Organizational Preparedness Requires Individual Preparedness
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Thomas E. Poulin
April 25, 2020
Regardless of the circumstances, communities expect public sector agencies to continue service delivery, even if only on a limited basis. This is not an unreasonable expectation, but it will not just happen. It will require both organizational preparedness and individual preparedness, but the latter is often neglected in the mix.
Organizational Preparedness
Most public sector organizations have experience with modified service delivery in unexpected circumstances, whether from a natural event such as a blizzard or heavy storms, or from a technical event such as a major transportation incident or a widespread power outage. This has provided these organizations with valuable experience in scaling and reprioritizing service delivery based on circumstances.
These experiences have contributed to the development and evolution of both formal and informal policies and practices familiar to many in the organization, especially those who served during a prior event. We have seen this in the past when crises have arisen, and we see it now in the pandemic. The transition in services might not be as effective and efficient as they could be, especially in a large-scale, entirely new form of crisis, but most public sector agencies are familiar with the concept of continuity of operations, and, as Richard Lindblom suggested decades ago, they will find a means to, “Muddle through.”
Organizational preparedness plans often focus on policies and practices associated with staffing, prioritization of services, allocation of resources, technological adaptation and other factors tied narrowly to agency operations. There almost tends to be a presumption the workforce will be ready and willing to continue to serve, if asked, but such a presumption might be flawed. Public sector leaders must ensure individuals in the workforce are prepared on an individual level if they are to be ready to continue operating the system.
Individual Preparedness
In the past, during crises such as the San Francisco Earthquake, the September 11th attacks, and Hurricane Katrina, we have seen most public sector employees serve with dedicated skill. When asked, many said they were more than willing to continue to serve, as long as they were certain their families were safe. This does not mean their families were untouched. The family’s home could be destroyed, with the family in a temporary shelter, but just knowing their family was safe was sufficient to support their continued service. During this pandemic, we see the same, with many health care professionals and first responders continuing to serve, yet isolating themselves from their families when off-duty. Knowing their family is safe makes them willing and able to focus on continued service delivery.
While these were extreme events, the basic tenets of individual and household preparedness remain largely the same, regardless of event. There are varied resources on preparing employees from sources such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Red Cross, and local emergency management offices are normally ready to provide guidance in this area. Some specific points to consider for each individual might be:
- Housing: The home should be assessed for risks associated with wind, rain, snow or other hazards, with efforts taken to mitigate these risks.
- Evacuation Plans: Employees and their families must have evacuation plans, should the need arise. This should also include a pre-packaged evacuation kit.
- Special Situations: While there will always be general considerations for preparing for a disaster, employees must also consider special preparedness concerns for household members with special medical needs, or for the care of household pets.
- Economic: Employees and their families must prepare to meet the increased expenses often associated with surviving a disaster, including sufficient insurance prior to an event.
This is a simple, brief overview, clearly. The point of this article is not to prepare employees, but to argue public sector leaders must do what they can to encourage or support the individual preparedness of employees and their families. If this is done effectively, public sector employees will be more willing and able to continue their work in a crisis, meeting the needs of the community. Without the staff to operate the system, organizational preparedness plans, regardless of how well-developed, are likely to fail. Consequently, those who might believe preparing employees and their families for a crisis is no concern for public sector leadership might be setting themselves, their agencies and their communities up for failure.
Conclusions
Public sector leaders are expected to be problem solvers, meeting the needs and expectations of the community to the best of their ability, regardless of circumstances. This applies just as much during a crisis as it does during times of stability. To optimize their ability to do so, public sector leaders must prepare their organizations, and this requires they also take active, direct efforts to support the individual preparedness of each employee. We often hear comments suggesting employees are our most important resource. If this is true, we must not take the availability or utility of these resources for granted—now or ever.
Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, MS(HRM), MS(I/O Psych.), EFO, is a member of Capella University’s public administration core faculty. Prior to this, he served in local government for over thirty years, primarily in emergency management-related roles. He is the President of the Hampton Roads Chapter of ASPA, and may be reached at [email protected].
(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Organizational Preparedness Requires Individual Preparedness
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Thomas E. Poulin
April 25, 2020
Regardless of the circumstances, communities expect public sector agencies to continue service delivery, even if only on a limited basis. This is not an unreasonable expectation, but it will not just happen. It will require both organizational preparedness and individual preparedness, but the latter is often neglected in the mix.
Organizational Preparedness
Most public sector organizations have experience with modified service delivery in unexpected circumstances, whether from a natural event such as a blizzard or heavy storms, or from a technical event such as a major transportation incident or a widespread power outage. This has provided these organizations with valuable experience in scaling and reprioritizing service delivery based on circumstances.
These experiences have contributed to the development and evolution of both formal and informal policies and practices familiar to many in the organization, especially those who served during a prior event. We have seen this in the past when crises have arisen, and we see it now in the pandemic. The transition in services might not be as effective and efficient as they could be, especially in a large-scale, entirely new form of crisis, but most public sector agencies are familiar with the concept of continuity of operations, and, as Richard Lindblom suggested decades ago, they will find a means to, “Muddle through.”
Organizational preparedness plans often focus on policies and practices associated with staffing, prioritization of services, allocation of resources, technological adaptation and other factors tied narrowly to agency operations. There almost tends to be a presumption the workforce will be ready and willing to continue to serve, if asked, but such a presumption might be flawed. Public sector leaders must ensure individuals in the workforce are prepared on an individual level if they are to be ready to continue operating the system.
Individual Preparedness
In the past, during crises such as the San Francisco Earthquake, the September 11th attacks, and Hurricane Katrina, we have seen most public sector employees serve with dedicated skill. When asked, many said they were more than willing to continue to serve, as long as they were certain their families were safe. This does not mean their families were untouched. The family’s home could be destroyed, with the family in a temporary shelter, but just knowing their family was safe was sufficient to support their continued service. During this pandemic, we see the same, with many health care professionals and first responders continuing to serve, yet isolating themselves from their families when off-duty. Knowing their family is safe makes them willing and able to focus on continued service delivery.
While these were extreme events, the basic tenets of individual and household preparedness remain largely the same, regardless of event. There are varied resources on preparing employees from sources such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Red Cross, and local emergency management offices are normally ready to provide guidance in this area. Some specific points to consider for each individual might be:
This is a simple, brief overview, clearly. The point of this article is not to prepare employees, but to argue public sector leaders must do what they can to encourage or support the individual preparedness of employees and their families. If this is done effectively, public sector employees will be more willing and able to continue their work in a crisis, meeting the needs of the community. Without the staff to operate the system, organizational preparedness plans, regardless of how well-developed, are likely to fail. Consequently, those who might believe preparing employees and their families for a crisis is no concern for public sector leadership might be setting themselves, their agencies and their communities up for failure.
Conclusions
Public sector leaders are expected to be problem solvers, meeting the needs and expectations of the community to the best of their ability, regardless of circumstances. This applies just as much during a crisis as it does during times of stability. To optimize their ability to do so, public sector leaders must prepare their organizations, and this requires they also take active, direct efforts to support the individual preparedness of each employee. We often hear comments suggesting employees are our most important resource. If this is true, we must not take the availability or utility of these resources for granted—now or ever.
Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, MS(HRM), MS(I/O Psych.), EFO, is a member of Capella University’s public administration core faculty. Prior to this, he served in local government for over thirty years, primarily in emergency management-related roles. He is the President of the Hampton Roads Chapter of ASPA, and may be reached at [email protected].
Follow Us!