At work I am part of the Incident Debriefing Team. We meet after any incident to watch any video that may have been taken, read incident reports from those involved and then try to figure out anything that could have been improved on. Our team is comprised up of Incident Response Team members (me) from each shift along with representatives from administration, medical services, and if at all possible our legal team.
When this team was first formed it was just administration members and at times senior management who conducted the debriefing. These same people would then put out there findings on how the responders were to act in another similar situation. This system did not work as it caused rifts between response teams and management. The response teams felt that they assumed all the risk, made split second decisions that were judged by those who have never had to be in that position. While we all agree that a debriefing team was a solid plan we did not agree on who was currently on it. The idea to have responders and medical service representatives on the team was well received.
The revamping of the team members brought all the different classifications of work groups’ ideas to the table. It also allowed for more clear answers to those affected by the decisions made in the team meetings, as it could be disseminated between those at the meeting and their co-workers as well as the official memos that came out at the administration level. I could relate to any questions from my co-workers better than an upper level manager who did not even work on site.
There are risks in a group such as this. Generally in our environment there is always a strong feeling of tension between the different work classifications. Security wanted safety all around at all costs, but administration looked at cost of implementing security changes. Those involved in treatment settings generally did not understand the security concerns while security was not willing to sacrifice safety for say a more lax treatment module. In the first several meetings of this team there was little accomplished.
Most of the allotted time was spent bickering among the sub groups. Time was also a factor. We are a twenty four hour operation therefore all the parties needed at the meeting are never in the facility at the same time. To get the needed personnel to the meetings, overtime had to be paid, and schedules changed. This also creates tension as the meetings were generally held at 10:00am, when the administration was on site, but two thirds of the team was at home, some of which sleeping from the night shift.
All of these issues were brought to light in the first few team meetings. Eventually agreements were made to have the meetings held during the shift that the incident took place. This spread some of the schedule changing around to all involved. Along with other subtle changes in the team’s understanding in the value of each other’s opinions and expertise the team began to put out solid memos with well thought out policy changes when they were needed. It took several months for the majority of the staff to recognize that the team was fulfilling a long needed voice of reason after an incident. The training that came of the teams suggestions has been well received and helped reduce injuries in critical incidents. The response teams now feel that they have a voice in the policies that affect them, and their team’s safety.
Our team works in a very stressful and emotionally charged atmosphere. To do our job it takes a special personality type which has been called the Type A personality. Having these strong personalities at all levels helps our organization work, but in the team, it creates conflict, which can be very hard to resolve. Having a strong leader who can recognize the beginnings of a conflict situation and help resolve it is critical. As the article states another concern for groups is that the leader may not “have the skills to use differences within groups to make good synergic decisions that are owned by all involved” (Broom and Casison, 2002).
Having effective team leaders is essential to the success of the team. Our team leader is good, and does affair job but even he realizes that he needs to work on getting everyone in the team to own the decisions put out by the team. Not everyone in the group is going to be completely sold on every aspect of the decision but he/she needs to understand that the other views are sometimes better than their own. A leader who can get a team to recognize that is going to have the most success.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX