1

Factors that Influence Crisis Managers and their Decision Making Ability During Extreme Events

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to review the major problem areas that are

considered when emergency professionals make decisions responding to

extreme events. ―An emergency is by definition a unique and unpredictable

event, and it is seldom possible, even in retrospect, to assess what the outcome

of an emergency response would have been if alternative measures had been

followed‖ (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999, p. 92).

The problems are unambiguous and recurring themes appear in the literature.

Clausewitz offers a cohesive observation outlining these problematic areas:

―A commander must continually face situations involving

uncertainties, questionable or incomplete data or several

possible alternatives. As the primary decision maker, he, with

the assistance of his staff, must not only decide what to do and

how to do it, but he must also recognize if and when he must

make a decision‖ (Clausewitz, 1976, p. 383).

This research is important because the needs of the EM must be identified from

the literature found within the emergency domain. It is important for the results

of studies confirming the task type, needs and considerations of the practitioners

themselves to be observed so that technology, exercises, policy and procedures

can be developed to support the needs of decision makers for a rapid response

and recovery given a catastrophic even has occurred.

Stress is an understandable emotion felt by EM. EM must make life and death

decisions especially where such tragedies requiring triage may have to be

decided in the selection criterion between groups of people (Kowalski-

Trakofler, Vaught and Scharf, 2003). Another source of stress arises when

decisions must be made under severe time constraints (Rodriquez, 1997,

Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al, 2003). DMs have to forecast and make predictions

given the uncertainty in expectations of future events (Rodriguez, 1997). Time

is precious, and accurate decisions must be made along a time line at particular

points in time over the duration of the event as a disaster evolves (Brehmer,

1987; Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999). ―The operational commander

continually faces an uncertain environment‖ (Rodriguez, 1997, p. 5).

2

Critical judgments must be made where large amounts of information are

available for consderation creating information overload. To make matters

worse, this information can be wrong or incomplete (Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al,

2003) or sufficient time may be lacking to gain the perfect and complete

information needed before the decision is made (Rodriquez, 1997). ―In dealing

with the uncertainty of a continually changing environment, the decision maker

must achieve a trade-off between the cost of action and the risk of non-action‖

(Kowalski-Trakofler and Vaught, 2003, p. 283). Sometimes these decisions are

made on the decision maker‘s (DM) assumptions and intuition when

information is not attainable (Rodriquez, 1997).

Small events occur frequently, and catastrophic events occur rarely (Hyndman

and Hyndman, 2006). Protocols or heuristics can be used for the emergencies

that are smaller and occur frequently. However, management is posed with the

problem of not having any or little prior experience to larger events where

national boundaries are ignored and the demands of the resources needed far

exceed the availability of supply. Research reveals that extreme events have

different characteristics from smaller disasters (Skertchly and Skertchly, 2001).

This calls for a dynamic approach to decision making to fit the task due to the

overwhelming nature of these extreme events considered with the limitations of

a human‘s mental capacity and ability to manage a large set of ongoing

problems at any one time. A major problem exists in a decision maker‘s ability

to effectively manage all of the ongoing events simultaneously during an

extreme event (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999; Kerstholt, 1996).

One person is in charge of making the final decision for action, but this is a

collaborative effort of numerous stakeholders sharing numerous overlapping

tasks. ―As complexity increases, it becomes impossible for a single individual

with the limited information processing capacity to gain control‖ (Danieisson

and Ohisson, 1999, p. 93). A dynamic decision making approach is a much

needed method due to the inherent nature of the chaos characteristic of extreme

events (Danielsson and Ohlsson 1999). Extreme events need to be managed

using structure with flexibility to improvise or adapt where necessary to achieve

agility (Harrald, 2009).

In the remainder of this chapter, these facets will be elaborated, further probing

deeper into the needs of emergency managers. First, how extreme events are

different from small emergencies and must be approached as a different task

type is covered. Second, extreme events are a wicked problem, and these

characteristics are laid out and matched with extreme events. Good versus bad

3

characteristics in EM decision making from the literature are listed. Third,

types of bias that are specific in emergency situations and decision making are

covered. Next, literature findings concerning time, stress and information

overload are provided. Methods describing how EM handles information

presently are discussed and related to other research concepts already explored

in this research effort. Next, research indicating how feedback and expert

intuition are used to manage uncertainty is examined.

Extreme Events

Large scale extreme events are not like small emergencies. Small emergencies

occur regularly where most decisions are rule based due to the experience of the

event (Rasmussen, 1983). This is referred to as procedural expertise (Adams

and Ericsson, 2000). In the event that a small emergency should occur, the EM

may not even be notified because firefighters, police and emergency medical

attendants already know how to proceed (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999). On

the other hand, extreme events present a different set of characteristics due to

the problem type and task structure (Campbell, 1999; Mitchell, 1999; McLellan,

et. al, 2003).

In large-scale operations, the cognitive demands on the EM are severe

(Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999). Team coordination strategies will evolve from

explicit coordination under low workload conditions to implicit coordination as

work load increases. Large-scale emergency operations imply distributed

decision making in that decisions are disseminated among many stakeholders,

of which no single individual has complete knowledge of the current situation

(Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999; Mitchell, 1999; Kowalski-Trakofler and

Vaught, 2003).

Wicked Problems

Extreme events possess characteristics, are problem types and have task

structures that are categorized as wicked. Wicked problems are volatile and of a

very dynamic nature with considerable uncertainty and ambiguity (Horn, 2005).

Wicked problems are ongoing and have no stopping rule (Rittel and Webber,

1973, Digh, 2000). They are never resolved and change over time (Conklin,

1998). Wicked problems are solved per se when they no longer are of interest

to the stakeholders, when resources are depleted or when the political agenda

changes (Horst and Webber, 1973). Many stakeholders with multiple value

conflicts redefine what the problem is repeatedly, reconsider what the causal

4

factors are and have multiple views of how to approach and hopefully deal with

the problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973, Conklin, 1998, Digh, 2000). Getting and

maintaining agreement amongst the stakeholders is most difficult because each

has their own perception and, thus, opinion of what is best (Rittel and Webber,

1973).

Extreme events possess the characteristics of those found within the definitions

of wicked problems. ―Each dysfunctional event has its own unique

characteristics, impacts, and legacies‖ (Skertchly and Skertchly, 2001, p. 23).

For example, catastrophic disasters have the following attributes and

dimensions many of which are the same as those described in wicked problems:

*They don‘t have any rules.

Often, emergency services are insufficient to cope with the demands given

the limited amount of available resources.

Vital resources are damaged and nonfunctional.

*Procedures for dealing with the situation are inadequate.

*No solutions for resolution exist on a short-term basis.

*Events continue to escalate.

*Serious differences of opinion arise about how things should be

managed.

The government of the day and the bureaucracy becomes seriously

involved.

The public takes an armchair position and is fed by the media.

*The number of authorities and officials involved are growing.

*Sometimes simply trying to identify which of the emergency services and

investigative bodies is doing what results in complete chaos.

The need to know who is in charge is urgent (Campbell 1999, 52).

*are characteristic of wicked problems

EM tasks differ from control task types in that, no two events are the same so

different decision processes are required to be implemented. Interacting

variables are many, and the domain is ill defined and unknown at times

(Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999). An EM cannot project any future decisions

with any degree of accuracy due to all of the variables that are involved and all

of the different scenarios that can exist due to the great amount of uncertainty

involved and lack of experience of the unknown (Newport: 1996).

5

Decision Making in Emergency Management

Decision tasks are perceived to be difficult by the EM where issues involving

life saving operations such as evacuations or triage have the potential to have

devastating results if not conducted accurately (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999).

Studies show an EMs most difficult aspects of work are:

Lack of routine and practice–refers to the infrequency of major

accidents, making it difficult to get experiences of the command and

control proper.

Communicational shortcomings

o Information overload is salient during the initial phase of an

emergency response and is seen as especially severe if no staff

members are available to perform communication duties.

o Technical equipment inadequacy

o Lack of skills in handling communication equipment

Feelings of isolation–lack of peers with whom to discuss common

problems (Danielsson and Ohlsson 1999, p. 94).

Other psychological processes are associated with decisions made by EMs.

Effective decision makers must take many factors of the environment into

consideration to understand that these are complex, dynamic, time-pressured,

high-stakes, multi-person task environments (McLellan, et. al, 2003).

Some hazard conceptualization and management problems developed from

Mitchell, 1999 are presented:

*Lack of agreement about definition and identification of problems

*Lack of awareness of natural and unnatural (human-made)

hazards

*Lack of future forecasting capabilities

*Misperception of misjudgment of risks associated with hazards

Deliberate misrepresentation of hazards and risks

*Lack of awareness of appropriate responses

*Lack of expertise to make use of responses

Lack of money or resources to pay for responses

6

*Lack of coordination among institutions and organizations

Lack of attention to relationship between ‗disasters‘ and

‗development‘

Failure to treat hazards as contextual problem whose components

require simultaneous attention

Lack of access by affected populations to decision making

Lack of public confidence in scientific knowledge

Lack of capable and enlightened political leadership

*Conflicting goals among populations at risk

*Fluctuating salience of hazards

Public opposition by negatively affected individuals and groups.

*wicked characteristics

Many of these are also characteristic of the wicked problem types defined

earlier and have characteristics in common with those of extreme events (Rittel

and Webber, 1973; Campbell 1999).

Time

―Time lost is always a disadvantage that is bound in some way

to weaken he who loses it‖ (Clauswitz, 1976, p. 383).

Time is a critical factor that further complicates the decision making process. In

extreme events, an EM must consider an enormous number of factors quickly

(Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al, 2003). Decisions must be made, sometimes forced

due to time constraints. ―The faster a decision has to be made, the less time the

information processing system has to convert or gather enough accurate

information to convert assumptions to facts‖ (Rodriquez, 1997, p7-8). This

means that decisions are made under uncertainty and without full consideration.

An EM must weigh delaying the decision making against the negative

consequences that may occur while waiting for more requested information

(Kowalski-Trakofler and Vaught, 2003). Once time has passed, alternative

actions are no longer possible and perhaps the best decision has been bypassed

leaving only less optimal conditions from which to choose.

Kowalski-Trakofler and Vaught conducted a study of good decision making

characteristics under life threatening situations. They found that, during any

phase of the decision making process, a set of factors could significantly impact

one‘s ability to deal with complex problems under time critical situations.

These factors are:

7

Psychomotor skills, knowledge and attitude

Information quality and completeness

Stress–generated both by the problem at hand and any existing

background problem

The complexity of elements that must be attended (2003, p. 285).

One research finding indicates that performance can be maintained under time

pressure if the communication changes from explicit to implicit (Serfaty and

Entin, 1993). They found that ―Implicit coordination patterns, anticipatory

behavior, and redirection of the team communication strategy are evident under

conditions of increased time-pressure. The authors conclude that effective

changes in communication patterns may involve updating team members,

regularly anticipating the needs of others by offering unrequested information,

minimizing interruptions, and articulating plans at a high level in order to allow

flexibility in the role of front-line emergency responders‖ (Serfaty and Entin,

1993).

Stress

Stress is defined as ―a process by which certain work demands evoke an

appraisal process in which perceived demands exceed resources and result in

undesirable physiological, emotional, cognitive and social changes‖ (Salas,

Driskell, and Hughs, 1996, p.6).

Information during an emergency can be the source of stress in many ways

(Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al, 2003). First, due to technical malfunctions or just

poor implementation, the initial warnings can be ambiguous and create a greater

need for clarity in a situation. This causes the situation to be interpreted

differently and leads to different interpretations in how people are to respond.

Another stressor due to information mismanagement is when people do not fully

understand what is going on or have disagreement between stakeholders on the

situation; the right information is not gathered. This wastes time and causes

more stress and aggravation. Other stressors come from poor leadership. If

leadership is weak, then it adds to worse decisions or no decisions being made

and can result in confusion. Last, when technology or other apparatus fails, this

leaves people without information and the inability to keep current with

response efforts and will add more stress (Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al, 2003).

Stress is a major factor in decision making especially during life critical

situations (Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al, 2003). One of the primary stressors is the

8

lack of information immediately after the event during the early phase of the

emergency response where it concerns determining scale and the characteristics

of damage (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999).

A major problem occurs when people are making decisions under stress that

leads to poor decision making. Research shows all of the feasible choices are

not considered, and a decision is likely to be made prematurely (Keinan,

Friedland, and Ben-Porath, 1987). This is not good because no matter how

experienced a DM may be, they will be confronted with situations they have not

experienced previously (Harrald, 2009). So, all of the influential information

that time allows should be considered in order to make the most appropriate

decision.

Information Overload

Good incident commanders function as if they have a good practical

understanding of the limitations of their information processing system, and the

corresponding limitations of others (McLellan, et. al, 2003). In particular, they

operated in such a manner that (a) their effective working memory capacity was

not exceeded, (b) they monitored and regulated their emotions and their arousal

level, and (c) they communicated with subordinates in ways that took into

account subordinates‘ working memory capacity limitations. The foundation of

their ability to manage their own information load effectively seems to be prior

learning from past experience.

Studies show that during an emergency, information quality varies on three

dimensions: reliability, availability and relevance (Danielsson and Ohlsson,

1999). The decision to use information at any given time and the weight of the

usage of the information is based on these dimensions.

Bias

Many forms of bias exist when it comes to decision making, but emergency

management has a set that is associated with disastrous leadership. Research

indicates that this is from a lack of self awareness which is a normal reaction

concerning information processing. Table 2.1 lists the bias types along with a

brief description derived by Adams & Ericsson (2000).

Table Bias in Emergency Management Decision Making

Bias Type Description

9

Sunk-

costs

Persisting with a tactic, which to the dispassionate observer

is demonstrably ineffectual, simply because time and

resources have already been invested in the tactic.

Optimism Choosing a course of action which necessitates nothing

whatsoever going wrong if it is to succeed. For example,

positioning a crew on steep sloping terrain with high levels

of burnable material above and below them.

Need for

Action

Good incident commanders frequently report having to

deliberately exercise self-restraint so as not to precipitately

commit resources to a course of action before completing a

thorough situation assessment

Linear

Rate of

Change

Associated with disastrous incident command at wildland

fires; human beings seem to be incapable of accurately

predicting non-linear rates of change.

Muddling Through

A large amount of information must be considered in a very small amount of

time. Time to fully explore all alternatives is lacking not to mention, stress has

a tendency to make DM focus narrowly on the list of available alternatives.

Studies found that good DM only focus on the most feasible and reliable

solutions and eliminate the nonessential information (Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al,

2003). This does not compromise the DM ability to make good decisions, but

rather, simplifies the process allowing them to focus on the critical issues.

This same approach was validated by other research studying decision processes

of good DM (McLellan, et. al, 2003). The study indicated that all of the

information was scanned but focus was only considered on a ‗need to know‘

basis and only on the relevant factors which needed to be considered.

This decision making strategy is described by Charles Lindblom that he refers

to as Muddling Through (Lindblom, 1959, Lindblom 1979). This employs

methods that help a (DM) focus on the most relevant subgroup, given a list of

alternatives from which to choose for any given task. Muddling through a

problem guides decision makers to direct their focus into selecting incremental

changes.

Uncertainty

The demands on emergency management are described by The Catastrophic

Annex to the National Response Plan (NRP; DHS 2004): ―A detailed and

10

credible common operating picture may not be achievable for 24 to 48 hours (or

longer). ―As a result, response activities must begin without the benefit of a

detailed or complete situation and critical needs assessment‖ (Harrald, 2006, p.

258). Due to the nature of an extreme event, many judgments must be made

with information that is often ambiguous, wrong and incomplete (Kowalski-

Trakofler, et. al, 2003). The operational activities involve ―hierarchical teams

of trained individuals, using specialized equipment, whose efforts must be

coordinated via command, control, and communication processes to achieve

specified objectives under conditions of threat, uncertainty, and limited

resources, both human and material‖ (McLellan, et. al, 2003, p. 2).

Not only are the decisions made presently under dicey information, but

forecasting future events also poses a challenge due to the uncertainty in the

future events as they play out over the duration of the extreme event

(Rodriguez, 1997). ―To make decisions about an uncertain future, the

commander must make many assumptions. Intuitive thinking is an important

skill in the ability to make a sound assumption‖ (Rodriguez, 1997, p1). This is

where the experts are using intuition to fill gaps in information needs.

Feedback

Timely and reliable feedback is one means to help DM make good judgments.

One type of uncertainty is from the lack of feedback or reported information

from the initial assessment from affected areas. Particularly annoying to EM

can be in the lack of feedback where the next decision cannot be made without

the present information acquired especially when the damage cannot be

visualized (Danielsson and Ohlsson, 1999). This can have detrimental effects

on the outcome of the event, because the DM performance is diminished.

Expert Intuition

Assumptions are used by DM to fill in gaps where uncertainty exists

(Rodruguez, 1997). Intuition plays a large role in filling in these gaps and can

have good consequences from those with experience. ―For experienced

commanders, intuition fills in the decision making processes where imperfect

information leaves off‖ (Battle Command, 1994, p. 25).

A study conducted on a large group of top executives supports the concept that

intuition was used to guide critical decision making situations. The situations

and environments in which intuition was mostly used and helpful were found to

be where:

11

A high level of uncertainty exists

The event has little previous precedent

Variables are often not scientifically predictable

―Facts are limited‖

Facts do not clearly point the way to go

Time is limited and the pressure is to be right

Several plausible alternative solutions are available to choose from, with

good arguments for each (Argot, 1986, p 18)

When considering the issue of analytical versus intuition judgment, the National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported:

“The point here is that research which focuses on judgment

must include scrutiny not only of decisions that are made, but

also of real-world variables that influence them. The quality of

any decision may have little or no direct relationship to the

eventual outcome of its execution in a given situation. This is

because a decision-maker is constrained not only by the stress

of the situation or personal knowledge and attitudes, but also

because he or she can only weigh information that is available”

(Kowalski-Trakofler, et. al, 2003, p. 286).

Normal decision making techniques do not suffice in such complex situations as

extreme events. Characteristics were identified as:

Novelty—the officer had never encountered such a situation before,

Opacity—needed information was not available,

Resource inadequacy—the resources currently available were not

sufficient to permit an optimal response (McLellan, et. al, 2003, p. 3).

The EM is continually facing an uncertain environment. There is insufficient

time for the EM to get the correct information they need and this must be

weighed against the need to make a decision at a particular time, so he/she must

rely on assumptions and intuition. Intuition helps the DM to make decisions

faster and more accurately, contributing to initiative and agility (Rodriguez,

1997).

Conclusion

12

Decision making by emergency managers in extreme events has problem areas

that need support in order to minimize the disastrous effects that can cripple the

outcome and recovery efforts. This is a review of the research literature

specifically from the emergency domain. The problem areas identified are time,

stress, information overload, bias, and delayed feedback. Considerations must

be made when developing technology, writing policies, conducting exercises

and such occur. Flexibility needs to be incorporated so that a basic set of rules

or procedures can be modified or implemented to fit the various needs and

scenarios that can play out given an extreme event.

References

Adams, R. J. & Ericsson, A. E. (2000). Intoduction to the cognitive processes of

expert pilots. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 5(1), 44-

62.

Agor, W.H., The Logic of Intuitive Decision Making (New Yorik: Quorom,

1986), 18.

Battle Command. Leadership and Decision Making for War and Operations

Other than War. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Battle Command Battle Laboratory,

22 April 1994.

Baumgart, L, Bass, E., Philips, B. and Kloesel, K. Emergency Management

Decision-Making During Severe Weather, Weather and Forecasting, In Press,

2008.

Campbell, R. 1999, ‗Controlling Crisis Chaos‘, Journal of Emergency

Management Australia, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 51-54.

Clausewitz, Carl Von, On War. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University

Press 1984.

Danieisson, M. and Ohisson, K. Decision Making in Emergency Management: A

Survey Study. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1999, 3(2), 91-99.

Harrald, J. Aginlitly and Discipline: Critical Success Factors for Disaster

Response. Annals, AAPSS, 604, March 2006.

13

Harrald, J. Achieving Agility in Disaster Management. International Journal of

Information Systems and Crisis Management, Volume I, Issue I, 2009.

Keinan, G., Friedland, N. and Ben-Porath, Y. (1987) .Decision-making under

stress: Scanning of alternatives under physical threat., Acta Psychologica,

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North Holland, Vol. 64, pp.219.228.

Kerstholt, J. Dynamic Decision Making. TNO Human Factors Netherlands,

1996.

Kontogiannis, T. and Kossiavelou, Z., Stress and team performance: principles

and challenges for intelligent decision aids, Safety Science, December, Vol.33,

Issue 3, pp. 103 -128, 1999.

Kowalski-Trakofler, K., Vaught and Sharf, T., Judgment and decision making

under stress: an overview for emergency managers. Int. J. Emergency

Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 278-289, 2003.

McLennan, J., Holgate, A., and Wearing A. Human Information Processing

aspects of Effective Emergency Incident Management Decision Making. Human

Factors of Decision Making in Complex Systems, Dunblane , Scotland,

September, 2003.

Mitchell, J.K. ed. 1999, Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and Disasters in

Transition, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Naval War College, Joint Military Operations Department, Operational Decision

Making. United States Naval War College Instructional PPer NWC 4108, Joint

Military Operations Department, 1996.

Rodriguez, David M., Dominating Time in the Operational Decision Making

Process, Final Report NAVAL WAR COLL NEWPORT RI, June 1997.

Salas, E., Driskell, E. and Hughs, S. (1996) .The study of stress and human

performance., inJ.E. Driskell and E. Salas (Eds.) Stress and Human

Performance, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, New Jersey, pp.1.45.

Skertchly, A. and Skertcly, K. Catastrophe management: coping with totally

unexpected extreme disasters. The Australian Journal of Emergency

Management. Volume 16, Issue 1, Autumn 2001.

14

Murray Turoff, Connie White, and Linda Plotnick. Dynamic Emergency

Response Management For Large Scale Extreme Events. International

Conference on Information Systems, Pre-ICIS SIG DSS 2007 Workshop.

Connie White, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, and Murray Turoff. United We Respond:

One Community, One Voice, Information Systems for Crisis Response and

Management, ISCRAM, 2008 Washington, DC

Connie White, Murray Turoff, and Bartel Van de Walle. A Dynamic Delphi

Process Utilizing a Modified Thurstone Scaling Method: Collaborative Judgment

in Emergency Response. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Information Systems on

Crisis and Response Management, (ISCRAM), Delft, Netherlands.