An additional related question was ‘why or when should we reassess our existing Crisis Management capability'. There are many reasons why an organization must periodically take a detailed look at their Crisis Management Program; asking basic questions; ‘can our organization really withstand the effects of a major crisis; are we fully capable of responding effectively and decisively'? It may be time if:

• It has been three years or more since your Crisis Management Program has been assessed.
• Major organizational changes have taken place.
• Significant reductions in key personnel have occurred.
• Budget constraints have prevented effective program maintenance (i.e. training).
• Management are uninvolved with or unaware of the existing Crisis Management program.
• Makeup of your Crisis Management Organization has substantially changed and / or
• You have general concerns as to the stability and capability of your existing Crisis Management Program.

While there are arguably twenty plus critical success factors to a fully operational Crisis Management Program; there are seven key areas that should be your initial focus.
These are:

i. Enterprise Level Strategy - the policy driven requirement that the Crisis Management Program exists to support or otherwise safeguard every employee in every company location in the world regardless of political or organizational alignment or functional role of the individual.

ii. Crisis Response Team - the enterprise structure, team makeup, roles, responsibilities, qualifications of team members and overall team capability.

iii. Management policies and operational compliance ‘standards' - the directives, rules, techniques, strategies and operational processes applied and employed by the Crisis Response Team in its response to a ‘crisis' event or threatening situation.

iv. In-crisis process - the actions taken by the Crisis Response Team from an event / threat assessment and notification to response and resolution.

v. Continuing Education and Training - the type, frequency and quality of ongoing education and training received by the Crisis Response Team, including; reinforcement exercises, crisis simulation exercises, education forums and pre-event response planning workshops.

vi. Crisis Preparedness Program - ensuring all incident, emergency, crisis and disaster response plans are independently capable of responding to the situation they were designed to manage and sufficiently integrated to provide a coordinated process should a major threat or crisis situation exist. This is the event-driven integration of Crisis Management, Business Continuity Management, Technology Continuity Management and Incident Emergency Response.

vii. The Alignment of Management Expectations and Requirements - ensuring the Crisis Management Program and all operational components are effectively aligned to the expectations and requirements of your Board of Directors, Executive Management, line of business leaders and, equally your employees and, to varying degrees, key external stakeholders.

Each of these components has been discussed to varying levels of detail in previous Parts of this Information Series. As such, we will not repeat those details here, but rather focus on the process by which you can determine your overall Crisis Management operational status, existing capabilities and, as required an enhancement strategy and plan.

The Five Steps to Wow!

Establishing and maintaining a truly effective Crisis Management capability can be a daunting task. Keeping Executives interested, keeping your team members engaged, achieving a high level of visibility throughout your organization and maintaining a high level of preparedness are some of the objectives and challenges of most. When things go ‘boom' Crisis Management gets a lot of attention but unfortunately (and fortunately), not all organizations experience major crises on a regular basis, therefore; their capability is not really tested.

As such, it doesn't take long before a Crisis Management Program response capability weakens, often due to neglect. For those that do not have a formal Crisis Management Program, the challenges to establish one can be even more difficult. As stated earlier, CRPC received a number of comments and questions related to performing an assessment of their current Crisis Management Program and their Crisis Management capability.

We are going to discuss five steps that can be taken by any organization that, while fairly simple in terms of execution, can have a profound impact on your Crisis Management Program; significantly enhancing your overall capability to respond to and manage a crisis situation. This is a positive approach whereby you engage management and those involved with your Crisis Management Program to cooperatively identify deficiencies and corresponding enhancements.

For this purpose we will be using terminology consistent with the CRPC Information Series (Parts A through F.2). The term Crisis Response Team (CRT) should be taken as the team you have established or would like to establish as the team having operational response responsibility for crises that threaten or impact your organization.

Applying the assessment steps described below will allow you to effectively assess your current Crisis Management status and overall capabilities, as well as identifying areas of improvement and any enhancements required to attain a capabilities level acceptable to your organization.

Step1 Reality Check on the pulse of Crisis Management - Ascertain Management's understanding, expectations, requirements, support and concerns of and for the organization's Crisis Management Program. A similar assessment from the perspective of your existing Crisis Response Team is equally important.

Step 2 Assess the ‘Rules of Engagement'. - Review existing Crisis Management policies, operational standards, mandate and current documentation; measuring how well all components are aligned with expectations and requirements established in Step 1.

Step 3 Conduct a ‘Performance Assessment'. - Using single or multiple scenario based exercises, evaluate your in-crisis process, the individual performance of team members related to contribution, leadership and cooperation, as well as the team's overall performance related to situational assessment, decision making and applying the rules of engagement.

Step 4 Prepare a Crisis Management Program ‘Enhancement Plan'. - Through an interactive workshop with all primary members of your CRT review findings, conclusions and requirements established in previous steps to determine desired / required enhancements. Prepare a CRT approved Enhancement Plan.

Step 5 Obtain Management approvals and implement your plan. - Conduct an Executive Management presentation focused on the assessment process just completed, major findings and resulting enhancement steps and recommendations. Finalize your Enhancement Plan based on Management approvals; implement as quickly as possible.

CRPC suggests you consider using a third party organization as your Project Director to facilitate the assessment (or use company employees who are NOT members of your existing Crisis Response Team). This level of independence will result in a more objective assessment, ensure all of your team members equally participate and generally may have a higher probability of acceptance within your organization.

Completing the above five steps will clearly confirm the overall capability of your existing Crisis Management Program and provide a definitive roadmap of enhancement activities to achieve the level of effectiveness required.

The process and a few ideas.....

Step1: Reality Check on the pulse of Crisis Management

The objective of this step is to produce a general statement of awareness and understanding of the existing Crisis Management Program on the part of key stakeholders. As well, the process will obtain views and opinions on what is right and what is wrong with the existing program. Expectations and requirements of the Crisis Management Program should be an additional and important deliverable from the interview process. Establishing some level of consensus on various matters would be used to shape future program components.

This step commences with interviews of three principal groups by the Project Director.

• Executive Management: Ideally the entire Executive Management Team should be interviewed, but minimally 50% of the team must participate to effectively represent management views, expectations, requirements, concerns and general satisfaction levels.

• Line Manager of each Member of the CRT: A discussion with the direct manager of each CRT member should be focused on obtaining their understanding of the Crisis Management Program, its importance to the organization, the role their representative has on the CRT, their support level and commitment to the program and any concerns they may have regarding the Crisis Management Program in general.

• CRT Members: A one-on-one interview with each member of your existing Crisis Response Team should focus on the individual's view of team training, performance, strengths and weaknesses. In addition, determining what each team member believes should be done to correct any weaknesses identified and improve on the overall capability of the team should be key deliverables from each interview.

With completion of Step 1, an ‘Enhancement Opportunity Analysis' report should be generated detailing the interview results along with an overall assessment of the organization's Crisis Management Program from the perspective of those interviewed. The report should focus on expectations, requirements, strengths and areas of improvement. The ‘Enhancement Opportunity Analysis' should be shared with those interviewed, providing an opportunity to comment on or otherwise confirm your findings.

Note: It is highly probable that your Executive Management know less about your current Crisis Management Program than you think or hoped they do (Crisis Management is not uppermost on their minds). As such, you will get as many questions as answers or opinions. This Q&A should not form part of your Enhancement Opportunity Analysis; the Q&A will be given further consideration in Steps 4 and 5.

Step 2: Assess the ‘rules of engagement'

The objective of Step 2 is to validate that the Crisis Management Program's existing policies, mandate, roles and responsibilities and operational standards are effectively aligned to the expectation and requirements agreed to in Step 1.

This step should be comprised of:

CRT Workshop: A workshop facilitated by the Project Director with the primary members of the Crisis Response Team will result in a detailed review of all existing documented, alleged or understood interpretations of existing Crisis Management related policies, mandates, operational standards and all other directives that dictate or determine the roles and responsibilities of the Crisis Response Team before, during and after a crisis situation.

The workshop should minimally consider the following elements of the CRPC methodology:

• Program ownership and maintenance responsibilities
• Crisis Management Organization - structure and participation,
• Response priorities, life safety, brand image, business operations, etc.,
• Roles of Crisis Management Team (executive management) versus Crisis Response Team,
• Support of remote dependent sites,
• Authority to act,
• In-crisis decision making (who and how),
• In-crisis event documentation,
• Management notification and status reporting,
• Use of automated tools and services to support response and control,
• Situational assessment and crisis determination,
• Event Alert Levels and determination criteria,
• Crisis Command Centre operations,
• Compliance management,
• Threat risk assessment process,
• Pre-event response planning,
• Continuing education and training program.

The importance of one item warrants a more comprehensive discussion; the operational integration of Crisis Management with Business Continuity Management, Technology Continuity Management and Incident Emergency Response. The focus here is to ensure there is a clear and well understood process that maintains the operational independence of the four components of Crisis Preparedness; while ensuring a well coordinated response in a major crisis situation. The discussions should include; related policies, operational priorities, ownership, mandate, role and responsibilities, decision making authorities and integrated or overlapping in-crisis processes.

Preparation of a Rules of Engagement Analysis: A report summarizing the findings (positive and negative), conclusions, decisions and / or recommendations that the Crisis Response Team want acted upon or considered as part of the overall program assessment. On its own, this report does not require distribution at this time to persons external to the CRT.

Step 3: Conduct a ‘Performance Assessment'

The objectives of this step are to assess the collective capability of your Crisis Response Team using a Crisis Simulation Exercise and to assess all operational components of your existing Crisis Management Program.

CRT Crisis Simulation Exercise: Develop and facilitate an interactive role-playing crisis simulation exercise with a predefined outcome and based on an event scenario that has occurred in the past, has a relatively high probability of occurring and / or one that is of considerable concern to the organization. Some exercise development suggestions to ensure success are:

• Facilitate the selected crisis simulation exercise applying existing in-crisis processes. All Primary and Designated Backup members of the Crisis Response Team should participate.

• The exercise should incorporate a large number of event changes (30 - 40), deescalating and escalating factors, rumours and speculation, political interference and role playing from 6 - 8 internal and external stakeholders.
• The exercise should drive (through scripting) the active participation of each discipline represented on the Crisis Response Team (i.e. Corporate Security, Business Continuity Management, Human Resources, Public Affairs, Facilities Management, Safety, Technology Continuity Management).
• The exercise should incorporate interaction with your Crisis Management Team (Executive Management Team) requiring update sessions (2 - 3), recommendation approvals and joint decision making.
• The Crisis Simulation Exercise should incorporate activities, incidents and / or events that will explicitly require demonstrated leadership, full participation and team decision making by creating situations of subject matter discomfort, controversy, objections and differing opinions. Strong arguments / disagreements will often lead to better decisions.
• To effectively achieve the stated objectives, it will be necessary to develop an exercise that can be concluded within six (6) hours with a two (2) hour debriefing. All scheduled breaks and lunch should be held in the training centre (Crisis Command Centre).
• Do not incorporate testing of your Business Continuity and Technology Continuity Plans into this Crisis Management exercise. The resulting complexity would leave little room for success and alter the response priorities of the Crisis Response Team. This should be an evaluation of your Crisis Management capability only.
• The Project Director or a designate (not a member of the CRT) should function as the Exercise Facilitator who will be responsible for development and facilitation of the overall exercise. Utilization of 1 or possibly 2 ‘exercise observers' (with specific monitoring and assessment duties) is required to fairly and accurately make the required assessments.

CRT Performance Self Assessment: With conclusion of the Crisis Simulation Exercise (whether deemed successful or not), the Crisis Response Team should complete an operational assessment of their own performance (self assessment). Coordinated by the CRT Team Leader (and excluding the Project Director and / or the Exercise Facilitator), the CRT would critique its performance (not the exercise)

• What the team did well / strengths of the team,
• What the team did poorly / weaknesses of the team,
• What the team needs to improve on,
• What ‘program' enhancements would improve the team's performance,
• Other operational concerns related to the organization's Crisis Management Program.

This self assessment must be an honest and constructive view of the team's performance, including; makeup of the team, the active participation of each team member, leadership, team member contribution, understanding the Crisis Management Program's mandate and priorities, the application of in-crisis standards and processes,

Facilitator Assessment: The Exercise Facilitator, in conjunction with the ‘exercise observers' would coordinate the preparation of an overall Capabilities Assessment; consisting of:

• Assessment of CMT members that participated in terms of their impact on or affect on the performance of the CRT or outcome of the exercise (required to ensure assessment of the CRT is not influenced by unpredictable actions of the CMT members).
• Assessment of Role Players that participated in terms of their impact on or affect on the performance of the CRT or outcome of the exercise (required to ensure assessment of the CRT is not influenced by unpredictable actions of the Role Players).
• Assessment of the applicability and workability of the applied policies, standards, in-crisis process and the tools being utilized to enhance response and control activities. Where applicable enhancement alternatives or recommendations should be established.
• Assessment of the Crisis Response Team with primary focus on:

• makeup of the team in terms of disciplines represented,

• functional experience and knowledge of team members,

• general contribution of each team member,

• interaction and cohesiveness of the Crisis Response Team members,

•  compatibility of the team,

• leadership strengths and weaknesses,

• understanding of their role and responsibilities,

• approach and ability to make time-sensitive decisions,

• team's application of operational standards,

• adoption of the pre-defined in-crisis process,

• integration to operational components of Crisis Preparedness,

• interactions with CMT and other external groups or individuals.

Note: It is critically important to understand that this assessment is not questioning or measuring an individual's capability to perform their role in the organization (their job), but rather and only, whether or not they possess the skills and experience demanded by events that must be managed in a crisis situation.

The Project Director should, through the exercise and assessment, draw conclusions and make recommendations to correct or mitigate areas of concern for review and discussion in Step 4. The resulting ‘Crisis Management Program Assessment' reports would at this time only be distributed to the primary members of the Crisis Response Team.

Step 4 Prepare a Crisis Management Program Assessment ‘Enhancement Plan'

The objective of Step 4, employing a workshop format, is for the CRT and the Project Director to collaborate on the preparation of the Crisis Management Enhancement Plan.

• An interactive workshop, based on the findings, results and conclusions of Steps 1 - 3 and the ‘Crisis Management Program Assessment' reports, should be held with the primary members of the Crisis Response Team to develop a ‘Crisis Management Program Enhancement Plan'.
• The workshop would be developed and facilitated by the Project Director,
• The CRT should consider the findings, conclusions and recommendations from all reports and analysis generated in Steps 1 - 3;

• Enhancement Opportunity Analysis (Step 1),

• Executive Management QandA (Step 1),

• Rules of Engagement Analysis (Step 2),

• The five Crisis Management Program Assessment reports (Step 3).

The CRT analysis should result in an acceptance, rejection or an on-hold status (future consideration) for each recommendation / decision made.

• The Project Director should then prepare a Crisis Management Program Enhancement Plan report incorporating the analysis prepared by the CRT. The report should be distributed to all members of the CRT for comment and finalization.
  

Step 5 Obtain Management approvals and implement your plan

The objective of Step 5 is to obtain Management approval for implementation of the Crisis Management Program Enhancement Plan prepared by the Project Director and the CRT.

• The Project Director, in conjunction with the CRT Team Leader, would develop a Management presentation reflecting the Crisis Management Program Assessment project and the resulting Enhancement Plan.
• The Project Director and the CRT Team Leader would jointly facilitate an Executive Management working session to review the ‘major' components of the Enhancement Plan for those components that require Management approval (versus the operational decisions that can be made by the CRT itself).
• If required, as a result of the Executive Management presentation and discussion, update the Crisis Management Program Enhancement Plan for distribution to all CRT members for their review.
• Implementation of the enhanced Crisis Management Program should be based on the new program versus an update of enhancements and should consider:

• Program awareness training (presentation and discussion) with the Executive Management Team (1 hour session),

• Program awareness training (presentation and discussion) with the organization's Business Leaders (functional heads), (1 hour session),

• Program awareness and high level operational training with senior management of each of the functional groups represented on the CRT (i.e. Corporate Security, Human Resources, Public Affairs, Business Continuity Management), (2 hour session), and

• Operational training for the CRT utilizing the enhanced Crisis Management Program standards and processes (3 hour session based on a scenario based exercise).

The assessment strategy presented above will not fit every organization perfectly; it will greatly depend on the existence or maturity level of your Crisis Management Program. Nonetheless, whether applied as presented or customized to meet your needs, the process will deliver a comprehensive capability assessment without going through an exhaustive and resource intensive review or development project.

Note: If you are uncertain as to the scope required in an assessment of your existing Crisis Management Program or you believe there are only a few areas of immediate concern, talk to CRPC about providing a ‘Performance Capability Opinion'. This snapshot review of your Crisis Management Program (normally 3 days of effort) will help you identify all major problem areas or suspect areas of concern and, through an interactive workshop, establish corrective measures and / or determine if there is a requirement for further analysis or a limited program assessment.

Stay Tuned: Although this is the final segment to this Information Series, CRPC will be authoring future series to address many of the most common challenges faced by most organizations and their mandate to maintain a responsive and effective Crisis Management capability. While we recognize that most organizations will not employ all of the strategies and suggestions made in this eight part series, we trust all recipients gained from the knowledge and experience of Crisis Response Planning Corporation.

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI Hon, is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (www.crpccrisismanagement.com), an internationally recognized Crisis Management consulting services company. For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to business and to the emergency management industry itself.

Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com.

In Part F.1 (Practice Makes Perfect) we discussed the critical requirement for a Crisis Management Continuing Education and Training Program (CET Program) and the types of sessions necessary to not only enhance the teams overall response capability but to develop and facilitate sessions that would help drive their desire to participate.

One of the more common reasons for non-participation is the internalized opinion that ‘I know my job and what must be done in a crisis; so why attend training'. The basic failure here is that some people simply don't understand ‘why' education and training is so vital. ‘Team training' is just that, enhancement of the team's capability to respond to and manage a crisis or threatening situation; it's not just about their individual education and training.

For Crisis Management to be effective the team must function as a cohesive unit (a well-oiled machine), recognizing the strength and limitations of other team members, establishing and understanding expectations of themselves and others, and sharing knowledge, ideas and opinions to drive alternatives to make the ultimate ‘correct' team decisions.

There are always excuses for not attending; about the only one I haven't heard is that ‘my dog ate the training schedule', but I'm sure someone has used it. Sure, if a person is ill or has a personal family emergency, these are unpreventable and acceptable reasons for missing a session. Beyond that however, it is usually self-imposed rationale that is used to avoid participation.

There are ways and means to get them there, but before we can actually address the problem, we have to understand why this problem exists in the first place. The primary reasons include:

• there is no consequence if they don't
• crisis management policy and standards do not require their participation
• existing education and training sessions are not challenging, exciting or even ‘fun'
• team members' line managers do not understand the importance of the Crisis Management Program and therefore importance of ‘all' team member participation
• they are the wrong people to be on the team

Impact When They Don't Participate

In many cases, those team members who do not participate simply do not understand the impact their non-participation has on the team's capability to be successful in an actual crisis. The impact is significant and far-reaching as it:

• Lowers the probability of a successful or even acceptable response in an actual crisis
• Alienates missing team members, seriously damaging any level of team cohesion
• Weakens the overall capability (in terms of knowledge, skills and experience) of the Crisis Response Team- Management expectations of the Crisis Response Team (CRT) do not change even though the teams' expectations of itself have lessened
• Diminishes the quality of the training sessions or results in failed exercises due to missing knowledge and skills.
• Negatively alters the participation attitudes of other CRT members; it can easily become endemic.
• Diminishes general attitudes towards and appreciation of the organizations Crisis Management Program - everyone sees non-participation.
• Is simply not fair to everyone else who regularly and purposefully commits their time and energy to the Crisis Management Program

Changing Attitudes and Behavior

My first thought, in terms of correcting the attitudes of no-shows, had something to do with a small baseball bat. Then of course that would require you having a baseball ‘team'. Reality is that a ‘team', regardless of its purpose (i.e. a baseball team or a management team) is completely interdependent on every member of that team or it will never be a winner; it will never succeed.

I want to go back to the baseball bat idea for a moment. Sometimes it takes a jolt to make people realize the impact they are having on their team by not participating. While a smack on the head is not a great motivational move, their attention can be had by the actions you take when team members fail to attend these vital sessions. Below are some thoughts of how to ‘smack' without going to jail.

1 Share the plan schedule and results

• There are four steps to be taken now to establish a basis on which to address the problem of non-participation.

• Ensure all team members fully understand the importance of the CET Program and the impact they will have on the ‘team' if they opt out of those sessions.

• Ensure direct line managers of all team members have an understanding of the role and critical importance of the Crisis Response Team and that their department / function is an integral component of that team. Further, provide a brief overview of your CET Program and discuss the absolute need for all members to participate in all sessions. You don't want to hear back later that a person's manager said ‘I didn't realize it was critical or mandatory to participate in the CET Program'.

• Make sure Executive Management have an appreciation of the CET Program and how critical it is to obtain full participation in order to maintain the organization's capability to respond to and manage a crisis situation.

• Prepare a list of existing CRT members (Primary and Designated Backups). Ask Executive Management to vet the makeup of the CRT; they will be more than willing to share their opinion as to who they think should be representing the respective ‘utility' group on the team (based on skills, experience and knowledge only). See Part D of this CRPC Information Series for makeup of the CRT. With Executive input, even if nothing changes, the CRT becomes ‘their' team. It also reinforces the importance of Crisis Management and the key role the CRT will have in a crisis situation. Additionally, members of the CRT receive a recognition and respect that may very well be the determining factor that influences their ongoing CET Program participation.

By going through the above process, you will have created an expectation on the part of Executive Management that all members of the CRT do in fact fully participate in the Crisis Management CET Program; political motivation at its best!

On an ongoing basis, you have now created a forum on which to publicize participation and, of course, non-participation by all team members.

2. Operationally, it's simple and within the bounds of political etiquette

Each year when you create your ‘schedule' for the CET Program sessions and when changes are made, publicize the plan to team members' line managers and the Executive Management Team. Don't forget to include a brief overview of the type of session planned (review Part F.1 of the CRPC Information Series for a profile of each type of session).

Remind all Primary and Designated Backup team members at least monthly of upcoming sessions and, of equal importance, ensure team members' line managers are informed as well. Confirm, reconfirm, then reconfirm again that all CET Program sessions are entered into each team members' personal schedule.

Once your session is concluded, issue a brief update to all team members, team member line managers and your Executive Management Team; including objectives of the session, a synopsis of the session and very importantly, who attended and who did not. For those who did not attend for reasons of illness or a family emergency note that behind their name.

This subtle ‘smack' will resonate with the absent team member(s) and more importantly with his / her line manager and the ‘Executive' responsible for that function within the organization. No one likes internal bad press for any reason. This political nudge will definitely improve on attendance at the next session.

3. Additional thoughts

• Facilitate a relatively short team workshop (where hopefully all will attend) focused on the necessity of team member participation. As a component of the workshop incorporate a series of small exercises that heighten the need for the active participation of all skill sets and the knowledge base of all team members. This type of interaction and interdependence will reinforce the contribution and participation of every member of the team. A discussion around your scheduled CET Program should include a reminder of the importance and full participation and the responsibility of every team member to take part. Remind the team about Step 2 above; it will help.

• Since all CET Program sessions include both Primary and Designated Backup team members, don't allow any team member to send a substitution to any session; particularly an administrative assistant who has been given the assignment to take notes and report back to the actual team member. Not only is this a waste of an administrative assistant's time, it provides absolutely no value to the team member or the team as a whole.

• Every Primary Member of your Crisis Response Team should understand that if their Designated Backup has been attending the sessions of the CET Program and the Primary has not; there is a strong possibility that it will be the Designated Backup who is asked to participate on the CRT when an actual crisis occurs; team chemistry must be maintained.

• The CRT Team Leader should have a quiet discussion with any no show, but especially repeat offenders; expressing that while you understand pressures of a person's job can be overwhelming, there is a critical need for full participation at all CET Program sessions.

• If you are fortunate enough to have multiple people in your organization with similar skills to a no-show member of your team, you always have the option of asking that person to resign their role on the Crisis Response Team. This approach would saveface and accomplish the ultimate goal of having the most capable CRT attainable.

• Don't forget the obvious; sometimes we just need to remind people the reason they were asked to be on the CRT to begin with; a successful gentle nudge is far better than the motivational ‘smack'.

• This document should be read by every member of your Crisis Response Team; sending multiple copies to those who are repeat no-shows!!! Perhaps they will view this as a wake-up call.

• The CRPC Crisis Management Methodology suggests our clients consider all of the 22 operational ‘standards'; one of which is mandatory participation on the part of all CRT team members to all sessions of the CET Program. Experience has shown us that in order to be successful you must have a policy and standards driven process, with a well managed and well trained Crisis Response Team at the helm.

We recognize that all organizations don't have the luxury of having more than one person who has the skills and knowledge necessary for every discipline required on the CRT; basically you are stuck with those individuals even if they are regular no-shows. It does mean however, you must try harder; have the best CET Program you can and apply every motivational means available to you to get them and keep them involved.

Don't be concerned about taking corrective action. Keep in mind that if you tolerated noshows for your CET Program and in an actual crisis the team failed in meeting its obligations in a timely manner, the post crisis assessment will clearly point out that a cohesive and organized response was not applied. There may be a determination that the Program knowledge level was not sufficient; with an influencing factor being CET Program nonparticipation. This hindsight analysis is far too late if someone lost their life or was seriously injured due to the inaction, slow action or wrong action on the part of the Crisis Response Team.

The CRPC Information Series is intended to enhance in-crisis decision making within your organization. Obviously, more than any other operational support function, the Crisis Response Team must be comprised of the very best you have, the ‘right' people; ready, able and willing to do their job on behalf of every employee of the company. To accomplish this, the ‘team' must be equally trained and qualified in all aspects of Crisis Management.

Stay Tuned: Part F.3 of this follow-up series to the original ‘In-crisis Decision Making' Series, is entitled ‘Five Steps to Wow!' and will discuss what every organization must do to establish or maintain an operational capability to respond to and manage any threat or crisis situation!

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI (Hon), is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (www.crpccrisismanagement.com), an internationally recognized Crisis Management consulting services company. For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries. Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com.

A lot of energy goes into the building of: Business Continuity, Disaster Recovery, Crisis Management and other plans in preparation for an emergency.  And we need to get to them quickly under any emergency situation.

I've spoken to people who have some of their employees keep a copy in the trunk of their car.  But a lot of organizations have the documents stored on their internal network and perhaps a copy on their personal PC.

Two Reasons Why You Can't Get to Your Emergency Docs

But there are 2 issues that can surface in an emergency that can prevent you from accessing these critical documents in an emergency:

1. The internal IT network is down for some reason and the back-up resources didn't work as planned.  I recently spoke to a large manufacturer in the Southern US who had an extremely sophisticated IT network.  In their words, they had "dual everything" including dual: servers, emergency power supplies, generators, etc.  But the internal network went down due to unforeseen circumstances and along with it their access to documentation and even their internal Emergency Notification system. 
   
   In fact, an emergency situation scenario could very well be that the IT network is down along with any backups.
   
   
2. Access to the network - may be interrupted by an emergency. For example, an office building is evacuated due to a fire, and staff is now outside and the Business Continuity team and others are looking to access emergency plans.  But they may not have a laptop with them (it was a real fire, not a drill), and even if they run over to a neighboring office they don't have VPN access so they can't get to their documents.
   
   And in broader based emergencies, with many employees trying to get onto the organization's network remotely, the available VPN port capacity may not be sufficient to let everyone onto the network.
   

In order to prevent these problems from interfering with staff gaining access to critical documents in an emergency, an off-site web accessible storage location is required.  Passwords in combination with a secure HTTPS site provides the access from any browser including neighboring offices, and the 3rd party location provides a backup to the internal network.

At ERMS, we've provided this capability for clients for years, and it's literally a 10 minute effort to upload a copy of these critical documents.

Something to add to your checklist after you've finished your creation or your regular update to your emergency plans.

Derek Hemington, ERMS

ERMS is a Emergency Notification provider specializing in helping organizations manage vital emergency processes -- enabling effective communications and response to crisis situations and incidents. ERMS goes beyond notification, addressing risk mitigation, preparedness, in-crisis response and recovery.

For information about ERMS, check out www.ermscorp.com

We will be providing some thoughts and suggestions on a variety of related topics; the first of which addresses one of the most asked questions; how do you exercise or train for in-crisis decision making?

Like so many things in life, in order to become proficient in any physical or mental process, it is necessary to practice. Some say there is no better learning curve in Crisis Management than managing through an actual crisis. To some extent I believe this to be true. However, what you actually apply during a crisis is your capabilities that exist at that time, including; inefficiencies in how your organization responds to a crisis, how it is managed and how decisions are made.

Decision making is enhanced when you listen and learn; then incorporate what you already know, blend it altogether and poof, a decision will emerge. The risk of failure increases when you only consider what you know as an individual. As such, what you really must ‘exercise' is the TEAMS ability to make decisions.

Before we get into some details, a couple of definitions may be of value:

Decision making can be regarded as an outcome of mental processes leading to the selection of a course of action among several alternatives. Specialists apply their knowledge in a given area to making informed decisions. For example, medical decision making often involves making a diagnosis and selecting an appropriate treatment (the decision).

Exercise, in our context, is the application of thought processes to apply knowledge and information in order to enhance or maintain a team's decision making capability. An activity that requires mental exertion when performed, challenging the knowledge and capabilities of those involved.

Exercising is using knowledge and skills you already possess, you simply want to use it in situations where you are expected or required to apply it.

Leading up to this segment on ‘In-crisis Decision Making' you have received Parts A through E which provide a working understanding of an organization's Crisis Response Team (CRT), its role, responsibilities and operational processes. We will now focus on how a Crisis Response Team prepares itself for In-crisis Decision Making through training and exercises.

Exercising a team's decision making capability is an essential component of what should be your organization's Crisis Management ‘Continuing Education & Training Program'. The CRPC Crisis Management Methodology for a Continuing Education & Training Program is comprised of four major elements that need to be briefly discussed in order to put training of the Crisis Response Team into perspective. These are:

Program Standards & Skills Reinforcement Exercises

The objective of Standards & Skills Reinforcement Exercises is to reinforce Crisis Management policies, standards, disciplines and in-crisis processes through exercises that force the participation and the application of the knowledge and skills of all team members equally. All primary members and designated backups of the Crisis Response Team need to participate.

Alternatively styled exercise sessions:

- Multiple short (20 minutes to 1 hour each) situational exercises are designed to trigger an emotionally charged condition within the exercise. This would test / exercise the inter-play and interdependence of team members while under pressure and while attempting to make significant consensus based decisions within minutes of being engaged.

- Scenario exercises (1 to 3 hours each) are designed around highly possible or probable events. By creating a plausible situation where stress, anxiety, rumours and speculation would realistically occur, forces the Team to assess changing conditions, make in-crisis decisions, obtain executive concurrence, apply in-crisis operating standards and manage disagreements and opposing fundamental beliefs.

Crisis Simulation Exercises

Defined as an interactive, full participation, role playing exercise whereby the Crisis Response Team is provided with a crisis scenario incorporating significant variations (changes to the scenario) for the purpose of coaching individual and team responses; particularly focused on situational assessment and in-crisis decision making. A Crisis Simulation Exercise requires participation from all team members for 1 to 1.5 days and, in order to create a more realistic state of crisis, aspects of the exercise could take place over a one to two week period.

The primary objective of a Crisis Simulation Exercise is to establish and maintain a realistic state of crisis to fully assess all key aspects of control, decision making and emergency response in an event-driven scenario.

Participation on the part of the Executive Management, Business Leaders, other internal stakeholders, as well as external agencies and organizations all contribute to the CRT learning process by creating a realistic environment in which to perform.

Pre-Event Response Planning

Pre-Event Response Planning is defined as a process of response identification in advance of known or expected events that directly or indirectly endanger people, image or operations of the organization. While similar to an exercise in terms of how it is performed, the resulting plan becomes an operational deliverable of preparedness.

The primary objective of the workshop is to identify tasks or activities that should or could be carried-out by various operations or functions within the organization based on a time-line of probable and evolving events and circumstances. While the primary objective of Pre-Event Response Planning is to exercise the analytical capabilities of the Crisis Response Team it also provides the ideal arena to identify precautionary and preventative measures that can be taken now to prevent or mitigate the impact of the selected event.

Educational Programs / Knowledge Transfer Forums

The objective of this type of Information Forum is to share information that will enhance the organizations overall Crisis Management capability. All primary members and designated backups of the Crisis Management Team should attend.

CRISIS RESPONSE TEAM members can directly contribute by providing an operational overview of how their department function during various emergencies or can arrange for presentations or workshops with external organizations that provide vital services (i.e. stress counselling). Emergency management related external agencies could provide a working understanding of role, interaction and expectations on the part of the respective agency and the organization.

Failed Outcome of Crisis Management Exercises

Exercises, particularly major ones, unfortunately often fall far short of meeting an organization's aims for a number of reasons, including:

• Lack of participation on the part of team members (as this is such a common problem that it will be the focus of our next segment (F.2) of this series).
  
• Too little ‘action' to maintain interest and focus on the part of participants.
• Too simple to challenge the team's skills and knowledge levels.
• Too complex or disjointed events creating a no-win scenario for the team.
• Not enough ‘fun' to generate enthusiastic participation.
• The exercise is based on a scenario most believe to be improbable or unrealistic.
• Exercises developed by individuals who are not experienced or qualified to do so.
  

The building of a Crisis Management exercise must not only deal with the above challenges head-on, development criteria must also include:

• Creating conflict situations to force opinion and consensus.
• Forcing inter-dependent decisions to be made to show consequence of their actions.
• Reinforcing Crisis Management principles, policies, standards and the in-crisis process.
• Coercing the knowledge participation of every discipline (team member).
• Creating an environment for participation of designated backups.
• Gaining exposure within the Executive (Crisis Management Team) and Senior Management hierarchy.
• Including the Crisis Management Team in the assessment and consideration of actions taken by the Crisis Response Team.
• Presenting scenarios that require multiple disciplines to cooperate to achieve success.
  

Critical Success Factors

The adoption of most, if not all of the following critical success factors will greatly enhance the quality of the exercise, the active participation of team members and deliver on the expected benefits to the organization for the efforts applied.

• By far the most important critical success factor is to make the exercise ‘fun' for the participants. That doesn't mean it can't be tough, stressful or full of challenges; it only means that if you want continued support and participation, they had better enjoy the experience.
• Put in the effort required - building and facilitating an exercise is a significant undertaking; recognize that for a crisis simulation exercise every hour of the actual exercise will require 10 to 18 hours of development time depending on the experience of the developer and facilitator.
• Don't build an exercise to fail! I have no idea why some promote that failing is a positive learning technique; it only creates anxiety, disappointment and will negatively impact their desire to participate. Let's never forget that for most organizations, participation on their Crisis Response Team is not in their job description, they are in effect ‘volunteers'. Nonetheless, as the size of an exercise increases so must the complexity and challenges, and with that the probability of success diminishes. For Crisis Management, we are not teaching them how to do their job; they already know.
• Team dynamics and interaction will probably point out at least one member of your team who wants to push their individual agenda and views on others by stating or implying they are an expert or by being loud or even rude. These ‘bullies' try to get their way most often by putting down other's opinions versus gaining support for their own opinions. The Crisis Response Team is critical to your organization's effective response to a crisis. As such, you should not have room for bullies; it is acceptable and recommended that you replace them.
  
• Do what you can to make all members of your Crisis Response Team feel they are important to the organization; including the little things around conducting an exercise.

• - Provide a large meeting room with lots of work space versus the confinement of most Crisis Command Centers.
• - Inform Executive Management and senior managers of the members of the Crisis Response Team that vital exercises are being conducted to ensure the organization will be successful in response to a crisis situation. Send your announcement a few times before the event takes place. Spontaneous participation by management personnel may be the outcome. 
• - For every major exercise have a Senior Executive thank the Crisis Response Team for their dedication and efforts; a pat on the back goes a long way with all of us.
• - Provide coffee, snacks, lunch; what ever you can do as a minor thank you for their time and effort.
• - If possible, conduct a major exercise external to the office. Not only could it generate a higher than normal participation rate, it can go a long way to creating a realistic scenario of events impacting your facility.

• Bottom-line on participation - if you don't have 90% + confirmed for participation in an exercise, cancel or reschedule it and, on behalf of the team, reprimand those who forced you to reschedule. If you don't have full or close to full participation it is not possible to draw the key conclusions necessary; too many vital skill sets and knowledge sources would be missing. Don't forget to publicize to Executive Management the reason for canceling the exercise and those responsible for the cancelation.
• While I am certain that most organizations recognize how imperative it is to have at least one designated backup for every primary member of the Crisis Response Team, it is equally imperative to have the designated backups participate ‘equally' in all components of your Crisis Management Continuing Education and Training Program.
• Turn off the cell phones. If someone on the team needs to be reached for any reason, you can be certain that a way will be found.
• Do not allow the use of laptop computers during any exercise unless they are being used to support the team's efforts. As difficult as it may seem for some people, you really can survive without seeing your emails for a few hours. If you are conducting a full day exercise, you will unfortunately need to provide a break in the proceedings for people to check their emails.
• Your exercise developer and facilitator cannot be a member of the Crisis Response Team; otherwise your ‘team' will be missing a key resource during the actual exercise. To achieve any level of success, your exercise developer and facilitator must be well experienced in the development and facilitation of Crisis Management exercises.
• Never build an exercise that has a catastrophic impact on your organization, such as; a massive loss of life. It is virtually impossible to realistically create a scenario that could be effectively managed by the Crisis Response Team and concluded within the prescribed time frame.
  
• For major exercises role-playing participants (non CRT members); both internal and external, are crucial to the level of success you will achieve, but be very selective! Ensure these role-players have the personality to be convincing, willing to follow an exact script and above all else, they do not contribute information that was not pre-established and that they do provide all of the information they were scripted to present.
• Keep the exercise rolling; lulls or delays in the exercise for whatever reason are deadly. Schedule role-players, provision of new information (calls, memos), impact changes of the event, providing results from previous decisions, etc. on a constant basis (every few minutes); particularly in the first hour of a major exercise; after which the frequency can be variable based on the desired progression and outcome.
• Keep exercises realistic in terms of what most believe will happen and the probable impact of any event. Your probability of success will be determined in the first 10 minutes of an exercise. If the team is not engaged because they do not believe the scenario to be realistic your exercise objectives will not be achieved. Select threats or events that are either highly probable, have been stated by executive management as being a concern and / or is one of the ten threats or events that are of greatest concern to the Crisis Response Team (in terms of their ability to manage the situation).
• Walk before you run - a full crisis simulation exercise is well worth the effort, but it's not a great place to start. Phase in your training by providing program and skills reinforcement exercises or conducting a Pre-Event Response Planning workshop. Your objective in training through exercises must always be success!

CRPC has developed and facilitated Crisis Management training programs for organizations throughout the world and consistently achieved success when the suggestions and critical success factors presented were applied. Yes, it's difficult and takes considerable effort, but being able to provide assurances to your Executives and other Stakeholders that you are fully capable of responding to and managing any crisis is the reward.

Stay Tuned: Part F.2 of this follow-up series to the original ‘In-crisis Decision Making' Series, is entitled ‘Participate or Fail` and will discuss ways and means to achieve a consistent 99.99% participation rate in all aspects of a Crisis Management Continuing Education and Training Program. Most say it can't be done, but we have proven it can!

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI Hon, is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (www.crpccrisismanagement.com), an internationally recognized Crisis Management consulting services company. For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries. Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com.

For smaller organizations, Call Trees, sometimes called Phone Trees, can work.  We're talking small organizations of say 100 or 200 people with 20 to 40 people to be contacted immediately for a role to play in an emergency, with the remaining staff to be contacted up to a few hours later.

But for larger organizations, or situations where you want to contact over a 100 people immediately, it's important to set expectations with senior management around Call Trees.  I was talking to a Business Continuity Manager in a mid-sized company and we were discussing the use of their Call Tree.  I asked the question, "What if it doesn't work well, what if there is a break in the tree?"  I wanted to see if he was prepared for problems and what he had told senior management regarding Call Tree performance.

Murphy's Law

 He hesitated, and then said it worked OK in the last test.  When I pointed out that in a real emergency, key managers in an organization, are usually the ones at the front end of the Call Tree, and they're the ones moving around the office floor to talk to other managers in adjacent offices, they're not at their desks, and probably on their cell phones fielding the first calls coming in prior to the initiation of the Call Tree.  So if they don't receive the phone call to execute their branch of the Call Tree because they are busy, or they become distracted, or have other immediate priorities -- then the entire Call Tree process gets delayed.

So I asked if the manager had set expectations with executive management that Call Tree performance in an Emergency will probably be significantly less than in a test.  The answer was no -- so he's in a situation where executive management may be in for a surprise during a real emergency.

 In the short term, he had no choice but to continue to use a Call Tree so I offered a checklist he could use to help mitigate the problems associated with Call Trees.  The checklist provides a list of problem areas, and what the Call Tree initator should look for.

 But in an emergency, what can go wrong might go wrong, so it's important to set realistic expectations on what a Call Tree process will and won't do.  You really don't want company executives expecting you to execute robust, predictable Call Tree process they can depend upon in an emergency.  There are just too many people factors involved in the chain, sometimes including executives.

Derek Hemington

ERMS

ERMS is a Emergency Notification provider specializing in helping organizations manage vital emergency processes -- enabling effective communications and response to crisis situations and incidents.  ERMS goes beyond notification, addressing risk mitigation, preparedness, in-crisis response and recovery.

For information about ERMS, check out www.ermscorp.com

Stress caused by an event that has resulted in destruction, serious injuries and death can inflict anyone. No one is immune regardless of their position, title, age, sex or experience. Every person deals with stress differently, from mild anxiety to complete loss of responsive behaviour. For this reason alone, an organization should not rely on the decision making authority or capability of a single individual. The Crisis Response Team (as defined in Part D) must function on a ‘majority rules' decision making basis. You can't gamble the lives of people simply because of someone's title!

However, a significant number of organizations believe that their in-crisis decision making process should be modelled after our public authorities; whereby a single individual has the decision making authority.

For public agencies, such as; police, fire fighters, EMS, the Armed Forces, etc., there is no question operational command and control ultimately rests with a single person, a commander responsible for the event in which they are responding. However; this type of command structure does not work for 99% of organizations; those not providing ‘public emergency response services'.

Public service ‘commanders' are full-time professionals, continually trained, disciplined and qualified in ground-zero decision making; the rest of us are not. They are emotionally and politically detached from the event and its impact on your organization. Most companies' Crisis Management Organizations are comprised of volunteers, people from various operating areas of the organization. To most, Crisis Management is a part-time, add-on responsibility.

It is simply not fair or effective to place such a stressful and potentially traumatic responsibility on a single individual within your organization; nor is it healthy or politically wise for a single individual to accept such responsibility.

The Impact of Stress and Trauma

Day-to-day stress, whether personal or professional, is inconsequential to the level of stress and anxiety that will result from a major crisis. Imagine the prospect of a catastrophic event (earthquake, terrorist attack, hurricane or explosion) where destruction, death and mass confusion encapsulates everything you must do as a member of your organization's Crisis Response Team.

We all deal with stress and trauma differently; a few effectively, but for most, our focus and reasoning will be lost. A person that makes billion dollar decisions on a daily basis has refined that skill through training and experience. That ability does not mean they can withstand the stress and trauma of in-crisis decision making. While many people believe they are invincible and would gladly say ‘sure, I'll take the job', be very careful. Your organization should not be looking for a volunteer to be your in-crisis decision maker; unless of course you are simply looking for someone to blame when things go horribly wrong!

In a crisis, virtually every employee, regardless of position and role will have four personal priorities. To think or expect differently is simply wishful thinking. These are:

1. Their own personal safety,
2. The safety and well-being of their families,
3. The safety of close friends / fellow employees,
4. Their employer and their in-crisis role.

The event, its impact, resulting stress and actions based on the above could eliminate anyone's availability or effectiveness. The risk associated with a reliance on a single individual becomes an immediate single point of failure.

Team Decision Making

A large number of action steps will be required in a crisis; performed by multiple functions / departments and influenced by an even larger number of people. The challenge is to quickly and accurately determine which decisions and actions must be the focus of the CRT discussions. Actions that will be discussed, considered, approved, discarded or postponed will include:

• Actions which must be taken now.
• Actions which require the approval of the Crisis Management Team; therefore pending.
• Action alternatives which are dependent on the outcome of other actions.
• Actions which are performed external to the organization where you have little or no influence as to their outcome.
• Actions which will be taken, but you are unsure as to when.
• Actions that may be taken depending on how the event or threat unfolds.

Should all in-crisis decisions really be made by a `team` of people? The answer is definitely NO. Part D of this Information Series discussed the most competent makeup of a Crisis Response Team; each member representing a critical response group (department) that for the most part exist in the majority of organizations.

These team members are experts in their respective fields (i.e. Security, Human Resources, Public Affairs, etc.). As such, the Crisis Response Team (CRT) will rely on their individual knowledge, skills and experience to determine what actions their area of responsibility must take in a crisis situation.

Perhaps a short dissertation on the in-crisis process will better illustrate in-crisis decision making, the role of the CRT and where and how ‘majority rules decision making' comes into play.

1. Once an event has occurred or a threat is imminent, your Crisis Response Team will meet either by way of a conference call or a meeting in the Crisis Command Centre.

At this time, the priority is to conduct a ‘situational assessment':

• collect facts on the event that has occurred or the imminent threat,
• review the actions taken to-date by each of the ‘utility' groups and external agencies,
• assess any current impact on employees,
• assess any current impact on the organization's Brand image,
• assess any current impact on general operations of the organization,
• assess the probability of the event escalating or deescalating in the short term.

Based on the above assessment the Crisis Response Team must first decide, by majority vote, whether or not the situation will be declared as a ‘crisis' and therefore under the management and control of the Crisis Response Team or; the situation will be classified as an ‘incident' and as such, the response coordinated by the respective ‘utility groups'. Determining whether or not a threat or event is an actual crisis is obviously a vital process and a great candidate for future discussion.

2. In our scenario let's assume the CRT did declare the situation a ‘crisis'. The focus now becomes ‘what actions must be taken, by whom and when'; as well as communicating the ‘situational assessment' and immediate action plan to various Stakeholders within the organization, including; the Crisis Management Team (executive management), business leaders, general management and appropriate information to employees. Review Part D for a further understanding of CRT / CMT in-crisis roles and responsibilities.

Of importance during the in-crisis process is the role of the CRT Team Leader. He or she, like all other members of the team, has one vote when voting situations occur. The role of Team Leader is one of coordination, time management, ensuring operational compliance with in-crisis policies and standards and functioning as the primary interface to the CMT.

3. Focusing on next actions steps, each CRT member will provide what they believe the next steps will be from their operational perspective. Any Team member can question any recommendation being made to ensure it is well understood and in-line with the mandate and priorities of the Crisis Management Program; those being life safety, protection of the brand image and minimizing operational disruption.

Generally speaking, the CRT members only ‘vote' on recommendations being put forward by each member of the Team when there is disagreement within the Team. The approved actions are incorporated into an Event Status Report for subsequent distribution to team members and key Stakeholders.

4. As the event unfolds, the CRT will conduct regular meetings to reassess the situation, its impact, actions taken and next steps; regularly issuing Event Status Reports to ensure all Stakeholders are equally in receipt of current information. This iterative process will continue until the CRT declares the crisis has ended.

While the above represents a summary of what would be an ‘in-crisis process', it does highlight the fact that ‘majority rules decision making' is a tool available to the CRT as and when required to ensure all required actions are taken and poor or untimely decision are averted.

Benefits of Majority Rules Decision Making:

• a safeguard against emotionally driven or politically motivated actions on the part of individuals,
• ensures complete compliance with the priority of Crisis Management (life safety of employees, contractors and on-site guests),
• eliminates the unpredictability of actions caused by individual stress and trauma,
• draws on the knowledge and experience of many, versus limited reasoning capability of an individual,
• strength in numbers allows the `team` to suppress well-intentioned political interference,
• ensures the `team` remains focused on the evolving and changing impact of a threat or event,
• acts as a counter-balance to the antics of `bullies` intent on forcing their views and opinions on others,
• under the auspices of the Authority To Act (see Part B of this series) no individual can be held responsible or liable for the decisions and actions of the `team`.

Operational Considerations & Success Factors

In-crisis Decision Making can be extremely challenging. Below are several points that reinforce why `Team, Majority Rules Decision Making` should be the preferred approach.

• Let's first make it perfectly clear that a Crisis Management Program does not change your organization's first responders' responsibilities in a crisis. When something goes wrong various functions / departments respond accordingly. Corporate Security, Facilities Management, Public Affairs, Human Resources and others will all respond to an event as defined by their role, their operational mandate. As an example; if a disgruntled employee returns to the office with an automatic weapon, kills eight employees and holds several others hostage; obviously the police are called and your Corporate Security department will cordon-off the immediate area and probably evacuate the event floor. The immediate actions taken by Corporate Security are what is expected of them; they understand that role and they will react accordingly. Under no circumstance would Corporate Security in this scenario first go to the Crisis Response Team for approval of their initial actions.

• It is the role of the CRT to determine what actions are required, by whom and when they will be performed. The CRT collectively does not act on the decisions made. As an example, the CRT may determine that it is necessary to issue an ‘employee communications' informing them of the event, its impact on operations and possibly short term instructions. The CRT does not write or approve the actual communications; it ensures that the Public Affairs member on the Team and their department have the most current information on which to base the content, write and issue the communications.

• As human beings we function in a serial mode, one thought at a time. In quiet times it appears we are capable of more, of multi-tasking, even though we are not. In a stressful situation where a great deal is happening around us, our thought processing changes. Resulting confusion and delays in processing information can result in errors in analysis and decision making. A simple but effective example is when you are driving your car; you hit an icy patch on the highway, your vehicle begins to slide and you immediately slam on the brakes. That action causes the vehicle to spin uncontrollably, often resulting in personal injury and damage. In hindsight we know we should not have slammed on the brakes, but by then it is too late. In-crisis decision making parallels this example quite well; too much information being thrown at us in rapid succession cannot be effectively processed; errors in judgement and decision making can result.

• All members of the CRT will view an event or threat differently; from their perspective (which is based on their individual area of responsibility, experience and background). It is vital to evaluate every opinion or suggestion; each has merit and value. If you had a single decision maker your actions would be based on the opinion of only one person. You also have an obligation to voice your opinion. Nonetheless, every person on the team is there because they have specific `expertise` that will be required. It is necessary to listen to the experts in a given field. As an example; if the Human Resources` member of the team recommends that trauma counselling begin immediately, you probably should not strongly debate the issue even if you personally do not understand the need.

• 90% of actions to be taken will be somewhat obvious, requiring very little discussion or debate. It is the other 10% of decisions that must be managed and concluded in a timely manner. Discuss debate and even argue if necessary, but limit the time allocated before a vote is taken and proceed accordingly. If a vote is tied or even close, it would imply further discussion should ensue. Alternatively, the decision can be left to the Crisis Management Team or in a life-threatening situation; the CRT Team Leader can cast the deciding vote (however reluctant they are to do so).

• While the CRT (under the Authority To Act) has the authority to take any action necessary in a life-threatening situation, the Crisis Management Team (CMT) in reality is the highest level decision making authority and can amend, reverse or approve the recommendations / action plan of the CRT. The CMT will, in virtually all situations, recognize the expertise of the CRT and approve its decisions. Further, your organization's most senior executive (your CEO) will always retain the ultimate decision making authority (over the CRT and CMT), but will rarely if ever apply it. Awareness and training are the critical success factors for executive management.

Majority Rules Decision Making can be summed up very simply. If six of the eight people on your Crisis Response Team believe the organization should ‘turn right', one isn't sure and one believes you should ‘turn left'; you had better ‘turn right'. Now, if the sole person who said ‘turn left' is the highest titled person on the team, should he or she have the authority to over-ride the recommendation of the team's majority. The answer is a simple ‘no'.

Risk Management techniques teach us to mitigate risk; attempt where possible to prevent events or actions that can have severe consequences to people and the organization. In-crisis decision making is such a risk and can only be mitigated through team and majority rules decision making.

Finale: Part E is the final chapter in the CRPC Information Series - `In-crisis Decision Making`. We trust the information has been of value to you and your organization. This series is but a small component of the CRPC Crisis Management methodology, a model on which to base a formal Crisis Management Program; one that must to varying degrees be customized to every organization. CRPC has received a number of comments, questions and requests for additional information; all of which will be responded to over the next week or two.

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI Hon, is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (www.crpccrisismanagement.com), an internationally recognized Crisis Management consulting services company. For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries. Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com.

Crisis Management Critical Success Factor:

Let's start this discussion by painting a crisis scenario. An event has occurred; your building is partially destroyed; there are several employees dead; many more seriously injured; countless unaccounted for and for those who escaped the carnage, they have scattered in a hundred different directions, getting as far away from the site as possible. The event itself is unimportant at this point in time; whether it be a terrorist attack, bombing by a disgruntled employee, an earthquake or a gas main explosion.

Unfortunately, this is also the moment in time when far too often organizations start on their road to Crisis Management ‘hell'. Let's first explore some real life experiences and some of the more common mistakes organizations make:

• Immediately a conference bridge is opened; 20, 30 and possibly 60 or more people are invited to join; and of course, several dozen more join-in uninvited. I don't think I have to explain the upheaval and confusion that will immediately follow; very little will be accomplished and most will wonder ‘why'.
• The person that runs the initial meeting or conference call is the most senior person present, whether it is the President, SVP or a Director. While well-intentioned, it is unlikely that he or she has any ‘current' expertise in Crisis Management; their title simply gives them the authority. This is not the time to teach or learn a new discipline.
• In conference calls or meetings inevitably, the people representing the ‘business' side of life will far outnumber everyone else; thereby influencing the discussion around the business and related business continuity issues; versus the Crisis Management priorities of life safety and protection of the Brand image. Your Risk Manager should be fuming!
• In the absence of coordination and anyone else making decisions, most well-intentioned executives will do so (even when they are not qualified). The real problem is that there will be multiple executives independently making decisions and public statements that will invariably be in conflict. Katrina ring a bell?
• Rumours and speculation are quickly established as ‘facts' in the minds of most and will inevitably result in panic, anxiety and stress; all of which will alter the organization's focus, as well as drive over-reaction and political interference; all based on the organization's internally perceived failures and problems.
• Negative public and media response to the perceived inaction or questionable actions on the part of the organization actually create a crisis within a crisis; one that could generate as much anxiety and stress as the event itself. Unfortunately, far too much focus will be applied to the ‘CYA' objective of some senior management; further complicating response and control of the crisis itself.

Clearly the things that could go wrong; including those listed above, can be avoided, but not through wishful thinking or a belief that your organization is unique. These pitfalls can only be avoided if your policies, standards and in-crisis processes prevent them from occurring.

Crisis Management is not terribly complex. Perhaps the events and threats you must deal with create complexity, but the Crisis Management Program itself is based on a foundation of knowledge, skills and experience that you probably already have. Its success is solely based on a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, as well as the unwavering authority to do what is necessary to mitigate the impact of a crisis.

The Enterprise Structure

Before we get into the specifics of Crisis Management, I want to present an ‘enterprise' structure of what crisis preparedness could or should look like in the majority of organizations. I like to refer to this high-level structure as the ‘Crisis Preparedness Program' (CPP).

A CPP is comprised of four independent and when required, operationally integrated emergency response functions. Each has a mandate, a role to play, decisions to make and have specific operational owners. These are:

1. Incident Response - An Incident Response Plan represents the actions that will be taken in response to ‘specific' events (incidents) and are developed, maintained and executed by the operational (utility) group most qualified to do so. These would include plans for; violence-in-the-workplace - the responsibility of Human Resources; technology virus detection and eradication - the responsibility of Information Technologies; air / water contamination - the responsibility of Facilities Management; suspicious package - the responsibility of Corporate Security; bad press - the responsibility of Public Affairs and building evacuation - the responsibility of Safety. This list is actually quite extensive, with the number of plans easily reaching many dozen within a mid-size organization. An ‘incident' will not necessarily become a ‘crisis'; that decision is made by the Crisis Response Team and dependent on the impact of the event. As an example; receiving a bomb threat is an ‘incident' and only becomes a crisis if ignited.
2. Business Continuity Management - Business Continuity Management (BCM) is just what the name implies; plans developed to minimize operational disruption to the business (with a focus on critical business functions). Business Continuity Management is typically comprised of two response-oriented sets of plans: i) Contingency Plans which provide an alternate / temporary means of providing key aspects of the service until the full service can be restored and, ii) Recovery Plans, that provide the methods and processes to return to a full operational status once the business environment has been restored. Responsibility for Business Continuity Management must rest with those most qualified, Business Leadership and Business Continuity Planners.
3. Technology Continuity Management - Technology Continuity Management (TCM), often referred to (for some archaic reason) as Disaster Recovery, again is actually comprised of two response-oriented sets of plans: i) Contingency Plans which provide alternate technology and computing services and facilities and ii) Recovery Plans, representing the processes implemented to restore technology based services. Technology Continuity Management must always be in direct synchronization to Business Continuity Management to ensure the organization's business priorities are being satisfied. Responsibility for Technology Continuity Management in the organization is Information Technology and those assigned to the role of Technology Continuity Planners.
4. Crisis Management - Unlike the previous three Crisis Preparedness Program components, Crisis Management has multiple roles in situations that are classified as ‘crises' to an organization. The mandate of Crisis Management is primarily response and control of a situation that threatens life safety, brand image and other assets of the organization. This also represents the absolute priorities of Crisis Management and, by far, the number one priority is ‘life safety', followed by protection of the brand image. Simply put, Crisis Management must never, not even for a moment, consider an event's impact on the business until such time as the first two priorities are fully addressed. While general responsibility for direction and development of a Crisis Management Program most often resides with Corporate Security, the process of response and control is shared amongst the organization's utility groups.

This alignment of roles and responsibilities provides the framework for the most competent people in their respective area to do the job they are most qualified to do; to use the skills and expertise they possess to make decisions based on information they are provided. Put another way; would you want someone from Corporate Security deciding when Business Continuity Plans should be activated or someone from Human Resources interacting with the local police on what actions are required or someone from Health & Safety driving your technology recovery efforts; of course not, it is simply ensuring the right people are assigned the most appropriate roles.

Back to the topic at hand.....

Having provided a general framework for responding to any event or threat, let's now refocus on Crisis Management and specifically the Crisis Management Organization. I believe there are two separate teams within a Crisis Management Organization; each having a specific membership, mandate and in-crisis role. These are:

• A Crisis Management Team (CMT) should be comprised of the most senior executive and all and only his / her direct reports. The Crisis Management Team is the highest level in-crisis decision making authority; after-all making decisions are what they do best. Why should it change just because you are in a state of crisis? The only thing that is different is that, instead of their own direct reports collecting and assessing information and making recommendations for their approval, it will be a Crisis Response Team that will be collecting the facts, performing the assessment and making recommendations for their approval.
• A Crisis Response Team (CRT) should be comprised of a location's ‘utility' groups, with a single representative and at least one designated backup from the following; Corporate Security, Safety, Employee Relations / Human Resources, Corporate Affairs and Communications, Facilities Management / Real Estate, Medical Services, Information Technologies and Business Continuity Management. The Crisis Response Team is operationally responsible for all aspects of the organization's response to a crisis situation and management of that event throughout its duration.

Alignment of Role to Qualifications

Every action and every decision requires knowledge, experience, skill and a great deal of discipline. Having the wrong persons making life-safety decisions is risk mitigation in reverse! Are you willing to gamble the lives or safety of your employees for the sake of an outdated approach to in-crisis decision making.

Previously I stated that for most organization's the Crisis Response Team should be comprised of up to eight people representing key ‘utility' functions The reasons are very simple:

1. These functional groups collectively are responsible on a day-to-day basis for all emergencies, problems and crises across the organization - they possess the knowledge, skills and experience to manage a crisis - they already know what to do, when and how, should a crisis occur.
2. They represent every aspect of an organization's Crisis Preparedness Program. While it will be the Crisis Response Team that determines what in-crisis actions should be taken, it is their individual departments that have what it takes to follow through on those decisions.
3. Adopting this team structure and membership will ensure that absolutely every key internal and external stakeholder will be provided the in-crisis information they require in a consistent and timely manner.

The CRT is your SWAT Team; they are your first responders; they are the only ones that can do what needs to be done. If they need advice or additional help, let it be the CRT who determines who and when. At some point in a crisis, there may be business, financial or legal issues, but wait until there are before engaging those groups. Do not have anyone on your CRT that is not currently engaged in some aspect of your organization's Crisis Preparedness Program.

For clarity, I am not saying an organization that is in a state of crisis should ignore the ‘business'; it is most definitely critical, just not a priority of Crisis Management. It is and should be a priority of Business Leadership and the Business Continuity / Technology Continuity Management teams. Your Crisis Response Team, by way of the BCM and TCM members, will ensure Business and Technology Leadership are kept current with the status and actions being taken by the organization.

When we talk about in-crisis decision making, it is equally important to discuss in-crisis roles and responsibilities; decision making and role are often entwined.

Crisis Management Team - In-crisis Responsibilities

• highest level decision making authority for recommendations and / or alternatives provided by the CRT,
• support the mandate, role and responsibilities of the CRT across the enterprise,
• news media spokesperson / media relations,
• represent organization to families of dead or injured,
• moral support and inspiration for employees,
• deflecting well intentioned political interference away from the CRT,
• interface to Board of Directors and Shareholders,
• interface to Collective Bargaining Units,
• interface to regulatory bodies and agencies,
• address all legal and financial issues and requirements,
• address any liability issues that may arise from an event,
• interface with ‘key' customers in terms of status and actions being taken.

Crisis Response Team - In-crisis Responsibilities

• take necessary actions at the onset of a crisis,
• collect facts while dispelling rumours and speculation,
• determine if it is an ‘incident' to be responded to or a ‘crisis' to be managed, 
• continuous situational assessment as the crisis unfolds,
• determine a course of action for all response functions and groups,
• Interface to all external authorities,
• coordination of all response actions and plans,
• disseminate accurate and consistent status information,
• only provider of status information to all key stakeholders,
• enterprise-wide response and control of the threat or event,
• communicate, communicate, communicate!

Managing a crisis in some respects is similar to managing any aspect of your business. An organization goes to great extents to ensure it is organized to deliver on its corporate mandate or purpose for being. You put experience, skills and knowledge together to ensure success. In a crisis, it is no different; you must put the right experience, skills and knowledge together in order to make the best in-crisis decision you can.

Your organization has the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to manage a crisis. Make certain that those individuals make-up your Crisis Response Team and they are given the authority, responsibility and tools necessary to ensure Crisis Management will succeed.

Let them do their job - you will be amazed!

Stay tuned: Part E of the ‘In-crisis Decision Making' Series, entitled ‘Can The Majority Be Wrong?' establishes the rationale behind one of the most important in-crisis operating standards - majority rules decision making!

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI Hon, is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (http://www.crpccrisismanagement.com/), an internationally recognized emergency management consulting services company. For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries. Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Crisis Management Critical Success Factor:

A Crisis Response Team (characterized in Part A), adopting a structured in-crisis process, can make effective decisions, however; if it cannot communicate those decisions and resulting actions to those who need to know, it will have the same impact as not making a decision to begin with.  Whether providing information or instructions to employees, countering rumours or issuing proactive communications to external stakeholders (i.e. customers, the media, critical service providers) the need to issue time-sensitive communications at the outset, during and after a crisis situation is the operational foundation of Crisis Management.  Every decision has a consequence and will always result in a response on the part of others.  In the absence of vital information, internal and external stakeholders will apply their own assumptions and readily make decisions; usually with an unfavourable outcome.

In-crisis Communications can be defined as: ‘The dissemination of information or instructions to internal and external stakeholders whose actions or inaction will have a measurable impact on the organization's ability to effectively manage a crisis situation.'

Role of In-crisis Communications

• Provide executive and line management with information necessary to make strategic and tactical operational decisions.
• Provide threat and event status information relevant to internal and external stakeholders.
• Manage rumours, speculation, perception and the application of assumptions as facts.
• Mitigate real-time operational risks.
• Demonstrate that proactive corporate due-diligence was applied at the onset of and during a life threatening situation.
• Provide action or no-action instructions to targeted stakeholders.
• Provide time-sensitive information to ensure the safety and well-being of employees.
• Satisfy regulatory or mandated reporting requirements.
• Keep the organization's first responders and various emergency response teams, business continuity and recovery teams focused on their response roles by sharing information and assistance to balance their commitments to the organization and obligations to their families.

The Requirement

Communication requirements in a crisis can be summed up very simply:

• Communicate to possibly thousands or even tens of thousands of stakeholders,
• Utilize multiple communication channels (telephone, email, cell phone, PDA, text messaging, fax) to ensure contact will be made,
• Reach stakeholders within minutes or very few hours.

Technological advancements in mass communications has created wide-spread and permanent expectations on the part of employees and other stakeholders; expectations that are founded on the belief that the organization possesses the capability to provide timely and vital information.

A fully automated communications / notification capability is no longer an operational nicety; the era of manual call-trees is over.  A previous CRPC article entitled ‘Call Trees - A Solution or Wishful Thinking' is probably a good read if you still rely on manual call-trees as a component of your communications strategy.

This capability can be effectively satisfied through an internally provided communications facility or through a commercially provided service.  In most cases, organizations have determined that the lower cost and well-maintained capabilities of commercially provided services far outweigh any advantages of an internally developed and maintained solution.  For organizations in search of a commercially provided solution, there may be value in reviewing the CRPC white-paper entitled ‘Emergency Notification - Service Selection Guide'.

A word of advice - don't justify the use of an automated solution solely based on your in-crisis requirements; there are countless non-emergency uses lying in wait for a solution.  Organize and facilitate a planning workshop with business leaders throughout the organization to identify uses of a communications tool; the number of justifying applications will astound you!

Consequence of Failed Communications

Executive management, Board of Directors and regulatory agencies have or will have in a crisis, expectations that your organization possesses a communications capability and that you can effectively and in a timely manner provide required information and instructions to all stakeholders in a crisis situation.

If you cannot meet these expectations, ensure the most senior executive of your organization has categorically stated and documented the decision that the organization will assume all risks and consequences of failed communications.  Those risks include;

• Loss of life or serious injuries due to the slow provision of critical life-safety information and instructions,
• Liability of executive management, Board of Directors and senior management due to failure in the provision of adequate protection and care of employees,
• Negative media reactions based on rumours, innuendo and the absence of fact-based information,
• Loss of employee trust in management that the organization will in fact provide adequate care and protection to employees while at work,
• Unfavourable market reaction by Customers and Shareholders,
• Random and conflicting decision-making by various managers having misguided, but good intent,
• Failure to satisfy regulatory requirements,
• Costly delays in response by the organizations first responders and business leaders,
• Failure to meet the legal and operational requirements of corporate due diligence,
• A permanent change in the organization's highly valued culture; which in turn affects productivity, loyalty, work ethic and long terms success or failure of the organization.

Of course if you have already implemented an automated communications solution, that is a great start.  Ensure it is designed to support what could be complex in-crisis requirements and processes of Crisis Management and all other emergency response practices of your Crisis Preparedness Program.

Stay tuned:     Part D of the ‘In-crisis Decision Making' Series, entitled ‘Let Them Do Their Job` will clearly demonstrate that you already have the knowledge and skills required to effectively manage a crisis; you simply may not be using them!

Crisis Management Critical Success Factor:

‘Providing an unconditional Authority to Act to your Crisis Response Team'.

When your organization is impacted or threatened by an event that could result in serious injuries or loss of life, critically important decisions must be made within minutes.  There is little time for debate, no time to work your way through the corporate hierarchy for approval and most certainly no time to write a report on which to gain approval.  The Crisis Response Team must have this unconditional and dictatorial authority to take what ever actions are necessary to ensure the life safety of employees.

This operational ‘Authority to Act' is at the heart of all in-crisis decision making and the cornerstone to success.

Authority To Act is a safety-net defined as; ‘The unencumbered authority given to the operational Crisis Response Team to make and act on any decisions the ‘team' believe are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of employees; without fear of any form of retribution taken against members of the team on the part of the organization should (in hind-site) those decisions not be the most appropriate'.

Structure and Content of the Authority to Act

• This authority is premised on the understanding and acceptance on the part of the Crisis Management Team (Executive Management Team) that they have collectively accepted the responsibility as the ‘highest level in-crisis decision making authority' and are accordingly charged with that obligation.
  
• Members of the Crisis Response Team (as discussed in Issue A of Series 7) understand and accept their collective responsibility and authority as having operational control of all crisis situations, being the first remedial responders to a threat or event, having direct management and control responsibilities on behalf of the organization and having equal authority to the Corporate Crisis Management Team in a life threatening situation.
  
• While the Authority to Act can be a legally obligating commitment on the part of the organization, keep it relatively simple; there can be no qualifying conditions, prerequisites or exceptions.
  
• The ‘authority' is given to the ‘TEAM' not to individuals on the team; therefore team members should not be listed as having individual authority.
  
• It should be signed by the most senior Executive in the organization and, on behalf of the Crisis Response Team, the Corporate Crisis Manager. It should be signed annually to reinforce the organization's support of the Crisis Management Program and specifically, the Crisis Management Organization.
  
• It must be clear that the ‘authority' given is only during a time of crisis and pre-supposes that the Crisis Management Program has a clear method of determining and broadcasting that a state of crisis exists.
  
• The authority should be restricted to decisions where employees' well-being is currently impacted or is imminently threatened by an event.

It is not the legality of the Authority to Act that is important, but the trust demonstrated in the Crisis Response Team to make the best decisions it possibly can during a state of crisis.  The removal of political complications allows the intuitive capabilities of the Crisis Response Team to respond to and manage a crisis to a successful conclusion.

Stay tuned:     Part C of the ‘In-crisis Decision Making' Series, entitled ‘Communicate or Expect the Worse', to be released shortly, will put a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘the word is mightier than the sword'.

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI Hon, is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (http://www.crpccrisismanagement.com/), an internationally recognized emergency management consulting services company.  For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries.  Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com.

Experience has taught us that ‘in-crisis decision making' has failed its mandate far too often and for the most part, understandably so.  Unless your Crisis Management Teams have actually participated in the response to a real-life crisis, you may simply not know the dangers that lie in-waiting.  Crises will produce:

• Stress, confusion, fear and anxiety amongst all stakeholders.
• Little or no time in which to respond.
• Missing or uncertain information (facts) on which to base decisions.
• Ineffectual interference of well-intentioned executives.
• An unpredictable situation due to an evolving threat or event.
• Inactivity on the part of internal and external stakeholders due to the unknown.
• Rumours and speculation, the number one adversary of Crisis Management.

On their own or entwined, they represent extreme pressure on those given the responsibility of in-crisis decision making.

A successful response to a crisis is first and foremost dependent on a clear recognition of the mandate and priority of Crisis Management; that being ‘the life safety and general well-being of employees and on-site contractors and guests'.  While protection of the brand image and minimizing operational disruption are vitally important, any focus other than life-safety at the outset of a crisis is simply a recipe for failure.

To counter the negative impact of these events, there are four major success factors:

1.         Having the ‘right' team responding to and managing the event.

While the organization's Executive Management Team will have an obvious role to play during a crisis situation (as the Corporate Crisis Management Team), it is operational management and control that is the conduit to a successful response.  This operational Crisis Response Team needs to be comprised of the most qualified and experienced people in emergency management (and no one else).  Senior personnel from the following groups are the only staff you have whose job it is to manage emergencies, problems and crises that impact the organization.  .

- Corporate Security                                     - Health & Safety

- Human Resources                                      - Business Continuity Management

- Public Affairs & Communications                 - Information Technology

- Facilities Management   

This is the ‘right' team to be responsible for Crisis Management response and control.

2.         Applying an in-crisis ‘majority rules' decision making process.

Stress caused by an event that has resulted in destruction, serious injuries and death can impact anyone.  No one is immune regardless of their position, title, age, sex or experience.  Every person deals with stress differently, from mild anxiety to complete loss of responsive behaviour.  For this reason, an organization should not rely on the decision making authority or capability of a single individual.  The Crisis Response Team must function on a ‘majority rules' decision making basis.  You can't gamble the lives' of people simply because of someone's title!

3.         Communicating to Stakeholders in threatening and time-critical situations.

The ‘right' team adopting a structured in-crisis process, can make effective decisions, however; if it cannot communicate those decisions to those who need to know, it will have the same impact as not making a decision to begin with.  Whether providing information or instructions to employees, countering rumours or issuing proactive communications to external stakeholders (i.e. customers, the media, critical service providers) the need to issue time-sensitive communications at the outset, during and after a crisis situation is the operational foundation of Crisis Management.  Every decision has a consequence and will always result in action or inaction on the part of others.  In the absence of information, internal and external stakeholders will apply their own assumptions and readily make their own decisions; usually not in the best interest of the organization as a whole.

4.         Providing the unconditional ‘Authority to Act' to your Crisis Response Team.

When your organization is impacted or threatened by an event that could result in serious injuries or loss of life, critically important decisions must be made within minutes.  There is little time for debate, no time to work your way through the corporate hierarchy for approval and most certainly no time to write a report on which to gain approval.  The Crisis Response Team must have this unconditional and dictatorial authority to take what ever actions are necessary to ensure the life safety of employees.

Managing a crisis to a successful conclusion is burdened with risks and pitfalls.  It can be mercilessly unforgiving, placing stress levels on team members that most can't even imagine.  For the majority of team members, participation on the organization's Crisis Response Team is not part of their job description; they are basically volunteers given the responsibility of saving lives, protecting the brand image and minimizing operational disruption.

To a great extent their success will be dependent on the implementation of Crisis Management policies, standards and processes; including the four critical success factors presented above.

Stay tuned:     These and other success criteria will be explored in detail in subsequent blogs related to this Series (In-crisis Decision Making).

Dennis C. Hamilton, FBCI Hon, is the President of Crisis Response Planning Corporation (http://www.crpccrisismanagement.com/), an internationally recognized emergency management consulting services company.  For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to the discipline of Crisis Management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America's foremost practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries.  Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517 or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com.