Detection and Communication of warning 1 Immediate relatively unorqanised response

Type VII

Barton's Processual Phases of Disaster

I. Predesaster period

11. Detection and Communication of warning 111. Immediate relatively unorqanised response IV. Organised social response:

IVa. Organised response to the immediate threat IVb. Organised short-run, post-impact response V. Long run post-disaster equilibrium

Type I1

Type V

Type VIII

Type I11

...

Type VI

Type IX

6 3

o r y i n i s a t i o n (;I each o f the phases. llitll t h c u i n e p o s s i b l e types o f response, Earr!,~ firurd, 2s can 5e seen f r o n Fi?ur= 5, t h a t even i n s t z b l e periods, h i s o r ~ a n i s n t i o n c o u l d be discerned t o be behaving i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t ways. bile i n t h e b ~ o halves o f t h e m d i f i e d f o u r t h phase, f i v e d i f f e r e n t modes o f rcsponse wcre i d e n t i f i e d .

Bardo stresses the processuai n a t u r e o f the everlts w i t h which h~ was dealing, prcposes n o d i f i c c t i o n s t o t h e models used, and urqes c a u t i o n I n es tab1 i s l i i n g t h e e n p i r i c a l sequence of events i n I n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . tihat

I

would d e r i v e f r o m h i s i n s t r u c t i v e study, horrever, i s t h e conclusion t h a t e x i s t i n g t h e o r e t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s area o f i n q u i r y at- l i k e l y t o have t o be e l a b o r a t e d ad hoc when they a m matched up a g a i n s t t h e r e a l world, t h a t i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t o r g a n i s a t i o n a l responses t o hazard can u s e f u l l y be considcrcd as a movement from one h d e of behaviour to another, b u t must be vier!ed as a m u l t i p l e a r r a y o f p a r a l l e l responses w i t h a t l e a s t t h r e e and sonetines f o u r o r f i v e o r more d i f f e r e n t types o f responses t o hazard t s k i n g p l a c e simultaneously i n ' a s i n g l e , modest o ~ a n i s a t i o n , and t h a t , s i n c e o r g a n i s a t i o n s a r e n o t u n l t a r f , they do n o t i n any cases o f s i g n i f i c a n c e deal w i t h hazards s i n g l y , b u t i n m u l t i p l e vlays. (See a l s o 3'lanshzn. 1978).

I f I nay m v e here

to

a r a r e gcncl-a1 l e v e l , I ~ o u l r l a l s o l i k e

to

d r x i f r c r ! Bardo's experience a mm 9cn1:ral ccn?cnt v h i c h a p p l i e s t o a11 o f t h e accounts t h a t

i

havc considercd so f a r . I riroul d li kc t o suggcst t h a t

the

w o r l d i s nuch mre m s s y and nuch l e s s systematic than

these

moc'cls r ~ o u l ( ! in p l y . l l h a t I wovld

now

1 ik e t o do, therefore, f s t o s ~ l p y c s t t h a t ~ P C S F ! CIS need t o be s e t i n a t ? r m d e r c c n t c x t which l.ir?i t s ~ t l d qua1 ff:es i f l e i r u s e f u i n e ; ~ , ^and k!hich a1 so dl-at.1~

z t t c n t i o n t.o t l ~ c t:r-cd t o

considrr

o t h o .

l

e v c l s than t i l e p u r r i y

Figure 5. Combination of Types or Dureaucratic response in Different Phases of Disaster (Bardo, 1978)

Predisaster

Detection and communication of warning

Immediate relatively unorganised response

Organised response to immediate threat

Short run post impact response

Long run post- disaster equi- librium

6 5

or.~ilnis,i t i o n a l on2. I vrould 7 i ke tcr arracge IT!^ ca:i~ents un;!er three i n s: r'irsi;, discussion r:?rr!~des o f response k h i c n do riot s t a r t frm

the

assunptions o f r a t i o n a l i t y ; sxond, discussion OF the i n t e r o r g a n l s a t i o n a l and p o l i tf - 1 context o f decision m d e l s ; and t h i r d , dfscussion or' the c u l t u r a l context o f rvsponses t o hazard.

1. Analyses b : ! ~ i t k do n o t assme r a t i o n a l i t y

Under t h i s f i r s t headlng, I mainly wlsh t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o the l l m l t s o f a r a t i o n a l model o f organlsatienal behaviour, and t o note o t h e r modcs o f response. Some o ~ a n l s a t l o n a l w r i t e r s , r a t h e r than merely stressing, as I have done so far, t h a t t h e m I s a difference between i d e a l notions o f p e r f e c t l y r a t i o n a l a c t i o n and the a c t u a l behavlour o f i n d i v i d u a l s and organisations

,

havc pointed o u t t h a t more adequate explanations are often provided by r e ~ a r d i n g events and actlons as excuses f o r prospective and r e t r o s p e c t i v e r a t f onal i s a t l o n s of

behaviour which serve t o cloak non-rational sequences o f events w l t h an appearence o f r a t i o n a l i t y . Such u r l te1-s as Dalton (19591 and k e i c k (1969) wcognised i n t h e i r studies t h a t many decisions k11 t h i n organlsations a r e

matters

o f faction, o f expedlency o r o f career advancement.

March and Oisen and t h e l r s t d e n t s (:.:i!rch and Olsen, 1976) pr?sent a p f c t u r c o f the oroanisatlonal world as one I n which such decision-making as takes place I s e s s e n t i a l l y an a h i g u o u s a c t i v i t y , indulged i n f o r anblguous nlotives. Here n o t o n l y do choices get t l e d up w i t h personal preferences and 01-ganisational modcs o f r h e t o r i c , but the time and ener?y which fndividua7s have t o a l l o c a t e among competlng issues and concerns assum major importance i n expla'ining irehavfour.

I n t h i s v1w1 o f orpan.isations, decisions are as o f t a n taken because of thc prcscncc cf a 'solu;io~l :oa!::nc Tor- 6 pr-oblem' as because

tile

out- c o ~ e i s a r a t i o n a l rezponscr to the qccstian ~t i;sue. The 'garbaqc can'

66

t:icnl-:/ o l dccf s:ol~-n.kin? t h a t :larch and Olsen p u t f o r . n r d s u g g ~ s t s t h a t corn1 t 3 c d,?cis:ons rispel-' n o t n e c c i s a r i l y q o n r a t i o n a l pmcesses o f d e l i b e r a t i o n , b u t upon the i n t e r a c t i o n s betv!ei?n t ! ~ c energy l e v e l s o f the p a r t i e s t o thr? decision and t h e assorted contents o f t h e

I garbage czn' t 5 a t c o n s t l t ~ r t c s th e agenda, vhen I t I s emptied o u t before t h e corn1 t t e e .

I t may be desirable t h a t .organisatiot?s respond t o hazards i n a reasonable and r a t i o n a l manner*, b u t i t I s a c o m n p l a c e t h a t i n p r a c t i c e they r a r e l y behave i n such a manner, and any adequate t h e o r i e s d e a l i n g

w i t h

t h e socio-technical aspects o f hazard have t o r e c o n c i l e these two opposing tendencles. kle my perhaps see these tendencies p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o what

am

o f t e n presented as t h e m t l o n a l approaches p a r excellence t o hazards, those o f cost- benefl t a n a l y s l s and r i s k assessment. B u t a r e c e n t a u t h o r i t a t 1 ve p v l e w of cost-benefi t a n a l y s l s Ir! r e l a t i o n t o hazards (Baram, 1930) noted t h a t experts reconmnndlng t h l s node o f analysfs t y p l c a l f y o u t l i n e i t s shortconings and l i n i ta t i o n s , p r e s e n t a t e n t a t f v e a n a l y s i s of a p a r t i c u l a r case, b u t conclude by u r g i n g t h a t , i n s p l t e o f i t s f a u l t s , t h e i r a n a l y s i s he used as a b a s i s f o r decisions. I \ f i s h tr, discuss s ~ m aspects o f r i s k and r i s k a s s e s s ~ e n t l a t e r i n another context: a l l t h a t we nced note here are t h a t such techniques a r e n o t immune frori t h e '5artag9 can t h e o r y ' , and t h a t they nay v e l l p r o v i d e us wit!? examples o f ' ~ 0 1 1 1 t i o i l s l o o k i n ? f o r problens', as U a n n has slrggested t h a t they arc i n the A n e r i c ~ n hazard l e g i s l a t i o n context. (Baram, 1980).

Another way o f g a i n i n q a d l f f c r e n t perspectivc upon o r g a n i s a t i o n a l responses t o hazard from t h a t provlded by t h e ' n o d l f l c d r a t i o n a l

'

a p p m a c i ~ i s by l o o k i l:g a t the evirierlcc fmra occupat.iona1 s t l i d i e s about ho!f tho occupationai f r o n t - 1 ilic troops o f h a z a r d , t h o s ~ ~ m p l o y c d i n G~ngero:rs occupatf

ons rcsl~ofic!

t o the1 r work. s'; tuations. Studies o f

6 7

c4c?c[?-~ea f i s l ~ ~ n r c r ~

(l'o5gic

e t

1 ,

7?7F j

,

~..il,cl-s (Fi.tzpatric!c, 15tO;

Yausht and S~:i.ttl. 1?EO), I l i c h :tee1 e r e c t o r s (I:aas, 1977) and s i m i l a r occupations (Aran, 1974. C c r r i ~ z n e t a l . 1933) o i v e us a p i c t u r e of groups hose t y p i c a l response t o hazard i s t o develop a s o l i d a r y cohesiveness, a l b e i @ a cohesiveness \rrhicll i s s o m e t i m s r a t h e r b r u t a l l y achieved (Vaught and Sni th, 19EO).

Ucth t h c isolation and the danqer wi1ic5 c h a r a c e r i s e such

occcpations pror.xtc cohesion end s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , a s h a r i n g o f danger and a s u s p i c i o n o f c u t s i d e r s \rho do n o t sharc i t . And a l l o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c c r t r i bute tc\qarls t h e devclcpr-cnt o f an occupational s u b c u l t u r e of danger (Fitzpatricl:, 1?20) \:hich i s s i r i l a r i n sol= ways t o t h e d i s a s t e r s u b c u l t u i ~ developed ancncst those whose hornes a r e frequently exposed t o n a t u r a l hazards (!iannir;an and t!ucrcr;;an, 1978).

The sul?cul tu r n provides shared ~ ? c r s g e c t i v e s which cnhancc t h e group's c o n t r o l o v e r t h c i r work s i t c a t i o n , v ~ h i c h ~ a x i m i s e autonomy and minimise dcp~ndance upon

outsiders.

Fear i s often, tllough l l o t always, denied w i t h i n the qroup as a way o f r a k i n g t h e i n t e r n a l environment more p r e d i c t a b l e . end qroup noms arc v c r y i ~ p o r t a n t b c t h i n c o n t r o l l i n g and t e s t i n g nevi sicr::bcrs and i n encouraging tlic;;; t o behave p r e d i c t a b l y i n t h e face of danqcr. (tlaas. 1977; blayer and Fosenblatt, 1975). Safety my bc taken s e r i o u s l y a t cfie l e v e l by r e g a r d i n g

fi

p o s s i b l e hazards as e x t m m l y dancernus (though t h i s may n o t i n c l u d e a l l c o n d i t i o n s seen es hazardous by o u t s i d e r s ) . b u t these occupational qmups d i f f e r e n t i n t e i n p r a c t l c e betwcen d i f f e r c n t kinds o f hazard. Miners, f o r exaniple, g i v e p a s t i n z t r c c t i o n t o nehccmers about: e\!eryday daricers such as f a l l s and s l l p s , l e s s about dansers o f an inten:iediate k i r ~ d sucll as ~ n i s f i r e d explosions, and i n the face of the p o s s i b i l i t y o f major liazards such as

f i r e s 2r.d

l ~ r ~ e

c d x - i n s they a r c vcrc' st-oic

an!!

f ~ t a l i s t i c .

68

:;here t h ? r c i s a sore l f v e l y ~ c r c c i v ~ d u n c e r t a i n t y i n exposure t a 2anc?r, : o x r c l i s n c e i s p l x c z d u;on l x k

znr!

p r o v i t a n c c , and, as t h e a n t h r t a o l

cgf

s t :Fa1 i n w s k l sucqested dccad2s aco (:Cl ino:;.ski, 1948), the tcndancy t o cncac? i n r i t u a l s and t o n a i n t a i n tabcos i s g r e a t e r t h e FOE the l n r l i v i c u a l s and groups concerned a r e exposed t c a c t c a l danger. (Poggic

- -

e t a l , 1976. See a l s o Turner, 1967; Vaupht and S l d t h , 1980).

There are, o f course, r a t i o n a l aspects t o t h e k i n d s o f Group responses t o danger t h a t I have j u s t been d e s c r i b i n g , and, indeed, i t has been demonstrated t h a t t h e group c u l t u m and n o m can be

s u c c e s s f u l l y modified b y t h e feedback o f i n f o r r a t i o n t o omup r ~ m b a r s about t h e d a n g e n o f p a r t i c u l a r courses o f a c t i o n (Andriessen, 1975;

Zohar

--

e t a l , 19@0; Zohar, 19C0; B l i g n a u t , 1379) b u t these responses o v e r a l l cannot m a d i l y be seen as i n s t s n c e s o f d e c i s i o n - l ~ a k i n g i n c o n d i t i o n s o f u n c e r t a i n t y , and can be niorc s u c c e s s f u l l y understood as t h e development o f what t h e s o c i o l o q i s t Durkheim c a l l e d ' r e c h a n i c a l s o l i d a r i t y ' , a Srcup response which t i c s t h e grcup t o g e t h e r by b o t h r e a l and s y ~ b o l i c t h r e a t s - i n o r d e r t o shar? and e q u a l i s e t h e experience o f d i r e c t exposure t o danger. (Curl:heim, 1?64; See a l s o Goldbart and Cooper, 1975).

We m y ask t h e q u e s t i o n o f how f a r o r ~ a n i s a t i o n s o f g r e a t e r c o m p l e x i t y than occupational work groups respond t o hazard, and whether responses o f t h e k i n d dlscusscd here can he discerned i n t h e l a r g e r o r g a n i s a t i o n s . Ouchi (1930) I n a r e c e n t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e I i m l t s o f b u r c s u c r ~ t f c r a t i o n a l i t y , has suggested t h a t an o r g a n i s a t i c n a l type which i!e l a b e l s t i l e ' c l a n ' , end r!hich i n c l u d e s elenents o f

r,cchanical so? i h r i t y , i - ~ y I)c rorc anpropt-iate f o r c o n f r o n t i n g

c z r t a i n t:mes o f u n i e r t z i n t y than c.i t h c r the n!;rl:et Oi- t l i c Surc?aucrati c c o n f i g u r s t i o n s (!J.illiacson, 1375).

I:: ra:,

be u:cful i n

the

f u t u r e t o

69

exploi.,?

t l l , ?

i.cl ationsnip

o f

Ouchf ' s rodcl to rc.sconsc?s t o hazard.

2.

I n t e r o r ~ z n i s a t i o n a l and poli t l c a l context of dcclsion-models

Im Dokument RISK: A Seminar Series (Seite 70-77)