Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the process of collective leadership in emergency management organisations. More specifically, the authors investigate the conditions that enable or prevent collective leadership amongst key actors in the emergency management network in bushfire investigations. We also examine how chief investigators facilitate the conditions to effectively distribute leadership and the role of social networks within this process.

A qualitative case study approach was undertaken, and 18 semi-structured interviews were carried out with chief investigators, 6 at each of three agencies in Australia. A framework for understanding collective leadership (Friedrich et al., 2016) was used to examine key leadership constructs, baseline leadership and outcomes relative to bushfire investigations.

Findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of collective leadership at the network level of bushfire investigations. There is mixed evidence of collective leadership within bushfire investigation departments, with the Arson Squad being the only government agency to engage in collective leadership. The authors found evidence that government bureaucracy and mandated protocols inhibited the ability of formal leaders to distribute leadership, gauge a clear understanding of the level of skill and expertise amongst chief investigators and poor communication that inhibited knowledge of investigations.

The study was limited to three bushfire investigative agencies. A future study will be carried out with other stakeholders, such as fire investigators and firefighters in the field.

For the government, emergency management agencies and other stakeholders, a key enabler of collective leadership within the emergency management network is the presence of a formal leader within a network. That leader has the authority and political ability to distribute leadership to other experts.

The paper contributes to developing a better understanding of the efficacy and challenges associated with the application of collective leadership theory in a complex government bureaucracy. There are positive implications for the safety of firefighters, the protection of the broader community, their properties and livestock.

The authors address the lack of literature on effective leadership processes amongst emergency management agencies. The paper contributes to extending collective leadership theory by unpacking the processes through which leadership is distributed to team members and the role of institutions (i.e. fire investigation bureaucracy) on social networks within this integrative process. The authors provide new insights into the practice of collective leadership in complex bureaucratic organisations.

The purpose of this study is to identify strengths and weaknesses in knowledge sharing between related post-bushfire investigative agencies. Based on this study, such a sharing of knowledge is essential to enhance collaboration amongst practitioners in the reduction and management of the risk of bushfires.

The authors use a case study methodology; the research design is based on comparative analysis of six post-bushfire investigative departments in Italy and Australia (Victoria). A total of 44 bushfire investigators were interviewed between 2012 and 2013, across the two countries. Using focus groups and face-to-face interviews, the extent and quality of intra- and interagency knowledge sharing is analysed.

Despite the desire to collaborate, there are three main conditions that prevent an effective interagency collaboration within the bushfire investigation network, namely, separation, unidirectionality and interpersonal disengagement. This study finds that knowledge sharing suffers from a missing “feedback system” culture, where agencies give each other feedback with strictly bureaucratic purposes, rather than create an ongoing learning mechanism that develops after every investigation. At agency level, we also find that, sharing investigative knowledge and experience through daily and planned meetings is a standard practice to police members; but this is not found in the fire agencies. When made cross-country comparisons between Australia and Italy, the existence of common courses, joint manuals and the sharing of human resources witnessed in Australia (Victoria) is something that would benefit Italian agencies still trapped in a competitive and jurisdictional mindset. At the same time, Australian agencies might want to reconsider the separation between bushfire suppression and investigation, a distinction that has been made clear in Italy through the creation of full-time bushfire investigator positions.

This paper contributes to the improvement of interagency collaboration through the development of an investigative “social knowledge”. It reinforces the assumption that, to reduce and effectively manage the risk of bushfires, a combined effort from different stakeholders involved in forensic investigation is necessary.

Given the lack of research undertaken in the area of bushfire investigation, the current paper represents a unique piece of work. It is unusual, not only in identifying the current issues within the bushfire investigation network but also in providing agencies with theoretical and practical insights on how to reduce the extremely high number of bushfires and their risks.