Essay on Theory-Based Risk Management: Conflict, Organizational Behavior & Vulnerability

Introduction

The selected theories from previous assignments are the conflict theory, organizational behavioral theory, as well as vulnerability theory. The theories are instrumental in illustrating various approaches to managing hazards and risks that may affect the development of a certain community. Specifically, the theory of conflict predicts the increase in chances of adverse events. The approach that can be derived here is putting more attention on the possible risks as well as understanding the potential impacts of the conflict. In return, this can keep individual assets safe (Aubrecht, Fuchs &Neuhold,, 2013). Precisely, the theory majors on the analysis of violent conflict in an organization, and require the policymakers to obtain the aspects of impacts at a point where the conflict can be observed. Besides, the vulnerability theory gives its arguments on the vulnerability levels in which organizations and societies are presented with (Romero-Lankao et al., 2016). It enables the policymakers to identify the occurrences of risks and predicts future events, as well as make an appropriate plan on addressing and avoiding such issues. Determining the level of vulnerability in a community is very useful since it enhances the allocation of the resources as well as creates attention to changes (Romero-Lankao et al., 2016). Therefore, the target community can prioritize its adverse events and address them according to the level of their harm. The last theory was the theory of organizational behavior and based its argument on the structures of various organizations and their ability to adapt to different forms of disasters.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Most Important Influences

These theories have significant influences in Los Angeles California community. Their events are expected to erode over time, especially in public, simply because the process of decision making in the community is currently unstable. Its inherent instability is contributed by continued disagreements between the policymakers and the government. However, some of the disasters have opened the debate on the risks and have allowed policy's equilibrium to be unsettled. In return, the instability has provided opportunities for alternative policies to be adopted. Also, the systems of emergency in the United States are currently diverse and have different definitions of problems as well as contradictory solutions. As a result, this has contributed to the unstable environment of responding to disasters. Lack of an operative response among the policymakers can lead to blaming games in community resilience as well as the adaptation of organizations on current authorities as well as the separation of powers (Westcott et al., 2017). Through this, it is predicted that anticipated and unprecedented procedures of the national magnitude can exceed all the possible solutions, thus making the change to be the only way to go.

The decision-makers from the government have indicated that it is possible to use rational approaches of decision making effectively through pursuing various political agendas. Besides, staff and agency heads of the unstable environment may deal with such environments by adopting new policies quickly and effectively. Nevertheless, this process must allow the institution to use the prevailing instabilities. In the public sectors, the local government has taken strong actions in the building of safe communities that are effective for extreme conditions of weather as well as climatic changes. In Los Angeles, California, the community is passionate about innovating on areas like emergency management, suitable infrastructure as well as energy security in becoming more resilient to the risks or threats, as well as contributing to the growth of the economy (Eisenman et al., 2014). The community was among the chosen by the administration of Obama in serving the president's state, tribal, and local leaders, on resilience and climate preparedness.

Some of the long-term planning policies in Los Angeles California community address issues of transportation, use of lands, transportation as well as the environment in an integrated way. Therefore, they must balance economic, social, cultural, and ecological needs in the community. According to the research that was carried out by Cutter et al. (2008), most of the communities have not been in a good position in developing effective plans on disaster recovery. However, they have developed inadequate strategies in addressing problems faced by the community after a disaster. In return, the communities involved have been engulfed in conflicts on the policies of recovery, as well as limited resources.

Furthermore, some of the external experts to dominate the policies lack local knowledge of the conditions. In return, the planning that occurs leads to the conflict as well as the opposition to the plan. Besides, a large number of the population in the community may not be in a position to recover from evacuations.

In the private sectors, doctrines and policies have implemented in the community to involve the maintenance and management of the national policy as well as doctrines for the preparedness and operations. Besides, the government officials have enhanced effective planning, and have been working with non-governmental organizations, private sectors as well as the individual citizens (Eisenman et al., 2014). Their collaboration has helped them in identifying the requirements, effective allocation of resources, and building of coordinated competencies that are prioritized upon risks.

Influences That Could be Modified by a Change in Federal Statute

The federal development policies and its land-use encourage the development or rebuilding of hazardous areas, thus obstructing the workable local planning of pre-disaster. The states of the gulf coast, without the exception of Los Angeles California, have failed to implement a successful and comprehensive plan on land use. In return, the local community has built back without considering the future risks that may result from the hazard. Besides, the federal governments in the community have failed to obtain inclusive local planning, that would avoid high risks of hazards. The federal authority played a significant role in controlling the flood that was caused by River Mississippi in 1927, leading to a substantial change of the government in the United States (Eisenman et al., 2014). The roles of federal in the local states and individual affairs also changed significantly due to the following depression. Also, the federal agency was allowed by the Stafford act to support the local agencies and state in response to the disaster. The main advantage of the federal system in the community is its flexibility, redundancy of operations, diversity, as well as regional and local focus on vulnerability and hazards.

Furthermore, the federal authority has been responding to the disaster easily without waiting for permission from the state government. And this has been contributed by the US constitution, spelling out all responsibilities and powers of the government and reserves the responsibilities and powers of the individual states (Eisenman et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the local governments in the United States only have the responsibilities and powers that have been delegated by the state government and are regulated by their authority often to regulate the standards of building, use of lands as well as other necessary functions. The federal authorities are also responding to technological and natural disasters in the community (Cutter, 2016). In return, it acts directly and assumes crises of leadership situations related to terrorism, wars as well as other forms of criminal activities like kidnappings, bombings, and bank robberies.

Proposed Regulatory and Policy Changes

The utilization of new urban models must be done to avoid more risks from hazards as well as enhance resilience. Through this, a compact form of design in the downtown should be enhanced and considered as the struggle of the community to recover from the disaster. Besides, Los Angeles California should engage all the stakeholders of the community in the process of decision making. This participation of citizens must be viewed as a process of repairing and restoring the social fabric of the community. Besides, engaging the community as a whole in decision making is a meaningful manner since it provides chances for the healing of the community in significant ways. As pointed out by Godschalk (2003), failure to engage the community makes the implementation strategies and plans not to benefit from local capacities and knowledge.

The federal system should be observed as the main requirement that the local government and state must comply with the regulations, national legislation, as well as court decisions. That to say, as the federal system, the management of emergency should be a decentralized organization that involves many state and local agencies (Cutter, 2016). Through this, the system should play a critical part in response and recovery. Both state and local compliance with the programs of federal policies should contribute to the funding requirements that use financial resources either for mitigation, planning, recovery, or response.

References

Aubrecht, C., Fuchs, S., &Neuhold, C. (2013). Spatio-temporal aspects and dimensions in integrated disaster risk management. Natural Hazards, 68(3), 1205-1216. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0619-9

Cutter, S. L. (2016). The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA. Natural hazards, 80(2), 741-758. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1993-2

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598-606. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Eisenman, D., Chandra, A., Fogleman, S., Magana, A., Hendricks, A., Wells, K. & Plough, A. (2014). The Los Angeles county community disaster resilience project-A community-level public health initiative to build community disaster resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research And Public Health, 11(8), 8475-8490. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110808475

Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136-143. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136)

Romero-Lankao, P., Gnatz, D.M., Wihlemi, O., Hayden, M., (2016), Urban sustainability and resilience: From theory to practice. Sustainability, 8(12). doi: 10.3390/su8121224

Westcott, R., Ronan, K., Bambrick, H., Taylor, M., (2017), Expanding protection motivation theory: Investigating an application to animal owners and emergency responders in bushfire emergencies. BMC Psychology. doi: 10.1186/s40359-017-0182-3