A crisis team comprises “individuals who share interactions and experiences in decision making" (Sommer & Pearson, 2007, p. 1243). At the same time it is “an assembly of people - a chemically unstable mixture with its own personality, history and emotional dynamic” (Robert & Lajtha, 2002, p. 187). When
operational, the CMT will probably find itself subjected to unusual levels of fear, stress and fatigue often working in a dynamic environment under suboptimal conditions” (Lapierre et al., 2015, p. 195). Ultimately "a crisis management team is a cross functional group of people within the organization who have been designated to handle the crisis" (King, 2002, p. 63) and bring it to a successful resolution. King (2002) further concluded that not all teams are effective, and
cohesion can be influenced by factors including time, information resources, procedural conflict, poor leadership, and prior interactions. All of these if not managed appropriately impact the level of trust. In many cases the team can be seen to comprise subject matter experts, and this increases pressure as the “experts are expected to successfully attain vaguely defined goals in the face of uncertainty, time pressure, high stakes, team and organizational constraints, and shifting conditions” (Kahneman & Klein, 2009, p. 516).
These are elements that are often present during a crisis response. Ensuring the correct team composition exists greatly assists the capability of the team to resolve the issue. It enables a team to avoid groupthink (Janis, 1972) while ensuring cohesiveness. This cohesiveness in a team is important as it has been found to exert considerable influence on the quality of the discussions
(Callaway & Esser, 1984). A structured approach to compositions is required as often managers are simply thrust into a CMT role due to the position that they hold, rather than any specific experience in high-pressure crisis response situations. This can create issues as complex decisions will need to be made within the containment or damage control phase of a crisis response the manager will be required to make some of the “most chaotic, time-pressured, and critical decisions of the entire crisis life cycle” (Dionne, Gooty, Yammarino, & Sayama, 2018, p. 97). In this context crisis management experience becomes critical.
When considering the attributes of the managers who will comprise the team, Smits and Ezzat (2003) argue that the CMT members must be dependable, calm, self-confident and assertive, with personalities that have the ability to influence perception and decision-making. Further, Crandall et al (2014, p. 108) argue that the members must have the ability to work as a team; be able to work under pressure; have a tolerance of ambiguity; and possess good listening and verbal skills, which, when present and combined, strengthen the CMT’s
Weick’s investigation (1993) into the 1949 Mann Gulch Disaster2 examined the
role of decision making during a crisis where the actions and routines did not align in a high pressure situation to expectations, with devastating
consequences. This was attributed to the thinking processes and the role of the crisis leader. It should be noted that while the role of the CMT is to think
broadly the team needs to ensure that process is followed as “recovery lies not in thinking then doing, but in thinking while doing and in thinking by doing” (Weick, 2002). In respect of team composition, the role of ‘bricoleurs’ has been discussed, with Weick (1993) arguing that they are important in crisis
management as they remain creative under pressure, precisely as they routinely act in chaotic conditions and attain order in chaos. They are also perceived as innovative in their approach. It could, however, be asked what role the bricoleur plays in the team: are they a member or a leader? Is a high level of innovation perhaps counterproductive to minimising process deviation, or can the two elements reside together? It could be argued that, as will be seen in this research, the latter applies.
The concept of sensemaking also enters the equation in respect to the team’s capabilities from a preventative and response perspective. Maitlis and
Soneshein (2010, p. 554) support the argument of Weick that “enacted sensemaking can provide the basis of a crisis prevention and management ideology by leveraging a kind of human involvement in systems that is rooted in shared beliefs about self-control and voluntary cooperation”. This allows
individuals in the view of Weick, to "think about crises in ways that highlight their own actions and decisions as determinants of the conditions they want to prevent” (Weick, 1988, p. 316) with this becoming a powerful way in which to support the management of a crisis. That said, it is argued that “collective
2The Mann Gulch Disaster occurred in 1949 and involved a wildfire in Montana in the
United States. Fifteen smokejumpers parachuted into the area to fight the fire. Unexpected high wind changes caused a sudden expansion of the fire, cutting off the men’s route and resulting in the deaths of thirteen. The research examined routines, decisions and actions taken.
sensemaking in crisis is near impossible in the absence of social processes that lead to collective mindfulness, the enriched collective awareness that facilitates the ‘construction, discovery, and correction of unexpected events capable of escalation” (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 557).
Mallak (1998),in examining adaptive behaviour during crises and the
importance of having individuals who respond quickly to change, confirmed the role of the bricoleur, as for them a crisis is a normal operating condition and they have the ability to react accordingly. A diverse range of ideas and information inputs is vital. Hence, the broader composition of the team is important as no one person can solve the problem alone (Barton & Sutcliffe, 2010). Here lies the importance of sense making, which is linked to contextual rationality. Leaders need to ensure that they develop resilient groups capable of four things: improvisation; wisdom; respectful interaction; and communication (Weick, 1996). The type of organisation can also influence the team
composition; for example, in High Reliability Organisations (HROs) the
environment can make a team vulnerable to error if their attention is scattered, distracted or unstable (La Porte, 1996; La Porte & Consolini, 1991). These negative traits can predispose people to estimate incorrectly, misunderstand, and mis-specify the nature of the situation that they face (Schulman, 2004). Additionally, their continuous exposure to potential crises means that,
figuratively speaking, their next failure to meet aspirations could also be their last-ever action (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006).
These arguments reinforce the importance of getting the composition right and here the teams’ personalities and dynamics, together with the leadership displayed, play a key role.