Author: Lucien Canton
Risk Management Lessons from a Hawk – A Tail from the Dog Park
My typical day starts with an early morning walk with our dog, Kona, affectionately known around here as "Kona the Destroyer". We always end up at our local dog park where Kona gets off-leash time with her buddies and I get to gossip with other doggy parents.
The other morning I heard a shout and turned just in time to see what looked like the world's biggest red-tailed hawk swoop down past one of Kona's playmates. Wilson is a 30 pound labradoodle and it was clear that the hawk was planning to invite him back to its nest for breakfast but had changed its mind at the last minute. It was over in an instant and Wilson never even realized how close he had come to being the special of the day.
It's a simple story but it demonstrates a number of points about risk that we sometimes forget:
- Risk is not static – it can change over time and needs to be reassessed regularly. We had heard stories about the hawks being a danger to smaller dogs but never considered that a large hawk might choose to up his game.
- Risk can change dramatically in a short time and take you unawares. The incident was over before we realized what was happening.
- Risk is not always apparent to those most affected by it. Wilson never saw the hawk, never reacted to it flying overhead. Frequently those most at risk have a strong sense of denial and won't acknowledge risk.
- Increased risk doesn't necessarily produce change. All of us were back at the park this morning as usual, although we are passing on a warning to those with smaller dogs.
There's also a lesson to be learned from the hawk as well. The hawk decided that his target was too heavy, made a minor adjustment, and changed his strike into a graceful swoop.When you're committed to a goal and focused on achieving it, it sometimes pays to reassess your risk. Decisive action can make the difference between disaster and survival.
You can learn a lot from a hawk.
Public relations: Don’t be too quick on the draw
The ability to move information almost instantaneously can sometimes be a double-edged sword. Witness the recent case of CNN and Fox News in reporting the Supreme Court decision the federal healthcare law last week. In their rush to scoop other networks, both CNN and Fox failed to read the full text of the Court's decision and incorrectly reported that the Court had struck down the health insurance mandate. While the error was quickly corrected, it generated considerable confusion as other sources correctly reported the Court's decision. It also caused some red faces in Congress as some elected officials tweeted the incorrect information to their constituents.
There are two lessons here for crisis managers. The first is the Internet's ability to spread disinformation at an alarming rate. The other is that the Internet can also be self-correcting and can spread corrected information just as fast. This means that if you're using social media, you need to be accurate. Take the extra few minutes to get it right before hitting the key to post your message. Secondly, you need to move quickly to correct bad information – the longer you wait the harder it will be to get the facts before the public.
By the way, the congressmen learned a third lesson: the Internet never forgets. While many officials deleted their incorrect posts, copies were preserved by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based group supporting transparency in government. Once you post something, it's part of history. Take those extra few minutes to be sure of your facts!
Alien invasion and leadership
You just have to love publicity people. To drum up interest in the new National Geographic television series Chasing UFOs the PR folks commissioned a survey of of some 1,114 Americans regarding their attitude towards extraterrestrials. Among the more interesting conclusions was that 65% of those surveyed believe President Obama would be better suited to handle an alien invasion than contender Mitt Romney.
In developing our emergency plans we (quite rightly) try to make them independent of personality. However, the culture of an organization and its leadership have a great deal to do with success in dealing with crisis. One person can make a difference for good or ill, in crisis and the group perception of the person in charge can significantly affect group performance.
So as you develop and test your plans, keep in mind the human factor. How suited is your leader to dealing with crisis? What can you put in place to assist him or her? How will you cope if they are unavailable? Never forget that no matter how good your plan, it is the team that executes that plan that make it successful. And the performance of that team will depend on the leadership skills of the team leader.
Climate change meets realpolitik
We sometimes assume that risk and mitigation are absolutes. We think of risk as something quantifiable and logical and that, by extension, efforts to reduce risk are also logical. However, we forget or ignore research that shows that objective risk, perceived risk, and mitigation are only loosely coupled. Risk perception of the community ultimately determines the effectiveness of mitigation.
Take for example the law under consideration in North Carolina. The state's Coastal Resource Commission recommended planning for a 39 in rise in coastal sea levels by 2100. Business interests, concerned over the effects of this planning on coastal development, have supported a bill that would ignore climate change reports based on scientific studies and use only historical data in determining sea level rise. The catch is that the data is limited to data after 1900 and allows for only linear extrapolation of the data rather than more accurate methods.
Lawmakers in Virginia faced similar opposition in trying to base their planning on scientific evidence by commissioning a study on sea level rise. In this case local Republicans believe that "climate change" and "sea level rise" are liberal buzzwords and were prepared to block any study using those terms. Changing the term "sea level rise" to "recurrent flooding" allowed the study to pass muster without opposition.
Mitigation has always been a hard sell particularly where it comes into opposition with business interests. It's sad to see ideological political opposition to the science on which we base effective mitigation. And what does it say about our politicians' understanding of the issues when a name change is all it takes to remove their opposition?
Emergency Management and Higher Education
I had the privilege this week of delivering the keynote address to the Higher Education Conference hosted by FEMA at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, MD. This annual conference brings together several hundred educators from across the US (including some international visitors) who are involved in the delivery of degree programs in the fields of emergency management and homeland security.
It's a humbling experience to address my colleagues here because I have come to realize over the years that the work they do is absolutely vital to the continued professionalization of emergency management. First, they do the research that forms the specialized body of knowledge for our profession. Their work provides us with the empirical data that should form the basis of our emergency management programs.
More importantly, they are training the next generation of leaders in emergency management. These graduates have a solid grounding in theory and practice and are encouraged to gain practical experience through internships and volunteer work. They are better equipped for an unclear future than many of us older managers were when we came to emergency management as a second career. And we owe this to the educators who have worked hard with limited resources to make higher education programs in emergency management a reality.
If you are not familiar with FEMA's Higher Education Program, visit their website at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/ If you are fortunate enough to have an educational institution near you offering one of these programs I urge you to offer your support, either by providing instructional support or an internship. It's a solid investment in our future.
Terrorism theater and media spin
One the hallmarks of our 21st Century media is the "news spin" – stating information in a way that emphasizes the message that the sender wants delivered, even if the facts don't quite line up. United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's recent visit to New Zealand offers us a classic example of the spin.
In reporting on the visit, New Zealand TV went into great detail about the Secretary's warning about "body bombers" – terrorist with surgically implanted, non-metallic bombs. However, Napolitano actually said "Do we have specific credible evidence of a threat today? I would not say that we do, however, the importance is that we all lean forward."
So is the threat real or not? Why is the report headlined, "New Zealand warned over body bombers?" The answer is, of course, that terrorism theater sells products and makes for more interesting news stories that generate more advertising revenue. Instead of using the information to allay public concern, the New Zealand TV and Secretary Napolitano have instead heightened concern without offering any positive actions that the public could take. As we saw after 9/11, warnings without recommendations for action serve no purpose other than to increase public anxiety . This is particularly true when the actual threat may be questionable (remember the messages about terrorist use of crop dusters?).
Are surgically planted bombs possible? Certainly. Should anti-terrorist planners be taking them into consideration? Sure. But does the public need to be concerned over something for which there is no credible evidence and no defined defense? Definitely not.
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for passing on this information.
Pink slime: public outrage and unintended consequences
A short time ago I wrote about the public outrage over "pink slime", the beef additive used in most ground beef products for over ten years and certified as safe by the USDA. As I mentioned, a combination of circumstances had caught the public attention, forcing many companies to stop using it.
As with many things, this media-generated issue has had consequences. The principal manufacturing company, BPI, almost immediately shut down three of it's four processing plants, keeping the employees on salary for 60 days. The company assumed that this was a temporary setback and that once the facts were known, they would be able to resume operations. They forgot that public outrage is not easily swayed by facts. BPI had now announced that it will close the three plants permanently, costing 650 workers their jobs.
There are two lessons here, both highlighted very well by the Detroit Free Press article about the closings. The first is the speed at which the controversy grew. Fueled by social media, the issue commanded almost immediate attention and forced a reaction from major food franchisers and companies within days. This is in stark contrast to previous food issues that have taken years to garner attention.
The second lesson lies in the assumption by BPI that they were dealing with a food safety issue that could be countered by the facts that the additive was safe and had been in use without any ill effects for over ten years. What BPI missed was that people were outraged not because the product was unsafe but because they had never been told it was in use. Treating it as an additive rather than just beef would have required it to be listed as an ingredient on food packaging.
It's a costly couple of lessons and BPI is paying for them with loss of 650 jobs.