Advertisement

The Alarms That Were Sent, but Never Received: Attention Bias in a Novel Setting

  • Helge Renå
Chapter
Part of the Executive Politics and Governance book series (EXPOLGOV)

Abstract

In an analysis of the Norwegian police’s response to two terrorist attacks in 2011, Renå examines the reasons behind and implications of the failure of the police’s internal alarm system to work. The system was email based with limited functionality and had been given hardly any attention pre-2011. The chapter argues the alarm system was a de facto blind spot. Renå shows that this was a result of locally rational behaviours, because (i) crisis coordination in the police was traditionally a one-to-one interaction at the local level, (ii) there was no disruptive incident that put swift crisis coordination on the political agenda, and (iii) the political steering of the police was characterized by detailed and biased performance management—biased towards issues other than crisis preparedness.

Keywords

Local rationality Crisis management Agenda-setting 

References

  1. Askim, J. (2015). The role of performance management in the steering of executive agencies: Layered, imbedded, or disjointed? Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askim, J., Bjurstrøm, K. H., & Kjærvik, J. (2017). Quasi-contractual ministerial steering of state agencies: Its intensity, modes and association with agency characteristics (Working paper, March 2017). Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  3. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakli, O., & Botheim, I. (2004). Nytt direktorat – Nye roller (Rapport 2004:3). Oslo: Statskonsult.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bergsaker, T., & Melgård, M. (2011, December 28). Riksalarm ble aldri testet før 22. juli. Dagbladet. Retrieved from http://www.dagbladet.no/a/63457437
  7. Brändström, A., Bynander, F., & ‘t Hart, P. (2004). Governing by looking back: Historical analogies and crisis management. Public Administration, 82(1), 191–210.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT. (2013). Evaluering av Politidirektoratet (Rapport 2013:3). Oslo: Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT.Google Scholar
  11. Eltun, R. (2013). Mål- og resultatstyring av Norges forskningsråd 2004–2012. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  12. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fremstad, E. H. (2013). En målstyrt etat i en regelstyrt verden? En studie av styringspraksisen i politi- og lensmannsetaten. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  14. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization: With special reference to government in the United States. In L. Gulick & L. Urwin (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 2–45). New York: A. M. Kelley.Google Scholar
  16. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1983). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helle, P. K. N. (2016). Etatsstyring med flere prinsipaler: En studie av styringen av fylkesmannen. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  18. Helsetilsynet. (2014). Rapport fra tilsyn med samfunnssikkerhets- og beredskapsarbeidet i Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet. Oslo: Statens Helsetilsyn.Google Scholar
  19. Helsingeng, T. (2011, November 17). Flere politidistrikt mottok aldri Riksalarmen. Verdens Gang. Retrieved from http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/artikkel.php?artid=10031521
  20. Helsingeng, T., & Sæther, A. S. (2010, October 12). Mangler kontroll: Her er den hemmelige rapporten. Verdens Gang, p. 4.Google Scholar
  21. Inderhaug, E., & Trædal, T. (2016, August 16). Derfor har politidistriktene dårlig råd. Politiforum. Retrieved from http://www.politiforum.no/no/nyheter/2016/august/Derfor+har+politidistriktene+d%C3%A5rlig+r%C3%A5d.d25-T2JDU38.ips
  22. Kaasin, H. (2016). Etatsstyringen av Innovasjon Norge 2011–2015: Omlegging til koordinert styring mot alle odss? Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  23. Kettl, D. F. (2007). System under stress: Homeland security and American politics (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ.Google Scholar
  24. Killengren, I. (2012, May 30). Interview given to the 22 July Commission. Oslo: National Archives of Norway.Google Scholar
  25. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Kripos. (2011). Kripos’ evaluering 22. juli 2011. Retrieved from https://www.politiet.no/aktuelt-tall-og-fakta/tall-og-fakta/22.-juli-evalueringsrapport/
  27. Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lægreid, P., Christensen, T., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Ambiguities of accountability and attention: Analyzing the failure of a preventive security project. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 20(1), 21–44.Google Scholar
  29. LaPorte, T. R. (2007). Critical infrastructure in the face of a predatory future: Preparing for untoward surprise. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministry of Justice. (1999). Ot.prp. nr. 7 (1999–2000): Om lov om endringer i politiloven. Oslo: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  32. Njåstad, M. (2017). Mål- og resultatstyring av politiet. En studie av Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet sin mål- og resultatstyring av Politidirektoratet i perioden 2004–2016. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  33. Norges offentlig utredning (NOU). (1981). Politiets rolle i samfunnet. Delutredning I (No. 1981:35). Oslo: Justis- og politidepartementet.Google Scholar
  34. Norges offentlig utredning (NOU). (2012). Rapport fra 22.juli-kommisjonen (No. 2012:14). Oslo: Departementenes servicesenter.Google Scholar
  35. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Politidirektoratet. (2007). PBS I: Politiets Beredskapssystem Del I, Retningslinjer for politiets beredskap (Politidirektoratet 2007/04). Oslo: Politidirektoratet.Google Scholar
  37. Politidirektoratet. (2011). Vedrørende spørsmål fra Stortingets 22. juli komité. Oslo: Politidirektoratet.Google Scholar
  38. Politidirektoratet. (2012). Evaluering av Politidirektoratets håndtering av hendelsene 22. juli. Retrieved from https://www.politiet.no/aktuelt-tall-og-fakta/tall-og-fakta/22.-juli-evalueringsrapport/
  39. Politidirektoratet. (2014). Politiets trussel om bruk av skytevåpen eller bruk av skytevåpen 2002–2014. Oslo: Politidirektoratet.Google Scholar
  40. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  41. Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  43. Sønderland, O. (2012). 22. juli 2011: Evaluering av politiets innsats (POD-publikasjon 2012/03). Oslo: Politidirektoratet.Google Scholar
  44. Standing Committee on Justice. (2006). Innstilling fra justiskomiteen om politiets rolle og oppgaver (Innst. S. nr. 145 (2005–2006)). Oslo: Standing Committee on Justice.Google Scholar
  45. Standing Committee on Justice. (2015). Innstilling fra justiskomiteen om endringer I politiloven (Innst. 306 S (2014–2015)). Oslo: Standing Committee on Justice.Google Scholar
  46. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Thelen, K. A., & Mahoney, J. (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Vaughan, D. (2005). Organizational rituals of risk and error. In B. Hutter & M. Power (Eds.), Organizational encounters with risk (pp. 33–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vaughan, D. (2006). The social shaping of commission reports. Sociological Forum, 21(2), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wathne, C. T. (2015). Som å bli fremmed i eget hus: Politiets opplevelse av mening og motivasjon i nye styringssystemer. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, Oslo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Administration and Organization TheoryUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations