Cultural insights for the READINESS framework: A qualitative study of practitioner and scholar perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preparing and becoming “ready” for a crisis is a sticky endeavor. Organizations must adapt and overcome obstacles to effectively manage and engage crises. According to Jin et al.’s (2025) READINESS framework, READINESS is distinct from preparedness and resilience. Specifically, READINESS is a mindset indicating a desire to engage with crisis preparation and execute a crisis response. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of culture in READINESS, indicators of READINESS, attributes of crisis management leadership, and how an organization can build and strengthen READINESS. Twenty-six crisis communication experts (scholars and practitioners) responded to questions either in a focus group or in-depth interview format. Key findings include the importance of an organization being prepared and building and fostering a culture of READINESS before a crisis. Furthermore, cultural differences, such as organizational culture and national culture(s) surrounding a company, can impact how READINESS is carried out. Still, the base concept remains the same regardless of culture. Lastly, acting quickly, seeing the “big picture,” and exerting emotional intelligence exemplify optimal crisis management leadership, contributing to organizational culture and crisis READINESS. This work has implications for crisis leaders, informing them how to build and strengthen READINESS in their organizations. This study aims to be a stepping stone for future work in which researchers can develop a READINESS measure for application in the crisis management industry. • Organizational culture impacts how READINESS is carried out in a practical sense in specific organizations. • Preparation and expression of READINESS may differ across cultures, but the core of the READINESS mindset is the same. • To build and strengthen READINESS, an organization needs to have a culture of READINESS. • To build and strengthen READINESS, organizations need to foster relationships and collaboration. • Emotional intelligence is an attribute of crisis management leadership that demonstrates READINESS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".