were exposed to potentially deadly radiation. Of the first 60,000
who arrived, more that 5,000 had symptoms consistent with radiation sickness, though none had been contaminated.
The “worried well” effect has proven critical in the first wave
of H1N1 experience earlier last year. On May 25, 2009 – the worst
day of the swine flu outbreak – New York City hospital emergency
departments saw more than 2,500 patients with flu symtoms compared to only 150 on the same day in 2008. These patients, many
driven by fear and misinterpretation of other symptoms (allergies,
stress responses, etc.), and very few required hospitalization.
From the second to the third week of July, the UK experienced a
doubling of new H1N1 cases with more than 100,000 new cases
triggering a run on pharmacies for gloves, masks, antibacterial
gels, and thermometers. A key lesson learned in many countries
was that the overwhelming surge for healthcare services or supplies slowed or stopped response efforts in their tracks.
Including Behavioral Response In Exercises
Organizations cannot afford to ignore human response to
adverse and unusual situations. The behavioral response may be
so significant that it must be anticipated and incorporated throughout exercises and drills to ensure that plans will hold up to the
realities presented by these behavioral challenges. The exercise
design challenge lies in developing a scenario that participants
can recognize would likely evoke potentially harmful human
behaviors if the event were real. Exercise participants should be
expected to react to such behaviors and make decisions about how
their organization would manage the situation. In order for participants to make informed decisions, they need to know something about potential human reactions to dire events and what
options they may have for mitigation. Such an exercise is not
merely an opportunity to practice decision-making and team play,
but also an opportunity to learn the nature of extreme and rare
situations – such as a dirty bomb, pandemic, or civil strife – and
what their options may be in dealing with the human response
to such situations. Such response may be based upon their organization’s actual readiness to react or may be based upon some
presumed preparedness not yet actualized. In either case, accurate behavioral assumptions are critical to mitigation activities
and decision-making, and participants need to be briefed on these
matters at the outset of the exercise and all during the exercise as
the scenario introduces new concerns.
Some exercise designers attempt to evoke genuine emotional
reactions among participants with the use of graphic videos
and panic-laden interventions. These attempts are not likely to
be fruitful. Exercise participants are unlikely to indulge in fear-motivated behaviors themselves for two reasons: ( 1) they know
it’s only an exercise; and ( 2) typically, even in a real event, only a
small percentage of the population will exhibit potentially disruptive behaviors. The way to inject them into an exercise efficiently
is to describe them succinctly.
n “Distraught employees indicate they regret coming to work and are
wandering the office creating disruptions.”
n “Employees are reporting symptoms of radiation sickness –
nausea, rashes, etc.”
n “Crowds are huddled around newscasts, and rumors abound as
the press raises concerns.”
More important than emotional provocation is the realistic
presentation of management concerns that are likely to occur and
a sense of urgency in making informed decisions. This is accomplished by simulating a realistic decision-making environment,
establishing roles and accountabilities, and providing repeated
scenario escalations that challenge decision-making capacities
in short time frames. The facilitator needs to encourage thought-fulness about the realities of the scenario, including mitigation
options resulting from organizational readiness and the likely
human responses in carrying out these mitigations. Where the
organization is not well-prepared to deal with the human factor,
the exercise can serve to raise awareness about that requirement.
Emergency response and recovery plans that ignore behavioral
response invite failures when the plans are needed. Management
needs to be aware of likely behavioral responses and needs to practice decision-making in the light of accurate behavioral expectations. Exercises that do not incorporate such considerations are
imperfect, and imperfect practice makes for imperfect action.
v
Steven Crimando, MA, NCCM, is the managing director of the Extreme
Behavioral Risk Management division of AllSector Technology Group,
Inc. He is an internationally-known consultant and trainer specializing in
disaster and emergency management human factors. He can be reached
at Steve@xbrm.com.
Marv Wainschel is the CEO of Mc Wains Chelsea, a business resilience
consulting firm that has provided leading edge concepts to the business
continuity industry since 1983. Wainschel currently serves as advisor on
the NYC-based Contingency Planning Exchange Board of Directors. He
can be reached at marv@mcwains.com.
