fbinaa_apr-jun-2020-Press-digital

There are many fallacies surrounding the concept of leadership. One common misconception indicates that “leadership is leadership,” no matter the situation or criteria under which leadership takes place. From the authors’ points of view, and strong opinions as career command-level law enforcement officers, that statement could not be further from the truth. We must realize that crisis leadership is not merely “Leadership 101”. Crisis leadership requires a complete set of skills, experiences, and traits that may not be present in all leaders. In building our leadership toolbox, we must plan for the knowns and unknowns, the constants and variables that arise during times of crisis. W e must expect and anticipate the unexpected. Most importantly, and not always as obvious, we must anticipate a spectrum of emotional responses across all levels, including our own. As such, leaders must understand their own emotions and manage their responses accordingly. This must occur both during and after the crisis, to avoid the possibility of emotions controlling their behavior and decisions. Having the basic understanding of our various emotional responses will aid in minimizing ineffectual and potentially damaging personality changes, such as becoming withdrawn, confused, or other disruptive performance. Such may result and manifest itself in the inability to think clearly, hence ineffective decision making. Many popular crisis management models do an extraordinary job of providing leaders guidance in planning for crisis events. Yet, most planning models do not specifically address the understanding and management of emotional responses. Like it or not, we are all human and are therefore subject to experiencing mental and physical responses to various stimuli. These responses can be challenging to manage, especially when in crises. In many cases, these varying responses lend additional complexities to our management and leadership functions. Thus, the question arises as to whether we have can plan for emotional challenges we might experience. In response to this question, we the authors express a very definitive “yes and no.” However, we will present some awareness factors and some categories of emotional reactions that lean more toward the “yes” responses than the “no.” Additionally, we stress and suggest that leadership should certainly incorporate emotional response expectations and mental health awareness into all Crisis OPS plans.

Note: As this is a short awareness piece, intended to be more of a field guide than a clinical research review, the discussion will be limited to general concepts in an overview format. CATEGORIES OF EMOTIONAL RESPONSES EXPECTED Expected or “usual” responses to an abnormal situation, such as a crisis, are the simplest to determine and certainly the easiest to plan for. In our planning stages we must realize that a sudden frightening and/or tragic event may evoke fear. In contrast, an emotionally charged civil protest or demonstration, for example, may evoke anger. Emotions such as grief, depression, despair, and dissociation are also common reactions to these types of instances. We must adjust and calibrate plans, accordingly, knowing these possible responses and perceived human behavior. NON-CONFORMING Non-conforming or non-normative emotional reactions tend to be more challenging to anticipate and can add a great deal of complexity to event planning and response. In some crisis events, leaders have observed emotions that did not fit the “norms” of expected behavior. Using the earlier example of a “frightening and or tragic event,” the non-congruent emotional response might include uncontrollable laughter. Additionally, there is the unexpected reaction of adults exhibiting a childlike mentality and associated behaviors. Other non-conforming emotional responses might include self-reassurance or coping actions like people hugging themselves or others, clutching objects, and or freezing in the fetal position. These responses must all be anticipated, especially when planning mass evacuations. NON-CONGRUENT Non-congruent responses, in many cases, tend to be a normative or expected emotional response with a diverse spectrum of intensity. This is where we see either the overreaction or under reaction to stimuli. Thus, though the overall emotional response may be normative, the level of intensity does not significantly match the situation or stimuli. In some cases, emotional responses bred similar spectrum responses in a crowd mentality (group think) format. For example, in a post 9/11 emotional sensitivity event, loud noises triggered a frightening mass hysteria events at a New York City Airport. Mass panic quickly spread through the airport terminals as crowds ran toward exits, hid under tables, and broke through secure doors to escape what they believed was a terrorist attack. Given conflicting direction by officers, no official information or directives, many people simply followed the cues of other crowd members and dangerously ran out onto the tarmac. THREE COMPONENT TIERS OF EMOTIONAL RESPONSES We understand that as a part of any planning process, we must examine and address the components of command (leaders), followers (operators), and participants (general citizens). We suggest that you further explore this examination to

F B I N A A . O R G | A P R / J U N 2 0 2 0

continued on page 35

15