Crisis Leadership: Making Decisions in Complex Situations

Send us a text

In our latest episode, we delve deep into the world of crisis leadership and the complex context it operates within. Our guest Dean Wasche, Global Learning and Development Manager at Oil Spill Response, offers valuable insights and definitions of leadership. He highlights how leadership in crisis situations differs from day-to-day leadership, emphasising the immense pressure crisis leaders face.

Through real-life examples, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and oil spill responses, Dean demonstrates the challenges and nuances of crisis leadership. He emphasises the importance of acknowledging complexity, recognising the role of experts, and making informed decisions in the face of uncertainty.

Join us as we explore the dynamic world of crisis leadership, providing valuable insights for leaders in both emergency response and everyday contexts. Whether you're an experienced leader or aspiring to be one, this episode offers practical wisdom to enhance your leadership skills under pressure.

Please give us ★★★★★, leave a review, and tell your friends about us as each share and like makes a difference.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hello and welcome to the Response Force Multiplier, a
podcast that explores emergencyplanning and response.
On the Response ForceMultiplier, we bring together
compelling experts and thoughtleaders to provide a fresh take
on key issues and cutting edgetechniques.
In each episode, we'll diveinto one aspect of emergency

(00:25):
planning and response and we'lluse OSRL's unique pool of
experts and collaborators togain new insights and to distill
these down into actionabletools and techniques for better
preparedness and response tocrisis incidents and emergencies
.
My name is Paul Kelway, we areOSRL and this is the Response

(00:45):
Force Multiplier.
In this episode, we continueour journey looking at the tools
and techniques to effectivelyperform under pressure in crisis
incidents and emergencies, bylooking at the role of
leadership.
Leading a team, an organizationor even a country during intense
, uncertain and chaotic eventsbrings a unique set of

(01:06):
challenges for any person,especially when the consequences
are real and potentiallyfar-reaching.
But are the abilities to surviveand thrive in these
environments traits we are bornwith or can they be learned?
And how important is the typeof situation we're leading in to
the way we should respond andthe expectations we should place
on ourselves and others inbeing able to achieve the best

(01:28):
outcomes?
To explore this, we speak withmy colleague, dean Walsh.
Dean, a former British Armyofficer, is the Global Learning
and Development Manager at OSRL.
Dean has been a lifelongstudent and practitioner of
leadership theory and practiceand brings his wide-ranging
experience to the role oftraining and developing our
response teams and members onhow to lead through crisis and

(01:50):
uncertainty.
Hi, dean, and welcome to theshow.
I guess the first question isreally just to ask you to
describe a bit about yourbackground personally and
professionally and, I guess,currently, your relationship
with emergency response, crisismanagement and training leaders
in that field.
So yeah, a bit of background onthat.

Speaker 2 (02:10):
So I've been a learning and development
practitioner for the last 18years.
My interest in humanperformance, I guess, started at
university.
So I studied sports science atthe University of Birmingham and
as I began to take my electiveunits at birmingham I became
really interested in sportspsychology, which of course at
its heart is the psychology ofperformance.
I'd ended up doing a third yeardissertation looking at the

(02:33):
intersection between thephysiological and the
psychological and in particularhow the body responds to
stressors mental stressors incertain conditions.
So so that was reallyinteresting and it really sort
of got me into the importance ofpsychology on physiology and on
performance generally.
I then joined the army and Iwent through the War Militia

(02:55):
Academy, santas and trained asan army officer.
And then I realised during mytraining that I loved developing
people.
It was a real passion.
So I joined the learning anddevelopment branch of the
British Army and spent eightgreat years serving as an army
officer.
I worked with lots of differentunits, lots of different teams.
Some of them I consider verymuch meet the definition of high

(03:17):
performance.
So I got really interested inwhat made these teams special,
what made them a high performingteam.
And then when I left the army atthe end of 2012, I came to work
for Spill Response.
I came into the role of globallearning and development manager
shortly after joining, so myremit then and now is all around

(03:38):
how do I support our respondersand preparedness professionals
being the best they can beultimately and, of course, part
of that is dealing with pressure, responding to crises or
incidents, and I can come on tothe distinction that I made
between those two shortly.
But my remit very much today,my passion, is about how do I
enable people to perform attheir best when it matters most,

(03:58):
ultimately.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
So obviously we're going to dive really deeply into
the emergency crisis context ofleadership.
But before we get into that, ifyou were to think about
leadership in general and almostsort of offer a definition of
what leadership is and what isthe role of a leader, what would
come to mind for you?

Speaker 2 (04:17):
Yeah, so I think I mean you know, you Google a term
, I think you get upwards of 15million definitions.
So it's a well-defined term,isn't it?
We all know that.
But for me, if I was to offer asynthesis of the best
definitions I've heard and alsooverlay my own experience with
that, I think the essence ofleadership is about uniting
people in a shared cause or goaland ultimately enabling them to

(04:39):
achieve something that theyprobably wouldn't have done on
their own, ultimately so.
So for me, the fundamental roleof a leader is to push the
edges of conventional thinking,whether that's organisational
culture, whether that's the artof the possible, and ultimately
unite people in moving forwardwith a common cause or goal.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
So if we're then thinking about a particular
context of a crisis, anemergency response, an incident,
I'm assuming that in a way,it's all of those things with
bells on.
But would you offer day-to-dayleadership and incident crisis
leadership?

Speaker 2 (05:27):
I think the raw components are the same, but I
think what really changes is theamount of pressure that a
crisis leader is under.
So, just to define a few terms,they said for me, an incident
is an unplanned event.
I think that's a fairly commondefinition of what an incident
is.
To me, an incident moves intothe realms of being a crisis

(05:47):
when the effects of thatincident are potentially
catastrophic for individuals orthe organization itself.
You know it potentially willexert an existential threat on
the organization itself, and Ithink a mnemonic that is often
used in incident crisismanagement is that pair mnemonic
, you know so people,environment, assets and

(06:08):
reputation.
I think whenever an incidenthas the potential to or has
resulted in the loss orsignificant injury of people,
damage to the environment, lossof assets and or, as a result of
all of that damage or completeloss of reputation, I think
that's when we start to get intocrisis territory.

(06:28):
So, with those two definitionsin mind, I think crisis leaders
have to operate under extremepressure and I think andy
couch's perspective on pressureis really useful.
If we look at pressure andhaving three components
expectation, scrutiny andconsequence if we think about
any crisis, you know that we can.

(06:51):
Expectation is always massive.
You know that the leader isgoing to sort it out ultimately.
You know they carry theexpectations of, often a nation
state on their shoulders, if notthe world.
They're under massive scrutiny.
You know from governmentpoliticians, the world's press,
you know the 24-7 news cycle andof course, the consequences are

(07:11):
real.
You know if it's a real crisis,then often people's lives are in
danger.
Maybe some people have losttheir lives.
You know financial ruin may bein the mix, environmental damage
, loss of important assets thatwill ultimately affect people's
livelihoods.
There are real consequences incrises.
So I think all of those thingshave the potential to come

(07:32):
together and create extremepressure on particularly crisis
leaders.
So for me, that's the keydistinction.
You know, I think the corecomponents of leadership, which
I'm sure we'll get into, I thinkare the same and therefore the
core behavi of leadership, whichI'm sure we'll get into, I
think are the same and thereforethe core behaviors are probably
the same.
But I think the ability tooperate under extreme pressure
is what differentiates anincident or crisis leader to a

(07:56):
everyday sort of business asusual leader.

Speaker 1 (07:59):
And you mentioned Andy Couch, of course, he spoke
to us about performance underpressure, he talked about some
of the techniques and tools andhe talked specifically about how
we develop structure, skill setand mindset that ultimately,
all of those things have to cometogether.
And I guess, particularly whenthe stakes are really high lives
are at stake, or there's realconsequences for how we act, how

(08:22):
we make decisions, for how weact how we make decisions, where
does the role of leadership orthe practice of leadership fit
in in relation to that structure, skill set and mindset trifecta
, as it were?

Speaker 2 (08:32):
Yeah, I think that's a really useful trifecta in a
whole range of contexts so wecan use.
So how we most frequentlydeploy the structure skill set,
mindset Trinity is thinkingabout external.
So okay, so, as a leader,externally, what structure do I
operate in?
You know what system am I inultimately.
So, for example, we typicallythink about you know what are

(08:55):
the governing principles of thatsystem, policies, procedures,
what's the organizational chartthat I operate in, what is my
role in relation to others'roles and that's really useful
stuff.
You know important stuff, whichis why we do it skill set.
Similarly, you know whattechnical behavioral skills
competencies do I have versuswhat I need.
You know where's the gap andhow do I develop those.

(09:17):
And then, equally, mindsetagain really important.
You know people's ability todeal with pressure, but you know
growth how do they come atthings with a mindset of
curiosity as opposed to a closedmindset.
All really useful and usefulfrom a leadership perspective
too.
But I think it could also beuseful if we turn the lens on
ourselves as leaders.
So, for example, you can alsoconsider structure not just as

(09:41):
an external thing that existsoutside of the leader, but as an
internal thing, and this iswhere I think it becomes
particularly useful forincidental crisis leaders.
So, for example, internalstructure what is the leader's
internal operating system?
Okay, if I was to coin a techterm.
Okay.
So what is the leader'sfundamental value system?

(10:03):
What are their beliefs?
What are their beliefs, whatare their attitudes around the
world?
Ultimately, how do they makesense of the world?
Which I think is reallyimportant, and here I'd link to
the work that you know, robertKeegan, looking at stages of
adult development and anacknowledgement that actually,
as adults, we have the abilityto move through different stages
of development, essentially howour sense-making evolves,

(10:25):
potentially through our lifetime.
You know, some work that theyhave done has concluded that
actually, the vast majority ofadults don't transcend beyond
the first stage that isavailable to us as adults.
Yeah, they don't progressbeyond what Keegan and his team
call the socialized stage ofdevelopment, and why that's
interesting.
Interesting, I think,particularly for leadership

(10:47):
under pressure, is that if youhave a socialized form of mind,
you are predominantly sourcingyour sense of self-worth from
external factors around you.
So, for example, you mightsource your sense of self-worth
from the relationships that youhave.
You might source it from theresults that you achieve in the

(11:08):
world.
Well, of course, the challengewith those things, particularly
in a crisis, when you're underextreme pressure, is that those
things can quite easily fracture.
You know, relationships canbecome strained, can even fall
away.
The results you achieve aren'teasy or elegant, you know.
They're often hard won, so thatcan make you as a person very

(11:30):
volatile because, of course, ifyou don't achieve those things,
then you run a you run anoperator system which causes you
to conclude that you are lessworthy as a person ultimately.
So for me, here structure isreally useful.
So I think, ultimately, when wefeel we're lacking something as
a person, ultimately.
So for me, here structure isreally useful.
So I think, ultimately, when wefeel we're lacking something as
a person, we fall back on moreemotional responses to things,

(11:54):
more reactive behaviors.
You know we become triggered bystuff.
So, going back to andy's podcast, here this is very much we go
into sort of redhead territory.
Yeah, so fight, flight, freezetype behaviors which, as leaders
, can be very detrimental, youknow, to both the instant and
response that we're leading, butalso to our teens.
You know we can create a reallydysfunctional culture, you know

(12:17):
, at its worst, a toxic culturearound some of this reactivity.
Ultimately, so I thinkstructure internally is really
interesting because leaders canstart to examine and often they
can only do this through eitherdeep reflection or through sort
of coaching type relationships,but they can really start to
examine what are some of theirfundamental beliefs and values

(12:37):
which ultimately govern how theyshow up, because they will show
up more like that when they'reunder pressure, because I think
we resort more to type.

Speaker 1 (12:44):
But you know, then and habits, so are there any
frameworks or systems that weuse to help people to build that
awareness of their behavioursand to grow and develop the ways
that they interact?

Speaker 2 (12:56):
I think it's useful when we go to skill set for
leaders to look specifically atwhat skills and behaviours do
they have.
And you know, know, a reallyuseful framework which I use and
we use here at hospitalresponse is the framework by the
leadership circle, whoacknowledge some of the
reactivity that we all have ashuman beings.
You know, it's just a functionof being human.

(13:17):
You know we all have theability to sort of go into the
basement, which is a term that Ilike from another book called
um you it, if any listeners havecome across that.
So that's a great book byLeonard Marcus, eric Minolte,
joseph Henderson and Barry Dawn,I think called your it.
So all about crisis leadershipand effectively, their term for

(13:39):
becoming emotionally hijacked ortriggered is going into the
basement.
Ultimately and you know, know,I think as leaders we all have
the potential to do that theleadership circle call it
reactive tendencies, so theyacknowledge those emotional
responses as well.
But ultimately, the behaviorsthat I think we want to see and
we can train as crisis leadersare both relational and

(14:00):
task-focused behaviors, becausein my experience we need both to
navigate any incident or crisis.
So we need related behaviors,we need self-awareness behaviors
, we need authenticity behaviors.
We need systems thinkingbehaviors and we need
achievement behaviors,ultimately, so we can learn
those things and we can do somesort of quality thinking about

(14:22):
how we do those things toachieve better when there's when
we're under pressure.
And then the last thing, mindset.
You know, here I draw heavily,as many people do, on the work
of Carol Dweck around growthmindset and actually how do we
ultimately cultivate inourselves and in the teams that
we have the privilege to leadMore of a growth mindset as
opposed to a fixed mindset?
So growth mindset, you know, asI know, you're aware, paul one

(14:45):
that failure is an opportunityto learn and grow.
It doesn't define me, you know.
So then we open up a whole areaof how do we fail fast, how do
we learn quick, how do we moveon.
All of that mindset and thepotential there, as opposed to
failure, defines me.
You know, failure is my limitand therefore it it invokes more
of a closed mindset as a leaderas well.

(15:06):
So I think structured skill setmindset is useful, both through
an external lens of what'saround me as a leader, but also
from an internal, what's withinme that I can ultimately
cultivate that's great and it'sinteresting.

Speaker 1 (15:20):
You talk about operating system, which
obviously you say is a very sortof computer technology term,
but actually, in a way, whatyou're talking about is the very
human quality of being a leaderwhich is essentially having to
build in these elementsstructure, skill set, mindset
and really, I suppose, developand take that journey as someone

(15:40):
who is developing, maturing,expanding your viewpoint on the
world and your role in it and, Iguess, ultimately so that if
you're in those circumstanceswhere which are quite groundless
, that you have the ability tostay centered and you've done
that work beforehand so you'renot having to do that work in
the middle of a crisis, you canbe more present and be more

(16:03):
familiar, I suppose, with thefeelings that it's going to
evoke in a high pressuresituation absolutely, and I
think it's important that I notethat no stage of development is
bad, no operating system is bad, but it can be limiting
ultimately.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
Just like you know, if we cast our minds back to the
very first smartphone we allhad, you look at what we could
do on that device with theoperating system it had back
then, versus what we can do onour current devices with the
operating system that it has now.
It's radically different.
You know we can do more, we canprocess more from a technology

(16:42):
perspective.
So I think about our own inneroperating systems as human
beings as similar to that.
I mean, you know, as I alludedat the start, you know I'm on my
own journey.
I know you are paul.
You know I hope every leader isholding this.
I think the danger for anyleader is when they think
they're done.
You know I have worked withleaders in the past.
You know very senior leaderswho view development as

(17:03):
something that's for everyoneelse.
I think that's a reallydangerous perspective to take
because, of course, the minutethat you think you're done
learning and developing as aleader, you shut down curiosity
and then you become subject,potentially, to sort of some
closed thinking which can bothlimit you and others.

Speaker 1 (17:20):
And if you're looking at an emergency team, there is
generally a very clear incidentcommand or emergency management
structure.
So often there is literally anincident commander.
So when we think about leaderor leadership, we think about
the person at the top of thattree, so to speak.
But just to clarify, when wethink about leadership in
relation to emergency teams, howdoes that differ?

(17:42):
Are we talking about specificroles within that structure?
Are we really talking abouteverybody's responsibility in
that team to really show up as aleader and, I guess,
potentially as a good follower,to optimize the way that team as
a whole performs?

Speaker 2 (17:56):
yeah.
So I think everybody that hasresponsibility in an
organizational chart for atleast one other person, I think,
should very much see themselvesas a leader.
So you know, in instantmanagement terms, you know I'm
thinking, yes, not only aboutthe instant commander, of course
, but also about section chiefs,branch directors, duty managers
, instant managers whateverterminology the organization

(18:17):
uses to define people in rolesthat are responsible for others
anybody, anybody can be a leader.
I think leadership is largely amindset and you know, I often
go back to the rumored quote ofSir David Sterling, who was, I
think, the founder of theBritish SAS.
You know, back during theSecond World War.

(18:38):
You know he talked about bestleaders don't require rank, but
those that require rank don'tdeserve it, type thing.
You know the whole essence thatactually anyone can be a leader
and you don't need to wear anepaulet on your shoulder or a
badge on your chest or a coloredtabard to be a leader.
You can still exhibit thequalities of a leader.
But equally I mean youmentioned the followership is

(18:59):
equally as important.
You know, we can't have asystem where everybody wants to
be a leader, so of courseeverybody's then potentially
climbing over each other to bein charge, so to speak.
I think it's important torecognize, but not be
constrained by, anyorganizational structure that
we're working in.
But also, you know, everybodyshould be thinking one up sort

(19:21):
of thing.
You know, what does my leaderneed from me?
How can I support that as agood follower?
Because then what that allowsis, of course, we're
anticipating One of the things Ithink most militaries do well,
certainly most NATO alliancesand certainly the British army
always teaches you know, one up,you know so what happens if
your boss isn't available.
You know who can step into thatrole, because of course, on the

(19:43):
battlefield it often happens.
You know a leader is injured,maybe killed.
A follower you know, inmilitary parlance, a subordinate
has to then step up and take on.
There are many stories ofextreme valor where exactly that
has happened.
You know a key leader has beenkilled or seriously injured, but
the mission has gone on and hasoften succeeded because

(20:06):
subordinates, followers, canstep up and still achieve the
mission.
You know I think that'simportant in a crisis or
incident that you have theability to step up, for example,
something the key leadershiprole is taken out for some
reason.
Yeah, maybe they sufferpersonal crisis.
Yeah, maybe a prolongedincident.
You know they're away.
Other people can step.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
The other bit that we've talked about a little bit,
which I'd love to go into more,is the environment in which
we're leading, the uniqueenvironment in which we're
leading in a crisis which you'vealluded to already.
But what do we need to knowabout the context of this type
of situation, as you defined it,and how does that influence the
role or perhaps the challengesof leading in that kind of space

(20:49):
, that kind of environment?

Speaker 2 (20:51):
so I think context is incredibly important.
Actually, I've only come toappreciate just how important it
is probably in the last fiveyears or so.
Prior to that, I was of theview that actually you, you can
pretty much use the sameplaybook, you know the same kind
of behaviors in any situation,and what I've come to learn
about is sort of this whole areaof complexity theory really,

(21:16):
and there's a framework that Ithink is really useful here and
it's a sense-making framework bya gentleman called Dave Snowden
, called the Kenefin Framework,a gentleman called Dave Snowden
called the Kinefin framework.
And what Dave Snowden has doneis he's basically sought to
define different systems at work, so ordered systems and
disordered systems.
And I recognize earlier in mycareer where I sometimes fell

(21:40):
short is I failed to appreciatewhat system I was working in.
I'll give you, I'll give yousome examples.
So in his work with theconifera framework, dave Snowden
has identified five domainsessentially.
The first is a disordereddomain, a disordered system.
So in this system you actuallydon't know what domain you're in

(22:01):
because you're disordered.
So the predominant state is oneof confusion ultimately.
And it's an unhappy place to be.
So here when you're in becauseyou're disordered, so the
predominant state is one ofconfusion.
Ultimately and it's an unhappyplace to be so here, when you're
in a disordered state, I wouldsay the leader's role in a
disordered system is to createthe conditions so that people
can work it out and bring someorder to the situation.
Ultimately, and if I think backon my military career, if you

(22:26):
were, for example, in asituation where, let's say, an
improvised explosive device hadjust gone off, one of the first
things the incident commanderyou know, which will be a
tactical commander typically onthe ground does is, in state,
accordant some kind of perimeteraround the device.
And, of course, what I nowrecognize is that's the first

(22:48):
way as an individual on theground in a disordered, maybe
even chaotic state, you canimpose some order on that
situation just by simply usingphysical space.
You know, put a hundred, twohundred meter cordon around
either a known device or asuspect device, you know, and
you start to control access inand out through that cordon.

(23:10):
Then you know that's a verysimple way of how we can take
and influence a disorderedsystem and start to introduce
some order.
Just recognizing when you're ina disordered state and actually
knowing, as a leader, thatactually one of the first things
you need to do is try andcreate some order.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
I think is a useful starting point, because a
disordered state can become veryoverwhelming to anyone that's a
great example, and I'm alsothinking about, within the
context of wildfire response andwildfire response and many
other emergency elements, thatwithin the incident management
system or the incident commandsystem, they often have that
process, often referred to asthe planning p, but just that

(23:51):
idea that in the structure, nomatter what the crisis or
emergency is, there's astructure and a process that you
continue to follow,irrespective of the scale and
the size, and really that's asimilar approach in the sense
that you're trying to at leastbring some kind of order, some
routine to the business ofdealing with something that's
actually quite chaotic andchallenging definitely.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
This is, I think, where, yeah, principles,
guidelines, checklists to anextent as long as they're not
too prescriptive necessarily allreally help us, because they
help us make sense and start toput in place constraints that
will help us ultimately tocreate some order out of what is
disorder, absolutely so.

(24:36):
We then move into one of theordered domains, which is, say,
you know, the simple or theobvious domain.
Okay, so generally seniorcrisis leaders probably won't
spend much time in this domainbecause people lower down in the
organization will work at thislevel.
But in the obvious domain,essentially everyone can see the
relationship between cause andeffect, you know.

(24:57):
So it's stuff that's clear tomost, if not all, people.
So therefore, at every level,the leaders sort of key focus
should be on sensing what'shappened, categorizing it and
then responding accordingly.
I would say this will veryoften be done by leaders lower
in any organization.
Yeah, this kind of stuff Idon't think will bubble up to

(25:18):
the level of the incidentcommander very much, you know,
and it's the area of bestpractice ultimately, you know
things are anticipated, theirprobability is almost assured.
We know what we need to do.
So in the world of incidentcrisis management for me, an
example of this is a routinesearch and rescue operation.
Okay, so you know somethinglike a mountain rescue in the

(25:41):
lake district.
You know, here in the uk, forexample, yeah, there will be
search and rescue teams allaround the Lake District that
are practiced and drilled invarious situations and if
something comes in which meetsthose guidelines, we know what
to do.
You know it's been drilled,practiced, rehearsed time and
time and time again.
It's sufficiently evolved, itworks consistently.

(26:03):
You know what you're doing.
So it's very much for me.
Me, the realm of standardoperating procedures and every
incidental crisis will haveareas.
That, which is why I like theconnefion framework so much,
because I think you can find allfive domains in pretty much any
crisis.
I think so.
The next domain within theordered part is complicated.
So this is where cause andeffect aren't obvious to all but

(26:28):
experts.
So I put most technical aspectsof a crisis probably fall in
here.
Certainly up and what oil spillresponse?
So you know.
So how skimmers work, how beamswork, how dispersants work,
it's not beyond the realm ofanyone, but it does take some
technical expertise to grapplewith it.

(26:49):
You know, a lay person justwouldn't pick it up and run with
it.
So here the leader's role isaround sensing, analyzing and
then responding.
Okay, so you can't categorizebecause it's not so clear cut,
but you can analyze and it's therealm of good practice.
Okay, so it's not best practice, but it's not so clear cut, but
you can analyze and it's therealm of good practice.
Okay so it's not best practice,but it's good practice and

(27:11):
there are governing constraints.
So certainly all spill responselargely in this domain.
Listening to some of theinterviews that were done in the
wake of the macondo ordeepwater horizon incident, you
know know how I think you knowyou listen to Admiral Tad Allen
speak and some of the othersenior crisis leaders.
What I deduce from listening tothose interviews is that they

(27:32):
were probably put the technicalaspects of capping the well into
the complicated domain, ofwhich most of, if not all of,
the expertise resided with BP todo that.
They had the technicalexpertise incredibly complicated
stuff that they were trying todo to cap a well what?
3,000 meters below the oceansurface.

(27:53):
They had the expertise to dothat and I think, if I'm making
sense of it correctly, thatprobably Admiral Tad Allen and
his senior leadership team wouldput those technical aspects of
that incident in the complicateddomain.
But when it came to liaisingwith stakeholders, you know, at
the federal level, state level,local government level, other

(28:16):
interested parties, he would putthat firmly in the complex
domain which I'll come toshortly.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
Okay, just to clarify then.
I mean, basically, it's that ina way, the decision making is
just more nuanced, there's moreinformation, there's more
variability or there's morepermutations of the causes and
effect that are having to beanalyzed.
So you're sort of taking thatexpertise and you're bringing in
that ability to synthesize andanalyze and essentially make
decisions based on a sort ofvery nuanced situation.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yes, so key for senior crisis leaders, I think,
in the complicated space is thatthey are unlikely to be an
expert, so they will need tocall upon experts to ultimately
solve the problem, which issolvable.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
Got it and ultimately the complicated element is that
you might need a whole varietyof it and ultimately the
complicated element is that youmight need a whole variety of
experts chip in a particularelement of that challenge.
And then your job is thenobviously to try to synthesize
what you're hearing and sort ofmake a decision accordingly yeah
, because of course thoseexperts are unlikely to agree on
everything, so they'll beconflicting opinions there.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
But yes, absolutely to synthesize the output of all
of that.
So, one, to make sure you bringthe right people together.
Two, you create the rightconditions for them to
collaborate effectively.
And then, three, you can thensynthesize the output of that
into something that you canoperationalize in a coherent way
.

Speaker 1 (29:39):
Brilliant, got it Right, so that's complicated, so
yeah, so then moving on tocomplex, yeah, so complicated.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
So yeah.
So then moving on to complexyeah, so complex.
And this is where the real funstarts.
Yeah, there's no linearrelationship between cause and
effect.
So the best experts can do ishypothesize, and this is why I
think it's really important forcrisis leaders to recognize when
they're in the complex and whenthey're in the complicated,
because the danger is here, orone of the many dangers, is that
in the complex domain, the bestexperts can do is hypothesize,

(30:11):
whereas in the complicated theycan predict with quite a high
degree of reliability.
But if you don't recognizewhich space you're in as a
leader and an experthypothesizes, but you think it's
a prediction and it's wrong,you lose faith in all your
experts ultimately, which canthen trigger you.
So then we go into the basement, we get some of those redhead

(30:31):
behaviors.
So this is where you can see itall starts to overlay on each
other at this point, and then weget a very different crisis
response ultimately.
So the best we can do as leadersin complex is probe, sense and
then respond, and often you knowit's managing polarities.
There are no obvious right orwrongs.

(30:53):
You know you're in an adaptivesystem.
You know things are changing.
As I say there's no clearlinear relationship between
cause and effect.
So this is the domain of whatsnowden and his team call
enabling constraints orprinciples.
So how do we establishgoverning principles and then
move forward on those?
Yeah, it's also the realm ofemergent practice as well, you

(31:14):
know.
So if we're in a complex space,there is no easy, clear answer.
So it's how do we continuallyprobe for information and then
respond to what we get?

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Obviously you've alluded to an example there of
the complex when you talkedabout the stakeholder engagement
following the Deepwater Horizon.
I'm also recalling theconversation I had on the first
podcast episode with Dave Rousenand Dr Elle Parker.
She talked about the example ofpreparedness for a pandemic and
how a lot of the preparednessfocused on as well as influenza
type situation and it haddrilled and practiced the sort

(31:51):
of hospital emergency serviceselement, but obviously in
relation to COVID-19 pandemic,the implications on home
learning, schools being closedand all those other connected
cause and effects elements whichultimately were perhaps less
considered because they weremore complex and their focus was
a bit too heavy on thecomplicated side.

(32:13):
Is that a good example?

Speaker 2 (32:15):
I think it is.
Yeah, I think it is a goodexample and, of course, it's one
that I'm sure all listeners canrelate to.
The COVID-19 pandemic is agreat example of complexity in
action.
You know, we've got volatility,uncertainty, complexity and
ambiguity all wrapped up.
But, of course, whatgovernments are having to do the

(32:35):
world over is balance offpublic health and trying to keep
as many, if not all, of theirpopulations alive as possible,
whilst also keeping theireconomies open, because people
die from poverty and it's awicked problem, of course.
What's interesting now is, Ithink, the world reflects on our

(32:56):
response, because, of course,every nation state did it quite
differently.
Really, we've got a wholespectrum of different responses.
We can hopefully all reflect onthat and look at our national
preparedness to a potentialfuture pandemic.
You know and again I thinkthere's samples out there,
obviously without naming anycountry specifically, because I

(33:17):
don't feel I'm qualified to, butto my mind, as a lay person,
when it comes to fighting, youknow, dealing with pandemics,
there are countries whoseleadership, I think, very
overtly sought to simplify theissue and put it very much in
the, in the simple domain, theobvious domain.
Leaders, countries that wentthe other way, dealt with it as
a complicated issue and were toofixed by that as well.

(33:41):
I don't think there was anycountry that got it perfect,
because every government,irrespective of your politics,
was trying to work through whatis inherently an incredibly
complex situation.

Speaker 1 (33:53):
Yeah, absolutely.
If we're in a situation, ingeneral, that is we rightly deem
to be complex, do you have theability, as a leader in that
situation, to attempt to move itinto a different domain, or is
it more about accepting thatit's complex and adjusting
what's possible or how you actand make decisions accordingly?

Speaker 2 (34:15):
I think you just have to acknowledge that it's
complex, but then for me, thatsets you up differently as a
leader.
So if you can acknowledge thatit's complex, you can then
actually accept that there is noperfect solution here.
There is no right or wrong.
By virtue of being a complexdomain, you can also bring in

(34:36):
experts, as you will undoubtedlyhave to do, and actually, as
most, if not all, governmentsdid during the pandemic, lots of
governments followed thescience, which I think is all
you can do.
But I think it's important toacknowledge, as a crisis leader,
that they're just hypotheses,that's all they can be, because
it's uncharted territory.
Ultimately, you know you'rebalancing all those things.

(34:57):
You know the cost of closing aneconomy or severely limiting an
economy or closing schools andthe social consequences that
that has, versus people becomingsuicidal or dying.
Is that there's no perfectsolution.
So you're managing the tensionbetween polarities ultimately.
So I think, as a crisis leader,just acknowledging that can

(35:17):
actually bring some relief, butit also helps you work with and
collaborate with people in adifferent way.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
It reminds me of a quote that Dave Rouse offered
when he talked about the role,in a crisis, of a leader having
to essentially make precisionguesswork based on questionable
information.
And you know, I think, as yousay, it's a sense of somehow
recognizing that and I guess,perhaps that recognition
allowing you to sort of avoidsome sort of analysis paralysis

(35:48):
recognize that ultimately you'vegot to take that next step with
whatever information you have,and you've got to be confident
enough to recognize that thereis no right answer, but you have
to essentially sort of takewhat you know and what you've
experienced as a leader and then, you know, make that difference
in actually being willing andcourageous enough, I guess, to
make that decision or that nextstep yeah, absolutely, and I

(36:11):
think you know and this bringsus right back to when you asked
me at the start you know what'smy definition of leadership.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
I think certainly, within that it's about how do
you create full momentum andkeep moving forward and keep,
you know, unifying people tokeep moving forward and keep,
you know, unifying people tokeep moving forward.
Ultimately, you know and I goback to a Winston Churchill
quote you know so that in anymoment of indecision, there's
three things a leader can do.
The best thing they can do ismake the right decision.

(36:36):
Of course, you know we all liketo be right all of the time.
The next best thing they can dois make the wrong decision.
The worst thing any leader cando is make no decision at all.
So I think the wrong decision,the worst thing any leader can
do, is make no decision at all.
So I think it's reallyimportant.

Speaker 1 (36:48):
Yeah, as leaders, we keep moving forward,
acknowledging, particularly whenwe're in the complex and
complicated domains, that we'renot always going to get it right
, particularly when we're in thecomplex domain so, building on
that, because you also talkedabout the importance of failure,
failing fast, the principle ofsort of iterating and learning
and growing through that, thatmakes a lot of sense, something

(37:09):
I try to practice as well.
Obviously, in a crisis thatfailure has much more serious
implications, you know.
It literally could be sort oflife and death situations.
So how does a leader find thatbalance in a complex crisis
where, to a certain extent,there is going to be this sense
of we're not going to get itright and we're going to have to

(37:30):
iterate on the decisions thatwe make?
But how do we find that balancebetween almost giving ourselves
permission to say there isbenefit and failure, but
ultimately here we've also gotto make the best decisions we
can, because the risk of failurein this situation is is much
more consequential?

Speaker 2 (37:47):
yeah.
So I think, use experts, acceptthat the best I can do is
hypothesize, use your team tomake the best decision that is
available to you in the moment,but then, I think, actually, as
a leader, demonstrate someinfallibility, some
vulnerability and acknowledge tothe stakeholders that this is

(38:08):
the best we've got with theinformation that we have right
now, and actually we'll continueto evolve that.
And one thing that concerns me,you know slightly, in the modern
era that we're currently living, is actually, you know, leaders
, in an effort to come across,as you know, strong and dominant
, they oversimplify often, and Ithink it almost does, you know,

(38:30):
the people that are followingthem, whether they're a
political leader or anotherleader.
It almost does their followersa disservice in that they almost
assume that we can't handle alevel of complexity ourselves
and actually, I think, whereparticularly very senior leaders
can be vulnerable, say, look,this is what we know, this is
what we don't know, this is whatour intuition says, this is
where our values take us andtherefore, this is what we're
going to do, acknowledging thatwe're going to have to test and

(38:54):
adjust potentially, you know,and keep evolving.
I think that goes a long way.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
So, essentially, that role of a leader is to
understand the context thatwe're having to act within and
to deploy ourselves in the bestway in relation to the
particular demands of thatsituation and what it's calling
on from us as an individual andas a team.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
Absolutely, and I'd like to come back to this.
I think we need to bring thisback to behaviours ultimately
and I'm a big fan of the workthat the Leadership Circle group
have done here about those fivecreative competencies Because,
as I said at the start, with mydefinition of leadership, I
think the competencies arelargely the same.
I think what the differentiatoris in a crisis the pressure is

(39:44):
amplified significantly.
So I think what we can all bedoing now as potential incident
or crisis leaders of the future,is exploring our inner
operating systems.
So by that I mean, you know,exploring, reflecting on our own
values, belief systems, whatour attitudes are, how we
perceive ourselves in the world.

(40:04):
And in my experience, mostpeople can't do that on their
own.
They need some kind of settingwhether it's a coaching
framework, some kind ofspiritual meditation to work
through, but that people needoften a vehicle to do that kind
of deep, deep reflection.
But it's, I think, well worthdoing, because then you will
start to see, as a leader, whatyour own potential limiting

(40:27):
beliefs are, what are we subjectto and how can we make that
object of our own attention andfocus.
But those five competencies I'mjust going to say them again
with a bit more detail this one.
I mentioned them at the startof our conversation, paul.
So one is relating.
So this is all about theability of the leader to connect
with others in a way thatbrings out the best in them.
When I work with groups ofpeople in various contexts and I

(40:51):
ask people to think about andthen describe to me their ideal
leader, that ability to relateto them in a way that brings out
the best of them is always inthe mix.
So relating, we know, is reallyimportant.
Self-awareness, you know theimportance of emotional
intelligence or EQ, isfundamental.
Authenticity so this is a largepart about integrity.

(41:14):
But the Leadership Circle andindeed others have broadened
this definition.
So when we talk aboutauthenticity, I don't just mean
integrity, I also mean alignmentwith values and sort of
energetic wholeness.
I think, as human beings, ifwe're more aligned with our
values and acting in accordancewith our values, it just has the

(41:35):
effect of generating moreenergy in us ultimately.
I don't quite profess tounderstand exactly how that
works, but it just seems to bethat way that and I think this
is where you know as a, as aninstant leader, a crisis leader,
if you can galvanize peoplearound a common purpose, which
is often easy.
If there's lives at risk, youknow, the common purpose very

(41:55):
quickly becomes how do we savethese people?
It's almost doesn't need to bespoken.
Amazing stuff happens,creativity emerges.
So I think authenticity isreally important.
How does a leader align?
It's not only honest andtrustworthy in their character,
but how do they just align withpeople's values and enable that

(42:17):
Systems awareness?
So, big picture thinking.
I think red to blue is reallyhelpful here.
So again, going back to andy'spodcast, you have the ability of
a leader to stay more blue andtherefore be able to access some
of their higher level cognitivefunctions that allow them to
really use their intellect andthat of others, rather than

(42:38):
going to red or in the basement,because of course, that stuff
shuts down.
When we're emotionally hijacked, even to a small degree, we
just can't access some of ourhigh-level thinking.
It's just not available to usin the moment.
You know, and I'm sure we canall relate to that I certainly
can if I become in any wayemotionally hijacked, stuff is
no longer available to me and itbecomes available to me after

(43:00):
the moment.
But I think, oh, why didn't Isay that?
Why didn't I respond in thisway.
We aren't just because Ireacted in another way.
You know I went too red for thesituation, that's not to say as
I know andy explained in hispodcast.
You know, red isn't bad.
We need emotion.
We can't be devoid of emotion.
But if we have too much red, ifwe become triggered by
something which is very easy todo when the pressure is on you,

(43:23):
when expectations, scrutiny,consequences weighing down on us
, it's very easy to becometriggered.
So systems awareness is key andmaintaining more of a blue head
will help that.
Then the last one, of course,is achieving results.
You know most definitions ofleadership that I come across
speak very clearly about therelational skills of a leader

(43:45):
and the ability to get stuffdone.
So I think this is key and, ofcourse, in a crisis or incident,
we need leaders that get stuffdone.
So the ability to offercompelling vision and cultivate
a deep sense of purpose whichultimately inspires people to go
above and beyond.
You know all the best leadersI've worked for, both in the
military and civilian sectors,have had that ability to inspire

(44:08):
you.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Inspire me to go above and beyond we've talked a
bit about the development of aleader through the techniques
and the practices, and so Isuppose it's it's always the
question that's there which issort of our good leaders born or
made?
I guess from from yourperspective would you suppose
it's always the question that'sthere which is sort of are good
leaders born or made?
I guess from your perspectivewould you say it's a bit of both
.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
Yeah, I'd say some are born, but I think most are
made.
And what I mean by some areborn is I think some develop the
attributes.
I think and again I'm going tocome back to those five creative
competencies, you know.
So some leaders just havedeveloped IEQ by the time they
get into a leadership role.
They're aligned with theirvalues, they act in accordance

(44:48):
with their values, they haveintegrity, they are honest
people, they have that abilityto take the bigger picture and
they can get stuff done.
So some leaders, I think, justdevelop that stuff.
But I think, absolutely, leaderscan be made.
Indeed, the whole ethos aroundmilitary leadership training is
selecting individuals through arigorous selection process with

(45:10):
the key core attributes, andgenerally it's around character
traits and then training thebehaviors, training the mindset.
Ultimately and again, that'swhat I had the privilege to do
between 2009 and 2011 the rawmilitary academy centers, which
is the british army's leadershipacademy.
So I can absolutely testify togreat leaders can absolutely be
made.

(45:31):
But I think some are born aswell, and you know, and some are
just right for the time.
You know, I know there's beenlots of historical role models.
Who will actually, would theybe a good leader now?
Well, possibly not, becausethey were put a product of their
time.
They were the right person forthat time.
In in a nation's history.

Speaker 1 (45:48):
They wouldn't necessarily be the right leader
now is there any other sort of,I suppose, tools or techniques
or practices that we asindividuals can employ, that
that allow us to develop ourability to sort of unfreeze
ourselves in those situationsand to act accordingly?

Speaker 2 (46:06):
Yes, there's a very practical one actually that I've
taken from Dr SabrinaCohen-Hatton.
If you haven't come acrossSabrina, dr Sabrina Cohen-Hatton
is the chief fire officer, Ithink, of West Sussex and she's
written several good books, andone in one of those books she
talks all about decision toolsand decision traps that we can
all fall into, particularly whenwe're under pressure.

(46:29):
And one point that she makeswhich I think is is really true
in my experience, is that weoften assess a situation based
on how we have already decidedto act.
So, whether that's been a fullyconscious process or not, often
it will be at least partunconscious, but we've already

(46:49):
assessed the situation based onhow we've decided to act.
So that then starts to build inbias, cognitive bias and the
like Decision inertia papers,which I wish you spoke of a
little while ago, paul.
So what Sabrina has done, Ithink, with the other senior
leaders in the fire service biasand the like decision inertia
papers, which I wish you spokeof a little while ago, paul.
So what sabrina has done, Ithink, with the other senior
leaders in the fire service,they've introduced these
decision controls which youapply after a decision is made

(47:12):
but before you implement it atthat key space between the two,
and so after it's made, butbefore you implement.
So there's three simplequestions you ask yourself or
you ask of each other.
First one is what's my goal andwill this action get me closer
to it?
The second is what do I expectto happen if we do this?

(47:35):
And then the third one is howdoes the benefit of doing what
we've agreed outweigh the riskof doing it?
Okay, so what I think this doesactually is it slows us down in
that critical moment where,particularly if we were in the
disordered or chaotic spaces,there's an impulsion to act.
It just gets us to think,actually, is our situational

(47:58):
awareness where it needs to beto make the best decision in
this moment?

Speaker 1 (48:04):
so I think those decision controls can be very
useful one of the things that wecovered off in the last podcast
episode with our colleague,liam harrington missin, was the
evolving role of artificialintelligence and, in particular,
in relation to crisismanagement, emergency response.
You know we talk about thesesort of large language learning

(48:25):
models and various other things,but Liam was giving some
examples of to what extentcertain decisions or actions in
an emergency response couldactually be left to artificial
intelligence to to solve, andand the benefits of that, and
the question I, I guess,ethically, philosophically,
would humans allow or leavethose decisions to AI?

(48:46):
What I'm wondering, because Ithink a lot of what you've said
obviously speaks to the humanquality that we bring as leaders
, that we essentially embody allof these things that have
brought us to that place, allthe learning, all the experience
, all the work on ourselves.
Would you say that, in a way,it really is that human element
that makes the difference in acomplex situation, that that,

(49:08):
ultimately, ai is very good atmaybe giving us more analysis in
these complicated environments?
But perhaps that role of ofleadership, that sort of role of
the sort of human dimension, asit were, is really kind of a
key or critical aspect of thatcomplexity and dealing with
highly complex situations.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
Yeah, I mean I'm curious about what opportunity
exists with AI.
Ultimately, where I am today,which of course, may be
different tomorrow and the nextday, but where I am today is I
think I can absolutely see arole for artificial intelligence
in clearing the way out of theobvious and the complicated.

(49:48):
I do think that complexityrequires a human touch
ultimately, but it's interesting.
I mean it's yeah, really, but Ithink that there's great
potential there in that actually, ai can clear a lot of the
noise.
Initially, you know, can justexecute demands to make stuff
happen very quickly.

(50:09):
So I guess you know, if we comeback to what's the leader
trying to do, so they're tryingto take in information,
orientate themselves, so makesense of it, make decisions and
then compel people to act onthose decisions.
Ultimately, that's, I guess, thefundamentals of crisis
leadership.
So I think AI can really helpleaders to observe and orientate

(50:29):
and do some decision making forthem.
But of course, you know I'mlearning, like everyone is, all
the time, about AI.
I'm struggling right now to seethe role of AI in complexity.
I don't think there's a problemto be solved in complexity
because it's adaptive.
I think ultimately, that needsmore human.

Speaker 1 (50:49):
As you say, it's an interesting question and, as you
say, it's maybe an evolving one, but certainly that's one of
the takeaways listening toeverything that you've shared
for me is that there issomething that's sort of hard to
put your finger on, that thatan individual brings to a
situation in terms of, as yousay, everything from their
values to their experience, tothe way they've trained that

(51:11):
ultimately can be, you know,extremely unique and, as you say
, it could be just the right fitfor the right kind of situation
or a challenge yeah, because Ithink in the complex space, what
you then need to be able topick up is those, the nuances of
human behavior.

Speaker 2 (51:27):
It's the non-verbal expressions which I mean.
Maybe ai be able to do one dayI simply don't know, but I think
it relies more on that adaptivesystem.
That is a complex domain.
I think it relies more on humanconnection.
Again, I think the kind ofleadership we need ultimately in
complexity.

(51:48):
Some authors have called it theintegral leadership, the ability
to really exercise thosecreative competencies.
You know the authors I spoke ofbefore, who wrote that great
book that I'd recommend, calledyour it.
They talk about meta leadership, which for me is very similar.
Your other authors call itnetworked leadership.
I think, ultimately, what theyall have in common is the

(52:10):
ability to bring people togetherto get stuff done under extreme
pressure.
But all of them, to my view,speak about the importance of
creating connections, seeing thewhole system, which I struggle
right now to see how ai can doby taking the nuances, but we'll

(52:30):
see how it evolves is there anysort of public figures that you
look to admire or even just youthink is a great example of
somebody acting well as a leaderin a crisis situation?
Yeah, so actually and Imentioned this because I watched
the Netflix documentary on itrelatively recently but do you
remember, paul, the 2018 Thai Krescue of that boys football

(52:52):
team?
So I think this is a greatexample.
Now, I can't pin this on any oneleader, but just having watched
that and having followed it, asI'm sure many people did avidly
in the news at the time, youknow, for me that was an
incident always going deep intoan underground cave system that
turned, of course, into a crisiswhen it flooded great example
to illustrate the distinction, Ithink, between the two and how

(53:14):
an incident can evolve into acrisis.
But for me, that was aexcellent example of how leaders
came together.
Subject matter experts cametogether from around the globe,
collaborated, presumably under aunified command they didn't
speak a lot in this documentary,but I'm sure there was some
kind of unified command thereand ultimately navigated the

(53:37):
complicated space, which, youknow, I'm delighted to say, led
to a wholly positive outcome allof those boys, which is sadly,
I believe, one time navy seallost his life, but all of the
boys were rescued, which was anamazing outcome.
I think.
That is, I think, a really goodexample of how the amazing can

(53:58):
happen when people come togetherit's interesting.

Speaker 1 (54:00):
You mentioned that I, I think when we were talking I
for some reason that one cameinto my mind as well.
But it is interesting, as yousay, even the sense that
actually some of the decisionsor the approaches that they
ended up taking obviously had acertain element of risk to them
and ultimately they had to atleast assess that and then have
the courage to say you know,this is actually the sort of the
best choice we have in in avery difficult situation.

(54:23):
And it makes me think back tothree questions to ask yourself
the situation from the fireservice.
But I think that sort ofhighlights in that sense that
ultimately you know you have tomake a decision and you're
trying to bring in the rightskill sets and the right
experience to then be able tosort of say well, in our
judgment this is, I think, howwe can affect this most

(54:47):
significantly.

Speaker 2 (54:47):
Yeah, and for me, yeah, the element of risk in
that, the particular risk was,you know, the decision to sedate
the boys, to bring them out.
For me, I think it iscomplicated, but verging on
complex, amazing is thereanything else then you want to
share.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
I mean, is there anything else that comes up for
you that you just feel is, Isuppose, just a reflection or a
takeaway that we haven't covered, that you think would be worth
sharing or that's coming up foryou?

Speaker 2 (55:08):
I think leadership is tough.
You know, leadership at anytime is tough, but I think
particularly an incident ofcrisis is particularly tough.
So actually, we shouldn'texpect to be good at it if we
don't invest the time anddeveloping ourselves.
And I think what seems to beoften true is that we thrust
people into leadership rolesbecause of their technical

(55:34):
expertise, know, expectations,scrutiny, consequences, all in
play.
We shouldn't wonder if wehaven't developed them at all
and they haven't developedthemselves, because it's
incumbent upon them asindividuals to develop
themselves as well.
We shouldn't wonder if they dofall slightly short.
So I think, as part of ourpreparing this effort, it's
really key that leaders developthemselves and also

(55:56):
organisations take the time todevelop their leaders, because
then they're more likely to beable to inform when they are
under pressure.
Ultimately and again as I saidat the very start, I think it's
constant we're never donedeveloping as leaders and again,
the best leaders I've workedfor see themselves very much as
an ongoing project.
They are constantly curious,they are constantly open.

(56:18):
But how do they get better asindividuals?
The example I always give is Ioften, you know, get asked to
support leaders from a coachingperspective.
You know who just don't listenvery well.
They don't collaborate verywell.
Now, typically theseindividuals are often very smart
people.

(56:38):
Now you can send them on allthe active listening courses you
like.
You know your company can spendthousands of pounds sending
these leaders away on.
You know how to be a good activelistener and they will learn
all the skills there are about.
You know how to listen withsenses that aren't just your
ears, how to pick up non-verbalcues, how to respond

(57:02):
empathically.
But fundamentally, if they comeaway from that skills-based
course still believing that theyare smart enough to solve most
of the problems that theyencounter, they're never going
to listen actively because theyalready go into a conversation
thinking they've got at leasthalf of the right answer.
So you've got to do the innerwork as well.

(57:23):
You know skills-basedleadership development alone.
I don't think we need to do theinner work as well as the outer
work thank you for listening tothe response force multiplier
from osrl.

Speaker 1 (57:41):
please like and subscribe wherever you get your
podcasts and stay tuned for moreepisodes as we continue to
explore key issues in emergencyresponse and crisis management.
For more information, head toosrlcom.
We'll see you soon.