Tyler and Sadiq acknowledge that “resilience” is a term with many definitions and attributes. However, there is agreement on the goal of resilience: Increased resilience better positions a community to deal with disaster. They extend this concept to individual emergency managers: The more resilient the emergency manager, the better prepared they are to cope with disaster. Unfortunately, they define a resilient emergency manager as one who has the ability to perform the skills that Tyler and Sadiq attribute to a resilient emergency manager rather than offering a more detailed definition.
According to Tyler and Sadiq, a resilient emergency manager should be able to:
- Adapt to changing conditions
- Make agile decisions
- Function interoperably
- Mobilize resources
- Scale programs, policies, and procedures
- Develop robust collaborative networks
- Build redundant emergency management systems
It seems to me that the real issue is that we still lack a competency framework that defines the role of emergency managers. Lacking such a definition, researchers are at a distinct disadvantage when trying to identify essential characteristics and required skills and competencies. Emergency management is not monolithic; emergency managers are called on to fulfill many different positions at varying levels, making defining a single set of characteristics applicable to all extremely difficult.
I believe the value of Tyler and Sadiq’s paper lies in its refinement of existing characteristics rather than as an addition to them as Tyler and Sadiq suggest. I certainly agree with their recommendation that emergency management education programs focus on essential skills as much as they do on emergency management topics. However, until we fully define the roles of emergency managers with an accepted competency framework, I’m afraid we’re doomed to keep arguing over endless lists of skills and competencies.