the Prime Minister at
its core, is responsible for decision making on security issues. Furthermore, the report outlines that
the Prime Minister is to take command in crisis management (Council on Security and Defence
Capabilities in the New Era 2010: 51). However, the same report also outlines that the current
institution for crisis management is led by the Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary for Crisis
15
ICS (Incident Command System) is a widespread standardised on-scene management concept, designed to allow
responders to adopt an integrated organisational structure equal to the complexity and demands of any incident without
being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries (United States Department of Labor)
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
18
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Management (51-52), and that there “remains the challenge of finding ways to enable cabinet
organizations to cope appropriately and efficiently with national emergencies that include …
natural disasters” (52). Hence, even though the Japanese are aware that their country is prone to
natural disasters such as earthquakes (53), the crisis management strategy is ambiguous. Tatsumi
explains that there is a Japanese law, which lays out measures that should be taken by the
government in case of a nuclear energy disaster. This law dictates, “when a nuclear accident
happens, an atomic power disaster response headquarters headed by the prime minister is to be
established” (Tatsumi 2011) and, furthermore, “this ad hoc headquarters is expected to take
charge of setting out the government’s response and facilitating necessary inter-agency coordination
within the government” (ibid). The Prime Minister has the authority to direct relevant government
agencies as well as private companies that are involved in responding to the disaster, just as he can
draw on expert opinions to assist him in decision-making, either from the Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency (NISA), which is an agency within METI, and the Nuclear Safety Commission,
which is a panel made up of non-government experts (ibid). Consequently, the Prime Minister is in
charge, legally speaking (ibid).
Naoto Kan as Prime Minister
Before the earthquake struck, the Japanese people had subjective opinions of Prime Minister Kan.
In the following, a brief explanation of Kan’s time as Prime Minister will be given in order to grasp
the people’s views on him, as this is part of the context in which he performs his crisis
communication.
In August 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won the election in Japan, which was an end
to the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) long-standing monopoly in Japanese politics (Rosenbluth
2011: 41). When the DPJ was elected, the Prime Minister was Hatoyama Yukio, but he resigned as
DPJ President and Prime Minister in June 2010 due to a failed agreement with the US (42-43).
Naoto Kan was elected President of the DPJ and Prime Minister of Japan, and he managed to bring
the party through the upper house elections in July 2010, even though the public support was only
40% compared to the 70% the party had in September 2009 (45). Kan suggested that the
consumption tax should be increased from 5% to 10% and, because Hatoyama had promised the
public not to touch the taxes, this was not well received (45). Subsequently, Kan reversed his
stance, causing him to appear indecisive. In September 2010, Kan’s presidency in the DPJ ended, as
he was only elected to serve the remainder of Hatoyama’s term. He campaigned against Ozawa for
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
19
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
the presidency, promoting transparent and inclusive government, and he won (48). However, the
Japanese people voted against the LPD as much as they had voted for the DPJ in 2009, and in the
first year in office, the party has not convinced the public that they are more capable of restoring
prosperity than the LPD (49). Subsequently, at the beginning of 2011, Prime Minister Kan and the
DPJ were yet to project an image of decisive leadership and gain the public’s trust (49).
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
20
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Analysis of Prime Minister Kan’s Speeches
In the theory section, various aspects of successful leadership and crisis management were outlined.
I have summarised these into three parts; influencing reality construction, tending stakeholder
relationships, and self-representation. In the following, Kan’s speeches will be analysed on the basis
of these three theoretical parts.
Influencing Reality Construction
In order to influence reality construction, Kan attempts to create a shared set of visions and goals
for the Japanese people. One of these goals is to overcome the crisis: “I firmly believe that through
our citizens working together to respond to this great earthquake and tsunami, we will certainly be
able to overcome this crisis” (March 13), we will make progress in getting people’s lives back on
track (March 18), and “I am confident that the nation as a whole will overcome the damage … and
achieve a recovery” (ibid)16. Moreover, he emphasises the importance of the people not becoming
despondent: “With the support of the whole world, we must not allow ourselves to become
despondent in facing this … We must be resolved as a people to do whatever it takes to move
forward” (ibid), and “our children will inherit Japan. We must not leave them a country in decline.
We must put forth an effort that will allow us to face those who have perished in the current disaster
and those who will inherit our country without shame” (April 12). He outlines the vision of
rebuilding an even better Japan than before the earthquake17, and explicitly asserts that “we should
not return the area affected by this disaster to the way it once was – we should rather create a new
future for our society” (ibid), and we will “rebuild our country in such a way as to make it even
better than before. I believe we can do this” (ibid). He specifies these goals with visions of a
revitalisation of primary industries without fail (April 1), and eco-towns created atop plateaus,
places with infrastructure to support the elderly and where people will live in harmony with the
nature (April 1+April 12). He calls this a “dream society for the future” (April 12).
In terms of constructing reality through organisational culture, i.e. the shared values and beliefs
present before the crisis, Kan exercises two strategies. He emphasises solidarity and cooperation 18,
16
Additionally, he addresses overcoming the crisis in the speeches on March 25, April 1 and April 12
17
This is done in the speeches from March 13, March 18, March 25 and April 1
18
March 13 and March 18
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
21
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
and he draws on the country’s history and, more specifically World War II19. Solidarity is enhanced
as he argues, “we will share this burden throughout society” (March 25), and more emotionally:
It has been sometimes said in Japan that the bonds between us Japanese are weakening.
Since the earthquake, … individuals across the country have voluntarily offered their
support and cooperation to help us overcome this disaster. I believe that our renewed bonds
will reach across the nation and lead us to a wonderful tomorrow. I am confident that we
have a bright future ahead of us.
The late physicist Dr. Torahiko Terada wrote numerous essays about disaster. Among
them, he noted that the practice of offering aid in times of trouble is deeply rooted in the
nature of the Japanese as a custom passed down from generation to generation since
ancient times (April 1).
And he refers to the country’s history by saying: “We Japanese have overcome many very trying
situations in the past to create our modern society of peace and prosperity” (March 13).
Regarding constructing us and them categories, Kan creates an us by addressing the Japanese
people as “my fellow citizens” (March 11+March 13+March 25). Moreover, he refers to the crisis
as a true test of us (March 18), just as he states that we will be able to overcome the crisis (March
13). As the crisis is caused by a natural disaster, there is no so-called ‘bad guy’, why no such
construction is made. However, he says, “despite those who dismissed us as a small island nation”
(March 18, emphasis added), which implies that the Japanese should have a common attitude
towards those, and he is, thereby, constructing a them. In his speech it is implied that the Japanese
people should prove something to those people.
Subsequently, Kan attempts to construct a common goal to overcome the crisis and rebuild an even
better Japan without becoming despondent. This is done by appealing to the Japanese people by
drawing on their tradition of cooperation and solidarity, and by emphasising that the country has
rebuilt itself after the Second World War. Finally, by constructing the us category, he consolidates
the solidarity aspect.
Tending Stakeholder Relationships
One of the crisis communication strategies outlined in the theory section is tending stakeholder
relationships. Thus, information should be given promptly, and the crisis communicator should be
accessible. Kan addressed the Japanese people two hours after the earthquake struck (March 11),
which is relatively fast. However, he has not responded to any requests for door stepping
19
World War II is referred to in speeches on March 13, March 18, March 25 and April 12
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
22
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
interviews, excusing this with him being busy, and that the Chief Cabinet Secretary is the
spokesperson (April 12). Moreover, in the seven speeches conducted in the month after the
earthquake, it was not until the fourth, the press was allowed to ask questions (March 18), and the
later the speeches were given, the more questions were allowed.
When Kan addresses the crisis concerning Fukushima, he is rather unspecific. That is, he
categorises the situation as “alarming” (March 13) and “precarious” (March 18) and, moreover,
when asked to be specific on what is actually being done, he avoids answering (ibid+March 13).
When he is asked what the future prospect for the nuclear plant is, he is also evasive, as he says,
“we cannot say for certain how things will turn out” (March 18), “in the not-too-distant future we
should be able to bring the situation firmly under control” (ibid), and “since we are currently in the
midst of the situation, I believe it is still too early to comment on what will happen later” (April 1).
In addition to not being specific when he addresses Fukushima, the government sends conflicting
messages in their actions concerning the nuclear plant. In the beginning of the nuclear crisis, the
government established a 3-10 km radius evacuation zone. This was later expanded to 20 km, with
the notion of people in a 20-30 km radius of the plant should stay indoors and, finally, the zone was
expanded to a 30 km radius (March 25). Additionally, foreign governments have issued an 80 km
radius as evacuation zone (ibid). Kan explains this by asserting that experts of the Nuclear Safety
Commission determine the evacuation zone, and he assures that all the information, the Japanese
government possesses, has been given to foreign governments (ibid), and he continually emphasises
that he has released all facts (March 18+March 25). Thus, he argues that he has not done anything
wrong, that is, either the experts have given him wrong conclusions, or the foreign governments
have taken too protective means, i.e. he is placing blame. This is from the speech that has been
removed, and maybe this is the reason. I assume that the reason lies in the questions and answers
part, which is the section in which he places blame, as the opening statement most likely is prepared
before the press conference. However, in one of the other speeches, he also asserts that experts
determine the evacuation zone (April 1), so it can be the questioning of other countries’ evacuation
zones that is the reason for the removal of the speech. The speech included a video, which I have
not watched, and it is of course possible that said video is the reason for the removal, just as it can
be something else in the text.
Kan states that the government has been cooperating with other countries, especially the US, since
the beginning of the crisis (April 1), but he does not mention international cooperation until April 1.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
23
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
As a reporter points this out, Kan answers, “at least, as far as I know, we have gladly accepted
almost all of America’s offers” (ibid). Finally, nearly a month passed from the classification of the
nuclear incident as Level 5 on the International Nuclear Events Scale (it was first classified as Level
4) to the reclassification as Level 7, which Kan refers to as “in line with the international
standards” (April 12) However, he does not explain why the incident has been reclassified, and he
reassures that the situation is “moving towards stability” (ibid). In the same speech, Kan says that
the government is reconsidering changing the size of the evacuation zone again (ibid).
Hence, Kan addressed the Japanese people promptly after the earthquake, but appeared inaccessible
thereafter. Moreover, he has been unspecific in his communication concerning Fukushima, just as
there has been conflicting messages between what he has said and what actions the government has
engaged in.
Self-Representation
A final aspect of successful crisis communication is to influence the constructed reality concerning
oneself as a leader. Kan presents himself in various manners in his speeches, and one is as the
compassionate leader. In almost all the speeches, he begins by offering his heartfelt condolences to
those affected by the crisis (e.g. March 11+March 13+March 18). Additionally, he declares that the
first thing on his mind, after the earthquake struck, was to save lives (April 12), and he asserts that
the requests of those living in the affected areas will be respected in the reconstruction (ibid). Kan
also presents himself as a strong leader, emphasising that he immediately reacted to the crisis by
establishing an emergency headquarters with himself as the head (March 11+March 18+April 12).
Furthermore, he argues that he has fully acquitted all the duties that were expected of him (April
12), just as he has acted with a high degree of transparency, promptly releasing all information
obtained (ibid+March 25). He shows dedication, as he promises not to give up until the crisis
concerning Fukushima is solved, and pledges that he will make this happen (April 1+April 12). Kan
enhances how much he and the Government do to overcome the crisis by using phrases such as
“sparing no effort” (March 13), “we are doing everything possible” (March 15), and “we are
working flat out” (March 25). In addition, he outlines large numbers to explain how many people
are involved in the reconstruction, and how many lives are saved (March 13), which contributes to
his construction of an initiative leader.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
24
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
However, Kan is also involved in reconstructing himself as a leader in a negative manner. A
reporter asks him if a bad result of a local election can result in him resigning, and he does not
dismiss it (April 12), which is a sign of weakness. Moreover, he states, “it is not the case that I
know everything about the nuclear incident since the Government is large” (ibid) and, thus, he
appears as if he does not know everything, even though he is the leader.
Consequently, through his speeches, Kan engages in the construction of himself as a leader. He is
presented as compassionate and initiative, but also as someone who enhances his own actions and
who does not know everything, even though he is supposed to be the leader.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
25
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Concluding Discussion
In the following, the three dimensions of Kan’s crisis communication, identified in the Analysis
section, will be discussed on the basis of the theory in this project and the Japanese social context in
which the communication was performed. This will be done to answer the sub-questions posed in
the Problem Formulation and, ultimately, to answer the research question.
Constructing Shared Visions
Following theories on leadership and crisis management, the ability to construct a shared set of
beliefs, values and goals is vital, because if a leader succeeds in doing so, it will create commitment
and loyalty from followers. A successful leader can, thus, exercise considerable influence in the
construction of visions and goals and, thereby, make them legitimate and meaningful. It is
necessary for leaders to construct said shared goals in a manner that meets the expectations of
followers, i.e. the cultural context of the situation shapes the construction of reality. In Kan’s
speeches, he sets out the shared visions of overcoming the crisis, rebuilding an even better Japan,
and doing so without becoming despondent. Moreover, these visions meet the cultural context of
the situation, as he encourages cooperation, solidarity and shared responsibility, which are common
values in Japan, and as he addresses the country’s history and rise since the Second World War.
Additionally, the Japanese style of management is equivalent to Morgan’s holographic approach.
Subsequently, the Japanese people are used to a high degree of communication in the organisation,
being familiar with a common culture and understanding shared challenges and, therefore, they act
in a manner that represents the whole.
Hence, these prerequisites, set out by the chosen theory, are met in Kan’s crisis communication and,
as successful leadership is easier to achieve in times of crisis, Kan’s leadership and crisis
communication is successful, based on this first aspect.
Relationships in the Communication Process
According to the theory section, ongoing communication generates a solid familiarity with the
context, in which the situation occurs. It is important for Kan to take immediate contact to
stakeholders, and to communicate early and consistently, i.e. he must not be considered
inaccessible. He should be able to explain the corrective actions to the Japanese people, so that they
feel confident that corrections are being made and that they are informed. Following the theory,
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
26
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
panic will emerge when those in authority send conflicting messages, but if the leader does not
know much, a level of ambiguity should be maintained, so possible retraction of information is
avoided. Kan did address the Japanese people relatively fast after the earthquake, but he failed in
being accessible and providing consistent information afterwards, as he has not responded to any
door stepping interviews, and did not allow questions until a week after the earthquake. The later
the speeches were given, the more questions are allowed, which can indicate a reaction to the
criticism concerning his inaccessibility. Moreover, his communication concerning Fukushima has
been unspecific, and he will not propose a time frame for solving the crisis. This level of ambiguity
is necessary, following the theory, but as he avoids explaining in detail what actions are being made
in regard to Fukushima, the Japanese people are not confident that corrections are being made to
handle the crisis. Finally, as he sends conflicting messages by continually changing the evacuation
zone and by raising the classification level, panic emerges among the Japanese people.
Subsequently, Kan fails in his crisis communication by being inaccessible and by sending
conflicting messages, and this aspect of the theory prerequisites is not met.
Prime Minister Kan as a Leader
According to the theory, handling a crisis is a matter of improvisation, and a set plan or strategy
will overshadow innovation. In Japan, no common government framework is provided, as various
agencies handle various crises differently and, moreover, Japan’s preference for preventive
measures results in post-crisis management being practised in a rather ad hoc manner. This is in line
with the crisis management theory, so this manner of handling the crisis is adequate. Consequently,
the Western media criticising Kan for not appearing in charge are influenced by how crisis
management is practiced in the West, and are not aware of the Japanese style. Thus, a system such
as ICS is not applicable to Japan. However, as the Japanese government sends conflicting messages
concerning who is in charge, a more clear explanation of this could be useful. Hence, it can be
argued that there are too many agencies in charge of this specific crisis.
Before the earthquake struck, Kan was regarded as indecisive and he did not have the public’s trust.
By not being specific in explaining what is being done, it appears as if he does not know too much
or is not telling everything. Thus, he appears unaware of the situation or dishonest, which is not in
line with how crisis communication should be performed. Additionally, a successful leader in Japan
is not aggressive, because a leader that pushes his own candidacy is less likely to be chosen as a
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
27
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
leader in Japan. Throughout his speeches, Kan enhances his own actions and, consequently, he
builds on the negative image, the Japanese people had of him before the crisis.
Conclusion
Concluding, Prime Minister Kan has, according to the prerequisites set by the selected theory,
succeeded in creating a set of shared goals and visions, which are guided by Japanese cultural
values. However, as he has appeared inaccessible, unaware and dishonest and, furthermore, has sent
conflicting messages, his crisis communication has not been successful. A poor result in an opinion
poll confirms this (April 12). The question is, if there were any other outcomes of the situation, as
Kan was already unpopular before the earthquake struck. The theory does, however, argue that
charismatic leadership is easier to achieve in times of crisis, and US President Bush was an example
of this, as his popularity was at its highest just after 9/11, even though opinions on him were
divided before (Crotty 2004: 46). It is, however, questionable if Kan can improve his crisis
communication now, as the damage appears to be done.
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
28
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake
Bibliography
Books

Alvesson, Mats. 2002. Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2007. The Communication of Leadership: The Design of
Leadership Style. London: Routledge

Crotty, William. 2004. The Politics of Terror – the U.S. Response to 9/11. Boston:
Northeastern University Press

Gilpin, Dawn R. and Priscilla J. Murphy. 2008. Crisis Management in a Complex World.
Oxford: Oxford University Press

Haslam, S. Alexander. 2001. Psychology in Organizations. The Social Identity Approach.
London: Sage

Kao, Henry S. R., Durganard Sinha and Bernhard Wilpert. 1999. Management and Cultural
Values – The Indigenization of Organizations in Asia. New Delhi: Sage

Morgan, Gareth. 2006. Images of Organization. London: Sage

Shuji, Hayashi. 1988. Culture and Management in Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press

Sjöstrand, Sven-Erik, Jörgen Sandberg and Mats Tyrstrup. 2001. Invisible Management –
The Social Construction of Leadership. UK: Thomson Learning

Ulmer, Robert, Timothy L. Sellnow and Matthew W. Seeger. 2007. Effective Crisis
Communication: Moving from Crisis to Opportunity. London: Sage
Online Journal Article

Rosenbluth, Frances Mccall. 2011. Japan in 2010. Asian Survey, vol. 51, no. 1
(January/February 2011), pp. 41-53,
http://www.jstor.org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/stable/10.1525/as.2011.51.1.41?&Search=yes&search
Text=japan&searchText=2010&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQu
ery%3Djapan%2Bin%2B2010%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=4
883&returnArticleService=showFullText Accessed April 27, 2011
Articles

Foght, Thomas. 2011. Kan man tro på Japans oplysninger?. Jyllandsposten, March 15,
http://jp.dk/udland/asien/article2369567.ece Accessed March 30, 2011
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
29
Leadership in a Time of Crisis
May 27, 2011
- A Social Constructionist Approach to the Analysis of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s Crisis Communication
following the Great East Japan Earthquake

Hornung, Lise B. 2011. JP i Japan: Japanernes tillid er væk. Jyllandsposten, March 18,
http://jp.dk/udland/asien/article2373597.ece Accessed March 30, 2011

Tatsumi, Yuki. 2011. Viewpoint: Japan plant – who is in charge?. BBC, April 1,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12933010 Accessed April 25, 2011

How bad is the nuclear threat in Japan?. CNN, March 17, 2011,
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/how-bad-is-the-nuclear-threat-injapan/?iref=allsearch Accessed April 19, 2011

Japan earthquake: Fukushima nuclear alert level raised. BBC, March 19, 2011,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12783832 Accessed April 25, 2011

Japan nuclear: PM Naoto Kan signals ‘maximum alert’. BBC, March 29, 2011,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12889541 Accessed April 25, 2011

Sandheden er første offer i en atomkrise. Jyllandsposten, March 16, 2011,
http://jp.dk/udland/asien/article2370446.ece Accessed March 30, 2011
Reports

Report from the Council on Security and Defense Capabilities in the New Era, August 2010.
Japan’s Visions for Future Security and Defense Capabilities in the New Era: Toward a
Peace-Creating Nation. http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/shinampobouei2010/houkokusyo_e.pdf Accessed May 21, 2011.

Hayashi, Haruo. 2005. Designing All-Hazards Incident Management System in Japan. The
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University.
http://www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/iwerr/doc/pdf/keynote%20PDF/K2%20%20McCarthy_Taiwan_
Nov052.pdf Accessed May 20, 2011
Websites

Stimson. http://www.stimson.org/experts/yuki-tatsumi/ Accessed May 25, 2011

United States Department of Labor. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ics/what_is_ics.html
Accessed May 22, 2011
Speeches

All the speeches are accessed through
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/statement/index_e.html
Lene Mikkelsen
8th semester
CCG – Organisation and Leadership
30