TY - JOUR

T1 - Communication and coordination across event phases

T2 - A Multi-Team System Emergency Response

AU - Brown, Olivia

AU - Power, Nicola

AU - Conchie, Stacey

N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Olivia Brown, Nicola Power, Stacey M. Conchie (2021), Communication and coordination across event phases: A multi-team system emergency response. Journal of Organizational Psychology. doi: 10.1111/joop.12349 which has been published in final form at https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12349 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

PY - 2021/9/30

Y1 - 2021/9/30

N2 - This paper explores how multi-agency response teams communicate and coordinate in different phases of a simulated terrorist incident. Procedural guidelines state that responders should coordinate their response to a major emergency across two phases: “response” (when the incident is ongoing) and “recovery” (when the threat has subsided, but the legacy of the incident is ongoing). However, no research has examined whether these phases map to the behaviours of responders in situ. To address this, we used measures of communication and coordination to examine how behaviours evolved during a simulated terrorist incident in the U.K. We grounded our approach within the theoretical literature on multi-team systems. It was found that the current response/recovery classification does not fit the nuanced context of an emergency. Instead, a three-phase structure of “response/resolve/recovery” is more reflective of behaviour. It was also found that coordination between agencies improved when communication networks became less centralised. This suggests that collaborative working in multi-team systems may be improved by adopting decentralised communication networks.

AB - This paper explores how multi-agency response teams communicate and coordinate in different phases of a simulated terrorist incident. Procedural guidelines state that responders should coordinate their response to a major emergency across two phases: “response” (when the incident is ongoing) and “recovery” (when the threat has subsided, but the legacy of the incident is ongoing). However, no research has examined whether these phases map to the behaviours of responders in situ. To address this, we used measures of communication and coordination to examine how behaviours evolved during a simulated terrorist incident in the U.K. We grounded our approach within the theoretical literature on multi-team systems. It was found that the current response/recovery classification does not fit the nuanced context of an emergency. Instead, a three-phase structure of “response/resolve/recovery” is more reflective of behaviour. It was also found that coordination between agencies improved when communication networks became less centralised. This suggests that collaborative working in multi-team systems may be improved by adopting decentralised communication networks.

KW - communication

KW - coordination

KW - extreme teams

KW - multi-team systems

U2 - 10.1111/joop.12349

DO - 10.1111/joop.12349

M3 - Journal article

VL - 94

SP - 591

EP - 615

JO - Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

JF - Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

SN - 0963-1798

IS - 3

ER -