You may have heard me say this before: crisis simulations are not trainings. Simulations are great exercises to identify gaps for improvement. Participants may get tangential experience through artificially applied heat and time pressure. But do simulation participants emerge as better crisis managers? Probably not.
Trainings, when done well, are customized improvement labs. Covering each component of a crisis management capability requires different modules of training….
101-LEVEL TACTICAL TRAINING: These modules are essential for basics in crisis management. They include plan orientations, crisis-team alignment and crisis-specific communications training. Plan orientations ensure comprehension of written crisis management protocols. Crisis-team alignment eliminates overlap of cross-functional responsibilities. Media trainings help interviewed spokespeople create responsible impressions for the organization. “Online dialogue” trainings have also become common since organizations are increasingly interfacing with key publics through social networks – communicating through blogs, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other related technologies.
201-LEVEL STRATEGIC WORKSHOPS: Some organizations have great crisis plans and teams in place, but lack the ability to goal-set and align strategies in a crisis. This requires an elevated level of training, typically in a classroom-style setting. It is common for these workshops to include role-play to give participants greater appreciation for the expectations of many key audiences (and key critics).
301-LEVEL LEADERSHIP PROGRAMMING: Ultimately, crisis plans help leaders determine a successful path through a crisis. Building top-flight crisis leaders requires a deep analysis of the effective crisis management mindset. These training programs are rare, but exceptionally valuable for individuals with top responsibility to manage an organization’s crises.
In summary, there are plenty of seminars that provide checklists on the “top 20 things you need to do in a crisis.” I am wary of those programs as standalones because, in my experience, most of those rules can get challenged once you weigh all the unique factors of each crisis you manage. Perhaps those “golden rules” seminars and checklists may be better positioned as primers for additional crisis management study through a customized approach.
Many organizations have little or no continuity planning experience.
Typically, after a disaster, they:
■ Take longer to get organized.
■ Find it difficult to sort and evaluate information.
■ Find it difficult to shift poorly formed perceptions.
■ Are confused when new information does not correlate with the initial perceptions.
■ Have difficulty relating the reactive strategy to the actual extent of damage.
■ Are more likely to take extreme positions.
It is my experience that of those organizations with continuity plans, few actually find the plan as useful as they had expected. In the post disaster aftermath, the decisions to be made in the reconstruction/recovery effort need to be informed by an understanding of what has just happened as well as the extent of the disruption and damage. No plan will be sufficiently well developed or understood to enable accurate forecasting of the nature of the disruption and damage.
An analogy would be the development of a plan for a game of football. What level of detail would you put in the plan before the plan itself begins to restrict the players? A good plan would place the players in position, provide a common understanding of the type of game they are to play, but leave the moment-by moment decisions to the players themselves. In short we hope that the players are aware of the state of play as it develops, will exercise good judgement, and execute their decisions ably. To do this they will also need to communicate well with one another.
In a crisis, informal communication systems emerge spontaneously to defend the group and to collect and process information and meaning.
In turn, these communication systems heavily influence the way in which the different personal experiences and knowledge of the situation are given meaning and shared within the decision making group.
Though it is relatively easy to anticipate and plan for the means to communicate critical information from one person to another, it is not possible
to predetermine either the content or the meaning that the information will be given. Likewise it is not possible to mandate the exercise of good judgment. Despite the shortcomings, it would appear that organizations that have been through the planning process perform better than organizations that have not, whether or not the plan has been activated. It is not clear whether it is the experience that comes with addressing the issues in developing a plan that increases the responsiveness of an organization; or whether it is only the more responsive organizations
that produce plans in the first place. Perhaps there is an iterative positive feedback process involved.
Tim —
Sounds like you've got a lot on your mind!
I agree with a point your last paragraph. Those organizations that focus on crisis management — through planning as you suggest, or training as I suggest — will fare better. Crisis PLANS become static. They collect dust. Organizations are better served by an active approach to the topic.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Tim —
Sounds like you've got a lot on your mind!
I agree with a point your last paragraph. Those organizations that focus on crisis management — through planning as you suggest, or training as I suggest — will fare better. Crisis PLANS become static. They collect dust. Organizations are better served by an active approach to the topic.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.