Current HR issues in emergency personnel
Simon Lawry-White, EPS 3 researcher and independent management consultant
Simon presented a research paper on Current Human Resource Issues in Emergency Personnel to EPS 3.
Part of the executive summary of the research report is reproduced here. Download full report.
“This study was commissioned by the Emergency Personnel Seminar Steering Group to provide an up to date view of human resource practice around emergency personnel in emergency response implementing and specialist recruitment agencies. The overall aim of the survey is to stimulate reflection and debate ahead of, and during EPS 3.
A quick survey approach was used to obtain feedback from agencies by e-mailing a list of thirty-two statements and inviting them to say to what extent they agreed with them. A further nine questions asked them to provide further details including their perceived successes and failures, their current top three concerns with regard to emergency personnel. Thirty-two completed questionnaires were returned, about half the number sent out. The responses came from individuals and may or may not represent the consensus in their agency.
The survey shows that the recruitment and retention of staff is still the number one issue for agencies working in emergency response. In this regard, little seems to have changed since the first Emergency Personnel Seminar held in November 1997. Agencies are particularly concerned about the difficulty they have in recruiting and retaining good emergency field programme managers.
Overall, agencies seem to be fairly upbeat about the current state of their emergency personnel human resource performance. Judging by the responses to the survey interviewing, briefing and de-briefing are all being well handled, insurance policies for emergency personnel are adequate, and adequate stress/trauma counselling is available. The majority felt that their salaries and benefits are competitive, although a significant minority did not agree.
The feedback seems to be contradictory in a few cases. For example, agencies generally consider that they have made advances in the recruitment, training and deployment of staff from within the region of operation, and yet this topic hardly features in the list of agency successes or in the top three emergency personnel issues. Also, while agencies are relatively happy that emergency personnel are well managed on the ground, this does not seem to fit with the stated difficulty of finding experienced field managers.
A few statements in the survey were specifically aimed at agencies’ experience of the Kosovo crisis. For those agencies directly involved, there was a general consensus that their response to the Kosovo crisis weakened their existing programmes. They were equally clear view that Kosovo did not negatively affect their response to crises that came after Kosovo.
The survey indicates that, to some extent, agencies have evaluated their responses to recent humanitarian crises for lessons on human resources, and that the lessons learnt have affected their HR practice.
The results show that agencies are deploying inexperienced personnel, either as a matter of policy to develop the skills of new people, or because posts cannot otherwise be filled. This ties in with agencies’ perceptions that they are in competition with other agencies for personnel from the same pool.
Section 5 of the main report includes a brief review of three inter-agency initiatives in Europe and North America - Sphere, People In Aid and InterAction PVO Standards, all of which potentially impact on human resource policy procedure and practice with regard to emergency personnel”.
Some strategic issues were highlighted in the presentation, which helped to stimulate discussion on topics for group work. These included:
- How can the recruitment and retention of emergency managers be improved? Is an investment in permanent staff managers (with some career prospects) necessary or can agencies rely on the band of skilled people who have built their own careers as freelancers in emergency management?
- How can emergency personnel, and particularly those on first assignment, be given a more realistic view of what their working environment and experience is likely to be and be given proper supervision when on assignment, so that they are less likely to lose heart after one assignment?
- To what extent have in-region recruitment and personnel management systems been developed? Have agency HR management systems have been applied to national staff?
- Is there still life in a discussion about joint registers to reduce duplication and concentrate the management of such data into a few centres of excellence? Is there a form of information exchange or pooling of personnel details that can work to the advantage of all in a competitive environment?
- Has stress induced by poor management, and indeed stress as a whole, has become less of an issue for emergency personnel, or did it just not appear in the survey?
- In an industry this size, is this level of recruitment preparedness and risk taking over the quality of personnel really acceptable? Can any of the Sphere, People in Aid or InterAction standards be met in the current situation? Are there mechanisms that can increase the size of the labour pool and reduce the level of scrambling for personnel to staff up each new crisis?
And, in relation to specific sector initiatives
- Does Sphere need to be more explicit on HR, or will a commitment to achieving the standards necessitate improvements in HR practice anyway? Do pilot agencies see that it will impact on their HR policy and practice?
- Have those UK/Irish organisations within the pilot of the People in Aid Code benefited from the last two years experience with the Code and from the recent social audit?
- Do InterAction members consider that additional codes or guide are required to promote good practice in HR concerning emergency personnel?