Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Partner Choice in Emergency Management Networks v2
Partner Choice in Emergency Management Networks v2
Collaboration
Scott E. Robinson Ph.D.
Bush School of Government and Public Service
Texas A&M University
Abstract
Successful emergency planning and response requires the cooper-
ation of a broad array of partners. The literature on collaboration
and social networks provided conflicting predictions about how orga-
nizations choose partners. One tradition focused on the powerful role
of similarity (or homophily) as predicting partner choices (Lazarsfeld
& Merton. 1954, McPherson & Cook. 2001). A contrasting tradition
argued that rational organizations will choose partners both unlike
themselves and unlike their other partners to ensure that each collab-
oration provides access to unique resources (Burt 1995, Burt 2005).
This article starts with the question of how an organization whose
primary responsibilities are not focused on emergency management
choose partners when they respond to and prepare for emergencies.
Using a survey of school districts in Texas immediately following Hur-
ricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the article assess the priority of
partner choice. The results indicate that school districts choose part-
ners largely on the basis of strategic difference though there is some
evidence of homophily.
1
1 Introduction
Descriptions of collaborative public management and the emergence of policy
networks have become a prominent component of policy research (e.g. Rhodes
1997, Adam & Kriesi 2007). While the existence of such networks is hardly
news to people who have been studying policy implementation, research into
the dynamics and processes involved in these policy networks has recently
opened a number of new research questions to investigation (Robinson 2007).
Researchers have now begun to differentiate types of networks (Agranoff
2007), the impact networking behaviors on policy outcomes(Provan & Milward
1995, Meier & O’Toole 2001), and the administration management skill set
needed within policy networks (McGuire 2002, Koppenjan & Klijn 2004).
This article focuses attention on a relatively understudied question within
policy network research: why does a collaborative manager choose the part-
ners she or he does? Once managers become aware of the possibility of
seeking resources (of various kinds ranging from financial resources to in-
formation) it also becomes clear that there are many options for potential
partnerships. It is not a matter of whether there are partners in the envi-
ronment. Now it is a question of which of the many options will most help
the collaborative organization. Given that collaboration is a costly activity
(Burt 1995, Burt 2005), one starts to consider the costs and benefits of each
potential partnership. While there is little guidance within the collaborative
public management literature on the choice of partners, there are theories of
individual social networks that provide some initial guidance (Lazarsfeld &
Merton. 1954, McPherson & Cook. 2001).
The article is organized as follows. Section 2 will provide a general model
of partner choice followed by a review of issues related to why organizations
may choose one partner rather than others. Section 3 will describe data
on school district emergency management partnerships following Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita that are useful for identifying patterns of partner choice
along with operationalized predictions. Using these data, Section 4 presents
a test of these predictions. Finally, Section 5 gives the conclusions.
2
people that collaboration will help solve problems ranging from budgetary
pressures to better information about policy problems. Beyond the general
advice that collaboration can be helpful, there is not much specific advice
about with whom exactly an organization should partner. This lacuna in
the literature is a by-product of an often implicit assumption that the costs
of collaborative partnership are low or non-existent. It is only when one
considers collaboration as a costly activity, and therefore creates an implied
collaboration budget, that one stops to consider whether one should prior-
itize a specific partnership over others. This section of the article builds a
general model of partner choice that acknowledges the cost of collaboration
and incorporates the sorts of factors that may be relevant to the sequential
choice of partnerships.
3
the identity of each partner.
4
characteristics of the partnership itself (δ i,j ). The resulting model for this
article is:
5
case if partners had to communicate across a language barrier or mediate
conflicts over fundamental values.
In terms of the general theory of partner choice elaborated in 2, the
homophily principle suggests that costs of any partnership (ci,j ) are reduced
by similarity between the actors.
These theories of homophily generate a simple proposition for partner
selection in the process of building policy networks.
• Organizations will seek partnerships that are like them in ways impor-
tant to a specific policy domain.
6
that inspire the title for Burt’s original text (1995). Organizations that want
to maintain power will maintain the structural holes around them while or-
ganizations that seek partnerships may want to identify partners who possess
these unique resources.
In terms of the general theory of partner choice elaborated in section 2,
the structural holes principle suggests that the benefits of any partnership
(δ i,j ) are reduced by similarity between the actors.
The theory of structural holes generates a simple proposition for partner
selection in building policy networks.
• Organizations will seek partners that are unlike them in ways important
to a specific policy domain.
3.1 Data
In the weeks following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Fall of 2005, school
districts across Texas struggled to provide services to hundreds of thousands
of students who had either been displaced within the state or entered the state
fleeing the devastation in other states. School districts, not often focusing
on emergency response, found themselves with a variety of questions about
how to provide services for these students. As a result, many school districts
sought help from other organizations. From some organizations they sought
financial resources; from others they sought information.
7
The uncertainty in the period immediately following the hurricanes pro-
vided an opportunity to study partner selection among these school districts.
To whom did these districts turn for assistance? With the support of the
National Science Foundation1 , we sent a survey to every K-12 school district
in Texas within weeks of Hurricane Katrina (with Hurricane Rita occurring
in this gap). As part of the survey, we asked each school superintendent to
identify the sorts of organizations with whom they collaborated in the after-
math of the hurricanes. Superintendents could choose among six different
types of organizations: police, fire, and first responder organizations; non-
profit and relief organizations; community and religious organizations; other
school districts; government relief and welfare organizations; and business
organizations. For each actors, superintendents could report whether they
collaborated with this group. The survey of approximately 1200 school dis-
tricts in Texas ended after three waves of self-administrated mail instruments
for a response rate of approximately 60%.2
• In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, school districts were more
likely to report collaborating with other school districts than other
types of organizations.
8
theory (or even much in the way of empirical observation) to guide a prior-
itization of partner selection among the non-school district organizations, I
propose instead the following general hypothesis.
• In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, school districts were more
likely to report collaborating with types of organizations other than
school districts.
4 Results
The following series of tables present the school districts’ reported collabo-
rative partnerships with various organization types. Overall, we can initially
see the diversity of partner types and their relative frequencies (see Table
9
Organization Type Percent Partnerships
Police, Fire, and First Responder Organizations 69%
Local Community Religous Organizations 59%
Other School Districts 49%
Nonprofit Relief Organizations 48%
Government Relief and Welfare Organizations 33%
Business Organizations 24%
n=549
1). The overall evidence provides mixed support for both the homophily and
structural hole strategies. The most frequently reported partnership is with
Police, Fire, and First Responder organizations. This is definitely an orga-
nization type that is different than the school districts in a variety of ways
and offers distinctive competencies. The propensity of partner with these or-
ganizations indicates a structural hole strategy among the superintendents.
The third most commonly reported partner were other school districts - the
partner type most like the school districts themselves. This relatively high
ranking represents a homophilic tendency. The second most common part-
ner was local community relief organizations. This organization represents
an element of difference (these are not school districts) and an element of
homophily compared to other non-local organizations. The relative high
proportion of the local community organizations represents, then, a mixing
of homophily and structural hole strategies.
10
Organization Type Percent Partnerships
Police, Fire, and First Responder Organizations 47%
Local Community Religious Organizations 4%
Other School Districts 27%
Nonprofit Relief Organizations 4%
Government Relief and Welfare Organizations 18%
Business Organizations 0%
n=74
The evidence of a mixed strategy among school districts in the overall rate
of partnership is reflected among those districts who only report partnerships
with one type of organization. If you only choose one partner, you are most
likely to choose a police, fire, or first responder group - evidence of a structural
hole approach to seeking unique competency. However, the second most likely
partner among those who only have one partner is the most similar group of
other school districts - evidence of a homophilic tendency. It is interesting
to note that only two of the partner types are chosen by more than 20% of
the school districts. This represents a strong attraction to the few partners
types that are chosen by these highly constrained districts.
11
Organization Type Percent Partnerships
Police, Fire, and First Responder Organizations 67%
Local Community Religious Organizations 51%
Other School Districts 35%
Nonprofit Relief Organizations 29%
Government Relief and Welfare Organizations 17%
Business Organizations 3%
n=112
Table 4 provides a similar illustration for the districts who reported three
partner choices. Partnerships with police, fire, and first responder organiza-
tions become almost certain among these districts. Following closely behind
are the relatively common partnerships with local community religious or-
ganizations. Nonprofit relief organizations overtake other school districts
with 57% to the other school districts proportion of 54%. Altogether this
provides stronger evidence for districts seeking unique competencies rather
simply seeking partnerships with organizations like themselves.
12
Organization Type Percent Partnerships
Police, Fire, and First Responder Organizations 85%
Local Community Religious Organizations 73%
Other School Districts 54%
Nonprofit Relief Organizations 57%
Government Relief and Welfare Organizations 27%
Business Organizations 5%
n=74
the four of the types. Organizations in this set reported leaving off two
types. What is interesting is which types were most likely to be left off.
The evidence from Table 5 is consistent with the results from the assess-
ment in the previous tables. The least likely partner type to be left out of
a districts partnership portfolio is police, fire, and first responders. Follow-
ing closely behind (in being unlikely to be left out of a district’s reported
network) are local community religious organizations and nonprofit relief
organizations. Only in fourth place are other school districts who among
school districts that only leave off two types are left off over one third of the
time. Business organizations and other government organizations (interest-
13
Organization Type % Absent Partnerships
Police, Fire, and First Responder Organizations 7%
Local Community and Religious Organizations 2%
Other School Districts 12%
Nonprofit Relief Organizations 11%
Government Relief and Welfare Organizations 32%
Business Organizations 37%
n=57
ingly similar to school districts in their government sector type) are most
likely to be left out of the network.
Table 6 reports the frequency with which an organization type is left off
when school districts report collaborating with all but one organization type.
Interestingly, these organizations are more likely to leave off police, fire, and
first responder groups than local community and religious organizations - a
first for all of these analysis. Again other school districts come in fourth
behind nonprofit relief organizations with government relief and welfare or-
ganizations and business organizations coming in last - each being left off
around one third of the time.
14
behind in the partner choice process are the most similar organizations, the
other school districts. There are organizations with whom it would seem-
ingly be easy to partner. There are other organizations that share important
characteristics with the district including technology and professional iden-
tification. Despite this similarity, other school districts are not attractive
partners to these school districts. Other government organizations which
share a governmental sector with the school districts but not technology or
professional identity are also among the last partners to be chosen and among
the most likely not to be chosen at all. Only the least similar organizations,
the business organizations that are in different sectors and only rarely bear
any similarity in professional background and mission with the school dis-
tricts are chosen less often that other government organizations. This may
very well be a case of the school districts not only seeing business organiza-
tions as different (and thus difficult to partner with) but also offering little
in obvious advantages - unlike the first responder organizations and local
community organizations that could provide services more obviously useful
to the districts.
This initial study of partner choice serves only to demonstrate the sorts
of dynamics one might anticipate in partner choice processes. Here the focus
has been on characteristics of the partner dyads. Organizations that were
similar were not more likely to be chosen than those that were different.
In fact, the most likely chosen partners were quite different than the school
districts. Instead, school districts seem to be selecting for difference - at least
difference of specific sorts.
There are a variety of directions that research into partner choice could
take. First, one could assess the impact of agent characteristics on partner
choice. In this case, do school districts with different characteristics choose
different partner types? It could be that the size of the district or its internal
planning capacity affect the expected utility of partnering with different types
of others. Districts with well-developed internal planning capacities may see
less advantage in working with other school districts. Districts with less well-
developed planning capacities may see great benefit in collaborating with
other school districts as part of an effort to pool similar planning capacities.
Information on partner characteristics could also help explain partner
choice. The expected utility of a potential partnership likely depends on
the unique contributions of those partners. Partners that offer resources or
information that, say, school districts need following a natural disaster are
likely to be attractive partners. Those potential partners with either the
15
slack to donate the resource or the facilities to coordinate activities will be
more attractive than those whom have to be coaxed into working with the
school districts.
It may also be the case that the nature of relationships affects the ex-
pected utility of different relationships. Based on the logic of Granovetter’s
“strength of weak ties” (Granovetter 1973), one might expect that some sorts
of relationships are most valuable if they do not involve frequent or intense
relations. It could be that the preference for difference observed in these data
would be quite different if one looked instead at more intensive relationships.
The findings reported in this article are be heartening. School districts are
seeking different sorts of organizations with whom to partner in the aftermath
of a large natural disaster. As these school districts sought to accommodate
large new enrollments and, in some cases, to respond to closures and flooding
in their own communities they sought organizations unlike themselves as
partners. While these organizations could have circled their wagons and
looked only within their own number for partners, they reached out to a
wide variety of potential partners.
Seeking these new partners can raise additional questions. What sort of
complications arise as organizations partner across professional boundaries
(e.g. education officials working with public health officials), sectoral bound-
aries (e.g. public sector education organizations working with nonprofit or-
ganizations), and across levels of government (e.g. local education officials
working with state and federal emergency management officials)? How does
one manage across differences like these? As much attention as scholars have
paid recently to issues of collaborative public management and policy net-
works, a great deal of work lies ahead. We must move beyond again pointing
out how common and how important networked public policy is and asses
how to manage and implement policy within these settings.
References
Adam, Silke & Hanspeter Kriesi. 2007. ”The Network Approach”. In Theories
of the Policy Process: Second Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
pp. 129–154.
16
Burt, Ronald S. 1995. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition.
Cambridge, MA:.Harvard University Press.
Lazarsfeld, Paul & Robert K. Merton. 1954. ”Friendship and Social Pro-
cesses: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis”. In Freedom and
Control in Modern Society. In Morroe Berger and Theodore Abel eds.
Van Nortstrand.
17
Thompson, James D. 2003 (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Sciences
Bases of Administrative Theory. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publications.
18