Startseite ‘Set Adrift’: Fatalism as Organizational Culture at Canadian Seaports
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

‘Set Adrift’: Fatalism as Organizational Culture at Canadian Seaports

  • Kevin F. Quigley EMAIL logo und Bryan Mills
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 17. Februar 2016
Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Aus der Zeitschrift Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Band 13 Heft 1

Abstract

This paper takes an anthropological approach to understanding the governance of seaport security in Canada; it uses cultural theory and the concepts of regulation and integration as key determinants in understanding how organizations respond to risk. This paper draws on data from 29 semi-structured interviews with transportation specialists, including owners, operators, managers and regulators. Nine of the interview subjects came from seaports, in particular. The interviews occurred between 2011 and 2013. We argue that Canadian seaports exist in an area of confusing multi-level governance; they are immovable, are expected to be competitive and serve a number of (at times competing) public and private sector interests. These institutional arrangements have resulted in a security environment that is heavily regulated, but the community itself is not well integrated. Interview subjects raise concerns about the ports’ ability to respond to security threats. The paper then uses cultural theory to examine alternative governance arrangements enhancing, for example, community, competition or regulation. While most options to improve security will likely reduce the competitiveness of the seaports, it would help to instill more confidence among port staff and enhance organizational learning.

Keywords: critical infrastructure; cultural theory; governance; organizational culture; seaports; security

Appendix

A.1 Interview Participants

Table A1

List of Interview Participants.

RoleSectorCodeDate
Industry AssociationAviationInt 1Dec-11
Owner/OperatorRailInt 5Jul-11
Owner/OperatorSurface TransportInt 7Jul-11
Industry AssociationSurface TransportInt 8Jun-11
Owner/OperatorSurface TransportInt 9Jul-11
Government Regulator/OfficialAviationInt 11Sep-11
Owner/OperatorAviationInt 12Oct-11
Owner/OperatorAviationInt 13Oct-11
Industry AssociationAviationInt 15Aug-13
Owner/OperatorBridgeInt 16Jun-11
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 21Aug-11
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 22Dec-11
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 23
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 25Aug-11
Owner/OperatorPortsInt 30Jun-11
Owner/OperatorPortsInt 31Aug-11
Owner/OperatorPortsInt 32Jul-11
Industry AssociationPortsInt 35Jul-11
Government Regulator/OfficialPortsInt 37Jul-11
Government Regulator/OfficialPortsInt 38Jul-11
Government Regulator/OfficialPortsInt 40Aug-11
Owner/OperatorPortsInt 42Jul-13
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 43Aug-13
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 44Sep-13
Owner/OperatorRailInt 45Sep-13
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 46Aug-13
Government Regulator/OfficialOtheraInt 47Aug-13
ExpertPortsInt 48Jul-13
Government Regulator/OfficialSurface TransportInt 49Jul-13

aOther includes emergency mangers, and senior and management level government officials in transportation (not sub-sector specific).

SectorRegulator/Government OfficialOwner/Operator/ManagerIndustry AssociationExpert/AcademicTotal
Aviation12205
Seaport34119
Bridge01001
Rail02002
Trucking12104
Other80008
Total13114129

A.2 Interview Results

Question 1: Are you party to multi-organizational forums (either industry-sponsored or government sponsored)?

YesNoNeither Yes or no
801

Question 2A: *Do you find these forums useful?

NeutralYesNoNeither Yes or no
17–1

Question 2B: In which ways?

Int 30To share information and address common issues
Int 31They are informative but the information or intelligence lacks substance
Int 32Most useful for networking
Int 37Government cannot always disclose useful information
Int 38Educational awareness and promotion, networking
Int 40Useful for sharing knowledge and operating conventions, need to spend more time building relationships
Int 35Some are useful, some are slow moving and some suffer from lack of commitment
Int 42Learning what other ports are doing and lessons learned
Int 48N/A

Question 3A: Are there particular rules about information exchange in these forums? If so, what are they?

Int 30Depends on the forum – Yes and No
Int 31Depends – some have more restrictive security measures
Int 32Depends on type, safety forums more open than security
Int 37Security clearances and security policies result in limitations; private sector is most concerned with bottom line
Int 38Cannot reveal particular vulnerabilities without consent
Int 40Depends, information cannot always be released
Int 35Governments face legal constraints
Int 42Non-government organizations are not given as much information
Int 48N/A

Question 3B: Are you confident in the information you receive and give?

YesNoNeither yes or no
207

In the context of your organization, what kinds of information about vulnerabilities are appropriate for sharing with individuals outside of the organization? How and with whom would your organization share this information?

Int 30Information about vulnerabilities would be shared if it would affect the safety of outside organizations. Information would not be shared if it would affect business continuity or commercial interest
Int 31Outside of law enforcement, or regulatory agency discussions there is no sharing of information
Int 32Emergency plans and business continuity plans are open to share with stakeholders. Security plans are protected
Int 37Little sharing outside Canada, depends on legal arrangements
Int 38Government shares when they have a trusted relationship
Int 40Share with government but not outside
Int 35Within industry it is open
Int 42N/A
Int 48N/A

How – if at all – could security-related information-sharing in your organization be improved?

Int 30Continue to grow relationships with industries
Int 31Bring people in from different ports for the express purpose of sharing of challenges and common vulnerabilities
Int 32Province has done a good job but federal government has not, lack of ownership
Int 37Case specific-depends on situation. If information is important there are few impediments
Int 38N/A
Int 40N/A
Int 35Education
Int 42It is too compartmentalized
Int 48N/A

What standards do you adhere to in protecting your critical infrastructure? Who generates these standards?

Int 30Marine Act, Marine Transportation Security Act, Health and Safety Regulations. Generated by Government
Int 31Transport Canada marine security regulations, and standards generated by the port
Int 32Marine Transportation Security Act and port standards
Int 37IMO, Federal government
Int 38N/A
Int 40Federal Government
Int 35marine security transportation regulations, Transport Canada
Int 42Ports come up with their own standards in Canada
Int 48N/A

Question 4: *Are you satisfied with the standards? What – if anything – could be improved in terms of establishing safety standards?

SatisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedDissatisfiedNot Answered
2403

Question 5: What are your most significant risks?

Int 30N/A
Int 31Security to the supply chain. Both human events and natural disasters
Int 32Safety of Ship movements and navigation
Int 37N/A
Int 38Departmental coordination – no one department whose mandate is to address maritime commerce resumption
Int 40IT Network Security
Int 35Terrorism, Natural Disasters, Labor Unrest
Int 42Natural hazards, Terrorism
Int 48N/A

Question 6: *On which of these sectors do you rely the most to ensure successful operation of your business? Select up to three: Banking, Emergency Services (e.g. policing, firefighters). Energy and Utilities, Food Supply, Government operations, Health Care, Manufacturing, Telecommunications, including IT and internet, Transportation, Water supply (Not all subjects chose three) (N=9, 5 did not answer)

Question 7: Imagine you had one extra day per month and you had to spend it on the security and/or safety of your critical infrastructure. How would you spend it?

Int 30Assessing and sharing information about CI with interrelated agencies
Int 31Establishing a training program for everyone involved in security, including supplier
Int 32Preventative Education
Int 37Clarification of roles and responsibilities between departments
Int 38Recommend they work on interdependencies – networking and exercises
Int 40Strategic Planning
Int 35Supporting the system as a whole
Int 42Building relationships with external partners
Int 48N/A

Question 8: What do you think the chances are of a significant operational failure in your sector in the next 3 years?

Very highHighMediumLowVery lowN/A
110214

Question 9: On a scale of 1 to 10 in which ‘10’ means ‘very influential’ or ‘very demanding’ and 1 means ‘not at all’ or ‘I spend little time thinking about it’: How would you rate the influence of the following subjects in terms of their influence on how you spend your time with respect to matters of safety and security? (N=6, 3 did not answer)

References

Aucoin, Peter (2002) “Beyond the ‘New’ in Public Management Reform in Canada: Catching the Next Wave?” In: (Dunn, Christopher J.C. ed.) The Handbook of Canadian Public Administration. Ontario: Oxford University Press, pp. 36–52.Suche in Google Scholar

Bentham, Jeremy (1825) The Rationale of Reward. London: John and H.L. Hunt.Suche in Google Scholar

Brenot, Jean, Sylviane Bonnefous and Claire Marris (1998) “Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France.” Risk Analysis, 18(6):729–739.10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01116.xSuche in Google Scholar

Brooks, Mary R. (2004) “The Governance Structure of Ports.” Review of Network Economics, 3(2):169–184.10.2202/1446-9022.1049Suche in Google Scholar

Brooks, Mary R. (2006) “Port Devolution and Governance in Canada.” Research in Transportation Economics, 17:237–257.10.1016/S0739-8859(06)17011-0Suche in Google Scholar

Brooks, Mary R. (2009) North American Freight Transportation. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Suche in Google Scholar

Burns, Maria G. (2013) “Estimating the Impact of Maritime Security: Financial Tradeoffs between Security and Efficiency.” Journal of Transportation Security, 6(4):329–338.10.1007/s12198-013-0119-xSuche in Google Scholar

Canadian Security Guide Book (2007) “An Update of Security Problems in Search of Solutions.” Senate. Standing Committee on National Security and Defense. Accessed January 28, 2016. http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/398377/publication.html.Suche in Google Scholar

Colás, Alejandro and Bryan Mabee (2010) Mercenaries, Pirates, Bandits and Empires: Private Violence in Historical Context. New York: Columbia University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Dake, Karl (1991) “Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases.” Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22(1):61–82.10.1177/0022022191221006Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary (1982a) Essays in the Sociology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.10.4324/9781315888866Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary (1982b) In the Active Voice. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary (1986) How Institutions Think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary (1992) Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203430866_chapter_1Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary (2001) “Dealing with Uncertainty.” Ethical Perspectives, 8(3):145–155.10.2143/EP.8.3.583185Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary and Aaron B. Wildavsky (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520907393Suche in Google Scholar

Dowty, Rachel A., Peter May, William Wallace and Colin Beech (2011) “Organizational Culture and the Katrina Response in Louisiana.” In: (Dowty, Rachel A. and Barbara L. Allen, eds.) Dynamics of Disaster: Lessons on Risk, Response and Recovery. London: Earthscan, pp. 29–46.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Richard J., and Fred Thompson (1997) “Culture and the Environment in the Pacific Northwest.” The American Political Science Review, 91(4):885–897.10.2307/2952171Suche in Google Scholar

Fountain, Jane E. (2001) “Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service.” Governance, 14(1): 55–73.10.1111/0952-1895.00151Suche in Google Scholar

Government of Canada (1994) “Marine Transportation Security Act.” Accessed August 18. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-0.8/.Suche in Google Scholar

Government of Canada (1998) “Canada Marine Act.” Accessed August 20. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6.7/.Suche in Google Scholar

Haveman, Jon D., Howard J. Shatz and Ernesto A. Vilchis (2005) “US Port Security Policy After 9/11: Overview and Evaluation.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2(4). Accessed November 9, 2015. doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1165.doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1165Suche in Google Scholar

Helmick, Jon S. (2008) “Port and Maritime Security: A Research Perspective.” Journal of Transportation Security, 1(1):15–28.10.1007/s12198-007-0007-3Suche in Google Scholar

Hood, Christopher (1998) The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hossain, Kamrul, Hugh M. Kindred and Mary R. Brooks (2009) “The Challenge of Maritime Security Against Terrorism: A Dialogue Between the European Union and Canada.” In: (Chircop, Aldo, Erik Franck, Erik J. Molenaar, and David L. VanderZwaag, eds.) Understanding and Strengthening European Union-Canada Relations in Law of the Sea and Ocean Governance. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland Printing Centre, pp. 351–386.Suche in Google Scholar

Ircha, M. C. (2001) “Port Strategic Planning: Canadian Port Reform.” Maritime Policy and Management, 28(2):125–140.10.1080/03088830120436Suche in Google Scholar

Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. and Kerry G. Herron (2009) “Rock and a Hard Place: Public Willingness to Trade Civil Rights and Liberties for Greater Security.” Politics & Policy, 37(5):1095–1129.10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00215.xSuche in Google Scholar

Lodge, Martin, Kai Wegrich and Gail McElroy (2010) “Dodgy Kebabs Everywhere? Variety of Worldviews and Regulatory Change.” Public Administration, 88(1):247–266.10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01811.xSuche in Google Scholar

Malkin, Jesse and Aaron Wildavsky (1991) “Why the Traditional Distinction between Public and Private Goods Should be Abandoned.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(4):355–378.10.4324/9781351292085-2Suche in Google Scholar

Nicol, Peter (2007) “Vision and the Hidden Infrastructure.” The CIP Exchange. Halifax: School of Public Administration. Accessed November 9, 2015. http://cip.management.dal.ca/?page_id=9.Suche in Google Scholar

Oltedal, Sigve and Torbjørn Rundmo (2007) “Using Cluster Analysis to Test the Cultural Theory of Risk Perception.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(3):254–262.10.1016/j.trf.2006.10.003Suche in Google Scholar

Ouchi, William G. (1979) “A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms.” Management Science, 25(9):833–848.10.1007/978-1-4899-7138-8_4Suche in Google Scholar

Paine, Lincoln (2013) The Sea and Civilization: A Maritime History of the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Suche in Google Scholar

Pollitt, Christopher and Geert Bouckaert (1999) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198295969.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Psarros, George, Rolf Skjong and Magnus S. Eide (2009) “The Acceptability of Maritime Security Risk.” Journal of Transportation Security, 2(4):149–163.10.1007/s12198-009-0033-4Suche in Google Scholar

Public Safety Canada (2009) “National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure.” Last modified March 20, 2014. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/srtg-crtcl-nfrstrctr/index-eng.aspx.Suche in Google Scholar

Quigley, Kevin (2013) “Man Plans, God Laughs: Canada’s National Strategy for Protecting Critical Infrastructure.” Canadian Public Administration, 56(1):142–164.10.1111/capa.12007Suche in Google Scholar

Quigley, Kevin and Bryan Mills (2014) “An Analysis of Transportation Security Risk Regulation Regimes: Canadian Airports, Seaports, Rail, Trucking and Bridges.” CIP Initiative. Accessed November 9, 2015. http://cip.management.dal.ca/?page_id=280.Suche in Google Scholar

Renn, Ortwin (2008) Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Suche in Google Scholar

Renn, Ortwin, William J. Burns, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Roger E. Kasperson and Paul Slovic (1992) “The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications.” Journal of Social Issues, 48(4):137–160.10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.xSuche in Google Scholar

Sagan, Scott D. (1993) The Limits of Safety. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691213064Suche in Google Scholar

Sjöberg, Lennart (1998) “Risk Perception: Experts and the Public.” European Psychologist, 3(1):1–12.10.1027//1016-9040.3.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Sloan, Elinor (2012) “Homeland Security and Defence in the Post 9/11 Era.” In: (David S. McDonough, ed.) Canada’s National Security in the Post-9/11 World: Strategy, Interests, and Threats. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 98–113.10.3138/9781442686878-009Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, Michael, Richard Ellis and Aaron Wildavsky (1990) Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Transport Canada (2013) “Canadian Port Authorities.” Accessed August 5. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acf-acfi-menu-2963.htm.Suche in Google Scholar

Transport Canada (2014) “Program Alignment Architecture.” Accessed August 20, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/corporate-services/page-1025.html.Suche in Google Scholar

van Heffen, Oscar and Pieter-Jan Klok (2003) “Cultural Theory Revised: Only Five Cultures or More?” Contemporary Political Theory, 2(3):289–306.10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300094Suche in Google Scholar

Wengelin, Mattias (2006) “The Swedish Port Security Network-An Illusion or a Fact?” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 3(1). Accessed November 9, 2015. doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1214.doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1214Suche in Google Scholar

Zinn, J. O. (2004) Sociology and Risk. Accessed November 9, 2015. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwjF24GV9YPJAhWEth4KHc5VDYk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kent.ac.uk%2Fscarr%2Fpapers%2FSociology%2520Literature%2520Review%2520WP1.04%2520Zinn.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGvXKovnQTC9eSf3Mu592kp06xV7g&sig2=ZRNseS0bDj1taoiUonqf_A.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-2-17
Published in Print: 2016-4-1

©2016 by De Gruyter

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Retraction
  3. Publisher Retraction of: Transforming the UK Home Office into a Department for Homeland Security: Reflecting on an Interview with a Litigant Defending Against Online Retaliatory Feedback in the US
  4. Research Articles
  5. Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning
  6. Population as a Proxy for Infrastructure in the Determination of Event Response and Recovery Resource Allocations
  7. Opportunities and Constraints to Rural HAZMAT Risk Reduction
  8. Cyber Defense as a part of Hazard Mitigation: Comparing High Hazard Potential Dam Safety Programs in the United States and Sweden
  9. Assessing Risk Following a Wireless Emergency Alert: Are 90 Characters Enough?
  10. Changes in Self-Reported Household Preparedness Levels among a Rural Population after Exposure to Emergency Preparedness Campaign Materials
  11. The Self-Organization of Digital Volunteers across Social Media: The Case of the 2013 European Floods in Germany
  12. Fire Department Turnout Times: A Contextual Analysis
  13. ‘Set Adrift’: Fatalism as Organizational Culture at Canadian Seaports
https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2015-0030
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
critical infrastructure; cultural theory; governance; organizational culture; seaports; security

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Retraction
  3. Publisher Retraction of: Transforming the UK Home Office into a Department for Homeland Security: Reflecting on an Interview with a Litigant Defending Against Online Retaliatory Feedback in the US
  4. Research Articles
  5. Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning
  6. Population as a Proxy for Infrastructure in the Determination of Event Response and Recovery Resource Allocations
  7. Opportunities and Constraints to Rural HAZMAT Risk Reduction
  8. Cyber Defense as a part of Hazard Mitigation: Comparing High Hazard Potential Dam Safety Programs in the United States and Sweden
  9. Assessing Risk Following a Wireless Emergency Alert: Are 90 Characters Enough?
  10. Changes in Self-Reported Household Preparedness Levels among a Rural Population after Exposure to Emergency Preparedness Campaign Materials
  11. The Self-Organization of Digital Volunteers across Social Media: The Case of the 2013 European Floods in Germany
  12. Fire Department Turnout Times: A Contextual Analysis
  13. ‘Set Adrift’: Fatalism as Organizational Culture at Canadian Seaports
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 16.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jhsem-2015-0030/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen