Planned Resilience: Are We Setting Ourselves up to Fail?

I don’t get paid enough to care.
‒ Security staff, major UK festival, 2023

As the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger declared “errare humanum est”, meaning that in spite of our best efforts people are fallible beings. Whilst action plans vary in complexity and efficacy, very few seem to make allowances for the human factor in their delivery, which may lead to their operational failure. 

‘Plans’ in this context refers to a set of protocols or actions to be taken, whether to complete business as usual or in emergency situations. They are found in every business and industry, ranging from simple fire evacuation plans to multi-agency emergency procedures. Whilst this framework of consideration (described below) originated from observing and working within the events industry, its application transcends any individual sector. The aim is not to cast aspersion, but to highlight the differences between the idealised world that the plans are generally written for (populated entirely by highly motivated, well-trained, perfect staff) and reality.

Plans themselves are typically written by those towards the top of the organisational pyramid with a specific field of oversight and knowledge. They are reliant on effective delivery at every level, usually by an idealised concept of the person completing the task, and may include roles the writer may not have personal experience of, which have changed since they performed them. This form of affinity bias may mean that abilities could be overestimated, again risking the successful completion of the plan and therefore the resilience, both in terms of initial response and subsequent recovery.

What this author proposes is a human approach to identify the person points of potential failure in a plan via mentally examining the foreseeable factors and their impacts through a framework of questions. This should be done for each ‘level’ of the plan delivery, both ‘standard’ and ‘emergency’, to anticipate and address issues that may arise at any job role. Whilst it may not always be the direct responsibility of the plan writer to fix, anticipating possible vulnerabilities allows for failsafes or alternative measures to be built in. These five areas for consideration, reminiscent of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, allow for a holistic appraisal of unintentional threats to success, including some potential vulnerabilities to insider risk. Each of the five areas of consideration (Knowledge, Practical, Physical, Emotional, and Motivational) can be examined through the lens of a question, which are individually explored below.

Although initially inspired by the events industry, where the impacts may be starkly visible especially set against the backdrop of expectation, this mental examination can just as easily be applied to plans for any industry or sector. Even within a sector, different job roles will likely yield different influences, even if operating on the same site. For example, a control room operator is likely to have the majority of their physical and practical needs met, unlike an individual working outside on their feet in all weathers, however may be more emotionally impacted by the nature of the work itself.

Knowledge

Does the individual KNOW AND understand their role and responsibility as detailed within the plan?

It is imperative that instructions are detailed in a clear manner, free from excessive details, complicated jargon, and allowing for differences in language and understanding. Appropriate time should be allocated to get to grips with the briefing, and confirmation of understanding evidenced. Whilst printed handouts may satisfy the minimum legal requirement, without facilitating time for absorption they are unlikely to be more than literal bin fodder, risking potentially sensitive information.

Practical

Are they able to fulfil the TASKS as detailed in the plan?

If the plan requires equipment to be used, this must be provided, accessible, fit for purpose, and maintained, alongside the provision of appropriate training. The assigned individual must also be physically (and mentally) capable of completing the task, requiring consideration of temporary and permanent impairments, and reasonable adjustments, whilst also balancing legal rights. 

On a more granular level, there may be additional qualities that are required in particular roles; for example, a meek, indecisive individual may not be suited to assume operational command of an incident. The role itself must be realistic and not ask too much of an individual, especially with regards to risking their personal safety.

Physical

Have their functional needs been met?

Despite widespread evidence of the negative impact of poor-quality, or overall lack of, sleep on both physical and mental capabilities, many industries still rely on overly long shifts for multiple consecutive days or weeks. It is imperative to consider the differences between ‘paid time’ and the actual time demands of the role (including overtime, travel, signing in/out), as well as the quality of sleep available.

Transparency regarding food quality and availability may allow individuals to make their own arrangements if required. A packed lunch bag may sustain a child for a school day, but not an adult doing 12+ active hours. Is hydration accessible for those on static positions? And toilet provisions?

With weather conditions becoming more extreme, provision should be made for the physical impacts of (prolonged) exposure. Finally, some attention should be paid to the task itself, and keeping the mind engaged and ready to (re)act. These may also be key impact factors in staff attrition, increasing recruitment and training costs.

Emotional

Do their working conditions meet their emotional needs?

Ensuring staff feel valued, trusted, and empowered may reap rewards beyond what could be attained with financial motivation. Being recognised as an individual is key, part of which is feeling that one’s beliefs and values are being accommodated. In times of hardship, this nod towards cohesion through shared social identity may encourage staff to go above and beyond what is expected.

When considering resilience, certain sections of society are already displaying higher levels of resilience, at least outwardly, due to additional pressures around their identity such as skin colour, sexuality, and other aspects of intersectionality. These individuals may be at ‘resilience capacity’ – is it fair to ask them to shoulder additional emotional burdens? Disparity between individuals, each carrying different psychological loads, means that events and after-effects will impact us all differently. In reality, there is no quick or practical way for this to be assessed, so for the purposes of this framework this is more for additional consideration and understanding. Awareness of individual resilience and pressures within a team may influence deployment choices.

Motivational

Are they motivated to fulfil their role and responsibility as detailed in the plan?

Although history shows us that people, in times of need, will generally co-operate and assist others, assumed public goodwill should not be relied upon within resilience planning, especially in lieu of a capable and motivated workforce. Motivating staff can be challenging, with no singular magic formula, however enabling an actuated sense of purpose, ensuring they understand their importance in the hierarchy of action, fostering mutual respect, and supporting ambition will help. Contractors providing well-treated, able, and motivated staff who will step up in the event of a crisis will likely be expensive, however someone unwilling to complete their role may induce a far greater cost.

A good and positive company culture will foster a higher level of motivation. Foe example, the NPSA authored a useful interactive guide for motivating staff. Although it is designed for those responsible for security officers protecting the critical national infrastructure, the information and suggestions are widely applicable.

Conclusion

Whilst the testing and exercising of plans and measures are typically costly endeavours, mentally evaluating these procedures and the influences upon them from the point of view of the typical staff member in that role may allow for identification of points of failure and subsequent contingencies in an environment where failure is safe and cost-free. Of course, this is reliant on the plans themselves being appropriately detailed, removing assumption and ambiguity, and complementary in the case of different organisations working together.

The mental evaluation of the roles and the individuals completing them should be done by those directly responsible for them, typically a manager, but it would also be an advantageous exercise for those with overall responsibility. It should be highlighted that whilst this could be used at an individual level, the aim is more for general awareness of the challenges that may be faced and how they could impact the safe and effective delivery of the plan.

From a legal perspective, the concepts of foreseeability and reasonably practicable become especially key when a plan fails. Especially given learnings from prior investigations and inquiries, the questions shifts to whether organisations can afford not to explore the ideas raised here. If the safe evacuation of thousands relies on the alertness and enthusiasm of a minimum-wage untrained steward who has been dropped at a remote exit with no contact/food/shelter/water and minimal sleep for several days, it may be time to evaluate not only our expectations but also the system as a whole.

Download the article

KT Sonnen is a PhD researcher at the Centre for Peace and Security, Coventry University, looking at the safety and security of music events.