**1. Introduction**

The existence of danger and threat are serious factors, which could undermine image, reputation, competiveness of tourism and the whole country. In the global crisis situation, a majority of countries has to face risk of health and human´s security, but also the economy survival. Responses of different countries to these events depend on a variety of factors, especially the economic position, the model of governance, preparedness to cope a critical situation, reaction of international community, mass media, and business culture.

During the COVID 2019 outbreak, communities seem not to be fully and similarly empowered and organizationally and financially prepared to cope with these negative externalities, which can damage also tourism businesses. Eastern cultures do not react the same way as western cultures and their hierarchical approach to the decision-making process could be a strong argument that generic models or approaches would not be implemented in the same way in different cultural milieu, which has also a strong influence on the organizational learning. Similarly, there could be differences even in the reaction of countries joined in common geographical and political structure. For this reason, it might be interesting to study some

discrepancies in the reactions of those countries and their managerial preparedness and the organizational specifics for a critical situation especially in tourism due to the pandemic outbreak of COVID 19.

Safety and security are important factors of competitive advantage of a destination, which might not only serve as a place of existence and life of humans, fauna and flora, but also a place for economic and social activities, which are typical for tourism. Those factors are not eternal and unchanging, which is a real danger for the competitiveness, but also the existence of these above mentioned subjects or elements. One of the most vulnerable activities, which might be influenced by safety and security hazards, is tourism. The most important is to understand different patterns of the same problem, which was created by a crisis, and to distinguish the difference of the approaches of different cultures and countries to the same problem and learn a lesson of the organizational differences based on a variety of cultural approaches. Tourism destinations are as vulnerable as any other places, and sometimes more so, and for this reason the crisis management will discuss specifics and organizational learning tasks also from this point of view.

The methodological approach to this book chapter and its content was framed by the conceptual base of studies of applied models of crisis management and the responds of several studied countries to the pandemic situation of COVID 19, especially the preparedness of public sector to bear a risk and to act effectively. A discussion comprises cultural differences and their impact on health situation and the role of media as well as the organizational learning culture. Organisational learning was found to be a critical source of sustainable competitive advantage [1] as stated by Škerlavaj et al. [2]. There will be discussed the questions of tourism in the connection to the economic consequences of pandemic situation. The case studies will be based on the studied secondary sources in selected countries in Europe, Asia, and North America.

## **2. Conceptual base**

The concepts dealing with the crisis management portfolio deal with the reasons or the impacts of crises and disasters. An important perspective to study and understand is the perception of the crises and their solution, which means the preparedness to cope a disaster, set priorities and responses of countries and communities to crises. Faulkner ([3], p. 139) mentioned that "different internal cultures and modus operandi become barriers to communication and co-operation between organizations". It concerns countries, their governments, people, businesses, social groups and tourism as one of the business and social activity as well. For this reason, it is also complicated to apply the universal model for the crisis management.

Hofstede [4] mentioned in his work that people from different national cultures tend to have different styles of management. Based on the author ([4], p. 28) "in the process of comparing phenomena similarity and differences are two sides of the same coin; one presupposes the other." It concerns not only people, but also the institutions position, role, involvement. Important work from Hofstede [4] is the idea to take into consideration the division of societies in the world into the individualistic or collectivistic cultures, which has an impact on people's behavior and the approach of the whole society and government to the urgent tasks in society. Hofstede [4] explained five dimensions of national culture, which influence a behavior of different cultures and it means also countries with people living predominantly in this cultural group. Those typical independent dimensions are: power distance; uncertainty avoidance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity; and long-term versus short-term orientation. Škerlavaj et al [2] mentioned that

**207**

part of it.

country.

*The Cultural Differences in the Perception and Application of Crisis Management in Tourism*

only a few studies have applied Hofstede´s model to examine the effects of national

Among the above mentioned dimensions, power distance means the hierarchy of power and wealth among the general population and a nation, culture, and business. A higher degree means a higher hierarchy, which is executed in society. It allows governments to imply more easily a power in society. It might influence the role of public sector versus private business and concerns the differences of aims of public and private enterprises and their organization. In the connection to the crisis management execution, the role of public sector is unquestionable; however, the scenario of mutual roles of both sectors depends not only on the power distance factor, but on the type of government's response to the crisis, which could be for instance the influence of tighter centralization in a country. Organizational learning from this situation will be based on the direction in a particular country and the role

The uncertainty avoidance could be defined as the affinity to the status quo, less change in society, tendency to keep strict codes and obey the rules in society. The feeling of absolute truth might be a reason for further dictatorship from the side of government, which might complicate free entrepreneurship provision. Less tolerance in society might influence the behaviour of companies and organizations in a

Individualism versus collectivism means a preference of being more independent and less governed or on the other hand better compatibility with the other members of society, families, friends, etc. Uncertainty avoidance means a fear of unknown or not certain situations and it might influence also decision level and empowerment in society. In such situations as health risk it could influence behaviour in a positive or negative way. This type of behaviour influences the speed and type of changes in society, business environment and changes, which should be done really smoothly, quickly, and in a more massive way due to crisis situation. According to Hofstede [4] as stated in Compiranon and Scott [5], individualism stands for a society in which the ties are loose between individuals, and as a result, individuals are only expected to look after himself/herself and his/her immediate family. Conversely, collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. In management decision making and organisational learning situation, a collective decision is preferable in a collectivism culture, whilst an individual decision is more likely to be seen in a culture that supports individualism. This might complicate even decisions of government in the area of health protection and risk avoidance, which could be generated by such a negative externality as the pandemic situation (as one possible outcome of risk management situation), which has consequently negative influence on the whole country, quality of life, security, economy where tourism business is

Division of roles between genders is incorporated in the expression of masculinity versus femininity and this could be also applied in crisis management concept and organisational learning and decisions in a country. As Compiranon and Scott [5] explain the ideas of Hofstede [4] masculinity is found in a society, in which social gender roles are clearly distinct; thus men are encouraged to be assertive, tough and focused on material success. Women are expected to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. Unlike masculinity, femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap, and both men and women are encouraged to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. Hofstede [4] explained how masculinity and femininity approach influences culture and as a consequence how managers in a femininity culture prefer to use more intuition,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97779*

cultural dimensions on organizational learning.

of private and public sector in crisis management.

#### *The Cultural Differences in the Perception and Application of Crisis Management in Tourism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97779*

only a few studies have applied Hofstede´s model to examine the effects of national cultural dimensions on organizational learning.

Among the above mentioned dimensions, power distance means the hierarchy of power and wealth among the general population and a nation, culture, and business. A higher degree means a higher hierarchy, which is executed in society. It allows governments to imply more easily a power in society. It might influence the role of public sector versus private business and concerns the differences of aims of public and private enterprises and their organization. In the connection to the crisis management execution, the role of public sector is unquestionable; however, the scenario of mutual roles of both sectors depends not only on the power distance factor, but on the type of government's response to the crisis, which could be for instance the influence of tighter centralization in a country. Organizational learning from this situation will be based on the direction in a particular country and the role of private and public sector in crisis management.

The uncertainty avoidance could be defined as the affinity to the status quo, less change in society, tendency to keep strict codes and obey the rules in society. The feeling of absolute truth might be a reason for further dictatorship from the side of government, which might complicate free entrepreneurship provision. Less tolerance in society might influence the behaviour of companies and organizations in a country.

Individualism versus collectivism means a preference of being more independent and less governed or on the other hand better compatibility with the other members of society, families, friends, etc. Uncertainty avoidance means a fear of unknown or not certain situations and it might influence also decision level and empowerment in society. In such situations as health risk it could influence behaviour in a positive or negative way. This type of behaviour influences the speed and type of changes in society, business environment and changes, which should be done really smoothly, quickly, and in a more massive way due to crisis situation.

According to Hofstede [4] as stated in Compiranon and Scott [5], individualism stands for a society in which the ties are loose between individuals, and as a result, individuals are only expected to look after himself/herself and his/her immediate family. Conversely, collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. In management decision making and organisational learning situation, a collective decision is preferable in a collectivism culture, whilst an individual decision is more likely to be seen in a culture that supports individualism. This might complicate even decisions of government in the area of health protection and risk avoidance, which could be generated by such a negative externality as the pandemic situation (as one possible outcome of risk management situation), which has consequently negative influence on the whole country, quality of life, security, economy where tourism business is part of it.

Division of roles between genders is incorporated in the expression of masculinity versus femininity and this could be also applied in crisis management concept and organisational learning and decisions in a country. As Compiranon and Scott [5] explain the ideas of Hofstede [4] masculinity is found in a society, in which social gender roles are clearly distinct; thus men are encouraged to be assertive, tough and focused on material success. Women are expected to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. Unlike masculinity, femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap, and both men and women are encouraged to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. Hofstede [4] explained how masculinity and femininity approach influences culture and as a consequence how managers in a femininity culture prefer to use more intuition,

*Issues on Risk Analysis for Critical Infrastructure Protection*

and organizational learning tasks also from this point of view.

the pandemic outbreak of COVID 19.

Asia, and North America.

**2. Conceptual base**

discrepancies in the reactions of those countries and their managerial preparedness and the organizational specifics for a critical situation especially in tourism due to

Safety and security are important factors of competitive advantage of a destination, which might not only serve as a place of existence and life of humans, fauna and flora, but also a place for economic and social activities, which are typical for tourism. Those factors are not eternal and unchanging, which is a real danger for the competitiveness, but also the existence of these above mentioned subjects or elements. One of the most vulnerable activities, which might be influenced by safety and security hazards, is tourism. The most important is to understand different patterns of the same problem, which was created by a crisis, and to distinguish the difference of the approaches of different cultures and countries to the same problem and learn a lesson of the organizational differences based on a variety of cultural approaches. Tourism destinations are as vulnerable as any other places, and sometimes more so, and for this reason the crisis management will discuss specifics

The methodological approach to this book chapter and its content was framed by the conceptual base of studies of applied models of crisis management and the responds of several studied countries to the pandemic situation of COVID 19, especially the preparedness of public sector to bear a risk and to act effectively. A discussion comprises cultural differences and their impact on health situation and the role of media as well as the organizational learning culture. Organisational learning was found to be a critical source of sustainable competitive advantage [1] as stated by Škerlavaj et al. [2]. There will be discussed the questions of tourism in the connection to the economic consequences of pandemic situation. The case studies will be based on the studied secondary sources in selected countries in Europe,

The concepts dealing with the crisis management portfolio deal with the reasons or the impacts of crises and disasters. An important perspective to study and understand is the perception of the crises and their solution, which means the preparedness to cope a disaster, set priorities and responses of countries and communities to crises. Faulkner ([3], p. 139) mentioned that "different internal cultures and modus operandi become barriers to communication and co-operation between organizations". It concerns countries, their governments, people, businesses, social groups and tourism as one of the business and social activity as well. For this reason, it is

Hofstede [4] mentioned in his work that people from different national cultures tend to have different styles of management. Based on the author ([4], p. 28) "in the process of comparing phenomena similarity and differences are two sides of the same coin; one presupposes the other." It concerns not only people, but also the institutions position, role, involvement. Important work from Hofstede [4] is the idea to take into consideration the division of societies in the world into the individualistic or collectivistic cultures, which has an impact on people's behavior and the approach of the whole society and government to the urgent tasks in society. Hofstede [4] explained five dimensions of national culture, which influence a behavior of different cultures and it means also countries with people living predominantly in this cultural group. Those typical independent dimensions are: power distance; uncertainty avoidance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity; and long-term versus short-term orientation. Škerlavaj et al [2] mentioned that

also complicated to apply the universal model for the crisis management.

**206**

deal with feelings and seek consensus. In masculinity culture, the managers are more decisive, firm, assertive, aggressive, and competitive. More masculine societies are focused on achievements, material rewards and success, which influences also the learning about the business culture in such countries and underlines a type of behaviour of managers who want to succeed in their business strategies.

The question is how this might influence the crisis management process and organisational learning, consequently also tourism business in those countries having a more masculine or feminine dominance society. In COVID-19 crisis situation, surprisingly the countries with more feminine culture impact (Scandinavian countries for instance) achieved better results in fighting the epidemic situation. It might be a result of preferring health protection over business, at least in the beginning of the crisis situation.

The authors Compiranon and Scott [5] discussed the role of culture and leadership and described the crisis management stages in the following scheme (**Figure 1**). They used the ideas of the World Tourism Organization Model. The following scheme shows the main ideas.

Eastern cultures do not react the same way as western cultures and their hierarchical approach to the decision-making process could be a strong argument that generic model would not be implemented in the same way as it would be in western societies.

Some form of criticism also lies in adoption of similar management methods and organizational decisions to different management environments. "For example, the authors FanN and Zigang [7] compared the differences between reaction of American and Chinese managers while dealing with uncertain situation: "having a high uncertainty avoidance culture, Chinese managers normally lack and adventurous spirit and the sense of risk. On the other hand, low uncertainty avoidance American managers are more likely to accept risk." These examples only confirm what the other authors discussed as being in impertinent situation for implementation of models in different environments. Thus, academics as Faulkner mentioned this possibility by stating that "different internal cultures and modus operandi are barriers to communication and co-operation between organizations" [3]. In a case of the epidemic situation; however, we have to face a totally different situation and

#### **Figure 1.**

*Crisis management stages. Source: amended upon Compiranon and Scott [5] and the World Tourism Organization [6] model.*

**209**

disasters.

*The Cultural Differences in the Perception and Application of Crisis Management in Tourism*

it is quite smart to ask if we should be adventurous or more predictive and cautious in order to save somebody's health and life. There is always an open question if the health is a priority or the economy, business, for instance also tourism business. Many countries were able to make reasonable decisions to save both or just to do their best for citizens, their health, but also the existence of businesses and survival

Compiranon and Scott [5] agreed "that national culture has a significant impact on crisis management." Johnson and Peppas [8] stated that "crisis intensity varies from country to country and culture to culture, which means that it is very important that crisis response plans are developed for a specific location." It influences a society as social and economic structure with such an economic phenomenon as tourism, a role of government in a society, a role of people as social entities and their culture and behavior, and a role of media as a mean of communication in a

The authors Faulkner [3], Ritchie [9], Paraskevas and Arendell [10] mentioned the role of mass media during the crises and disasters. Media role is closely related to image and reputation. The connotation of meaning of crises and disasters can be positive and negative; however, predominantly negative. Though, in Chaos Theory, the existence of a "turning point can be "essentially creative, rather than a destructive process" as described by Faulkner ([3], p. 137). The author explained several examples of this positive outcome as for instance "the empowerment of a society, the creation of modern facilities, innovations, international recognition of destination, etc." It might be really disputable if this could be a case of health pandemic situation in the globalized world, but it should be mentioned also this opinion in order to understand some developments and changes especially influenced by the processes of innovation in the world. As Compiranon and Scott [5] explained the ideas formerly delineated by Holmes [11] that at the heart of every crisis lies tremendous opportunity, and perhaps this is why the Chinese word for crisis is surprisingly composed of two symbols of meaning 'danger' and 'opportunity'. For this reason, it might be important to see and predict which countries might be more in a danger and which will take the opportunities and the same could be visible in the business sphere and tourism could be one example. For instance, tourism businesses, which might be more friendly with modern technologies, digitalization or countries, which are not so tightly depended on mass tourism development and are more typical in a sustainable tourism development, would have probably easier way for the adjustment to a new situation and a real change of business strategies. Culture, resources and leadership (political and economic), geographical character (for instance isolation as more the islands can use as their advantage in this concept), time (which is now visible in the development of the pandemic crisis, stages and waves of the crisis), level of preparedness, responses of governments, citizens, businesses, especially power of economy, it all might have an enormous influence on crisis recovery, and for this reason could be visible also differences in several parts of the world and also in tourism business performance and changing

In order to understand the questions of crisis management generally, but also in tourism, some authors tried to develop generic model suitable not only for tourism destinations, but also for different purposes, for instance a country generic model with its specific requirements of safety, security, service provision. Faulkner [3] applied a deep inductive approach in order to construct generic model of crisis and

Ritchie [9] underlined a necessity of more holistic and strategic approach. Hence, models are more useful for studies of the first group of conceptual approach, e. g. the reasons of crises and disasters and the roles of stakeholders

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97779*

of the economy and tourism as well.

preferences and visitors' behaviour.

society.

#### *The Cultural Differences in the Perception and Application of Crisis Management in Tourism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97779*

it is quite smart to ask if we should be adventurous or more predictive and cautious in order to save somebody's health and life. There is always an open question if the health is a priority or the economy, business, for instance also tourism business. Many countries were able to make reasonable decisions to save both or just to do their best for citizens, their health, but also the existence of businesses and survival of the economy and tourism as well.

Compiranon and Scott [5] agreed "that national culture has a significant impact on crisis management." Johnson and Peppas [8] stated that "crisis intensity varies from country to country and culture to culture, which means that it is very important that crisis response plans are developed for a specific location." It influences a society as social and economic structure with such an economic phenomenon as tourism, a role of government in a society, a role of people as social entities and their culture and behavior, and a role of media as a mean of communication in a society.

The authors Faulkner [3], Ritchie [9], Paraskevas and Arendell [10] mentioned the role of mass media during the crises and disasters. Media role is closely related to image and reputation. The connotation of meaning of crises and disasters can be positive and negative; however, predominantly negative. Though, in Chaos Theory, the existence of a "turning point can be "essentially creative, rather than a destructive process" as described by Faulkner ([3], p. 137). The author explained several examples of this positive outcome as for instance "the empowerment of a society, the creation of modern facilities, innovations, international recognition of destination, etc." It might be really disputable if this could be a case of health pandemic situation in the globalized world, but it should be mentioned also this opinion in order to understand some developments and changes especially influenced by the processes of innovation in the world. As Compiranon and Scott [5] explained the ideas formerly delineated by Holmes [11] that at the heart of every crisis lies tremendous opportunity, and perhaps this is why the Chinese word for crisis is surprisingly composed of two symbols of meaning 'danger' and 'opportunity'. For this reason, it might be important to see and predict which countries might be more in a danger and which will take the opportunities and the same could be visible in the business sphere and tourism could be one example. For instance, tourism businesses, which might be more friendly with modern technologies, digitalization or countries, which are not so tightly depended on mass tourism development and are more typical in a sustainable tourism development, would have probably easier way for the adjustment to a new situation and a real change of business strategies.

Culture, resources and leadership (political and economic), geographical character (for instance isolation as more the islands can use as their advantage in this concept), time (which is now visible in the development of the pandemic crisis, stages and waves of the crisis), level of preparedness, responses of governments, citizens, businesses, especially power of economy, it all might have an enormous influence on crisis recovery, and for this reason could be visible also differences in several parts of the world and also in tourism business performance and changing preferences and visitors' behaviour.

In order to understand the questions of crisis management generally, but also in tourism, some authors tried to develop generic model suitable not only for tourism destinations, but also for different purposes, for instance a country generic model with its specific requirements of safety, security, service provision. Faulkner [3] applied a deep inductive approach in order to construct generic model of crisis and disasters.

Ritchie [9] underlined a necessity of more holistic and strategic approach. Hence, models are more useful for studies of the first group of conceptual approach, e. g. the reasons of crises and disasters and the roles of stakeholders

*Issues on Risk Analysis for Critical Infrastructure Protection*

ning of the crisis situation.

shows the main ideas.

societies.

deal with feelings and seek consensus. In masculinity culture, the managers are more decisive, firm, assertive, aggressive, and competitive. More masculine societies are focused on achievements, material rewards and success, which influences also the learning about the business culture in such countries and underlines a type

The question is how this might influence the crisis management process and organisational learning, consequently also tourism business in those countries having a more masculine or feminine dominance society. In COVID-19 crisis situation, surprisingly the countries with more feminine culture impact (Scandinavian countries for instance) achieved better results in fighting the epidemic situation. It might be a result of preferring health protection over business, at least in the begin-

The authors Compiranon and Scott [5] discussed the role of culture and leadership and described the crisis management stages in the following scheme (**Figure 1**). They used the ideas of the World Tourism Organization Model. The following scheme

Eastern cultures do not react the same way as western cultures and their hierarchical approach to the decision-making process could be a strong argument that generic model would not be implemented in the same way as it would be in western

Some form of criticism also lies in adoption of similar management methods and organizational decisions to different management environments. "For example, the authors FanN and Zigang [7] compared the differences between reaction of American and Chinese managers while dealing with uncertain situation: "having a high uncertainty avoidance culture, Chinese managers normally lack and adventurous spirit and the sense of risk. On the other hand, low uncertainty avoidance American managers are more likely to accept risk." These examples only confirm what the other authors discussed as being in impertinent situation for implementation of models in different environments. Thus, academics as Faulkner mentioned this possibility by stating that "different internal cultures and modus operandi are barriers to communication and co-operation between organizations" [3]. In a case of the epidemic situation; however, we have to face a totally different situation and

*Crisis management stages. Source: amended upon Compiranon and Scott [5] and the World Tourism* 

of behaviour of managers who want to succeed in their business strategies.

**208**

**Figure 1.**

*Organization [6] model.*

during these events. However, some authors as Paraskevas and Arrendell [10] shifted further risk assessment research of crisis management to the different methodological approach by questioning particular destination stakeholders, corporate and government representatives, policy makers and planners about their preparedness to deal with crises and disasters, which could be an excellent lesson of different approaches to the organizational learning and managerial decisions understanding. As the authors stated, "the purpose was to produce insight rather to test theory, the study was inductive in nature and used a qualitative, interpretative approach" [12]. Their research revealed through interviewing of experts on corporate and government security, safety, tourism policy and planning some controversial aspects of former research approaches based on compiling of theoretical frameworks without testing the attitudes of stakeholders. A research underlined necessity of co-operative approach of all stakeholders, compatible jurisdiction, allocation of financial resources, etc. Thus, pragmatic approach to the studied topic revealed important gaps between managerial theoretical approach, organization, and practice.

More discussion is needed on perception of disaster management framework of models (re-active models) and pro-active risk management models as has been stated by some academics in numerous academic journals dealing with the topic of crisis management. Important role in the crisis management and resolving the situation has a state and its role is crucial. It is well known in the public economy theory that public sector has to be present where the private sector is not capable of solving a problem, but has to withdraw when it is not necessary to intervene. Crisis management is a really difficult role, which should be planned and prepared thoroughly ahead and kept strongly during the occurrence of the negative situation in a country and the world. Many countries and their businesses failed due to unpreparedness and due to risking of health of their inhabitants and the consequences in those countries could be tremendous. For this reason, a discussion about the preparedness and models of crisis and disasters is needed.

First academic, who identified these two approaches to model creation in crisis and disasters, was Heath [13, 14] who mentioned the traditional crisis management approach and the risk management approach. Miller and Ritchie [15] added that "the traditional crisis management approach involves no initial (pre-crisis) planning or management (**Figure 2**) and the role of risk management approach "is to respond to the crisis and manage the impacts effectively and efficiently (**Figure 3**).

**211**

**3. Results**

**Figure 3.**

*A risk management approach to a crisis.*

*The Cultural Differences in the Perception and Application of Crisis Management in Tourism*

The methodological approach is based on the qualitative approach and is framed

by the conceptual base of studies of applied models of crisis management and the responds of several studied countries to the pandemic situation of COVID 19, especially the preparedness of public sector to bear a risk and to act effectively and the responds of governments and citizens to the crisis situation. Škerlavaj et al. [2] mentioned that the type of predominant culture would bring diverse influence on the development of organizational learning culture. Crucial are especially cultural differences and a role of media in several discussed countries. The case studies are based on the studied secondary sources in Europe, especially in Slovakia, Czech Republic in comparison to the other countries in Asia (Taiwan, South Korea) and

Several studies from Asian countries showed that in many cases could be visible former experience with crisis situation and it means also preparedness of a responsible government to that situation. Moreover, there might be visible cultural dimensions, which have been mentioned as the collectiveness or the individualism. Important could be fast political decisions and a respond of citizens. For instance, one excellent example is Taiwan. Taiwanese government is one of the most successful examples of crisis management implementation in the world. The first information about the virus appeared on 21st of January 2020. Taiwanese government has actively and really efficiently sent all instructions about the protection against a new form of virus to the citizens and did not try to hide any information, which is a sign of democratic and responsible government. One of the crucial tasks was a control of the healthcare supply chain affordable to the country and its citizens and a tight co-operation with the academic institutions in a matter of the antiviral

North America (Canada and the U.S.A.), etc.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97779*

**Figure 2.** *A traditional approach to a crisis.*

*The Cultural Differences in the Perception and Application of Crisis Management in Tourism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97779*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Issues on Risk Analysis for Critical Infrastructure Protection*

and models of crisis and disasters is needed.

during these events. However, some authors as Paraskevas and Arrendell [10] shifted further risk assessment research of crisis management to the different methodological approach by questioning particular destination stakeholders, corporate and government representatives, policy makers and planners about their preparedness to deal with crises and disasters, which could be an excellent lesson of different approaches to the organizational learning and managerial decisions understanding. As the authors stated, "the purpose was to produce insight rather to test theory, the study was inductive in nature and used a qualitative, interpretative approach" [12]. Their research revealed through interviewing of experts on corporate and government security, safety, tourism policy and planning some controversial aspects of former research approaches based on compiling of theoretical frameworks without testing the attitudes of stakeholders. A research underlined necessity of co-operative approach of all stakeholders, compatible jurisdiction, allocation of financial resources, etc. Thus, pragmatic approach to the studied topic revealed important gaps between managerial theoretical approach, organization, and practice.

More discussion is needed on perception of disaster management framework of models (re-active models) and pro-active risk management models as has been stated by some academics in numerous academic journals dealing with the topic of crisis management. Important role in the crisis management and resolving the situation has a state and its role is crucial. It is well known in the public economy theory that public sector has to be present where the private sector is not capable of solving a problem, but has to withdraw when it is not necessary to intervene. Crisis management is a really difficult role, which should be planned and prepared thoroughly ahead and kept strongly during the occurrence of the negative situation in a country and the world. Many countries and their businesses failed due to unpreparedness and due to risking of health of their inhabitants and the consequences in those countries could be tremendous. For this reason, a discussion about the preparedness

First academic, who identified these two approaches to model creation in crisis and disasters, was Heath [13, 14] who mentioned the traditional crisis management approach and the risk management approach. Miller and Ritchie [15] added that "the traditional crisis management approach involves no initial (pre-crisis) planning or management (**Figure 2**) and the role of risk management approach "is to respond to the crisis and manage the impacts effectively and efficiently (**Figure 3**).

**210**

**Figure 2.**

*A traditional approach to a crisis.*

The methodological approach is based on the qualitative approach and is framed by the conceptual base of studies of applied models of crisis management and the responds of several studied countries to the pandemic situation of COVID 19, especially the preparedness of public sector to bear a risk and to act effectively and the responds of governments and citizens to the crisis situation. Škerlavaj et al. [2] mentioned that the type of predominant culture would bring diverse influence on the development of organizational learning culture. Crucial are especially cultural differences and a role of media in several discussed countries. The case studies are based on the studied secondary sources in Europe, especially in Slovakia, Czech Republic in comparison to the other countries in Asia (Taiwan, South Korea) and North America (Canada and the U.S.A.), etc.
