Participant Interpretations

The senior and middle managers provided their feedback on the two findings identified by the author. Of the twenty-three participants, only eleven “Response Forms”

were returned. Based on the responses, five of the participants describe senior and middle managers as having different priorities as a result of their role-specific experience with collaboration (questions #2 and #3). One respondent’s comment illustrates:

Senior managers tend to work at the senior level in collaboration. In my opinion this type of collaboration tends to be more of a power struggle or making sure that we have control over whatever the issue might be. As the chain of command goes down, I feel the acceptance of relying on the other organization’s knowledge goes up. The lower levels of management tend to interact with their counterparts at various conferences, meetings, and community issues giving them a common goal to work towards allowing everyone to succeed. Often because the senior management does not get along with other senior level managers from other entities, the lower manager is left to work harder to maintain good working relationships and positive collaborations. Doing so increases the communication and willingness to compromise for the sake of saving the collaborative relationship.¹³⁴

134 Statement by participant on the “Response Form,” June 2007.

From this statement and related comments, delineation between senior and middle manager responsibilities begin to emerge. Senior managers are focused on maintaining the sustainability of the organization and thus find themselves in competition or power conflicts. Middle managers are left to ensure the continuation of essential functions and thus tend to interact more frequently with outside agencies to ensure the goals of the organization are achieved.

In addition to distinctive level-specific responsibilities, three of the respondents’

identified “communication breakdowns” and three respondents’ indicated “money” as contributing to an explanation of the results of the survey. Regarding “communication breakdowns” one respondent stated, “Senior management does not get along with other senior level managers from other entities; the middle manager is left to work harder to maintain good working relationships and positive collaborations.”¹³⁵ In addition, when resources (money) are at stake one respondent stated,

We all know that it is important to work with other sectors. The big problem is resources to accomplish this. Because of budget constraints there are not sufficient amounts of people or money to make this a high priority. Therefore we have to accomplish any collaboration on an as needed basis.¹³⁶

Therefore, the lack of resources could negatively influence collaboration (barrier).

Allocating people and equipment to collaborative activities involves money. This could have an impact on how each of the two levels of management view their priority to collaborate.

Feedback was also received on the second topic (question #3) of the impact of

“unique requirements of collaboration.” Through “division of labor” each sector specializes in the services that they provide.¹³⁷ Mesa’s Electric Utility has “linemen” that are specialized to work on power lines that distribute electricity and the Water Utility has operators that specialize in providing potable drinking water. How can these individual

135 Statement by participant on the “Response Form,” June 2007.

136 Ibid.

137 Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, ed. George Simpson (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960): 40-55.

sectors offer support to each other during a crisis? Based on interpretations of eleven participants, five of the participants identified a similar theme. This theme centered on the interactions between the levels of management dependent on the level of responsibility and accountability. In essence, working toward a “common goal” can be impeded by the individual’s position in management. One respondent puts this in a clear perspective by stating:

Many of the middle managers have worked with their counterparts either at previous jobs or in collaborative organizations that bring together all municipalities. These gatherings encourage the commonality of all participants, no matter how the departments are set up. It encourages communication and again allows middle managers to find a common ground with their counterparts in other cities. Once managers are able to find common ground, no matter how different the job title may be, they understand how collaboration will benefit both parties.¹³⁸

Middle managers seem to retain “unique” specialization while also accomplishing necessary collaboration. Regarding senior managers, it would appear that because of their level in the organization their perception differs. One respondent puts this into perspective by stating,

Most likely, the differences reflect the scope of responsibilities of the two groups. The more senior the manager, the more global their view of priorities becomes. While working together is important, collaboration may not necessarily rank high relative to the multitude of other priorities.¹³⁹

Aside from the theme of interactions being different between levels of management, additional themes were identified by the remaining respondents. These themes included divergent goals and cross-sector training. Regarding “divergent goals”

one of the four respondents provided an interpretation that merits acknowledgement:

Divergent goals don’t inhibit collaboration between organizations, only possible outcomes. The devil is in the details. Everyone wants security in a networked environment. The goals of one sector may be ultimate security while another sector wants maximum usability. These goals are conflicting

138 Statement by participant on the “Response Form,” June 2007.

139 Ibid.

and cannot be satisfied on either side. This is where flexibility is more important than one size fits all. The collaboration is in the sharing of the risks involved in the decision.¹⁴⁰

Being flexible to each other’s needs is critical for collaboration. So how do two specialized sectors provide a benefit during a response scenario? Cross sector training was viewed by two of the participants as being a mechanism to get Mesa and the interdependent sectors to recognize the benefits of collaboration. As described, “I think cross-sector training is important as an industry. Though individual specialized training is vital to ensure adequate and properly skilled staff, getting to see the whole picture can be very beneficial.”¹⁴¹ Regardless of whether the first responder is a “lineman” or “water operator,” there are interdependencies that link the two together. Working as a team can decrease the effect of an incident and increase the resiliency of both essential services.