305 reflection

This session is designed to provide you with an understanding of the meaning and

importance of the principle of “collaboration” as an essential element of the emergency

management function. More, importantly, it will focus on those approaches, strategies

and processes which build a climate of collaboration and trust within an emergency

management program. Emphasis will be placed on demonstrating the impact that the

level of collaboration has on actual outcomes in crisis situations. Finally, it will describe

the relationship of the collaboration principle to other related principles as presented in

the course, reinforcing the synergistic nature of the concept of principled emergency

management.

The term “collaboration” is widely used with various definitions and interpretations. It

will be very important for the instructor to be able to articulate the very specific use of

the term as it applies to this principle of emergency management. Of particular

importance, is that the class recognize the common tendency to use the term as

virtually synonymous with “coordination”. It should be noted that even in some of the

reference materials for this session, there is a tendency to use the term “coordination”

when, in fact, the author is really talking about “collaboration”. In the context of this

course, the distinction between the two terms is not only a matter of semantic

clarification, but, indeed, is a significant philosophical concept. This distinction is a

major part of the discussion which is focused in objective 7.1. There is a difference

between the terms “collaboration” and “coordination” and current usage often makes it

difficult to distinguish between these words. Coordination refers to a process designed

to ensure that functions, roles and responsibilities are identified and tasks

accomplished; collaboration must be viewed as an attitude or an organizational culture

that characterizes the degree of unity and cooperation that exists within a community.

In essence, collaboration creates the environment in which coordination can function

effectively.

While most people use the term “collaboration” frequently and, often, loosely, the

term, as used in the POEM documents essentially refers to a philosophy of planning and

decision-making which puts strong emphasis on an underlying attitude and

methodology of personal interaction which involves a more informal, consensus

building process to develop plans and solutions to complex problems related to

disasters. In its simplest usage, it means “working together”. While certainly accurate,

this simple meaning is not sufficient to cover the concept which is intended in this

course. Surprisingly enough, the following Wikipedia definition (derived from a number

of other sources as cited) comes very close to capturing the use of the term in the

emergency management principles context:

Collaboration is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work

together toward an intersection of common goals — for example, an intellectual

endeavor [1]

[2]

that is creative in nature [3]

—by sharing knowledge, learning and building

consensus. Collaboration does not require leadership and can sometimes bring better

results through decentralization and egalitarianism. [4]

In particular, teams that work

collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing

competition for finite resources. [5]

Structured methods of collaboration encourage introspection of behavior and

communication. [4]

These methods specifically aim to increase the success of teams as

they engage in collaborative problem solving.

[1] Collaborate, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 2007

[2] Collaboration, Encyclopedia Brittanica Online, 2007

[3] Collaboration, Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, (1989). (Eds.) J. A.

Simpson

& E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[4] Spence, Muneera U. "Graphic Design: Collaborative Processes =

Understanding Self and Others." (lecture) Art 325: Collaborative Processes.

Fairbanks Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 13 April 2006. See

also.

[5] Wagner, Caroline S. and Loet Leydesdorff. Globalisation in the network of

science in 2005: The diffusion of international collaboration and the formation of

a core group.

Of particular interest in the above definition is the emphasis on decentralization and

egalitarianism and the rather startling statement that this activity does not require

leadership. Certainly this approach to the meaning of “collaboration” stands in stark

contrast to much of the traditional thought and attitudes regarding the practice of

emergency management. Indeed, then, it would appear that of all the principles

discussed in this course, the principle of collaboration represents perhaps the most

radical philosophical departure from a traditional, “top-down”, command and control

structure typical of some of the more common approaches to emergency management.

This also makes the principle of collaboration particularly controversial when placed in

the context of the current national discussions regarding the role and doctrine of

emergency management (e.g. the role of military and para-military models in the

emergency management function.) While collaboration, as used in the Principles, deals

mostly with personal relationships, trust and team building, the concept is rapidly being

affected by a current explosion in technological capabilities for computer support of

collaboration and the associated new ideas that these technologies bring about. This

technical “revolution” involving collaboration produces a number of terms strictly

related to the use of computer technology as a aid to collaboration. While we should be

aware of this area of collaboration, we will not spend time in this class on these

definitions/issues.

Having discussed what is meant by the term “collaboration” within the context of the

POEM concept, the class should now be focused on why collaboration is important and

why it ranks among the eight principles. In other words, “what value does collaboration

add to the synergy of a ‘principled’ concept of emergency management?” Some

overhead questions might be, “Since we’ve suggested, by our definition of

collaboration, that it de-emphasizes leadership and is based on decentralized

cooperation and egalitarianism, what value might it add to the emergency management

function:

 Before a disaster event, during the planning and preparedness phase,

 During the disaster event as an element of response,

 After the disaster event to facilitate both short- and long-term recovery,

 And as a tool to effect both pre- and post-disaster mitigation?”

Up to this point we’ve mentioned the concepts of decentralized cooperation and

egalitarianism involved in the principle of collaboration. It is important to note that

collaboration, as we use the term in this class, is perhaps the most “touchy-feely” of the

principles. This is because it is through collaboration that we establish the most

“human” aspects of successful emergency management. Through the principle of

collaboration, trust, teamwork, common purpose and commitment to shared

values/objectives are achieved. These aspects of the professional emergency

management process are absolutely essential.

Collaboration, as a principle, is especially important to emergency managers in that the

function they perform relies very little on authority or directive “power” but almost

entirely on their ability to get others to “play nice in the sandbox”. It has been

suggested that emergency managers are generally “frustrated” in that they are usually

“type A” personalities with no authority. Emergency managers are expected to achieve

coordination and preparedness for disaster events, generally without the more formal

tools of authority. They very seldom have the luxury of “ordering” anyone to do

anything. This being the case, then it becomes pretty evident that they must develop

and exercise those interpersonal and facilitating skills which generally fall under the

rubric of “collaboration”. While such skills are important in virtually every

administrative or managerial function, they are crucial in the function of emergency

management. Emergency managers have to convince (often unwilling) key stakeholders

of the importance of preparing for something many don’t believe will happen.

It is not enough that plans are written and published, but there must be consensus and

“buy-in” by all concerned before something happens. Only through the principle of

coordination can this mutual agreement as to roles, responsibilities or relationships be

achieved. The archives of “lessons learned” are replete with evidence of the importance

of a solid understanding of these essential concepts. Virtually every actual disaster

event or exercise ever conducted includes a major finding regarding the level of

“communications” among the players. In the vast majority of cases, this does not refer

to the actual, technical ability to communicate, but to the willingness and comfort level

that the players have in talking to each other and cooperating with each other. It has

become almost axiomatic that the midst of an actual crisis is not the time to get to know

one another or understand our relationships.

What we’ve just talked about would suggest that in order to achieve unity of purpose

and effective action during responses to disaster situations we must effectively foster a

spirit of collaboration during the preparedness phase of the emergency management

cycle. This is why the skills which promote collaboration are so important during the

development of emergency operations plans and operating procedures. The main

value of the principle of collaboration can be seen in the difference between having a

“plan” and engaging in an effective “planning”. Some of the most cited quotes

regarding this concept are these by General Dwight Eisenhower:

 “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning

is indispensable.”

 “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.”

 “You don’t lead by hitting people over the head—that’s assault, not leadership.”

The essential rationale behind these quotes is that the foremost purpose of planning is

not merely to produce a plan—we have thousands of emergency plans, many of which

were written by emergency managers or others in isolation and without any meaningful

involvement by the people and agencies who would be responsible for converting these

plans into action. While such plans are generally quite accurate in describing the roles

and responsibilities and policies which should be followed in an event, they do not

necessarily represent the understanding and, more importantly, the commitment of

those tasked with those roles and responsibilities. In this case, the value of

collaboration during the preparedness phase (e.g. planning and exercising) has a direct

impact on the effectiveness of response. The importance of collaboration becomes

even more essential as the level of complexity of a disaster event increases. The more

players, the more potential conflicts and ambiguities arise regarding roles and

responsibilities – collaboration is how these are conflicts and ambiguities are avoided.

Auf der Heide aptly describes this importance of the planning process:

One aspect of disaster planning often overlooked is the importance of the

process. Often it is more important than the written document that results. One

reason for this is that those who participate in developing the plan are more

likely to accept it. This is preferred over adopting a plan written by someone else

who may not understand local circumstances. But, there is another aspect of

equal importance-the personal contacts that develop. A number of researchers

have observed that pre-disaster contacts among representatives of emergency

organizations result in smoother operations in subsequent disasters.

Organizations are more likely to interface if the contact is not with total

strangers. Furthermore, in the process of planning, the participants become

familiar with the roles of other individuals and organizations involved in the

disaster response. (Auf der Heide, Chap 3)

Recent events such as Hurricane Katrina have revealed another area in which

collaboration can play an important role. Following Katrina, there was a massive public

orgy of “finger pointing” regarding who did what wrong. This unfortunate situation

greatly complicated the unity of purpose necessary to affect both short and long-term

recovery efforts. In disaster situations, the one factor that is consistently credited with

improving the performance of a community is the degree to which there is an open and

cooperative relationship among those individuals and agencies involved. Shortly after

Hurricane Katrina, Governing magazine correspondent, Jonathan Walters wrote: “Most

important to the strength of the intergovernmental chain are solid relationships among

those who might be called upon to work together in times of high stress. ‘You don’t

want to meet someone for the first time while you’re standing around in the rubble,’

says Jarrod Bernstein, a spokesman for the New York Office of Emergency

Management.” It is this kind of culture and relationship that collaboration is intended to

establish. (POEM Monograph)

Why is this kind of collaboration important? One of the most compelling reasons is that

there is significant evidence that effective collaboration leads to the vital element of

trust in any disaster situation. Again, Auf der Heide, in Chapter 5 of your reading

assignment, makes clear just why this is the case:

“Even under the pressure of a disaster, certain preliminary information has to be

exchanged before meaningful communication and coordination can take place with

a member of an unfamiliar organization. Examples of the types of critical

information needed include:

 what the organization's legitimate role is in the disaster response;

 whether that person has a legitimate position in that organization; and

 the competence and reliability of that person.

Emergency organizations with disaster operations responsibility frequently hesitate

to coordinate with others unless these questions have been addressed. This

hesitancy may exist even though there are formal plans or arrangements for the

different organizations to coordinate. Unfortunately, the urgency of the disaster

situation often precludes the time necessary to determine the answers to these

questions on-the-spot. The result is that, unless they have been addressed before

the disaster, there is a reluctance to depend on the activities of other organizations

and a failure to coordinate and communicate with them.

When one is dependent on other team members, particularly in life-threatening

situations, he needs to feel confident in their competence and reliability. Developing

this level of trust often requires ‘pre-incident’ contact over a period of time.” (Auf

der Heide, Chapter 5)

Understanding and respect among the stakeholders in a disaster event is one of the

primary goals of the principle of collaboration. In his landmark work, Disasters by

Design, Dennis Mileti made the following observations:

“In the absence of consensus, recovery can be politicized and foster conflict. The

plan must have been fully discussed, agreed to, and accepted by the community

before the disaster occurs.” (Mileti, 234)

“Many normal planning procedures are suspended when disaster-stricken

communities start to recover and reconstruct themselves. Multiple and

potentially conflicting goals are being sought simultaneously but at a faster rate

than normal. Extraordinary teamwork is required among various local

government departments. Planners must shift from an otherwise slow,

deliberative, rule-oriented procedure to one that is more flexible, free wheeling,

and team oriented.” (Mileti, 235)

Even when there is not an actual event, collaboration plays an important role in the

process of mitigation. Mitigation efforts at every level involve significant policy

decisions which often impact on the “turf” of agencies, organizations and special

interests. Mitigation plans which are developed in isolation without including the

perspectives of a broad range of community groups and interests are less likely to

produce significant and effective efforts to eliminate or reduce the impacts of potential

disaster events. The same human relation and facilitation skills required to prepare for

response and recovery are just as essential in the effort to prevent or lessen the effect

of a disaster.

As suggested in the POEM Monograph, Drabek posits that there are three essential

elements to good collaboration:

 Inclusion of all potential players and work to involve them in every aspect of

planning and preparedness for an event.

 Consistent real, human contact necessary to make the system work in a disaster

event.

 Sincerity in our efforts to listen to all players and incorporate their concerns and

ideas into our planning and preparedness efforts. (Thomas E. Drabek. Strategies

for Coordinating Di saster Responses. Boulder, CO: Program on Environment and

Behavior, Monograph 61, University of Colorado, 200.)

Inclusion:

This element is directly related to the POEM Principle of “comprehensiveness” as

discussed in Session 3. This element requires that the emergency manager attempting

to implement a truly collaborative approach to the job must seek to define the universe

of stakeholders as broadly as possible. The key skill involved here is to think beyond the

normal limits of the traditional partners or stakeholders. Often this involves looking at

those affected by disasters as well as those agencies and individuals responsible for

response or recovery activities. Advocacy groups representing special segments of the

public, for example, may very well be key players in gaining the trust and cooperation of

special needs communities which can be vital during a disaster event. As the Hurricane

Katrina event demonstrated, the issue of social inequity exacerbated by disaster events

can produce significant challenges. The inclusion of community activists in the planning

discussions has the potential to resolve many of these problems and improve the

planning process.

Consistency:

While collaboration may be recognized as an essential part of the planning process and

is most critical during response and recovery operations, the element of consistency

relates to efforts to maintain and sustain strong trust and team relationships on a more

or less constant basis. Since collaboration relies on personal interactions, emergency

managers must constantly be aware of changes in the personnel, policies and culture of

partner organizations and agencies. Strategies for maintaining strong collaboration will,

of necessity, have to be reviewed and modified based on these changes. Merely

engaging in collaborative, consensus-driven activities at the planning phase will not

ensure that there is a continuing, reliable partnership over time. In order to achieve this

consistency it is important to establish a program which:

1. Can continually assess the strengths that enable you to conduct a

partnership or develop and continue a collaborative working relationship

with partner organizations.,

2. Addresses the need to identify areas that may need attention, and

3. identify clear actions to maintain your strengths or enhance those areas you

wish to develop further.

The U.S. Forest Service strongly emphasizes the value of continuing collaborative

partnerships. The following is a statement of philosophy which reflects that emphasis:

“In the Forest Service, we tend to use the terms partnership and collaboration

interchangeably, often using partnership as a short-hand to refer to both types of

relationship. Although points of intersection exist between the two, they are not

exactly the same. Collaboration generally implies a search for common ground

involving diverse and conflicting interests in resource management issues, whereas

partnership refers to an effort with a more specific end result, more limited scope

and timeframe, and fewer participants and interests. Successful examples of these

different types of efforts, however, retain many common features representing

three dimensions of success: relationships, process, and substance.

 Relationships must provide mutual recognition and respect, and improve

participants’ capacity to solve problems together.

 The process must treat all participants fairly and consistently and comply with

applicable procedures and laws.

 Substance decisions made by the partnership or collaboration must be solutions

that can be implemented, that satisfy interests better than efforts the

participants could achieve on their own, and that can be corrected or modified in

the future. “

Sincerity:

All of the efforts toward a trusting, collaborative culture depend on the degree to which

the partners and stakeholders perceive that the efforts are based on a sincere desire to

identify and value their ideas and concerns. Effective, collaborative relationships

require trust and a feeling that there is a genuine commitment to establishing trust and

working together as a team. While groups often go through the “motions” and talk

about collaboration, it is the perceived sincerity behind those efforts that can “make or

break” a collaborative relationship. What happens when this perception is not present

is revealed in the following, very controversial testimony by Albert Ashwood, the

President of the National Emergency Management Association during hearings before

the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 31 st

, 2007:

“A perfect example of this attitude [of FEMA] is illustrated in the National Plan

Review, which was conducted in 2006. The states were told that this was an

opportunity for all levels of government to sit together, review plans, identify

shortfalls, and develop a strategy to address those shortfalls, both operationally

and financially in the future. This seemed like a wonderful concept, right up until

the time the national planning report card was published for each state. The

entire exercise seemed to be little more than an opportunity for the federal

government to tell the press, “we told you states weren’t prepared”.

Also, consider the National Response Plan, excuse me, the now called

National Response Framework, which will be released by DHS in the near future.

You will be told this is a national document, developed over many hours of

collaboration between all levels of government and all disciplines. Let me be the

first to say you should have a shovel nearby when you hear this. I’ve queried my

colleagues at both the state and local level and realize that no one knows what

information this document contains and we won’t until we read it like everyone

else in this room.”

Without passing judgment on the validity or the propriety of the statements made in

the Congressional testimony, the perception of FEMA’s lack of good faith and sincerity

in its efforts significantly undermined progress toward a truly collaborative and trusting

relationship.

References:

Auf der Heide, Erik, Disaster Response: Principles of Preparation and Coordination

(online at http://orgmail2.coe-dmha.org/dr/flash.htm) Chapters 3 and 5.

Drabek, Thomas E., The Professional Emergency Manager. Program on Environment

and Behavior Monograph #44, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,

1987, 173-254.

Drabek, Thomas E., Strategies for Coordinating Disaster Responses. Boulder, CO:

Program on Environment and Behavior, Monograph 61, University of Colorado, 2003.

Gregory, Dale M., Collaborative Emergency Planning: Building Partnerships Outside-in.

Unpublished document on the www.museum.org website:

www.museum.org/docs/strat_collaborative_emerg.pdf

Patton, Ann, Collaborative Emergency Management. Emergency Management:

Principles and Practice for Local Government, 2nd Edition (Washington, DC: ICMA,

2007). Chapter 5.

Schafer, Wendy A., et. al., Emergency Management Planning as Collaborative

Community Work. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Vol. 5,

Issue 1, 2008, Article 10. www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol5/iss1/10 .

Waugh, William L., Jr. and Streib, Gregory, Collaboration and Leadership for Effective

Emergency Management. Public Administration Review, December 2006, 131-140.