How do you even begin to lead when the, well,
the unimaginable happens? I mean, think about
events like Fukushima or Deepwater Horizon, Hurricane
Katrina. They just tear apart our normal reality.
What kind of leadership works then? Or... or
what makes it just completely fail when the rule
book is useless. That really is the million dollar
question, isn't it? And that's what we're digging
into today. Welcome to the deep dive. Where we
try to make sense of complex stuff for you. Exactly.
Today, we're diving into a really fascinating
dissertation that looks right at leadership during
these incredibly extreme crises. Right. And it's
not just theory. This is based on a lot of firsthand
accounts, isn't it? A huge amount. We're talking
interviews with first responders, you know, people
on the ground, government officials making impossible
calls, even corporate leaders who face things
they never ever expected. So our mission today
for this deep dive is to pull out the really
crucial stuff. What do you need to know about
leading when everything goes sideways? We know
you want the key insights. quickly and clearly.
So we're cutting through all the academic layers
to get to the heart of it. The main takeaway
is maybe some surprising findings about navigating
total chaos. OK, let's jump in. First off, what
makes an event extreme? How is it different from
just a, you know, a really bad crisis? That's
a key distinction the research makes. So your
standard crisis might threaten important goals,
maybe within a company or something, but an extreme
event. We're talking consequences of an intolerable
magnitude. Think massive physical damage, deep
psychological trauma, huge material loss, affecting
enormous numbers of people. And tolerable magnitude.
OK, so it just completely overwhelms our usual
ways of coping. Totally overwhelms them. And
the research also talks about an extreme context,
which is slightly different. That's like a domino
effect. Ah, like Japan in 2011. Exactly. The
earthquake triggers the tsunami. The tsunami
leads to the Fukushima nuclear crisis. one disaster
cascading into another, making it exponentially
harder. But for today, we're mostly zeroing in
on leadership within those initial extreme crises
and also those Black Swan events, the really
unpredictable ones with massive fallout. Right.
So when you're faced with something completely
off the charts like that, what good is all the
planning, all the drills, the protocols? That's
a huge point. And the dissertation dives into
this tension. You know, traditional readiness
theory is all about planning everything out in
advance. Defining roles, running drills. Right,
all that. And the research drawing on folks like
Quarantelli definitely says that groundwork is
valuable. You need some kind of foundation. Okay,
so it's not useless. No, not at all. But it has
serious limits when you hit those truly extreme
situations, the unknown unknowns, as they're
sometimes called. You just can't write a procedure
for something you literally cannot imagine happening.
You can't have a checklist for the inconceivable.
Precisely. So the research contrasts that with
complexity theory, which suggests that instead
of just rigid plans for scenario A or B, organizations
need to build like an inherent capacity to absorb
complexity, to be fundamentally adaptable. More
like learning to navigate rather than just memorizing
one map. That's a great way to put it. It's about
building resilience, the ability to flex and
respond to whatever comes, rather than just relying
on plan A breaking. Work by Ashmoz, Dushan, and
McDaniel supports this idea. Makes sense. And,
you know, the dissertation briefly touches on
that debate, too. Normal accident theory versus
high reliability theory. Oh, yeah. Perot versus
Wike and Sagan. Exactly. Are big accidents inevitable
in complex systems or can really robust organizations
prevent them? The research kind of suggests a
middle ground. May perfect prevention is impossible,
but you can significantly improve reliability.
So planning helps, but it's not the whole picture.
Adaptability is key. Crucial. especially when
things go truly nonlinear. Okay, nonlinear. The
dissertation mentions six key concepts that get
all jumbled up in these events. What are they?
Right, so the six big ones are felt emotions,
the situational context, the actual crisis response,
sense -making, like how people understand what's
happening, decision -making, and of course, leadership
itself. And the surprising thing is they don't
happen in order, like step one, step two. Not
at all. That's the key finding, really. Table
9 in The Source shows this clearly. In extreme
events, these things are all tangled up, influencing
each other constantly and unpredictably. Forget
neat sequences. So someone's intense fear might
directly impact their ability to even figure
out what's going on, which then affects their
decision. Exactly. It's a dynamic, messy loop,
not linear at all. OK, let's unpack those, starting
with felt emotions. That sounds pretty intense.
It really is. The research shows extreme events
often trigger sheer panic and not just in frontline
folks, leaders, too. Really? Leaders panic? Oh,
yeah. Interviewees from Fukushima and Deepwater
Horizon talked about it quite openly, moments
of just overwhelming fear. Wow. So how did effective
leaders deal with that, their own panic and their
teams? They use specific strategies, things like
shielding their team from external chaos and
pressure. cultivating self -awareness, recognizing
their own fear, maintaining situational awareness
despite the chaos, and actively supporting their
people. Kind of being the calm eye of the storm,
but also protecting that space. Exactly. And
then there's hopelessness. Hopelessness, even
in leaders. Even in leaders. The dissertation
gives examples, like one interviewee during a
hurricane response feeling utterly hopeless.
But it also highlights how leaders providing
hope becomes critical. Like the presidential
visit to Three Mile Island. That was mentioned.
Yes. A symbolic act, but powerful. Giving people
a reason to keep going when things look bleakest.
Hope becomes a tangible tool. Hope as a tool.
That's interesting. What about trust? That must
be vital. Absolutely fundamental. Trust pops
up everywhere. Victims trusting rescuers they've
never met. A governor relying on people they
knew personally. Maybe over official channels
they didn't know as well. And leaders showing
they're willing to face the danger too. Like
volunteering for hazardous tasks that builds
immense trust, right? We're in this together
precisely the research even gets into Subliminal
versus super liminal emotion. Okay. What does
that mean? think of it like background anxiety
versus foreground panic in a manageable crisis
Maybe there's low -level stress subliminal, but
as it gets extreme that fear can just surge forward
super liminal and totally impaired thinking.
Wow. And in the really deadly situations, things
like death anxiety, awareness of your own mortality
become real powerful factors. That's heavy stuff.
OK, moving to situational context. What falls
under that umbrella? It's pretty broad. It covers
the specific technological problems, like equipment
failures. It covers cooperation or lack thereof
between different groups, the overall safety
culture and conditions, support for workers,
and of course just the sheer scale and intensity
of the event itself. So Deepwater Horizon is
a good example of the tech failures, safety barriers,
training issues. A grim example, yes. Safety
culture, fatigue. The barriers. And Fukushima
shows that unique context where a natural disaster
causes a complex technological one. Totally different
challenges. And cooperation. How does that play
out, especially at high levels? Vital. The research
mentions challenges discussed even at the White
House Situation Room level. Things like trying
to match the speed of response to the speed of
the disaster. Which must be incredibly hard.
Incredibly. Also the importance of local control.
empowering communities, and the careful role
the US military plays internationally. And the
needs change depending on the disaster type,
right? Rescue versus survival. Exactly. Earthquakes
often mean immediate rescue. Tsunamis can be
about immediate survival against the water. And
groups like the Red Cross become critical filling
gaps. And the magnitude. You mentioned fathomable
to unfathomable. Right. Deepwater Horizon, again,
is maybe an example where the reality just went
so far beyond what anyone had trained for or
even conceived of, it became unfathomable. Which
puts immense pressure on the actual crisis response.
How do you respond to the unfathomable? Well,
crisis response here means the actions people
take and the thinking behind them. The dissertation
brings up Setback management. Setback management.
Yeah. Basically how things like internal fighting
within an organization or being stuck with only
one plan and it's the wrong plan can totally
derail the response. Interviewees talked about
this. In fighting during a disaster. Yes. It
happens. And then there's enacting organizations.
The idea that often in these moments people fall
back on instinct and ingrained routines to make
sense of things. That shapes their initial mental
picture. And what did interviewees say was crucial
for leaders doing the response? A recurring theme
was being there, being physically present on
the scene, and providing credible answers. Just
showing up and giving reliable information was
seen as incredibly important leadership. Being
present, being credible seems basic, but maybe
profound and chaos. OK, next. Sense making, making
sense of the senseless. How does that work? Huh.
Yeah, it's incredibly hard to study, especially
across different disasters. But the research
looked at things like commitment, identity, expectations.
And found what? One key thing was a big difference
between how people saw things during the crisis
versus reflecting afterwards. Their understanding
really shifted. That makes sense. Time gives
perspective. Definitely. And factors influencing
sense -making during the event included. Was
the information plausible? Were initial reads
positive or negative? How were people updating
their understanding? The role of doubt, optimistic
bias, even institutional norms shaped how people
interpreted things. So many filters and biases
trying to process incomplete chaotic information.
Exactly. It's a constant struggle to build a
coherent picture when the picture keeps changing.
Which leads right into decision making under
that pressure. And indecision is a huge factor
here. The fear of making the wrong call with
potentially horrific consequences can just paralyze
leaders. Like the Fukushima evacuation zone delay
mentioned in the research. That's cited as a
potential example, yes. That fear of consequences.
And while you obviously need facts, too much
information overload can also make deciding harder.
A real balancing act. And there's this constant
tension. Do you follow the rules, the procedures,
or do you adapt because the situation is totally
outside the rules? Like interviewee R .W. said
about Fukushima, needing to adapt beyond the
manual. Precisely. And communication becomes
absolutely critical. Getting decisions out clearly,
managing expectations, making sure info flows
between different agencies or levels of government.
Interviewees stress this for Hurricane Sandy,
for instance. Communication is always key, but
here it's life or death. Absolutely. The research
also flags other pitfalls. Anchoring on initial
ideas, sticking with a bad plan, acting only
on gut instinct, being inflexible. Hurricane
Katrina's response gets mentioned here. And political
bias sometimes creeping in, sadly noted in Fukushima,
Katrina, and Sandy responses. Politics in a disaster.
And interestingly, this idea of constructive
defiance. Constructive defiance. Meaning what?
Meaning sometimes leaders lower down. who have
better immediate awareness might need to consciously
disobey an order from higher up if that order
is clearly harmful in the current reality. Wow.
That takes guts, knowing when to break the rules
for the right reason. Exactly. It's a heavy responsibility.
Okay, finally, leadership itself. Does our normal
understanding of leadership even apply here?
It applies, but everything gets amplified and
distorted, you know? The dissertation argues
standard concepts take on new weight. Based on
the interviews, a huge factor was simply inexperience.
Did the leader have relevant experience or not?
Experience matters most. It came up first, followed
closely by personality and character, actual
mastery the situation or skills needed, and again,
trust. And the examples? Deepwater Horizon in
Fukushima? Yeah, for Deepwater, observations
pointed to the negative impact of those felt
emotions we talked about, combined with inexperience,
lack of mastery, and maybe just unawareness of
how bad things were getting. For Fukushima...
Again, felt emotions were huge, but also this
need for leaders to be really perceptive, really
tuned in, but without getting bogged down and
micromanaging everything under pressure. A fine
line to walk. A very fine line. And the research
proposes this really interesting continuum of
leadership styles based on severity. A continuum?
How does that work? It suggests leadership needs
to evolve. Maybe collaborative for routine stuff,
more authoritarian for predictable emergencies,
adaptive for surprises, non -linear when things
are truly failing. And at the extreme end. It
talks about warrior ethos or authentic leadership
for the truly catastrophic scenarios. Table 15
lays this out. The big takeaway is needing non
-linear dynamic thinking. Embracing the chaos,
almost. In a way, yes. Being able to function
within the disorder, not just... Fight against
it. Thinkers like Feresmond and Week have written
about this. And theories like naturalistic decision
-making and macrocognition are really relevant
here, too, how people actually think and decide
under pressure. So leadership isn't one style.
It has to morph as the crisis deepens. That's
the core idea, which leads to the integrated
model. Right, the final piece. How does the model
tie this all together? Basically, Table 16 presents
this model that connects everything. the situation,
the emotions, the sense -making, the decisions.
Shows how different theories fit depending on
where you are on those continuums. The crucial
insight is alignment. You need to match your
leadership approach to the reality of the situation
as it evolves. A mismatch, like using a routine
style and a catastrophe, is likely to end badly.
Alignment. Got it. Wow. This has been a lot to
take in, but really illuminating. It's heavy
stuff. So boiling it down, leading through the
truly unthinkable isn't about having the perfect
plan. Because you won't. Right. Plans have limits.
It's more about understanding the power of emotions,
yours and others. Recognizing the situation is
fluid, constantly changing, making decisions
adaptively, without perfect information, and
critically, shifting your own leadership style
to match the chaos. You've nailed it. Emotions
aren't side effects. They're central. Context
isn't fixed. Adaptability isn't optional. It's
essential. And leadership has to be dynamic,
not static. You know, it really makes you wonder.
These aren't just lessons for huge disasters,
are they? Hmm. Probably not. I mean, think about
major personal crises or massive disruptions
at work. Things that just shatter your plans.
Maybe the same principles apply. Finding that
balance between preparing as best you can, but
being ready to pivot to adapt. when reality throws
you a curve ball. That's a really powerful thought
for you, the listener, to take away. How does
this apply closer to home? And yeah, we've only
scratched the surface here today. There's more
in the research about organizational structure,
deeper dives into sense -making, maybe for another
time. Definitely food for thought. Well, thank
you for guiding us through this complex territory.
My pleasure. It's important stuff. And to you,
listening in what stood out most, what's the
one insight you'll carry with you from this deep
dive worth reflecting on for sure?