Bearing the Brunt Together: The Crucial Power of Cohesive Teams in a Disaster

Introduction:

Established teams have proven to be invaluable in various fields, demonstrating their ability to seamlessly collaborate, communicate, and tackle complex challenges. The benefits of such teams become particularly evident in high-stakes situations, such as disaster response and incident management. Research and scholarly studies have underscored the advantages of cohesive and experienced teams in these critical contexts. By examining the findings of these studies, we can appreciate the impact that established teams can have on response effectiveness, decision-making, and overall outcomes. This scenario delves into the contrasting experiences of two incident management teams during a hurricane recovery process, shedding light on the importance of well-established teams and their remarkable contributions in times of crisis.

The Team Perspective

The ominous hurricane named "Tempest Fury" roared through the coastal region, leaving destruction and chaos in its wake. As the storm subsided, two teams of incident management professionals emerged to tackle the aftermath. In one town, the Black Team, a well-established and high-trust group with years of experience, prepared for the daunting task ahead. Meanwhile, in a neighboring town, the Blue Team, an ad-hoc team assembled from a pool of available personnel, embarked on their first mission together.

The Black Team, led by seasoned Incident Commander Jordan, had weathered countless storms, fires, and floods together. Their cohesion and camaraderie fostered a deep sense of trust and psychological safety within the team. They knew each other's strengths, and weaknesses, and could anticipate one another's actions. Their synergy was a well-oiled machine, honed over years of shared experiences. When new members joined the team, the senior members ensured the shared sense of duty and commitment was communicated. ?Jordan often reminded the team, “When the team gets called, I want you there, but come late or leave early if you have personal commitments, family comes first”.?As they gathered for their initial briefing, there was an air of confidence and a unified purpose.

In contrast, the Blue Team, under the leadership of Cameron, was a diverse mix of individuals who had never worked together before. They hailed from different agencies and regions, had varied levels of expertise, and were strangers to one another. The lack of established relationships and common ground resulted in a low trust state, where everyone was cautious and focused on self-preservation. The atmosphere within the Blue Team was one of skepticism and uncertainty, with individuals advocating for their own ideas and solutions. A reliance on position authority had replaced a shared sense of purpose.

As both teams delved into their respective tasks, the differences between the Black and Blue Teams became evident. The Black Team seamlessly coordinated their efforts, leveraging their familiarity to execute plans efficiently. They communicated openly, offering suggestions and seeking input from all team members. Their shared trust allowed for healthy debate, respectful disagreements, and the best course of action. They applied Red Teaming tools to poke holes in their plans before execution. They were not afraid to admit mistakes or ask for help, knowing their teammates had their backs.

In contrast, the Blue Team struggled to find common ground. The lack of trust hindered effective communication, as individuals hesitated to voice their opinions or challenge the status quo. Each team member advocated for their own ideas, often leading to conflicting strategies and wasted time. There was little psychological safety, and mistakes were met with blame rather than support. The team needed a cohesive identity, and morale suffered as a result.

While the Black Team efficiently assessed and prioritized tasks, the Blue Team found themselves mired in indecision. They hesitated to take risks or make bold decisions due to fear of failure and potential repercussions. Consequently, the recovery efforts in their town lagged behind those of the Black Team. The impact of their fragmented teamwork was tangible in the slower progress, miscommunications, and missed opportunities to mitigate further damage.

As the recovery efforts continued, the leaders of both teams realized the stark contrast in outcomes. Cameron, the Blue Team leader, acknowledged the need to foster trust and psychological safety within her team. Recognizing their current state hindered progress; she encouraged open dialogue, active listening, and mutual support. Gradually, the team began to embrace vulnerability, acknowledging their individual strengths and weaknesses. They learned to rely on one another and appreciate the diverse perspectives they brought to the table. As they began to gel, their assignment drew to an end.?More than one team member remarked on how much they came to enjoy working with each other.?Unfortunately, the system they were in meant it would all start again on the next assignment when different personnel from the pool had to do it all again.?

In the neighboring town, Jordan, the leader of the Black Team, marveled at their progress. He attributed their success to the unwavering trust and psychological safety that permeated their team. Despite their challenges, the Black Team addressed the aftermath of the hurricane swiftly and effectively. They had learned from one another, adapted to unforeseen circumstances, and embraced a collective responsibility for the well-being of their community.

The differences between the Black and Blue Teams had significantly diminished as the recovery efforts drew to a close. The Blue Team had evolved from an advocacy-driven group to a team with a shared sense of purpose, thanks to their determination and commitment. They had experienced firsthand the transformative power of trust and psychological safety, and they had “made it work.”

The tale of the Black and Blue Teams served as a reminder that when faced with adversity, trust and psychological safety can be the catalysts for exceptional teamwork. The Black Team's experience showcased the potential for efficiency, innovation, and resilience that comes with a cohesive and well-established unit. Meanwhile, the Blue Team's journey illustrated the challenges and triumphs of building trust in an ad-hoc team, where collaboration and vulnerability became the key to their success.

The Community Perspective

However, this sense of accomplishment differed in the communities they were called to assist.

The communities affected by the disaster observed and experienced the contrasting approaches and outcomes of the Black and Blue Teams. The perception of these differences varied among the community members based on their interactions with each team and the visible impact of their work.

For the town assisted by the Black Team, the community witnessed a seamless and coordinated recovery effort. The team's high level of trust and psychological safety translated into efficient and effective operations. The residents observed a well-organized response, where tasks were prioritized, resources were allocated appropriately, and progress was visible. The Black Team's cohesive teamwork and swift action instilled a sense of confidence and reassurance in the community. The residents felt supported and valued as the team proactively addressed their needs and worked diligently to restore normalcy. The community's perception of the Black Team was one of admiration and gratitude, recognizing their exceptional efforts and the positive impact on their lives.

In the neighboring town assisted by the Blue Team, the community's perspective was different. They observed a fragmented and less coordinated response. The low trust state within the team resulted in slower progress, a lack of clear direction, and conflicting communications. The community members voiced confusion and frustration due to miscommunications and delayed assistance. However, as the Blue Team recognized their challenges and began fostering trust and psychological safety, the community witnessed a positive shift. The team's growing cohesion and improved collaboration eventually led to more effective operations and visible progress in the recovery efforts. The community members appreciated the efforts of the Blue Team as they witnessed their commitment to learning, adapting, and delivering the support needed. However, the lingering perception of the Blue Team did not transform from skepticism to respect.?Although they saw the team's determination and willingness to overcome their initial hurdles, they felt undervalued and underserved.

Overall, the communities' views on the differences between the teams were shaped by their personal experiences and observations. With their established trust and seamless coordination, the Black Team garnered high praise and admiration from the community they assisted. The community members recognized their expertise, reliability, and the tangible results of their efforts. Meanwhile, the Blue Team, faced initial criticism that was not fully overcome as they gradually earned the respect and appreciation of the community. Some community members witnessed their progress, resilience, and commitment to making a positive impact, while others were unable to forgive the initial failures.?

The differing perceptions highlighted the importance of trust, psychological safety, and effective teamwork in the eyes of the communities affected by the disaster. They recognized the tangible benefits of a high-trust team like the Black Team and the potential for growth and improvement within an ad-hoc team like the Blue Team. The communities witnessed firsthand how trust and collaboration could significantly impact recovery and overall well-being.

Practice versus Game Day

In the face of a once-in-a-lifetime crisis like a devastating hurricane, communities rightfully place high expectations on the government to ensure the incident management teams (IMTs) are experienced and competent. The distinction between practice and game day becomes apparent as the stakes are high and immediate action is required. In such critical situations, the community wants a team on "game day" to effectively and efficiently respond to the crisis and provide the necessary support.

The community expects the government to invest in training and preparedness efforts for IMTs. The teams' skills, not the barriers to success created by the system, are what is remembered.?While training exercises are valuable for building foundational knowledge and teamwork, the true test lies in the ability to perform under extreme pressure and in real-time when everyone is watching.

To meet these expectations, the government must prioritize the selection and composition of IMTs before the crisis. They must ensure that the teams consist of experienced professionals with a proven track record in managing emergencies. The government must also consider the importance of team dynamics and prioritize forming high-trust teams with a history of working together. These teams possess the advantage of established communication channels, shared understanding, and a proven ability to coordinate seamlessly in times of crisis.

Those we serve expect the government to assess the competency and readiness of IMTs through rigorous evaluation processes. This should involve performance reviews, peer evaluations, and continuous professional development to ensure that the teams remain up to date with the latest best practices and technologies. Furthermore, the government should foster a culture of accountability, where IMTs are held responsible for their actions and decisions during a crisis. This transparency and accountability instill confidence in the community and ensure that the teams are continuously striving for excellence.

Ultimately, when a once-in-a-lifetime crisis strikes, the community desires a team on "game day" that is experienced, competent, and well-prepared. They want a team that can effectively navigate the complexities and challenges of the crisis, making timely and informed decisions. They understand that the difference between practice and game day is significant, and they expect the government to prioritize the formation of high-performing IMTs that can rise to the occasion.

So, if given a choice, the community would prefer a team on game day that has a proven track record, strong teamwork, established trust, and the ability to perform under extreme pressure. They want a team that can effectively coordinate resources, communicate efficiently, and make swift and well-informed decisions. It is this combination of experience, competence, and cohesion that gives them the confidence that their needs will be met, and their community will be effectively supported during the most challenging times.

Why Team Cohesion Matters

One notable instance where a lack of team cohesion impacted performance was the U.S. men’s basketball team full of NBA All-Stars during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece. This team, known as the "Nightmare Team" consisted of NBA stars like Allen Iverson, Tim Duncan, and LeBron James, among others.

Despite having a roster stacked with individual talent, the Nightmare Team struggled to find the same level of success as previous U.S. Olympic basketball teams. Their performance fell short of expectations, culminating in a bronze medal finish. This outcome was disappointing, considering the United States' historic dominance in Olympic basketball.

There were various factors attributed to the Nightmare Team's underwhelming performance. One significant factor was a lack of team cohesion and chemistry. Compared to previous U.S. Olympic teams, the players on the Nightmare Team had limited time to develop rapport and build effective teamwork. The absence of a cohesive playing style and unfamiliarity with each other's tendencies hindered their ability to gel as a unit.

Here are five ways team cohesion can impact IMT performance:

1. Effective Communication: Team cohesion is crucial in disaster response as it fosters effective communication channels among team members. Clear and timely communication facilitates the sharing of vital information, coordination of efforts, and alignment of objectives. A cohesive team establishes open lines of communication, allowing for efficient decision-making and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances.
2. Trust and Psychological Safety: Team cohesion promotes trust and psychological safety among members. Trust enables individuals to rely on each other's abilities, judgment, and support, creating a sense of confidence and collaboration. Psychological safety encourages open and honest communication, enabling team members to voice concerns, ask for help, and contribute their ideas without fear of retribution. Trust and psychological safety are paramount for effective teamwork and individual well-being in a disaster response setting.
3. Rapid Response and Adaptability: Cohesive teams are better equipped to respond rapidly to the challenges posed by a disaster. By leveraging their collective knowledge, experience, and established workflows, cohesive teams can make swift decisions, allocate resources effectively, and adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Working seamlessly and trusting each other's judgment enhances the team's agility in addressing emerging needs and ensuring a timely response.
4. Unified Goals and Collaboration: Cohesion within a team promotes a shared sense of purpose and alignment towards common goals. A cohesive team understands the bigger picture, works collaboratively, and leverages each member's unique skills and expertise. This collaborative mindset enables the team to synergistically combine their efforts, minimize duplication, and maximize efficiency in disaster response activities.
5. Resilience and Support: In the face of immense challenges and adversity, cohesive teams exhibit greater resilience. The bonds formed within the team foster a support system that helps members cope with stress, overcome obstacles, and maintain motivation during extended response efforts. The shared commitment and mutual support within a cohesive team enable individuals to persevere, learn from setbacks, and continue working toward recovery and restoration.

In summary, team cohesion plays a vital role in disaster response by enhancing communication, trust, and collaboration. It enables rapid adaptation, fosters resilience, and empowers individuals to work towards unified goals. By prioritizing team cohesion, organizations can significantly improve their response capabilities and maximize the positive impact on affected communities.

What are you doing in your organization to ensure your system supports successful game day execution from the start, or are you expecting frontline responders to "make it work"?

#IncidentManagement #teambuilding #disasterrecovery #disasterresponse #criticalthinking #crisismanagement #crisisleadership #wildfire #firechief #redteamthinking