Governing the sea rescue service in Sweden: communicating in networks

This paper discusses how various actors communicate about and coordinate sea rescue activities in networks. We combine a network approach with theories of inter‐organization communication to understand how communication can facilitate or limit coordination in networks. Search and rescue officers retain the overall authority to direct rescue missions, and coordination with several other professions is central to this. When coordinating different professional actors in a network it is important to develop trust, legitimacy, and a shared and uniform understanding of the situation and of how to act. Communication deficiencies often result from the fact that involved actors belong to different organizations with different cultures or representing different professions. The greatest gap we found was between those working and not working at sea, and between those habitually or seldom involved in rescue activities. Communication comprises more than simply exchanging information; it also entails the forging of relationships, to facilitate future coordination and cooperation and to develop mutual trust and understanding. In any rescue operation it is important that the actors interpret communication in the same way and act according to a shared pattern. Joint training and follow‐up are important conditions for continuous learning and development in this regard.

[1]  K. Weick,et al.  Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. , 1999 .

[2]  Eva Törnqvist Bland grynnor och blindskär: Kommunikation, lärande och teknik i samarbetsprojektet Sjöräddning , 2004 .

[3]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[4]  Joop Koppenjan,et al.  Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector , 1997 .

[5]  Diane Vaughan,et al.  The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA , 1996 .

[6]  K. Roberts Managing High Reliability Organizations , 1990 .

[7]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[8]  B. Peters,et al.  Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? , 2004 .

[9]  Anne Donnellon,et al.  Team Talk: The Power of Language in Team Dynamics , 1996 .

[10]  P. Bierly Culture and High Reliability Organizations: The Case of the Nuclear Submarine: , 1995 .

[11]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[12]  Todd R. La Porte,et al.  Theoretical and operational challenges of “high-reliability organizations”: air-traffic control and aircraft carriers , 1998 .

[13]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[14]  J. Walther Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[15]  Tanja A. Börzel,et al.  Organizing Babylon ‐ On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks , 1998 .

[16]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[17]  David Marsh,et al.  New directions in the study of policy networks , 1992 .

[18]  G. Stoker Governance as theory: five propositions , 1998 .

[19]  P. Kenis,et al.  Policy networks and policy analysis : Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox , 1991 .

[20]  K. Roberts,et al.  Risk Mitigation in Large-Scale Systems: Lessons from High Reliability Organizations , 1997 .

[21]  M. Grant,et al.  Communities of practice. , 2020, Health progress.