Applying the inclusive management to emergency preparedness for the

sleeperhihatManagement

Nov 7, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

81 views

Applying the inclusive management to emergency preparedness for the
effective collaboration

Kim, Dong Shin

I.

Introduction



Although there were many heroes at the Pentagon on September 11, heroism is not a commodity
that can be purchased and warehoused.
Preparedness is a direct function of planning and training

(Titan Systems Corporation, p. A
-
73).

Currently
, address
ing

e
mergency, such as natural
and artificial
disaster, is an important
duty

of
public administration.

Governments need collaboration to add
ress ‘wicked problems’
(Agranoff and
McGuire 2003b; Hicklin et al., 2009).

‘Wicked problems’, such as the disaster, earthquake, terrorist
attacks, etc., can hardly be handled by single agency. They often require collaboration with other
agencies
(Drabek &
McEntire, 2002).

In a sense
, the effectiveness of inter
-
agencies collaboration is
closely related to the outcome of emergency response system.
Many articles state the importance of
effective collaboration to deal with emergency.
However, the effective coll
aboration among agencies
and members to deal with emergency is not easy in reality.
Many emergency managers also
understand that it is hard to achieve the effective collaboration including hierarchical, command and
control relationships
(McGuire, 2009).

Fo
r example, Waugh (2009) argues that many cities, counties,
and states did not fully understand their roles and responsibilities in collaboration in the 2005
Hurricane Katrina disaster, which resulted in failing to implement
the National Incident Management

System

(NIMS) and the National Response Plan

(NRP). That is, t
here is the gap between the ideal
and the real

about collaboration to address emergency
. Therefore,
it is meaningful to ask next

questions. How can the effective collaboration to address urgent

situations

happen
? What
elements
or aspects need for effective
collaboration?

Several scholars emphasize the importance of public management to successful collaboration
(Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Meier & O’Toole, 2003; Provan & Milward, 1991; Hicklin et
al., 2009).

It
means that public management can affect the success or the failure of effective collaboration.
This
paper examine
s

the applicability of inclusive management to
the effective collaboration to deal with
emergency.

An agency’s response to emerg
ency is clearly a function of its preparedness (McGuire,
2009).

In a sense, the paper

focus
es

on the
processes

and aspects of
coll
aboration preparedness for
effective collaboration on the basis of inclusive management which
include
s

all participants’ own
k
nowledge, perspectives, abilities, and resources to achieve the effective performance.
In other words,
the paper tries to find the roles and necessity of inclusive management in the process of collaboration
preparedness for effective collaboration.

T
he
9/1
1 Arlington county case in
2001

(terrorist attack on Pentagon)

is selected to examine the
roles of inclusive management in collaboration preparedness
.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United
States in 2001 had a strong impact on the preparedness for and r
esponse to emergency (Waugh,
2009).
Especially, r
esponse to terrorist attack through inter
-
agencies collaboration in Arlington in 9/11
is evaluated as a
successful

case for the effective performance to address emergency. When the
pentagon attack by terrori
sts happened, many agencies to deal with attacks played their own roles
and were collaborated with each other effectively.
The paper makes a deep investigation of

the
processes
of emergency preparedness to achieve the successful response to emergency by
in
terviews and documentary survey.
More specifically,
the primary

concern of
the study is
the roles
and effects
of
inclusive management, such as
informational work and relational work

in emergency
preparedness

on the effective collaboration in emergency resp
onse.

It is expected to

find how to
include

participants
with different

abilities, resources and perspectives

for effective collaboration
.

II.

Emergency, collaboration, and inclusive management

1.

Emergency

W
hat is

the emergency
?

E
mergency
can be understood
by
its

characteristics. Time
factor
to address
urgent problems is important. As well, the consequences
occurr
ed by urgent situations often are huge
and negative to all society.

Kapucu & Wart
(2006)
state that emergency or catastrophic disasters
have some char
acteristics; unexpected or unusual size, disruptions to the communication and
decision
-
making capabilities of the emergency response system itself, and an initial breakdown in
coordination and communication.
The f
irst

characteristic of

emergency
is

unexpec
tedness. It is hard
to prepare all urgent situations.
As c
onventional bureaucratic systems which are common in public
administration system primarily focus on expected situations
,

they

are not appropriate to deal with
unexpected problems. For example, conv
entional bureaucratic systems rely on relatively rigid plans,
exact decision protocols and formal relationships that assume uninterrupted communications (Kapucu
& Wart,
2006
).
Due to the

characteristic

of conventional bureaucratic systems, it

is hard to ad
dress
the unexpected problems.
The s
econd characteristic is the unusual power of
the
effect

of emergency
.
Because of the special power of effect, emergency often goes beyond the capability of one agency to
deal with problems.
E
ven though
an agency

ha
s
its
own

policy to prepare for urgent situations,
it often
is not effective to address emergency. Therefore,
the collaborative efforts are needed to
deal with

emergency.
The t
hird

characteristic of

emergency is closely related to time to tackle the
urgent
probl
ems. Delaying the problems may cause huge and severe results.
Considering the
aspect of time,
conventional hierarchy systems
are
problem
atic
. For example, hierarchy puts an emphasis on rules
and documents like red
-
tape to deal with problems.
However,
emerg
ency
always
requires the rapid
and flexible decision
-
making.
The f
ourth

characteristic of emergency
is the seriousness of
consequence
occurred

by problems. The seriousness of consequence gives the
big
public concern,
even though emergency rarely happens. F
or example, the bursting of dams in California in 1928 killed
500 people (Rogers, 1995). As shown above, emergency or urgent problems are different from
problems in routine times. In most of times, information in emergency is complex. Complex
information m
akes bureaucratic communication dysfunctional (Brown & Miller, 2000)
.

R
outine
structure and boundaries may hinder information sharing in crisis situations (Rice, 1990).
T
he
characteristic
s

of emergency

give the reasons

to examine collaboration

in emergency

different from
that in routine times.

2.

The study of collaboration in the Emergency

Organizations
collaborate

with each other in
a variety
of ways

and reasons
.
C
ollaboration
between
agencies
means

activities by agencies intended to increase public value b
y having the agencies
working together rather than separately


(Bardach, 1998).
1

Recent studies show the important role of
collaboration by network in addressing emergency (
Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003; McEntire, 2002
;

Moynihan, 2005).

The
characteristics of

emergency constrain the activities of collaboration between
organizations more than collaboration in ordinary times. For example, time pressure can limit the
decision
-
making capacities of public administrators to address problems with limited information,

and
resource in emergency.

Kicklin et al. (2009) argue that coordinated response may have to be
mobilized quickly and under pressure in major disaster situations.


Many scholars provide the studies on collaboration to deal with emergency by several perspe
ctives.

Some researchers emphasize the structure.
For example,
Menzel

(2006)

mentions the change of
hierarchical structure to deal with disasters at t
he federal level.

Gillespie & Streeter (1987) also
emphasize the effect of organizational structure on org
anizational preparedness efforts. Some
researchers suggest the change of allocation of resources. For example, Kapucu

(2006)

studies the
interagency communication network. He concludes that managers should provide incentives and
information to promote and
foster communication and the trust

between organizations
. Some
researchers focus on trust building to improve
interagency
collaboration. Cohen, Eimicke & Horan

(2002)

emphasize the social capital as well as operational
aspects such as planning, procedure,
and

technical support. Some researchers put an emphasis on the process. Comfort

(1985)

regards

the
role of information search processes within and between organizations as a tool integrating multiple
agenc
ies

and jurisdictional operations into emergency. Some
scholars
put an emphasis on the skills
such as leadership. Researchers focus on the interpersonal skills of emergency managers more than
on their technical skills (Drabek 1987) and formal authority (Waugh
, 1993). Waugh & Streib

(2006)

puts an emphasis on the leadership for the effective collaboration to deal with emergency.
Waugh
(2009) states the
coordinating
role of emergency manager for the collaboration in emergency.






1

According to Bardach

(1998)
, there are four standards as variations in success with regard to interagency
collaborative capacity: the quality of the human and social material available to collaborators, the efficacy of what
the ‘smart practices’ are c
alled by aspiring collaborators to work with the available materials, the availability of
critical skills and abilities within the community of potential collaborators, skills and abilities of special
improvisation, adaptation, and leadership, and the abil
ity to understand the nature of collaboration as a dynamic
developmental process, the vulnerability of the emerging interagency collaborative capacity structure to hostile
force and the skill of the builders in protecting the interagency collaborative capa
city against these.

In addition, there are many artic
les to present conditions or strategies for the effective collaboration
to deal with emergency. Robinson and Gerber

(2001)

emphasize the importance of establishing
contact among agencies, and institutionalizing relationships, including formal and informal
relationships. Carlee

(2001
) mentions that emergency management needs management plan,
protecting employees, mutual aid, control, information, public help, relationships with elected offic
ials,
autonomy, and etc.

Getha
-
Taylor
(2007)
argues that managers sh
ould increase trust, connect the
organizational mission and purpose, improve relationships, and focus training. Benest and Grijalva

(2002)

discuss the relationships between the manager and fire chief, arguing the ways to improve the
relationship with each
other. They emphasize the difference of roles, getting rid of negative
perceptions, partnership, education, and familiarity.
D
eal
ing

with transformational leadership
,

Lester
(2007)
mentions the need for change, common vision, open communication, delegation
, training, and
empowerment.

Hughey and Tobin

(2006)

emphasize emergency training, relationship, and mutual aid.

McGuire (2009) has an impact on professionalism in collaboration in local emergency management.

<
Table 1
>

Discussion and emphasis of collaboration in emegerncy management literature

Dimension

Discussion and Emphasis

A
uthor
(s)

Structure

Emphasis on the necessity of the change of hierarchical structure
for collaboration dealing with disasters

Menzel (2006)

emphasize the effect of organizational structure on
organizational preparedness efforts

Gillespie &
Streeter

(1987
)

Process

Emphasis on participation of various groups such as private, non
-
profit, and informed citizen groups for Improved information
searching capability for public security

Comfort (2002)

Promoting inter
-
organizational communication and the trust for
interage
ncy network

Kapucu (2006)

strategies or skills

Emphasizing social capital as well as operational lessons such as
planning, procedure, and technical support

Cohen, Eimicke &
Horan (2002)

Suggesting political and administrative skills for coordination

Wise (2002)

Emphasis on formal partnerships for better collaboration

Waugh Jr &
Sylves (2002)

Emphasis on collaborative leadership skills for effective emergency
management

Waugh Jr &
Streib (2006)

Fostering professionali
m

by training and education for competent
collaboration

McGuire (2009
)

emphasize the importance of establishing contact among
agencies, and institutionalizing relationships

Robinson and
Gerber
(2001)


3.

Inclusive management

According to Feldman and
Khademian

(2007)
, inclusion is to bring people with different perspectives
together and create a community of participation.
Inclusion covers several characteristics. First,
inclusion acknowledges that people have different world views, problem perceptions
, and values
(Buuren, 2009). People in inclusion respect diverse views, meaning, and values. In the process of
inclusion p
eople understand and appreciate other’s knowledge, values, meanings, and perspectives
with each other.

Second, inclusion is different
from participation which simply focuses on joining in a
location or issues. Actors in inclusion are positive and active in solving problems (Quick and Feldman,
2009). According to Quick and Feldman (2009), participation focuses on participation of people,
reduction of constraints on participation, and community input. On the other hand, inclusion
emphasizes diverse views engaged in a deliberation, individual participants and deliberation. People
share information and experiences from individuals

for mutual
comprehension and
cooperation
(Schneider & Ingram 2007; Wessels, 2007).

Inclusion of diversities improves problem solving
capacities.

I
nclusive management
constructs

a community of participation

by which participants can share their
information
and try t
o find any solutions to problems by working together (Feldman and Khademian,
2007
).
It does not mean

that inclusive management is
just
to bring people with different perspectives
into one place. It is important for inclusive management that people or parti
cipants located in one
place find ways of working together. In other words, participants with different points of views about
problems, solutions, and goals understand their positions and try to help each other to achieve
common missions

in inclusive manag
ement.

In a sense, inclusive management emphasizes the
deliberative processes in which various

perspectives includ
ing

the political, the scientific or technical,
and local or experienced views

are shared and adjusted (Feldman et al., 2009)
.

Diverse

perspec
tives
help create and administer
new ways to achieve
goals through deliberative processes

which requires
thoughtful examination of issues, listening to other’s perspectives, and coming to a public judgment
on what represents the common good (Feldman et al.
, 2006)
.

As p
articipants respect their different
perspectives
,
they can share their information
and work together for looking for ways of problem
solving
.

Two ways for inclusive management are important
: the informational work and the relational work

(Feld
man and Khademian, 2007
). Informational work identifies and disseminates information about
different ways of understanding policy problems, translates ideas between participants and promotes
synthesis or new way
s

of knowing the public problem.
It

is relate
d to intellectual aspects
.

Relational
work creates connections between people in ways that legitimize perspectives and create empathy for
participants who represent different ways of understanding and addressing the problem

(Feldman and
Khademian,
2007). I
t

is primarily focusing on
relation
al aspects
.


Public managers can promote intentional change through inclusive practices (Feldman et al., 2006).
By using informational work and relational work, public managers can establish communities of
participation.

Feldman and Khademian

(2007)

focus on more processes than outcomes in inclusive
m
anagement. In other words, they primarily examine how inclusion can happen rather than what the
outcomes of inclusive management are.
Inclusive
manag
ement

helps
find the
commu
nities of
participation

that the public managers create
, which results in increasing the capability of problem
solving in the public sector
.


III.

Conceptual framework

Emergency response is closely related to emergency preparedness. It is very hard to achieve
successful emergency response without concrete emergency preparedness. As seen above, the
emergency situations need collaboration. Effective collaboration is the key to successful emergency
responses. In a sense, collaboration should be well
-
prepared befor
e emergency response. This study
focuses on the aspects for effective collaboration which can result in successful emergency response.
In other words, it
examine
s

the
collaboration
aspects among

agencies

in emergency preparedness
.

The study applies inclus
ive management to emergency preparedness for effective collaboration in
emergency response. For the purpose of the study, it
divid
es

the
collaboration into three
aspect
s on
the basis of inclusive management
.

T
he first
one is
a
relational

step.

Each organiz
ation begins to build
trust with each other
and increase belongingness through
relational work
at

this st
age
.

As
organizations have their own

interests, identities, and

motivations
, they can rarely achieve effective
collaboration without the deep trust
-
bui
lding and the feeling of belongings. One organization has to
understand and value the other organization. Sometimes they have to make their sacrifice for others.
The mature trust
-
building and feeling of belonging can make organizations do such. In other wo
rds,
their own interests are
adjust
ed
.
Trust
-
building and feeling of belonging can be increased by a
relational work.

T
he second
one is

a
n informational

step.

Intellectual knowledge and technical skills, such as
missions, roles and related knowledge shoul
d be
train
ed

and distribute
d at this stage.

Informational
work is related to an education aspect. Organizations should acquire diverse information about
emergency to effectively address unexpected situations. For example, organizations have to know
an
emer
gency plan and specific missions and roles

in emergency
.
Also they have to be aware of new
technology and devices. I
nformational work
is used at

th
is stage
.

The last
one

is the practice
step. Effective collaboration needs repeated exercises and drills. Without
the practice of collaboration it is hard to expect effective collaboration. Centralization and
decentralization are emphasized at this stage. In other words, organizations can follo
w central
commands and plans as well as improvise for effective collaboration, because disasters and urgent
situations exist in unexpected as well as expected ways. Therefore, sometimes the appropriate
commands are needed by top emergency managers. Also, s
ometimes
delegation

to each agency

or
member to
effectively
address a variety of urgent situations

is needed
.
The conceptual framework is
as follows.






<Figure 1> Conceptual Framework













IV.

Case study

1.

Terrorist attack on Pentagon

in 9/11

and
emergency
response

American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon and caused huge destruction
on the morning of September 11, 2001. The destruction included 270,000 pounds of metal and jet fuel
Emergency Preparedness

Emergency Response

Relational step

1.

Trust
-
building

2.

Belongingness

Informational step

1.

Intellectual
knowledge

2.

Technical skills

Practice step

1.

Centralization

2.

Decentralization

Effective
Collaboration

hurtling into the solid mass of the Pentagon. H
owever, even though the attack happened suddenly, it
was addressed by successful response to the terrorist attack.

According to Titan report, participants like fire department and FBI achieved successful collaboration.
For example, Captain Penn as the Eme
rgency Operations Center (EOC) coordinator integrated the
resources of Arlington County in support of the tactical operation at the Pentagon within 24 hours. The
partnership between the FBI and the Arlington County Fire Department (ACFD) was formed in
adva
nce through the initiative of Special Agent. Titan report stated that it is a model that every
metropolitan area should emulate. Arlington County officials had carefully framed an emergency
response plan built on an integrated command structure, mutual aid

agreements with surrounding
communities, a solid emergency team, an assistance program to back up employees amid the
incredible stress of their work and constant drilling in the years leading up to the terrorist attack. The
management and integration of m
utual
-
aid assets and the collaboration and coordination of agencies
were outstanding. The police and fire departments worked in close partnership, and collaboration
flowed easily among jurisdictions from different states. The response to the September 11 t
errorist
attack on the Pentagon was successful by any measure. Although the tragic loss of life from the
attack could not be avoided, it was minimized (
Titan Systems Corporation, 2002
).


2.

Inclusive management in emergency preparedness

1)

Relational step

The effective collaboration does not come out by chance. It needs much time, resource, and
endeavor. This step can play an important role to start collaboration.
Meier & O’Tool(2005) argue that
stable networking relationships affect collaboration in crisis

time.

This step is related to trust
-
building
among members and agencies participating in collaboration.
Waugh
(
2009
) argues that d
eveloping
trust and respect are the first tasks of the professional emergency manager.

Even though much
literature regards tru
st building as an important element for the effective collaboration, there is little
and ambiguous explanation to reach ways for trust
-
building. Here, on the basis of Arlington county
case of collaboration to deal with terroris
t attack, the importance of t
his
step will be explained. It does
not seem to be directly related to collaboration. However, this step is an essential part to induce the
effective collaboration.

Arlington County was sensitive at the terrorist attack because national important faciliti
es, such as
the Pentagon and Regan National Airport, were located in Arlington. Besides terror attack, Arlington
County may well have been among the most over
-
prepared communities in the world at the turn of
Y2K (Carlee, p 7). According to the former emerg
ency coordinator of Arlington County, there were
many meeting for preparing for the urgent situations such as terror attacks, since subway toxic
accident happened in Tokyo in 1999. The meeting was called planning for Metropolitan medical strike
team. It wa
s related to CEMP (comprehensive emergency management plan). They met every couple
of weeks at the beginning and a couple of years about for two years. When the meetings for
addressing emergency were in an initial stage, they were in a chaos and disorder.
There were a
variety of agencies and members participating in the meetings. They involved law enforcement, the
emergency medical service, the hazardous material response folks, doctors and nurses, building
engineers, people relating to the supplies, commun
ication people, public information folks,
pharmacies preparing for biological attack, emergency management people, public health, mentor
service providers, red
-
cross, fire
-
department, public works, schools, and public affairs.

Members and agencies in the
meeting had different interests. There were some issues conflicting
among participants. For example, who was going to be in charge of plan and which department was
going to command? and which department would take what activity and task, and etc. As well,
there
was some gap about the procedure of the emergency plan. At the beginning of the meeting, they did
not understand other’s environments, rules, regulations, and operations. In addition, they used
different terms or jargon which blocked communication wi
th each other.

There were many things to impede their communication and stop sharing their thoughts. However,
they gradually began to overcome obstacles through relational work. First, it was the repeated
meeting. There were meeting around two times a mon
th at the beginning of the meeting. Repeated
meeting can increase the degree of familiarity more than one time meeting. Relational work puts an
emphasis on creating relations or connections between people. Connections between people based
on feeling are im
portant in the ability to legitimize different perspectives and to create a community of
participation (Feldman and Khademian, p. 312). In that sense, repeated meeting can provide the
basic ground to increase familiarity. Interviewee said that frequent mee
ting made participants open
their minds. Regarding the importance of repeated interaction, Arlington after action report states as
follows. “Frequent interaction, including training and exercises, with mutual
-
aid partners in Alexandria
and Fairfax County p
roved invaluable. Units from these jurisdictions merged seamlessly in a common
effort. A similar level of interaction does not routinely occur between Virginia jurisdictions and the
DCFD. That failure was also apparent during the Pentagon operations” (Tita
n Systems Corporation, p.
A
-
76).

Second, there is the free conversation about the emergency
-
based topics. People were
communicating properly. According to interviewee, they could listen and talk to each other and
respected each other’s opinion. That was re
ally helping collaboration. In a free environment such as
walking outside, they exchanged their opinions. During the free communication, they did not in a
hierarchy, because they were all managers of their departments, helping them free conversation with
e
ach other. No one needed to prove what their positions were. Because their opinions could be
discussed fully and were not ignored, they could have a sense of belonging. They could develop the
potential for empathy. Empathy is an important and core concept
of relational work (Feldman and
Khademian, p. 312).

Third, by framing common mission to participants, they could know what to do. Common and clear
missions made them think about why they attended the meeting and what they should do.
Dalmar
(1993) emphasiz
es the shared meaning in
a reciprocal flow of information. Interviewee made sure
that framing the mission helped everybody knows what the missions and roles were, and kept
focusing on the missions. To identify the mission, manager used picture and written
documents
relating to Tokyo accidents. In other words, manager used boundary objects which facilitate a process
where individuals can transform their knowledge (Feldman and Khademian, p. 315). These boundary
objects help participants understand the severe
effects of terror on the public and their mission clear.
Identifying their mission made them know the fact that they were working for the public values and
helped them take pride of their roles.

Last, they shared common experience. According to Feldman an
d Khademian, boundary
experiences are shared or joint activities that create a sense of community and an ability to transcend
boundaries between participants (Feldman and Khademian, p. 317). At the beginning of the meeting,
they used some jargon or special

terms that anyone else did not know. To understand the jargon or
terms, they created a list of terms to identify their meaning and definitions.
Shared common value and
a common language are important in collaboration in addressing emergency (Milward & Pro
van,
2006; Buck et al., 2006).

For example, some groups used FEMA, instead of using full name. At last,
they agreed to use full names and also published a list of the many initials used for all groups to solve
the problems. As well, they were practicing to
gether during simulated disaster drills. This experience
would be a special but common experience for participants. The experiences made people feel a
sense of belonging. Shared experience also helped them build trust. At the beginning, they did not
unders
tand other’s environment. But, as the meeting repeated more and more, participants began to
understand other’s rules, regulations, and operations.

In the first step, participants understand other’s circumstances, identify their identities, increase a
feel
ing of belonging and a sense of community, and have participants motivated through free
communication in the meeting, common experiences, boundary objects, and repeated meeting.
Those things can reduce the gap between participants. In other words, they can

build trust gradually
with each other through this process. Through this step, they can strengthen their relationships
among themselves.

2)

Informational

step

M
anagers can train and distribute their skills and roles to participants, educate an emergency plan
,
and help agencies informed of specific roles in emergency. Managers can primarily depend on using
informational work in th
is

step. It is important that it is hard to share their information with each other
without trust
-
building.

The participants can le
arn what they should do in the urgent situations in details in this step.
Education and training are important in developing collaborative capacity (McGuire, 2009; Drabek,
1987).

Through participation

of education and training
, members in agencies can lear
n their clear
roles and specific missions as well as how to get mutual aids under entire picture to deal with urgent
situations.

The role of manager in collaboration is not teaching detailed skills, but let them share their
prior experience. After action r
eport emphasizes prior experience. According to Arlington County After
action report, “prior planning and training allowed responders to effect a large, multi
-
jurisdictional
response. The ACFD routinely participates in Pentagon mass casualty tabletop exerc
ises such as
“Abbottsville” in May 2001, and full scale exercises such as “Cloudy Office” in 1998. Previous
response efforts, training and joint exercises have improved mutual
-
aid operations and enhanced
mass casualty response” (Titan Systems Corporation,
p. A
-
75). The sharing of these experiences can
improve their skills and clarify their roles. The Arlington County After action report also shows that
participation and sharing of experience help deal with emergency. “TRICARE health clinic (DTHC)
participat
ion in an Arlington County the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) tabletop exercise with
Arlington county EMS in May 2001 helped response preparation for the Pentagon attack. Major
Brown and other DTHC staff had recently conducted a detailed disaster plan re
view. The familiarity
with its content helped adapt the DTHC disaster plan to this situation”.

In addition, in this step managers can educate an emergency plans. Emergency plan is important
and beneficial to deal with emergency. Arlington County After acti
on report emphasizes the
emergency plan. “The successful medical response of area hospitals and clinics is based on well
-
prepared disaster plans and trained medical staff to implement them. This high level of preparedness
is achieved through planning, trai
ning, and exercises “(Titan Systems Corporation, p. B
-
17). “The
Arlington County Police Department (ACPD) previously adopted Incident Command System (ICS) as
the appropriate response structure for large
-
scale incidents. Moreover, less than 2 weeks prior to

the
terrorist attack on the Pentagon, all ACPD command officers participated in routine recurring ICS
training” (Titan Systems Corporation, p. C
-
13).

3)

P
ractice s
tep

Collaboration is not fixed activity, but flexible action, because urgent situations have a

variety of
possibilities. In other words, even though we have the many plans, they are not perfect. No one can
guarantee that emergency will happen as planned. Emergency plan cannot cover all situations.
Therefore, effective collaboration needs the third
step.

This
step is the practice of collaboration.
M
anagers can use the appropriate command as well as
delegation to each agency or member to address a variety of urgent situations. Arlington County case
shows the importance of the balance between concentr
ation and decentralization of control and
authority. As an example of concentration, there is the operation of the Emergency Operation Center
(EOC). Ron Carlee, county manager of Arlington County, evaluated that Arlington’s EOC was
successful during the Pe
ntagon incident because of strong communications with field personnel and
periodic briefings given by all members of the EOC and its specialized team (Public manager, p. 7).

C
ollaboration needs the autonomous ability of each agency to deal with numerous s
ituations. In this
step,
necessity of
empowerment

is emphasized.

Improvisation has to

happen to deal with unexpected
events not existing in the formal plan
.
Scardaville(2003) argues that no jurisdiction can have a
completely adequate response plan for a
large
-
scale terrorist incident and that response is most often
characterized by ad hoc efforts, major uncertainties, and conflicting priorities. Thus, a centralized,
command and control system is not possible, because no single incident commander would be
able
to monitor everything and respond effectively.

The capacity to improvise, as well as adapt to changing
circumstances, is also critical (Waugh, 2009; Wachtendorf, 2004).

Regarding autonomy of each
agency or member, there are examples in Arlington Count
y Action Report. “The fire was contained
and controlled relatively quickly. The collapse potential was recognized early and precautions were
taken. Individuals from organizations were able to work together effectively as ad hoc team members.
ACFD personnel

demonstrated uncommon initiative in the absence of guidance from more senior
authorities. All these are indicators of a high level of individual training, discipline, and
professionalism” (Titan Systems Corporation, p. A
-
74).


“On Day 4 of the response o
perations, Chief Flynn and Deputy Chief Holl recognized the need to
establish an unplanned ICS function, which they designated as “Diplomacy.” This activity can best
described as a combination of community relations, protocol, and interagency courtesy. Vis
iting chiefs
of mutual
-
aid departments and other law enforcement organizations were met, briefed on response
operations, and escorted throughout the site. After the incident stabilized, guided bus tours were
organized for county employees supporting the fi
rst responders so they could appreciate the full
magnitude of the incident. When crowds of spectators, some of whom were family members of
missing victims, began to gather on a site overlooking the Pentagon, the ACPD provided security and
ensured their com
fort. Diplomacy became a very important ICS function” (Titan Systems Corporation,
p. C
-
16).

Agencies or members in dealing with emergency play both of roles as followers for a central control
and command and leaders with decentralized autonomy to address c
hanging urgent situations.
Managers should be good at identify when to concentrate on the entire power and when to delegate
decision
-
making power to each agency for the effective collaboration.

V.

Conclusion

The effective collaboration to deal with emergency

does not happen by chance. Formal plan and
structure cannot be enough to accomplish the goals of the effective performance to address urgent
situations. Many articles present the conditions and strategies for the effective collaboration. However,
they are

primarily focusing on the superficial aspects or conditions of collaboration. Conditions or
superficial aspects of collaboration cannot be enough to explain reasons of the effective collaboration.
More fundamental explanation is needed for the effective c
ollaboration. That is why we need to think
about inclusive management.

I examined the effects of the inclusive management on the effective collaboration by analyzing the
emergency
preparedness

system of Arlington County which is evaluated as a successful
example. I
divided the process of collaboration into three steps. By using inclusive management, I analyzed the
roles of manager and the effectiveness of inclusi
ve management in each step. At t
h
e

relational
step,
participants build trust with each other th
rough many ways. Public managers should help them build
trust. Managers can primarily use relational work.

The
informational

step is
educational

and
intellectual process
. Many articles present and suggest
this process. In this step, agencies or members learn their specific roles under the entire and general
picture. They identify the plans and structure of emergency. Public managers need to educate the
plans and dissemina
te information to each agency and member.

The

practice

step is related to the process of practice of collaboration. There exist a variety of
situations in emergency. Sometimes, agencies or members should follow a concentrated command
form the center. Howe
ver, sometimes, they should deal with urgent situations with autonomy for the
effective collaboration. Managers should keep the balance between concentration and empowerment.
In other words, they should be able to order properly to each agency as well as d
elegate authority to
address urgent situations to agencies.

Arlington case shows the importance and applicability of inclusive management to emergency
preparedness for effective collaboration. Emergency preparedness is related to emergency response.
Succe
ssful responses to emergency cannot be achieved without proper preparedness. Inclusive
management can help improve emergency preparedness, which results in effective emergency
response. In other words, relational, informational, and practice step in emerge
ncy preparedness can
foster collaborative abilities among agencies in the emergency response.

Reference

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire.(2003a). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies
for Local Governments. Georgetown University Press.

___
_
____________________________
.(2003b). Inside the Matrix: Integrating the Paradigms of
Intergovernmental and Network Management.
International Journal of Public Administration
.
26(12): 1401
-
1422.

Bardach, Eugene (1998)
Getting agencies to work together,
Br
ookings institution press

Benest, Frank and Grijalva, Ruben (2002) Enhancing the manager/fire chief relationship,
Public
management, January/February

Brown, T. M., & Miller, C.E. (2000) Communication networks in task
-
performing groups: Effects of
task comp
lexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance.
Small Group Research, 31(2)

Buck, Dick A., Joseph E. Trainor, and Benigno E. Aguirre.(2006). A Critical Evaluation of the Incident
Command System and NIMS.
Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management.

3(3):
article 1.

Buuren, A.V. (2009) Knowledge for Governance, Governance of Knowledge: Inclusive Knowledge
Management in Collaborative Governance Processes.
International Public Management Journal.

12(2): 208
-
235.

Carlee, Ron.(2001). The Loca
l Response to a National Tragedy.
The Public Manager, December

Cohen, S., Eimicke, W., & Horan, J. (2002) Catastrophe and the public service: A case study of the
government response to the destruction of the World Trade Center,
Public Administration Review
,
62 (Special issue)

Dalmar Fisher (1993)
Communication in Organization

Drabek, Thomas (1987)
The professional emergency manager
. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,
Institute for behavioral science.

Drabek, Thomas E. and David A. McEntire. (2002) Emerge
nt Phenomena and Multiorganizational
Coordination in Disasters: Lessons from the Research Literature.
International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters
, 20(2): 197
-
224.

Feldman, Martha S and Khademian, Anne M. (2007) The role of the public manager in

inclusion:
creating communities of participation.
Governance. 20( 2): 305
-
324
.

Feldman, M
.
S
.,

Khademian, A
.
M.
, Ingram, H, and Schneider, A.S. (2006). Ways of Knowing and
Inclusive Management Practices,
Public Administration Review.

66. Special issue: 89
-
9
9.

Feldman, M
.S., Khademian, A.M., and Quick, K.S. (2009
)
. Ways of Knowing, Inclusive Management,
and Promoting Democratic Engagement: Introduction to the Special Issue. International Public
Management Journal. 12(2): 123
-
136.

Getha
-
Taylor, Heather (2007)
Collaborative governance: Lessons from Katrina.
The Public Manager,
Fall

Gillespie, David F. and Calvin L. Streeter.(1987). Conceptualizing and Measuring Disaster
Preparedness.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters
. 5: 155
-
176.

Hicklin, A
., Laurence J. O’Toole Jr., Kenneth J. Meier, and Scott E. Robinson.(2009). Calming the
Storms: Collaborative Public Management, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Disaster Response,
In The Collaborative Public Manager. Washington D.C. Georgetown University
Press.

Hughey and Tobin (2006) Hazard response capabilities of a small community.
Southeastern
geographer, 46(1)

Kapucu, Naim (2006) Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners
in multiagency coordination,
American Review of Pu
blic Administration, Vo. 36(2)

Kapucu, Naim & Wart, Montgomery. (2006) The evolving role of the public sector in managing
catastrophic disaster,
Administration and Society

Vol. 38 (3)

Kendra, James M., and Tricia Wachtendorf. (2003) Elements of Resilience after the World Trade
Center Disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Center.
Disaster.
27(1):
37
-
53.

Kim, D.S. (2010) Organizational Culture and Interagency Colla
boration.
Korean Public Management
Review.

24(4): 73
-
100.

Lester, William (2007) Transformational leadership and NIMS.
The public manager, fall

McEntire, David A. (2002). Coordinating Multi
-
Organizational Responses to Disaster: Lessons from
the March 28, 2000, Fort Worth Tornado.
Disaster Prevention and Management
. 11(5): 369
-
379.

McGuire, Michael. (2009). The New Professionalism and Collaborative

Activity in Local Emergency
Management. In The Collaborative Public Manager. Washington D.C. Georgetown University
Press.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O’Toole Jr.(2003). Public Management and Educational
Performance: The Impact of Managerial Network
ing.
Public Administration Review
. 63(6): 689
-
699.

________________________________________.(2005). Managerial Networking: Issues of
Measurement and Research Desing.
Administration and Society.

37(5): 523
-
541.

Menzel, Donald C. (2006) The Katrina aftermath
: A failure of federalism or leadership?,
Public
Administration Review, Nov/Dec


Milward, H. Brinton and Keith G. Provan.(2006). A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using
Collaborative Networks. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Moynihan, Donald P.

(2005). Leveraging Collaborative Networks in Infrequent Emergency Situations.
Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward.(1991). Institutional Level Norms and Organizational
Involvement in a Service

Implementation Network.
Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory
, 1(4): 391
-
417.

Quick, K.s. and M.S. Feldman (2009) Distinguishing Inclusion and Participation: Building Inclusive
Communities of Engagement. Presentation for the annual conferen
ce of the Urban Affairs
Association, Chicago, March 4
-
7, 2009.

Rice, R.E. (1990) From adversary to diversity: Applications of communication technologies to crisis
management.
Advances in Telecommunications Management 3

Robinson, Scott E. and Gerber, Bria
n J. (2001) A seat at the table for non
-
disaster organizations.
The
Public manager, fall
.

Rogers, D. J. (1995) The St. Francis Dam Disaster revisited. Review of the book
A man, a dam and a
disaster: Mulholland and the St. Francis Dam.


Scardaville, Michael
.(2003). Principles the Department of Homeland Security Must Follow for an
Effective Transition. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, February 28: 1
-
8.

Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (2007) Ways of Knowing: Implications for Public Policy.
Paper
presented at th
e annual meeting of the American Political Science Association
, Chicago, August
29
-
September 2,2007

Titan Systems Corporation (2002)
Arlington county: After
-
action report on the response to the
September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon

Wachtendorf, Tri
cia.(2004). Improvising 9/11: Organizational Improvisation Following the World Trade
Center Disaster. Ph.D dissertation. University of Delaware.

Waugh, William L. Jr.(1993). Coordination or Control: Organizational Design and the Emergency
Management Functi
on.
International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management.

2(December): 17
-
31.

____________________.(2009). Mechanisms for Collaboration in Emergency Management: ICS,
NIMS, and the Problem with Command and Control. In The Collaborative Public Manager
.
Washington D.C. Georgetown University Press.

Waugh, William L. Jr. & Streib, Gregory (2006)
Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency
management
,
Public Administration Review, December (Special issue)

Wessels, A.T. (2007). The Creative Work of

Collaborative Governance: Actor
-
Networks and
Watershed Park Planning.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political
Science Association
, August 30
-
September 2,2007.