John Plodinec

The Art of War on Leadership

June 22nd, 2010 - John Plodinec  

“Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and sternness.” – Sun Tzu

As I discussed in a previous posting, The Art of War – the two millenium old classic Chinese treatise on war – has great relevance to community resilience.  In this post, I’d like to discuss how SunTzu’s observations about leadership can be applied to communities.

According to Sun Tzu, a successful leader must have the five traits listed above.  In the context of a community and its resilience, these traits might be better described as follows.

Intelligence.  Intelligence in leadership means that the leader knows how to clearly identify an objective, communicate it, and then plan to achieve it.  This implies that an intelligent community leader recognizes when the community must adapt to changing circumstances.  The intelligent leader is able to articulate that need and initiate the planning effort needed to affect change. 

Trustworthiness.  A trustworthy leader is recognized by the community as a person of integrity.  Thus, the community believes that a trustworthy leader will carry out promised actions, and will provide support to the rest of the community to implement action plans.  Such a leader is thus able to communicate more effectively to the larger community, because even unpopular messages are more likely to be heard. 

Humaneness.   An effective leader cares about the community, and that caring is manifested in actions.  The community feels that a humane leader “feels their pain,” and therefore are more likely to follow where the leader is going.  This recognized innate humanity of the leader is especially important when trying to reconcile different factions within the community.

Courage.  A leader must have the courage to persevere even when obstacles are encountered.  In essence, the courage needed by an effective leader is born of a certain innate confidence in one’s own integrity – the leader believes the community is on the right course.

Sternness.  By “sternness,” Sun Tzu means a sort of rigorous fairness.  Rewards and punishments are strictly based on actions, and not the person acting.  Ultimately, this sternness is the result of a sort of self-discipline in which the leader may have favorites but does not favor them.

The transformation of Charlotte, NC, from a textiles to a financial center illustrates the importance of several of these leadership traits.  Up until the 1970’s, Charlotte had been one of the leading centers for the textile industry in the country.  The heads of two of the largest banks in North Carolina and the head of Duke Power recognized that the demise of that industry threatened Charlotte’s vitality.  All three were a part of the community, and passionately cared about Charlotte’s future.  Acting largely independently of city and county governments, these three formed an organization aimed at helping Charlotte to adapt to these changing conditions.  As plans were developed, these three spearheaded the transformational effort.  They helped rebuild some of the poorest sections of the city (encountering opposition because many of these were predominately black), making what had been almost slums into desirable neighborhoods.  In spite of criticism and carping, these three eventually transformed Charlotte into what has become the second largest financial center in the country.

Arthur (Andy) Felts

Of Boiling Frogs, Disasters and Chronic Disasters

June 16th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made a large point of the boiling frog theory. You put a frog in a pot of boiling water and it will jump out. But if you put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and slowly raise the heat, the frog won’t notice the rising temperature. Before long, it will die.

Gore (and others) have used this story to illustrate climate change. Metaphorical, or better, mythically (since it does not appear to be true), I suppose it works.  Climate change is analogous to slowly heated water, and we won’t notice until it is too late. Problem is, we already have noticed.

The illustration is, of course, fraught with inconsistencies. First, we have facts relating to boiling water and frogs. Researchers are pretty uniform in saying if you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out if it can or die from the immediate scalding. We can accurately call that an “acute disaster.” So far we agree with Al.

Contrary to popular assumptions, when placed in a pot of water that is slowly heated, the frog will most likely get uncomfortable and jump out. That is best labeled as “chronic disaster”—one that unfolds in slow motion, so to speak. Though in the end, the summative impacts of a chronic disaster may equal those of a major disaster, they just don’t all happen at once.

Climate change (if you believe in it—and I do, by the way) can best be described as a chronic disaster.

I live on a lot that has a salt marsh in the rear—eight feet out my back door. My lot is eight feet above sea level. Over some period of time, I could, I suppose own beachfront property if some sea-level rise predictions are correct and if I am alive. Alternatively, I could have deep-water access and a lot that is (by today’s standards at least) worth considerably more than it is now. I write this because I’ll have ample time to adapt and make any of myriad decisions to deal with rising water.  

In thinking about the slow devolutions of chronic disasters, they occur in a way that is much akin to allowing me to make the decision to put up hurricane shutters in the midst of one.

Certainly the CARRI model of disaster and recovery can apply to chronic disasters. But should it and if it should, how? We can think about it, because nothing is pressing.

There are a couple of things we should focus on as we consider this question.

The first is whether or not a chronic disaster is one that suggests a community will be sustainable over time. In this sense, chronic disasters can result in a persistent downward trajectory of community functioning. In the case of climate change and sea level rise, salt water may make incursions into drinking water sources, beaches lost as recreation areas, and so on. In this sense, a community enduring a chronic disaster becomes less and less resilient and might not be able to resist even a minor perturbation as it slips downward.

The second issue is adaptation. Likely many communities will elect to build dikes or begin an incremental retreat from the shoreline as the sea levels rise. This would be akin to introducing a new species to combat a non-native invasive one.

Economic disasters are often chronic. One industry leaves, then another, and then another. Slowly, incrementally, the community’s economy crumbles. However, the warning signs are there in multiple forms. Higher joblessness, declining home values, higher crime and so on are all signs. Think Detroit. At some point, communities may breach the realm of sustainability and become entirely different than what they were, if anything at all. That is why my good colleague, John Plodinec says we need a Common Framework, now! It would allow us to see the oncoming freight train in an objective fashion.

The CARRI model can certainly assist a community in recognizing it is on a downward trajectory. We at CARRI have to decide whether the recovery model we have created “fits” chronic disasters that progressively deplete a community’s resources over an extended period of time. In the case of a community that is unsustainable, thinking out loud again and speaking for myself and not the CARRI team, I do not think it does because adaptation is one thing and unsustainability is another.

Arthur (Andy) Felts

Thinking the Unthinkable

May 12th, 2010 - Arthur (Andy) Felts  

Today I am “thinking out loud” as I watch, read, and listen to what is happening on the Gulf Coast – I am really concerned about what is happening there, and I thank you for listening as I share my thoughts and note these are my thoughts and not necessarily those of the CARRI Team.  A couple of years ago, Time magazine reporter Amanda Ripley published a book titled The Unthinkable: Who survives when disaster strikes and why. The book recounts individual acts of heroism in response to disasters and what bluntly must be described as incredible acts of naïveté at best and stupidity at worst. It is simplistic, but accurate, to say that those who survive disasters think ahead and those who do not, don’t.

Of course it is human nature to resist thinking about disasters, unthinkable or otherwise. We will never know why some people try to carry their luggage off a burning plane, why someone heads for their attic with no way out during a severe flood or why some thought up was the best way to get out of the burning World Trade Center.

CARRI is about encouraging communities to think about known possible threats that have a reasonable possibility of occurring. Addressing these through mitigation, preparation, response and planning to recover makes common sense.

But CARRI is also encouraging communities to think about the unthinkable where the consequences of a disaster can be dramatic in scale. The way we have been doing this is developing a Common Framework that asks communities to look at events, no matter how remote, where the potential loss is enormous. In doing this, they may decide that at least some preparation or mitigation – however modest – might be appropriate.

If we are to believe what we read these days, the unthinkable has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The possibilities of an oil rig exploding, collapsing and sinking one mile into the ocean, and leaving an open, gushing stream of oil were so remote and fail-safed enough we were not to worry.

However it appears a perfect storm of events did occur to make that unthinkable a reality. Given that reality, we now realize that the human/ecosystem damage could be so vast that it might have been worthwhile to construct a simple thing like a containment dome and perhaps even another one or two strategies in advance. I’m not privy to the BP boardroom, but I’m betting that they wish they did, given the costs they are facing in retribution and cleanup.

It is ironic that the unthinkable should have been because twenty-one years ago an oil spill in Alaska coated 1,300 miles of Prince William Sound. It was another perfect storm. A tired Captain turned the ship over to a tired crewman with icebergs in the outer shipping lane, forcing the ship to sail an inner lane. Add to that the technology was not operating that would have alerted the crew to the rocks that the Exxon Valdez encountered. 

Ripley writes about this at the individual level. Even though we all know that being a passenger on a crashed plane is extremely remote, those who do survive report that they actually listen to the flight attendant’s instructions and identify the nearest exit. Or those that head to the attic in a flood take an axe with them.

As they become more resilient, communities should move from thinking about the thinkable and the probable to the unthinkable where the loss could be very high.

Warren Edwards

Community Resilience – What Federal Government Can Do

January 5th, 2010 - Warren Edwards  

In a 2009 paper by the British Think Tank, Demos, titled, “Resilient Nation,” author Charlie Edwards suggests that for the UK, the role of central government in community resilience should be limited and mainly supportive of local and regional efforts. He recommends a central government role based on four “Es” – Engagement, Education, Empowerment and Encouragement. Although written for the UK, the paper has great relevance for the US and is well worth reading. The full paper can be found on the Demos web site at http://www.demos.co.uk/. These four Es may be useful in thinking about how DHS relates to other partners in the homeland security enterprise in the area of disaster preparedness and recovery.

The federal government (largely through the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency) plays two significant roles in community disaster resilience. In the first role, DHS is the leader of the federal response to incidents of national significance – the nation’s first responder at the federal level. As such, DHS acts in a top-down manner as a cabinet-level department within the federal government. In the second role, DHS is the leader of the nation’s “homeland security enterprise” and must coordinate many different types of efforts including disaster preparedness and recovery. In the past, DHS has fulfilled this role by acting as the approver of state and local plans, providing funding for preparedness planning and coordinating federal efforts to prepare for recovery.

DHS has steadily improved its ability to carry out the first role. But while the National Response Framework lays out an operational framework for response, the framework has not been fully effective in helping DHS carry out its second role – coordinating preparedness and recovery efforts across the Homeland Security Enterprise. In fact, the lessons of the past decade demonstrate inherent tensions in these two roles that produce expectations that often cannot be met within the constraints of traditional emergency management. read the entire article >

Warren Edwards

Community Resilience: Long-Term Recovery

November 30th, 2009 - Warren Edwards  

FEMA has formed a working group to examine policies and practices for disaster recovery. The effort is welcome and long overdue. As a part of the input to the working group, there is an invitation to the public at large to comment by providing answers to a series of questions. (I have noted in the past that current FEMA leadership seems to be committed to listening. This is another welcome indication.) Thoughtful answers to FEMA’s recovery questions from across America will be helpful in shaping good recovery policies and programs.

A fundamental question is how to define a successful disaster recovery. CARRI believes that successful disaster recovery begins well before a disaster occurs with a deliberate and well thought out plan to achieve community recovery. Successful disaster recovery addresses all domains of community life – economic, social, ecological and physical systems – meeting the needs of the full fabric of the community in a sustainable and inclusive manner. While speed of recovery is important, thoughtful consideration to reduce vulnerabilities for future events is also required. Successful recovery includes adaptation where weaknesses can be identified and corrected as part of the recovery process in order to make the community more resilient to future incidents. Over time, successful disaster recovery should increase community functionality above pre-disaster levels so that recovery after the next disaster is less costly and more rapid. The ideal process for community recovery facilitates and is in harmony with long-term community goals.

We believe that there are three primary characteristics that influence the speed and quality of successful recoveries. First, resilient communities have deliberate plans for recovery in the same way that they have deliberate disaster response and emergency management plans. They plan in detail how the community will achieve a rapid return to normal. Second, successful disaster recoveries involve the full fabric of the community in every phase of their approach to recovery: planning, preparedness, response, and short- and long-term recovery. Third, successful recoveries involve broad-based use of formal and informal (official and unofficial) communication networks to facilitate recovery processes and involvement. These networks are identified and rehearsed before the disaster and thereby extend the reach and impact of formal, official communications. They also include all parts and domains of the community. The informal, unofficial networks are incorporated into official, long-term recovery communication networks.

These systematic examinations by FEMA of federal policies and programs that will ultimately influence community resilience are very welcome. We should support them fully and thoughtfully.

Warren Edwards

Community Resilience: A Resilience Speech

October 1st, 2009 - Warren Edwards  

Secretary Napolitano’s speech marking the end of a successful and highly publicized National Preparedness month hit just the right resilience note. While clearly stating that protection of the nation from terrorism remains job one, she then went on to spend most of her address talking about building a resilient nation. She recognized several volunteers who are active in their communities and mentioned numerous other examples of ways to build resilience at the community level. In all it was a very good speech, effectively and robustly delivered. The Secretary clearly indicated that she is serious about national resilience and intends to focus some of the department’s energy there.

It struck me, however, that the discussion of community resilience focused solely on the preparedness of individuals and the participation of community organizations. That, in my opinion, is not nearly enough. It takes the full fabric of the community working together to make a resilient community. That means local governments, local businesses, local associations, local organizations and individuals working in concert over a significant period of time using whatever resources they have available toward a well thought out plan. It’s a lot more than moms and dads and book clubs.

Now I know that the Secretary knows this. What I’d really like to know is that this idea of robust, full-fledged community resilience is penetrating the rest of her organization.

Warren Edwards

Community Resilience: A Successful National Preparedness Month

September 28th, 2009 - Warren Edwards  

As we come to the end of National Preparedness Month, DHS has announced that Secretary Napolitano will deliver a major speech on national preparedness tomorrow, Tuesday, September 29 at 2pm eastern time. We at CARRI will be listening intently to hear what the Secretary says about resilience, particularly at the local level. The speech will be carried live at http://www.dhs.gov/. For those not able to watch the speech live, it will be posted at http://www.ready.gov/ and http://www.citizencorps.gov/. We heartily recommend that our followers listen to the Secretary. It may give all us a clue on where the Department is headed in the area of resilience.

Warren Edwards

Community Resilience and Personal Responsibility

September 8th, 2009 - Warren Edwards  

In its recently released report, Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey, FEMA discovered that we as individuals are not as prepared for disaster as we should be. The report (www.citizencorps.gov/ready/2009findings.shtm) provides a detailed look into individual perceptions of disaster readiness and responsibilities as well as interesting evaluations of demographic and contextual insights. I don’t think that anyone should be very surprised by this report.

Since Hurricane Andrew (maybe Hugo), American expectations of outside assistance particularly federal assistance have grown steadily, rapidly and unrealistically. Perhaps most evident in Katrina, our citizens and our communities seem increasingly to believe that FEMA will be on site at almost any level of disaster within 48 hours and will fix the problem. This report reveals, for instance, that more than 60 percent of the respondents plan to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster despite repeated warnings from governments at all levels to the contrary. As interestingly, even among those who deem themselves prepared for disaster, the survey finds that most do not have adequate family plans and lack even a basic understanding of their community’s plans.

This problem is only a failure of the federal government in that we continue to believe that we can craft national solutions to local problems. At its heart, this is an indication of community failure. Very few communities have coherent, highly coordinated, individual preparedness efforts with a common message across jurisdictions and well thought ways to transmit the message to the full fabric of their societies. I am sure that there are some. In fact I highlighted one in my posting of March 24, 2009, the “I’m Ready Campaign” in Shelby County, Tennessee. The FEMA report, however, says that our communities are not doing enough or are not doing it right. read the entire article >

Warren Edwards

Resilience at the Top

September 1st, 2009 - Warren Edwards  

The President’s weekly radio address on Saturday was dedicated to remembering the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. It is worth noting that he used the word resilience in his address and called for the nation to be more resilient. He stated, “As we rebuild and recover, we must also learn the lessons of Katrina so that our nation is more protected and resilient in the face of disaster.” The President went on to support a multi-hazards approach to national preparedness giving examples in the natural, medical and man-made disaster areas. As I have noted earlier, the concept of resilience as a national goal seems to be gaining traction at the national level. Clearly, a significant number of senior federal officials are beginning to incorporate resilience to many hazards into their strategic thinking. Getting the President firmly ensconced into a culture of national resilience has to be a top priority.

Warren Edwards

Preparedness and Resilience: Are they the Same?

August 4th, 2009 - Warren Edwards  

A couple of weeks ago the US Chamber of Commerce convened an informal meeting of people who are actively involved in community resilience-related activities and initiatives at the local, state and federal levels. This resilience-related work is frequently couched in different terms – the most frequent being public/private partnerships – but all of it can be seen to further the ability of communities to withstand and recover from significant disruptions. The individuals present represented the private sector, research programs, government, trade associations and on-the-ground resilience projects. I was privileged to be invited to attend and participate.

One of the areas of agreement reached by this ad hoc group was that there is a critical need for the nation’s leadership to clearly establish resilience as an important national goal. Several, but not all, of the participants referred to this goal as creating a “culture of preparedness” thereby seeming to equate “preparedness” to “resilience.” In fact, at least one participant went so far as to declare that the idea of resilience was nothing new but was simply preparedness under a new title.

In an earlier Blog (June 27, 2009), I argued that preparedness is the necessary foundation upon which an expanded continuum of emergency management must rest and that one of the results of that expanded continuum (and maybe the most significant one) is resilience. One prepares to prevent, protect, respond and recover and success in executing the results of that preparation is evidenced by the resilience demonstrated during recovery. To me this seems to be different than simply equating preparedness with resilience.

Is this just a distinction without a difference or is it a discussion worth having?

Next Page »