Disaster Response Organizations - Case Study Example

Civil Protection Response Organization Classification and Management Approach 1. Introduction The main objective of incident planning is the formation of a response organization structure capable of being deployed in the shortest time possible during a disaster. Responding to a disaster can be a very difficult task if nothing has been done to prepare for such events in advance thus preventive and preparedness actions are carried out to reduce risks and facilitate disaster response. Response activities take place throughout and immediately following a disaster and responders are expected to save lives, reduce property damage and facilitate the beginning of recovery from the incident. Police, fire and rescue services, and medical services are the primary responders during the response phase. Disaster response organizations are unique and they are classified in a different way. Their management is atypical and they make use of complex techniques during a major disaster response. 2. Classification of Civil Protection Response Organization Organizations according to White are made of relationships among people who have collaborated for a reason and just as interactions have no existence except through the people who engage in them, organizational structure has no discrete existence other than through the roles and relationships through which the structure is articulated (11). Mullins structural model was initially developed for understanding natural science (Reed and Hughes 96) and structure according to Mullins (1985:72) as cited by White, is the pattern of relationships among positions in the organization and among members of the organization (11). The structure therefore describes the tasks and responsibilities, work roles and relationships, and channels of communication with the objective of separating the work and coordinating activities among its members to attain the aspirations and objectives of the organization. Moreover, structure allows the application of the process of management and builds a framework of order and command through which the activities of organizations can be planned, organized, directed and controlled. Mullins (1989:113) according to Bush and Middlewood stresses that structure provides a way of cultivating organizational performance (61). The purpose of the structure take account of the economic and efficient performance of the organization, monitoring activities, accountability for areas of work carried out by groups and individuals, coordination, flexibility, and the social satisfaction of people working in the organization (Bush and Middlewood 62). In short, the structure of an organization outline what should be done by its members (Carey 28). The concept of organization can in theory is relevant to those organizations in civil protection although the tasks and responsibilities are dictated by the professional roles, expertise, and hazards at hand. Since no organization have all the qualifications it will need to confront the challenges that lie ahead (Longman and Mullins 211), emergency or disaster response organization implementation is organized according to the type of hazard (Salvato et. al. 1407) and nature of the tasks. Police, fire, and medical personnel respond to disasters generally in a methodical and regimented procedure. Their work is to secure the scene and uphold order, rescue and take care of those injured, control and suppress fire or hazardous conditions, and recover the deceased. Local officials are also the first responders to major disaster events such as large floods, hurricanes, and major earthquakes, but in these cases, their efforts are supported, upon request by community leaders, state government, and by the federal government. Volunteer groups such as the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army are on the forefront of any disaster response to provide shelter, food, and clothing to disaster fatalities who have lost their homes to disasters large and small (Haddow et. al. 78). Organizations that respond to disasters are conceivably more than any other group of organizations held up to extreme public scrutiny. Their actions are largely guided by community demands and they perform in accordance with environmental standards to be recognized as legitimate. In a disaster response, organizations pursue both official and unofficial rules of interactions since the government mandates not only which organizations should work together, but also which organizations are accountable for providing specific resources. Disaster response organizations function in multifaceted environments where tasks are regularly outside their scope (Chidambaram et. al. 101). Responding organizations are classified along two dimensions, task and structure, and according to whether or not they undergo transformation at some point in the response phase. Organizations that perform task that they typically perform when there is no disaster are considered ‘established’ organizations like the police. On the other hand, organizations that are small or comparatively idle during non-disaster periods, but they grow in size or experience transformation of structure during the emergency while carrying out their tasks identical to the ones for they are in general responsible, similar to the fire and rescue and medical responders, are considered an ‘expanding’ organization. ‘Extending’ organizations are those who preserved their pre-disaster structure but engage in newer disaster-related tasks. The changes occurring to these organizations do not affect their membership or authority structure but the tasks they are performing during an emergency or a disaster. The “Emergent’ organizations are those that are recently formed bodies and are new to the pre-disaster community setting similar to the volunteer responders mentioned earlier. Such groups are typically unofficial and somewhat undifferentiated structurally, comprised largely by people of the affected neighborhood (Tierney et. al. 115). 3. Management Approach As our society becomes more multifaceted and mutually dependent, the role of public organization such as civil protection has assumed increasing importance. Maintenance of health and safety standards, building of transportation systems, care of the elderly and infirm, and the myriad of other public service services do not occur automatically. These organizations aside human and economic resource, need judicious planning, management, and control (Eddy 4). Regardless of management style, there are specific tasks which management has to perform, even though the essential nature of managerial work is not easy to describe (Mullins 1985:123) as cited by White (1991, 24). Mullins draws a division between those whose central activity is the performance of discrete tasks and the actual doing of work themselves. A dissimilarity involving those who spend comparatively a lot of their time in determining the work of other, the planning and systematizing of their work, handing them with directions and providing guidance, and monitoring their performance. Through these distinctions between managing and doing, Mullins put forward the notion that management is the “planning of work, organizing the distribution of activities and tasks to other people, direction of subordinate staff and controlling the performance of other people’s work” (White 24). Consequently, we can simplify the regular activities of management as amplification of objectives, planning, arranging, guiding, and controlling. The style with which these functions are performed will be reliant on the conjecture or perception of management considered by the person in the roles of manager. “Style of management and organization culture is closely integrated (White 26)”. Environmental circumstances affects management style and in the occurrence of stress caused by external factors, a more autocratic style of management may emerge to handle the need for quick and critical action. Nonetheless, the persistence of such a management style when situations have become stable may prove to be difficult or even destructive. Management has to confront the disagreement between the unstable on the one hand and the need for systematization on the other. Regardless of the appreciation of the unpredictable and uncertain character of relationships and harmony between members of an organization, most approaches to management promote being relatively systematic (White 26). All managers have a responsibility to be knowledgeable as possible and to provide sufficient resources and facilities for the execution of agreed plans. A portion of this responsibility is some knowledge of the organization, their operation and structure. The knowledge can help the manager deal with routines like setting objectives, planning, controlling and deputizing. Primarily, the successful manager will try to engage everybody in the organization in decision-making, planning and implementation, and will give the requirements in which such a participative style of management and action will prosper (White 30). Initially, the purpose of emergency management planning is to ascertain which organization or discipline will have the task of providing protection after a disaster. According to Oliveira et. al., organization of a specialized service of this sort can be conceived in compliance with the various guiding principles and within different administrative framework (371). Emergency preparedness is evaluated in terms of response times, and risk is measured in terms of affected population, accident potential, and the emergency preparedness of the area. The initial response to an incident is assumed to be provided by Police, Fire Stations, and other emergency responders like ambulance providers (Easa and Chan 186). It is reasonable to think that planning should have an encouraging effect on organizational performance particularly in crisis. However, this conjecture also leads rationally to uncertainties as regards to what constitutes good planning and what phase of planning perhaps would make a difference. “There is no single best way to organize for emergency preparedness” (Tierney et. al. 72) as successful emergency managers who were actively promoting their approach were being rejected by other similarly successful managers. It is therefore essential to resolve whether a certain organizational strategies or approaches promote broader preparedness efforts. This is because jurisdictions that have developed good emergency response plans are more effective in responding to disasters and emergencies that took place with less or inadequate warning than those that have not developed such plans. The potential for a disaster, frequently with disastrous results, together with the need to ensure public safety and security, highlight the significance of assessing the risk posed by these events in addition to the emergency preparedness of the distressed community. Emergency preparedness is one phase that has been accepted as vital in disaster and risk management thus the fundamental requirements in disaster and emergency response planning include the classification of critical areas and evaluation of affected population (Easa and Chan 185). Disaster response according to Hodgkinson and Stewart needs to be flexible, swift in both decision-making and action, informed, sensitive, and unperturbed with sentiment (75). A good management approach is therefore essential to guarantee the success of a disaster response. Disaster responders such as law enforcement, fire, and other response organizations had problems organizing themselves in a compatible way, making it difficult to identify or coordinate similar functions and resources. To avoid this difficulty, the most common management approach used by these organizations is task centered and typically comprises of self-contained teams, as they are more competent when their outcome is the solution to a specific crisis. To enhance this management approach further, a hierarchical emergency response organization is created to control the flow of emergency information and resources, and to ensure rapid mobilization, deployment, use and tracking of resources. This hierarchical structure uses the Incident Command System or ICS and Multi-Agency Coordination System where each agency organize itself around a set of common ICS defined functions such a command, management, operations, planning, intelligence, logistics, finance, and administration. Since these agencies work on one specific objective that seeks to accomplish a particular plan, they usually employ management by objective (Koehler 33). Management by objective is a technique based on setting each manager in organization a set of quantifiable objectives, and then assessing how good or how poorly each manager manages to attain those objectives (Lock 377). Management by objective is an excellent way to encourage judicious review of professional performance while avoiding the need for close supervision, which professional members detest. Instead, management by objective allows professional to come to a decision reciprocally with their managers regarding the objectives of their jobs, the duration, and the criteria (Raelin 268). 4. Conclusion Disaster response organizations are unique as responding to a disaster can be very difficult. Their actions are guided by societal pressure and they operate in very complex environment where tasks are often beyond their capability. These organizations are classified according to their task and structure, and whether or not they undergo structural change during a response. Since disaster response requires flexibility on the part of the responders, these organizations are tasks-centered and they are more efficient when their objective is the solution to the problem. They usually use management by objective to ensure rapid mobilization and control of emergency information and resources. They organize themselves around a set of ICS defined functions such as command, management, operations, planning, logistic, finance, and administration. 5. Work Cited List Bush Tony and Middlewood David. “Leading and Managing People in Education”. U.K.: SAGE, 2005 Chidambaram Lakshmanan, Chidambaram Laku, Zigurs Ilze. “Our Virtual World: The Transformation of Work, Play, and Life Via Technology”. U.S.: Idea Group Inc (IGI), 2001 Easa Said and Chan Yupo. “Urban Planning and Development Applications of GIS”, American Society of Civil Engineers Geographic Information Systems Committee. U.S.: ASCE Publications, 2000 Eddy William B. “Handbook of Organization Management”. U.S.: CRC Press, 1983 Haddow George D., Bullock Jane A., Coppola Damon P. “Introduction to Emergency Management”. U.S.: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005 Hodgkinson Peter E. and Stewart Michael. “Coping with Catastrophe: A Handbook of Disaster Management”. U.K: Routledge, 1991 Koehler Gus A. “What Disaster Response Management Can Learn from Chaos Theory: Conference Proceedings”. U.S.: DIANE Publishing, 1997 Lock Dennis. “Project Management: 9Th Edition”. U.K: Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2007 Longman A. and Mullins Jim. “The Rational Project Manager: A Thinking Team's Guide to Getting Work Done”. U.S.: John Wiley and Sons, 2005 Lynda Carey. “Practice Nursing”, Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain), U.K.: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2000 Oliveira Carlos Sousa, Roca Antoni, Goula Xavier. “Assessing and Managing Earthquake Risk: Geo-scientific and Engineering Knowledge for Earthquake Risk Mitigation: Developments, Tools, Techniques”. Netherlands: Springer, 2006 Raelin Joseph A. “The clash of cultures”. U.S.: Harvard Business Press, 1988 Reed Michael and Hughes Michael. “Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis”. U.K.: SAGE, 1992 Salvato Joseph A., Nemerow Nelson Leonard, Agardy Franklin J. “Environmental Engineering”. U.S.: John Wiley and Sons, 2003 Tierney Kathleen J., Lindell Michael K., Perry Ronald W. “Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States”. U.S.: Joseph Henry Press, 2001 White Ronald V. “Management in English language teaching”. U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1991 Read More