Personal Impact of the Crisis

Many participants identified stress as a characteristic of their crisis work. This was not true for all, however, and some participants (particularly those from RDTs) described their emotions more in terms of excitement, perhaps reflecting their motivations for volunteering for disaster work.

Several participants noted that their work had had no major long-term impact on them. Nonetheless, almost all described some more minor effect. Most commonly, participants felt proud of the organization or of their own accomplishments. Participants also learned about themselves or took stock of their life. Several participants reported a positive effect on their careers. Others reported a sense of anti-climax, which sapped their motivation after returning to normal work. As one participant reported, “I suppose what was most difficult was actually getting back to normal life….There was an element of wanting to keep it going, because it was a really tangible contribution that you were making.”

Negative effects were also described. Exhaustion was common, as was a reduced sense of safety. A range of psychological symptoms also occurred, including sadness, guilt, poor sleep, and remembering upsetting images.

Organizational Factors

Participants described 6 aspects of organizational function that affected stress. Their personal involvement in decision making was largely described in positive terms, with staff being “trusted to use our judgement and do what we thought was best.”

Role ambiguity was more of a problem, particularly in the early stages of the crisis. Most participants acknowledged that an initial degree of “chaos” was inevitable and that roles soon fell into place. A more persistent issue was a sense that internal communication could have been improved, particularly in terms of communicating decisions and changes.

For some participants, a difficulty integrating RDTs caused stress. Two smaller themes were apparent within this. First, participants commented that the initial influx of staff “swamped” the embassy’s usual management and administration processes. Second, we identified a lack of trust and frustration among some embassy staff about the ability of RDT staff to support administrative roles (eg, “the people they were giving us weren’t [appropriately] trained”).

As the crisis progressed, the work being undertaken inevitably contributed to stress. First, the volume was “just vastly, vastly more work than we could handle.” For RDT members, upsetting sights were an issue: “The fact that you're driving through towns that no longer exist, it's pretty sobering.” For other staff, unpredictable changes in their work added to the pressure, although this change was often described as unavoidable.

Among RDT members, a common theme was a desire to provide direct assistance to members of public “in the field.” However, many were asked to remain in the embassy, providing support for office duties. This led to frustration, with some RDT members describing this assignment as being “under-used,” “sidelined,” or “not what I went there to do.”

Attention from the British press and parliament left some participants feeling that they were working in the public view. Three smaller issues were found within this. First, participants were concerned by a perception that some of their work was motivated more by a desire to “make sure we got good press,” rather than the needs of the public. Second, criticism from the media was highlighted as “really [taken] to heart.” Third, some participants felt that the wider interest directly increased their workload, as a result of “insatiable” demands for information.

Finally, many participants reported that their ability to take time off affected their well-being. Simply scheduling breaks was not always enough, as someone noted, it “felt as though I was just killing time waiting for my next shift.” Finding a “release valve” was important. Examples included taking the children to the park, eating at a favorite restaurant or “just watch[ing] something on television that wasn't anything to do with tsunamis and earthquakes.” For RDT staff, good-quality time off sometimes involved experiencing the local culture. This activity was harder for those in heavily affected regions or those who had practical problems in taking time away from their base. Organizational issues were also cited as preventing staff from taking time off, particularly during the early stages, as was a desire to be helpful; some participants reported informally helping out or feeling guilty during their time off.

Disaster-Related Factors

Numerous disaster-related stressors were reported. The earthquake was distressing for many of those who experienced it, primarily because they were worried about friends or family with whom they lost contact on that day. The powerful aftershocks which continued for weeks afterward were also described by almost everyone as “unsettling” and “disconcerting.”

The risk from radiation provoked mixed feelings. For some it was a central concern (“a bit sort of, ‘Oh my God, am I living through a moment of history here.”). For others, radiation appeared to have been almost a non-issue. By the time our interviews were being conducted, although most participants reported no persisting concerns, a minority expressed lingering doubts about their exposure (“Do I wonder whether I drank too much Japanese water at the time?”).

Several subthemes were identified that helped to explain the difference between people’s perspectives about the radiation risk. First, distance from the power plant was an important factor, although people differed in terms of how far away was far enough. As might be expected, personnel sent to the main disaster region were usually more concerned. Second, the unpredictability of developments caused concern. As one participant noted, “every day you wake up [to find that] something else exploded.” In the face of this uncertainty, having a fall-back plan was important. For some, their plan seemed relatively secure (“Even the worst case scenario to me didn’t seem that frightening, there was clear advice that you had to stay indoors for about a 48-hour period and take your iodine tablets.”) For others, thinking about worst case scenarios was unsettling, especially for those working nearer to Fukushima (“I didn’t really get the feeling that there was any kind of […] contingency plan in place for getting us out if things got a lot worse”).

Viewing one’s exposure to the radiation risk as voluntary was a fourth subtheme that moderated concern. For staff given the option of reducing their level of risk by leaving the area around Fukushima, Tokyo, or Japan, simply having this opportunity appeared to reduce their worry. For instance, according to one RDT member, “once it was clear that we were going to leave on a certain date all the concerns of my team actually disappeared.”

Information about the radiation was another important factor. This theme split into multiple smaller subthemes. Many participants noted that the actions of the FCO, Japanese government, or other official agencies served as indicators as to how worried to be. For example, sending RDTs to the disaster zone was taken as a sign that the situation could not be that serious, while a sudden increase in the radius of the exclusion zone around Fukushima, the authorization for the evacuation of non-essential staff and families, the evacuation of other embassies, and the decision to issue iodine tablets were all viewed as signals that the situation was worsening.

Information about the situation provided via the FCO was generally seen as helpful. In general, it was perceived that the FCO provided more trustworthy information than the Japanese government or the company in charge of the Fukushima power plant, who were seen as being “dishonest” or “covering something up.” Information from the FCO was also rated as more credible than that from British media reports, which were universally dismissed as providing “unhelpful,” “irresponsible,” and “completely unfounded speculation.” The fact that FCO information was demonstrably based on evidence from respected scientists was a key factor increasing its credibility. Informational inconsistencies remained troubling for some, including changes in the advice or information provided by the scientists, differences between the advice issued by British government and by other governments, and discrepancies between official information and that found on the Internet.

Also, participants frequently described the teleconferences held by the Chief Scientific Advisor as beneficial for members of the public. In part this reflected a complexity of this crisis, with FCO staff sometimes providing information to members of the public, in spite of having little if any technical background or training in radiation-related issues. When asked whether they found this task easy or difficult, a common issue was that they did not always know what to say to people. In terms of communication problems for staff distributing iodine tablets, we identified only a few minor instances in which the staff member unwittingly contradicted advice given in the accompanying leaflet or felt unable to answer questions.

Social Support

Discussion of social support revealed issues relating to friends and family, colleagues, and the FCO. In terms of friends and family, a common notion was having loved ones in Britain as a source of stress. Many participants described relatives who seemed overly concerned about their well-being. Participants blamed the British media for this (“The press reports from the UK … were stoking up feeling and that was getting us from behind…I had my mother-in-law leaving a message on my answering machine which more or less said we were irresponsible parents for not flying the children home…that pressure from home was unwelcome, and really, really corrosive”). Consequently, several staff limited their interactions with family and friends in the United Kingdom. For participants with family in Japan, the situation was often worse. It was generally accepted that these family members were a source of worry, which led many to weigh the pros and cons of asking them to leave the country. Some who arranged for this to happen then reported “isolation” and being “very stressed by the separation,” but many also reported it was a relief and enabled them to carry on with their work undistracted by concerns for their family’s safety.

In terms of support from colleagues, many comments were made regarding the support from immediate superiors. These comments were largely positive, although some felt that their superiors were too busy to provide adequate emotional support or that they would not feel comfortable opening up to them. Social support from peers was frequently mentioned, with the “camaraderie” being widely praised. Three specific aspects to this were singled out. First was a sense that people could be open with each other. Feeling that you could share your emotions and finding out that others, even at senior levels, admitted to occasionally feeling upset or demotivated was seen as “refreshingly honest.” Second was a reassuring feeling that others were keeping an eye on you. Third was the practical support that was received, including accommodation within the embassy and refreshments. Being physically close to one’s team facilitated social support. Splitting teams into different shifts, having isolated individuals working night shifts, or dividing teams across different rooms were all criticized.

While participants generally praised the willingness of colleagues to care for their well-being, they were mixed about their perceptions of the FCO’s sincerity in doing this. While some had faith in the FCO’s level of care for them, others were less certain.

Feeling Helpful

One consistent theme that helped participants cope was feeling helpful to others. Being helpful to members of the public was a crucial aspect of their work (“it was quite a stressful experience but perversely quite enjoyable because you knew you were doing some good and helping people”). Not helping the public was a stressor in its own right (“you get a bit stressed to be honest… about not being able to help people to the level that I would like”) as could not being fully used or worrying about making a mistake that could adversely affect others. Receiving positive feedback from members of the public was cited as a boost to morale. A degree of stoicism was identified among those who received negative feedback, although it was clear that people were still affected by this.

Long-Term Issues

We identified several themes relating to how people coped following their return from Japan or during the normalization of work.

For RDT members, one issue was the lack of sufficient time to adjust, with many feeling that they “hadn't really been able to take any time out.” The timing of this deployment, in a period when international tensions required multiple deployments in quick succession, exacerbated this.

Several participants said that they had been offered the chance to talk with a colleague who had been trained in trauma risk management (TRiM: a psychological support technique used by the FCO to help staff). Almost everyone who received this offer saw it as appropriate, and those who took up the offer reported it as useful. However, not everyone received the offer. Instead, several participants identified a sense of no proper follow-up. For example, one reported that “there was no talk if you feel like you had a difficult time, a crisis, or if there's anything you want to talk about or if there's anything you want to feed in then please feel free to do that.” Another reported “a kind of feeling of having been thrown against the rocks and being forgotten shortly afterwards.” Several participants felt that they must have missed out on follow-up, slipping through the net for one reason or another. While official follow-up was described as needing improvement, most personnel reported that, in practice, informal peer support met most of their needs. This support ranged from “a cup of tea and a natter” to “a couple of bottles of wine and a chat.” For many participants, this amount was as much as they expected or wanted. The positive aspect of talking through the incident was also reflected by 6 participants who spontaneously reported participation in this study as “cathartic.”