The Insanity of Emergency Management - Part 3 of 3: Action Not Taken

Emergency management, by its very nature, demands a high level of preparedness, adaptability, and continuous improvement. Yet, despite the clear necessity for these qualities, the field often falls into a dangerous trap—unchecked repetition. While seemingly benign, this phenomenon can have severe consequences when managing disasters and emergencies. The dangers of repetition in emergency management cannot be understated, as they foster an environment where past mistakes are repeated, risks are ignored, and opportunities for improvement are lost.

Unchecked Repetition: Ignoring Danger

In the world of emergency management, unchecked repetition refers to the practice of continuously repeating actions, strategies, and responses without critically assessing their effectiveness. As Mileti (1999) noted, disasters often prompt organizations to follow established routines, sometimes to the detriment of innovation and effectiveness. When emergency management teams become overly reliant on traditional methods without considering the evolving nature of risks, they inadvertently ignore the dangers they are meant to mitigate. This blind adherence to routine can lead to complacency, where the warning signs of a pending disaster are missed, or crucial adjustments are not made in time.

Unchallenged Repetition: Allowing Inaction and Negligence

Unchallenged repetition occurs when established practices and protocols in emergency management go unexamined and unchallenged over time. As Comfort (2007) discussed, this phenomenon can be closely related to groupthink, where the pressure to conform within a group leads to the suppression of dissenting opinions and innovative ideas. When emergency managers fail to question the status quo, they allow inaction to become the norm, leading to continued ignorance and negligence. This lack of critical evaluation means that ineffective or outdated practices persist, potentially exacerbating the impact of disasters.

Unrecognized Repetition: Failing to See the Pattern of Risk

A crucial aspect of effective emergency management is recognizing risk patterns and addressing them proactively. However, unrecognized repetition can obscure these patterns, leading to a failure to anticipate and prepare for potential disasters. Godschalk (2003) highlights in his discussion on urban hazard mitigation that identifying and responding to emerging risks is essential for creating resilient communities. When risk patterns go unrecognized due to the repetitive nature of emergency management practices, communities are left vulnerable to disasters that could have been mitigated or avoided altogether.

Unchanged Repetition: No Improvement, Lessons Learned Never Applied

Perhaps the most detrimental form of repetition in emergency management is unchanged repetition—the failure to apply lessons learned from past experiences to improve future responses. Drabek and McEntire (2002) emphasize the importance of learning from past disasters to enhance preparedness and response strategies. However, when organizations fall into the trap of unchanged repetition, they miss the opportunity to evolve and adapt their practices. This stagnation hinders progress and increases the likelihood that the same mistakes will be made in subsequent disasters, perpetuating a cycle of inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the dangers of repetition in emergency management are profound and multifaceted. Unchecked, unchallenged, unrecognized, and unchanged repetition can lead to significant risks being ignored, missed opportunities for improvement, and ultimately, lives being lost. To break free from this cycle, emergency managers must embrace a culture of continuous learning, critical evaluation, and adaptability. As Quarantelli (1997) suggests, effective disaster management requires a willingness to question established practices and to make necessary changes in response to evolving threats. By doing so, emergency management can move beyond the insanity of repetition and towards a more resilient and responsive approach to safeguarding our communities.

Want to work with Daniel Scott & Associates LLC?

Check out our website:

https://theoryn2practice.com/

Reach Out via Email: info@theoryn2practice.com 

Daniel Scott, M.A., CEM

References

1. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.

2. Alexander, D. (2002). Principles of emergency planning and management. Terra Publishing.

3. Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Georgetown University Press.

4. Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(S1), 189-197.

5. Cova, T. J. (1999). GIS in emergency management. In P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems (pp. 845-858). Wiley.

6. Cutter, S. L. (2006). Hazards, vulnerability, and environmental justice. Routledge.

7. Drabek, T. E., & McEntire, D. A. (2002). Emergent phenomena and the sociology of disaster: Lessons, trends, and opportunities from the research literature. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 11(3), 79-94.

8. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136-143.

9. Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207-225.

10. Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press.

11. Neal, D. M., & Phillips, B. D. (1995). Effective emergency management: Reconsidering the bureaucratic approach. Disasters, 19(4), 327-337.

12. Noy, I. (2009). The macroeconomic consequences of disasters. Journal of Development Economics, 88(2), 221-231.

13. Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (2003). Preparedness for emergency response: Guidelines for the emergency planning process. Disasters, 27(4), 336-350.

14. Quarantelli, E. L. (1997). Ten criteria for evaluating the management of community disasters. Disasters, 21(1), 39-56.

15. Smith, G., & Wenger, D. (2006). Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. In H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 234-257). Springer.

16. Wachtendorf, T. (2004). Improvising 9/11: Organizational improvisation following the World Trade Center disaster. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(11), 5585.