Command skills Flashcards
Fire fighter Maxim
“At every incident, the greater the potential benefit of fire and rescue actions, the greater the risk that is accepted by commanders and firefighters. Activities that present a high risk to safety are limited to those that have the potential to save life or prevent rapid and significant escalation of the incident”
Commanding operational situations is different to managing controlled and defined situations or workplace scenarios. Commanders need a range of qualities together with command skills to deal with the wide-ranging nature of emergencies.
Assertive and effective commanders:
- Are confident and self aware
- Are well trained and competent
- Have sound situational awareness
- Are able to lead, direct and instruct others
- Can communicate effectively
- Are able to plan and implement
- Can apply sound judgement and effective decision-making
- Are able to adapt to changing situations
- Are calm and controlled
A fire and rescue authority’s responsibilities are set out in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, or equivalent legislation in devolved administrations. Some of these duties are classified as core duties. What elements of FRSA 2004 relate to incident command and their area’s:
FRSA 2004 section:
- 7 - Fires
- 8 - RTC’s
- 9 - Other emergencies other than fires or RTC’s: The Secretary of State will also have the power, by order, to direct fire and rescue authorities as to how they should plan, equip for and respond to such emergencies. These duties should be read with other relevant legislation, specifically the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Health and Safety at Work Order, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations.
The role of an incident commander
The incident commandr has overall responsibility on the incident ground. In order to resolve an incident assertively and safely they should:
- Command and control the incident
- Identify hazards and manage risks
- Assess resource requirements
- Determine and incident plan
- Co-ordinate and deploy available resources
- Evaluate progress against the plan
Define a Hazard
Hazard:
An event or situation with the potential to cause death or physical / Phychological harm, damage/loss to property, and/or disruption to the environment and/or economic, social and political structures
Define a Risk
Risk:
The measure of the significance of a potential harm in terms of its likelihood and impact.
Leadership behaviours
- Being self aware
- Displaying and istilling confidence
- Demonstrating and fostering trust
- Fostering two way communiction
- Understanding the use of Authority
- Setting expectations and standards
Operational team effectiveness
An essential skill for effective incident command is the ability to command and control teams of people.
An incident commander should understand how to form and control a command team and use them accordingly.
T.A.S.K
Team membership factors
The urgent nature of an incident may limit the ability of a leader to match each function with the ideal team membership. When they have more time, or the situation allows, they should consider the following factors:
Knowledge matching
Consider individual and team knowledge and match this to the required function. An incident commander may support this knowledge with a clear briefing. They may provide additional support or additional monitoring.
Skills matching
Consider the existing skills of the teams and individuals in relation to the tasks needed by the incident plan. It may be possible at some incidents to also consider the need for developing skills or expertise. Where the situation allows, they may wish to consider managing the exposure of team members to situations or tasks which will build their skills and experience.
Attitude matching
Some aspects of attitude contribute to a team working well together, being cohesive and motivated. Such attitudes might be stable personality traits or they may come and go, affected by mood. The way a person reacts to pressure and stress at an incident can affect both of these. The leader may wish to consider these factors when allocating tasks to individuals or teams. Attitude can affect how likely they are to work well together and achieve the intended result.
Reaching a decision
Incident commanders need to have the ability to make sound decisions based on the elements that make up an incident, as well as having an accurate overall interpretation of the incident. This leads to effective, assertive and safe incident command.
Decisions are made throughout an incident and involve:
D.A.I.D.D
- Deciding what the problem is
- Assessing risk
- Identifying and prioritising objectives
- Deciding tactical priorities
- Developing a plan that gets from one position to another
Reaching a decision
There are a number of ways that an incident commander may reach a decision. These can be broadly grouped into two main categories:
- Intuitive decision making (CP or RPD)
- Analytical decision making (AD) (SOP’s)
Intuitive decision making (CP or RPD)
These are rapid, reflexive processes that are experienced as relatively automatic. Some decisions can be very reflexive. Such intuitive processes are fast and are usually invoked without consciously thinking. They may be driven by cues and clues that can automatically and directly trigger a decision or response.
Commanders can react to elements of the situation, such as the cues and clues that act as triggers. This might be via Conditioned Processes (CP) or a Recognition Primed Decision (RPD) approach. A conditioned connection is very automatic, so does not involve explicit planning. This means that the rationale is not considered at the time, making it difficult to articulate the reasons that action is taken.
Recognition primed decision making is a similarly reflexive process whereby elements of the situation may prompt the commander to recognise, remember and select the responses they made to similar situations in the past. Because this process is also fast it feels like an automatic response. There is little conscious deliberation.
Recognition primed decision making processes may be useful for decision makers operating in a relatively familiar and routine situation. Such processes are less likely to be useful at more novel or unusual incidents where there may be less experience to draw on.
Incident commanders should also be aware that because recognition primed decision making involves matching cues from the current situation to one that the decision maker recognises, it might encourage the decision maker to look for evidence to support their interpretation of the situation. The actual situation may not reflect the interpreted situation. An incident commander should be aware of these possibilities and should consider using decision controls before they implement a decision.
Analytical decision making (AD)
These more reflective processes involve a greater degree of conscious mental effort. Here, the situation is analysed. The commander may draw on their knowledge, memories and experience that relates to the situation or problems faced.
They will then consider what to do. They might:
- Use a rule-based process, for example, a standard operating procedure
- Compare and evaluate possible options
- Create a completely new solution to an unfamiliar problem
Decision making in the operational context
Fire and rescue services need incident commanders to operate in a complex decision making environment. This environment is uncertain, with competing demands and problems that can affect many aspects of the scene.
To resolve the incident, incident commanders should:
- Understand their starting position
- Know their desired end position
- Develop a plan that gets from one position to another
Factors that will likely to influence with way
decisions are made fall under 4 headings:
- Situational -time,moral,stress,fatigue,uncertainty
- Emotional - anxieties over: legal,public,peer scrutiny
- Cognitive - Mental capacity,competence, technical expertise,risk perception,distraction,incident goals
- Organisational - No clear policy,policy to restrictive, safety culture, organisational risk appetite / risk aversion
Decision traps
A decision trap can be described as a thought process that can lead to a situation going wrong.
There are a number of decision traps that may make decisions in the operational context less effective. Decision makers should be aware of these and should apply decision controls to guard against unintended consequences.
P.A.W.O.F
Decision made on the basis of _P_art of the situation (such as a cue or a goal) whilst not taking account of the overall picture
A great deal of decision making occurs on the incident ground, from crew members to those with commanding roles. The operational context is complex and there may be a requirement to make decisions on a wide variety of issues. There are times when decisions are made that relate to very narrow or specific elements of the situation, such as a particular cue or goal. However, there is a danger of unintended consequences if decisions are made on these elements in isolation, without considering the impact on other activities, objectives or the incident as a whole.
Decision _A_version
Decision aversion is a failure to make a decision. High risk, high pressure and rapid change can create uncertainty about what to do. Decision makers may also be uncertain about possible alternatives and consequences. This may be challenging if the stakes are high and they have to choose what to do. For example, a commander must make a timely decision to determine if they are operating in either offensive or defensive mode, as there is no default tactical mode. Excessively focusing on accountability and scrutiny can make decision aversion worse. They may develop an excessive focus on potential negative consequences rather than the tactical concerns of the incident. Sometimes this may show as risk-aversion with a focus on self-protection rather than making an operational decision. They may not make a decision or seek to refer decisions to another decision maker. Fire and rescue services should be aware that their organisational culture may affect decision aversion.
Decision is based on the _W_rong interpretation
Poor situational awareness can lead to an interpretation of the incident that does not match the reality of the situation. A decision then made on the wrong interpretation may lead to unintended consequences.
Decision does not fit with the _O_bjectives, tactical priorities or incident plan
One of the pitfalls of some of the more reflexive, intuitive process is that sometimes the planning processes are by-passed. This means that an action might be intuitively or automatically implemented without considering the actual incident objective, goal or tactical plan. There may be times when the response they select might not fit with achieving the wider goal for an incident.
_F_ailure to actively monitor and review
Decision makers may not be aware of the progress of an incident. If they fail to monitor and review the impact of their decisions, it can affect their situational awareness. If they are not aware of progress it’s difficult to make good predictions about what is happening. It also makes it harder to understand how the situation might develop.
Factors that may effect joint decision making
The incident commander should be aware of this and the following factors which can affect joint decisions:
P.I.G.F.L.O.S
Poor communication
Team members may not communicate the right information to have a shared understanding of the situation. Terms may be misinterpreted or have different meanings to individuals. Clear briefing and communication between teams will help to avoid conflicts in understanding and what teams expect to happen.
Interpersonal conflict
Interpersonal conflict between team members may manifest in a lack of co-operation, or a lack of motivation to engage.
Group think
On some occasions the group can suspend rational judgement to maintain group cohesion. People may set aside their personal opinions and adopt the opinion of the group. An example may be a team accepting an inappropriate proposal without challenge, or being hesitant to contradict their team leader with valid information. People who are opposed to the decision may remain quiet to avoid affecting the dynamic of the group, or their own status within it.
Failure to challenge
Team members may fail to challenge assumptions because they wrongly assume that others share the same understanding of the situation and task.
Lack of confidence
Team members may lack the confidence to contribute new or relevant information.They may be affected by their own uncertainty or their status in the group.
Organisational culture
The culture of the organisation can drive behaviours both on and off the incident ground. Typical examples include how people react to status, and how likely they are to challenge assumptions. Fire and rescue services should understand the impact of their culture on team decision making.
Status
Incident commanders should avoid judging how relevant information is by the status of the person who offers it. Expertise or competence may sometimes be relevant to weighing information. But not always; Leaders should understand how their pre-conceptions about status can affect their judgement. Useful information can come from any member of the team.
Operational discretion
Operational discretion relates to rare or exceptional circumstances where strictly following an operational procedure would be a barrier to resolving an incident, or where there is no procedure that adequately deals with the incident. Commanders need to be sufficiently aware of procedures, the skills and qualities of crew members, and the capability of resources available.
Outcomes which would justify applying operational discretion include:
- Saving human life
- Taking decisive action to prevent an incident escalating
- Incidents where taking no action may lead others to put themselves in danger
Any decision to apply operational discretion should be the minimum necessary and only until the objective is achieved.
To support the post-incident learning process, fire and rescue services should have procedures for incident commanders to record the reasons that support their decision. The extent of the record should match the severity and/or complexity of the incident.
