Showing posts with label Risk Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Risk Management. Show all posts

Friday, March 15, 2024

What Is Your Trigger Point?

K2 by Zacharie Grossen
(Zacharie Grossen - Own work)


Author: Pam McDonald, BLM Wildland Fire Training and Workforce Development

I recently listened to Wondery's Against The Odds podcast "K2: The Savage Mountain" about one of the worst climbing disasters of modern times. In 2008, 11 people died and 3 were injured attempting to reach the summit. "Summit fever" leads to one in five climbers losing their life on the summit. Knowing when enough is enough may very well be a successful operation. The very same should be said about wildland fire suppression operations. Every wildland firefighter should know when to disengage. As Fredrik Sträng's behavioral therapist said, "It doesn't matter how high the goals are set/achieved unless you have decided what is enough."

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Change is Coming

("Swiss Cheese" by thenoodleator is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

We live in a period of such uncertainty. Worldwide pandemic. Wildfires raging across all western states. Double hurricanes forming. Meteoroid headed to earth. Political and social unrest. Worldwide hunger and water shortages.

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Never Alone

(Credit: Washington State Department of Natural Resources)

In the summer of 2000, there was a windstorm that came through and knocked down more than 70 miles of power lines, which caused many fires. It was late at night when I answered the phone in the dispatch center. It was my first boss when I was on a fire engine, and his voice was shaking. He said, “Summer, I need help!” Immediately, I knew the voice, as this was someone I respected immensely and was my mentor in many ways.

I said, “What’s going on?” He answered, quickly, “Please call the power company!” He went on to explain that he was on a dirt road and that a power line had snapped and had come down and rested on his truck. He was stuck. He could not move, stretch, reach, open the door, roll down the window, and especially not leave the truck. He was truly stuck and fearful of what was, what is, what may come, and what will be.

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

What does a well-founded risk decision look like?

(Credit: Geralt/Pixabay)
What does a well-founded risk decision look like?
By Mark Smith, Mission-Centered Solutions
©Mission-Centered Solutions Version 7 FINAL (16 June 2017)

[Mark Smith has been presenting Luck Runs Out (What does a well-founded risk decision look like?) at IMT meetings, safety summits at wildfire academies, etc. Where The Big Lie was more a problem statement, Luck Runs Out is meant to focus on actionable, practical steps forward for IMTs and Agency Administrators. The information below started not as an essay but as a handout to go with presentations.]


This paper is the result of an ongoing dialog around risk I’ve had within the post-Yarnell Honor the Fallen group. One member posed the rhetorical but critical question: “Should we be risking lives for suppression efforts or not?“ That prompted my response in The Big Lie essay on the levels of risk I think wildland firefighters operate in routinely, and how we could be more intelligently accepting that risk.

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

DANG ANGER DANGER

(Photo credit: Brian Childs)
[This blog first ran on December 22, 2015.]

Much of what we are shown our culture about leadership is depicted usually by a person which you don’t want to disappoint. We’re shown examples of leadership from many sources directly and indirectly. The common representations are a leader that has a short fuse ready to blow up and belittle our esteem being so easily triggered by our mistakes. This is what is accepted as normal and all we can expect. Is it effective? Somewhat, but is it ideal?

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

When Luck Runs Out

Collage of "another way" signs
(Credit: Geralt/Pixabay)
What does a well-founded risk decision look like?
By Mark Smith, Mission-Centered Solutions
©Mission-Centered Solutions Version 7 FINAL (16 June 2017)

[Mark Smith has been presenting Luck Runs Out (What does a well-founded risk decision look like?) at IMT meetings, safety summits at wildfire academies, etc. Where The Big Lie was more a problem statement, Luck Runs Out is meant to focus on actionable, practical steps forward for IMTs and Agency Administrators. The above information started not as an essay but as a handout to go with presentations.]


This paper is the result of an ongoing dialog around risk I’ve had within the post-Yarnell Honor the Fallen group. One member posed the rhetorical but critical question: “Should we be risking lives for suppression efforts or not?“ That prompted my response in The Big Lie essay on the levels of risk I think wildland firefighters operate in routinely, and how we could be more intelligently accepting that risk.

Monday, June 19, 2017

ALERT: Increase in Heat-Related Illnesses in Wildland Firefighting



NMAC Correspondence 2017-12
June 19, 2017

To: Geographic Area Coordination Group Chairs
From: National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group
Subject: Wildland Firefighter Heat Related Injury Prevention, Awareness, and Rhabdomyolysis

The wildland firefighter community has experienced an alarming increase in heat related and other physiological injuries in the last few days. Heat related injuries and Rhabdomyolysis are not the same, but can occur at the same time. Extreme weather conditions are predicted to continue across western states for the next week. The National Weather Service is issuing Heat Warnings for the SWCC, GBCC, RMCC, OSCC, and ONCC (http://www.weather.gov/).

Friday, August 12, 2016

Risk Management Publications



RMRS-GTR-349: Risk Terminology Primer: Basic Principles and a Glossary for the Wildland Fire Management Community

Lead author HD Research Forester Matt Thompson, Missoula, and his team recently published RMRS-GTR-349, “Risk Terminology Primer: Basic Principles and a Glossary for the Wildland Fire Management Community,” in order to create a common understanding of risk concepts and terminology (see page 1). We increasingly promote risk management as an appropriate method for addressing wildland fire management challenges; however, a lack of a common terminology hinders effective application. In response, Matt and his team provide a set of clear, consistent, and usable definitions for terms associated with wildland fire risk management, facilitating the clear exchange of data, information, and ideas among fire management officers, staff, and scientists.



RMRS-GTR-350: “Risk Management: Core Principles and Practices, and Their Relevance to Wildland Fire

In RMRS-GTR-350 (see page 1), “Risk Management: Core Principles and Practices, and Their Relevance to Wildland Fire,” HD Research Foresters Matt Thompson and Dave Calkin and colleagues discuss a future for the Forest Service of increasing complexity and risk, pressing financial issues, and the inescapable possibility of loss of human life. These issues are perhaps most acute for wildland fire management, the highest risk activity in which the Forest Service engages. The authors designed this report as an introduction to Risk Management (RM), repackaging and repurposing information from RM literature to help readers develop a sound, science-based understanding of RM concepts. They outline what adoption of RM would look like in practice, and recommend next steps as the Forest Service continues on its RM journey.



Friday, May 27, 2016

Assessing Risk Never Stops

[This article is a joint effort between Firehouse magazine and the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program to promote firefighter health and wellness. We hope all firefighters, regardless of volunteer, structure or wildland, will glean something valuable.]

Golden ruler
(Photo credit: Cornstock Images)
The concept of risk permeates the fire service. We talk about risk/benefit analysis. Our “golden rule”—risk a lot to save a lot, risk little to save little, risk nothing to save nothing—is ingrained into us in the academy. (We could get into a debate about whether this rule serves us well— if a call is dispatched for a house fire with a report of people trapped, does that mean it’s OK to “risk a lot” by driving faster or not wearing a seatbelt? But that’s another article all together.) We are conscious that on every call, we put ourselves at risk, and we do it because we took an oath to serve the people.

Although risk affects every firefighter at every level, managing risk is one of the key challenges for fire service leaders. Successful fire service leaders take steps to identify and mitigate risks—for themselves, for their crews and, of course, for the people they serve.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The Art of Refusing Risk & Respecting Extreme Fire Behavior


Refusing Assignments from The Smokey Generation on Vimeo.

There is an art to risk assessment. What may seem impossible to one person may seem achievable by another. Effective fire leaders develop the art through experience as students of fire and leadership. We know from our history that human factors are critical to our success or failure. Good fire leaders  employ numerous methods, continually develop situation awareness, and develop their people to provide the critical feedback to keep everyone safe.

Wildland Fire Leadership Challenge - Digging a Little Deeper
  • Listen to Charlie Caldwell, former Redding Hotshot Superintendent, speak on refusing assignments.
  • Review "How to Properly Refuse Risk" with your crew/team.
How to Properly Refuse Risk
Every individual has the right and obligation to report safety problems and contribute ideas regarding their safety. Supervisors are expected to give these concerns and ideas serious consideration.
When an individual feels an assignment is unsafe they also have the obligation to identify, to the
degree possible, safe alternatives for completing that assignment. Turning down an assignment is
one possible outcome of managing risk.

A “turn down” is a situation where an individual has determined they cannot undertake an assignment as given and they are unable to negotiate an alternative solution.

The turn down of an assignment must be based on an assessment of risks and the ability of the individual or organization to control those risks. Individuals may turn down an assignment as unsafe when:
  1. There is a violation of safe work practices.
  2. Environmental conditions make the work unsafe.
  3. They lack the necessary qualifications or experience.
  4. Defective equipment is being used.
The individual directly informs their Supervisor they are turning down the assignment as given.
Use the criteria outline in the Risk Management Process (Firefighting Orders, Watch Out
Situations, etc.) to document the turn down.

The supervisor notifies the Safety Officer immediately upon being informed of the turn down. If there is no Safety Officer, the appropriate Section Chief or the Incident Commander should be notified. This provides accountability for decisions and initiates communication of safety concerns within the
incident organization.

If the supervisor asks another resource to perform the assignment, they are responsible to inform the
new resource that the assignment was turned down and the reasons why it was turned down.

If an unresolved safety hazard exists or an unsafe act was committed, the individual should also
document the turn down by submitting a SAFENET (ground hazard) or SAFECOM (aviation hazard) form in a timely manner. These actions do not stop an operation from being carried out. This protocol is integral to the effective management of risk as it provides timely identification of hazards to the chain of command, raises risk awareness for both leaders and subordinates, and promotes accountability.

[Incident Response Pocket Guide, pp.19-20]

*******************************************
What is your story? We challenge you to become a part of this amazing  project and share your leadership stories. Bethany Hannah began The Smokey Generation: A Wildland Fire Oral History and Digital Storytelling Project for her master's thesis. All members of the wildland fire service, not just hotshots, can share their stories by following her example. Click here for potential leadership questions. Visit The Smokey Generation website for complete information.

The Smokey Generation logo

Friday, June 12, 2015

Gateway Books Part 2 - No Shortcuts to the Top

Aerial ignitions on the Silver fire, Gila NF, 2013.
In a previous blog, I talked about a fire book that helped shape my firefighting worldview, and kind of served as a "gateway" that changed how I looked at things.  Another book that really made me think long and hard about this job is No Shortcuts to the Top by Ed Viesturs and David Roberts.  While it's not a book about fire, and it's not on leadership per se, it's filled with a lot of ideas and concepts that are good for personal development.  Personal development is part of the larger concept of leadership; so I guess in a roundabout way, it is a leadership book.
For those who haven't read the book, it's a memoir of sorts about climbing the 14 highest peaks in the world, one step at a time.  High-elevation mountain climbing is a relatively dangerous endeavour, with a multitude of risks ranging from rockfall, frostbite, avalanche, and a bevy of altitude-related illnesses.  The hazards are many, and the risk is great.
What I took away from reading it was a new way of looking at risk management, and how I approach the risky behaviors that make up a majority of life as a wildland firefighter.  When I first read it, I was a newly qualified helicopter manager and IC type 4 trainee, learning the ropes and starting to think about risk in a whole new light.  Before this point in my career, I really hadn't thought too much about risk as it applied beyond my immediate reach.  I was comfortable making risk decisions for myself in my own little bubble, as a sawyer or tool swinger, but as I grew professionally, my bubble was expanding to include others.  Now my risk decisions would impact more than just me, but would have an effect on those around me.   The thought was, and still is, sobering, and caused me to think more deeply about risk in fire and aviation than I had before.
A core concept that runs through the book is the idea that sometimes it's better to trust your instincts and stop and reevaluate when it doesn't feel right, before it's too late.  One line from the book in particular has stuck with me ever since I first read it:  "You don't know you've made the wrong decision until you get yourself killed doing it.  Whereas if you turn around early, you may never know whether you made the right decision or not."  While the author is speaking specifically about turning around on a mountain when conditions are dangerous, the concept is easy to transfer to wildland fire.  It's easy to second guess the conservative right decision, but you may not get the opportunity to second guess the risky wrong decision in a hazardous environment like fire and aviation.  Sometimes it's easiest to choose the dangerous route, and more difficult to step back and say "hold on a second, something isn't right," especially in our can-do culture.
Another risk related concept that Viesturs mentions a few times is one I didn't learn to fully appreciate until a few years after I first read the book.  It's the idea of risk tolerance, that my levels of acceptable risk are different from those of others.  A perfect example is driving.  I am (mostly) a defensive driver; I rarely speed, and almost never break traffic laws.  My level of tolerance for the risks of driving are pretty low, and that's okay.  Others have higher tolerance for those risks, and drive faster, more aggressively, etc., and that's okay too.  How we view risk changes our behavior, for better and worse.  What's risky to me may not be risky to someone else, and what may be acceptable risk for me could be completely unacceptable to someone not familiar with the task. Advanced sawyers (C fallers) routinely tackle trees that would be incredibly risky for me to try and cut down; and yet because they have a different skill level (and better training, more experience, etc), it's not as risky for them as it would be for me.
There were other things I thought about as well, as I read my way through the Himalyas with the author.  Themes like making your own decisions, and not giving in to peer pressure are constant throughout the book.  Viesturs again:  "On Everest, or any mountain, you've got to make your own decisions."  True words indeed, and ones that really gave me pause as I started to venture out on my own in terms of leadership, transitioning from being a crewmember, following orders somewhat blindly at times, to a new leader who was making decisions that mattered.  There are times, of course, when your peers are right, and peer pressure can work in your favor, but it's good to remember that the herd mentality doesn't have to influence how you make decisions.
Another theme in the book that ties in well with wildland fire is that of perseverance, of hard work, and putting up with misery to reach your goals.  High elevation mountaineering is by all accounts miserable, and filled with hardship.  The key is to keep going, one step at a time, towards your goal.  Realize that it's not a sprint, but a marathon, and keep a steady pace. Wildland fire, whether viewed through the lens of a single fire or a 25-year career, is all about perseverance, putting in one more chain to the top.  It's about hard work, and slow, steady progress toward a goal,  no matter how miserable it can be along the way.
Finally, there's the quintessential quote from the book, and it's one that I think we can apply to fire fairly easily.  "Getting to the top is optional, getting down is mandatory."  The way I look at it, applied to fire, it can mean that engaging fire is optional; but coming home safely shouldn't be.  Fight fire aggressively, but make sure that bringing everyone home safely is what drives your decision making. 
Until next time...
****************************************************************
Justin Vernon is a regular contributor on our blog. Justin works for the United States Forest Service and is a member of the NWCG Leadership Subcommittee as steward of the Professional Reading Program. Check out his Chasing Fire blog. All expressions are those of the author.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

The Case for Punting

Punter
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It is time for the Planning Meeting. It was a rough day. Fire behavior today was extreme. Record temperatures, Haines 6, all the usual “oh bleep” stuff. The entire perimeter was active and the east flank ran three miles. The crews pulled back after a hard fight. You lost miles of line and had two tough medevacs. You could sense the tension over the radio when the column built over Division Foxtrot. Oh yeah, there is still a 20,000 foot convection column visible from camp and blotting out the sun. It not only looks bad, it feels creepy. The cars are covered in ash. Tomorrow is forecasted to be worse. You step into the fully packed circus tent to present the plan for tomorrow. The entire team seems more fatigued than usual. That guy wearing a tie in the back row looks important (and upset). The Agency Administrator is stressed–the timber sale and range allotment are now inside that thick red line you drew on the map. Uncertainty and fear are the dominant emotions. All eyes are on you…This is a leadership moment! You step up front and proclaim; “Tomorrow we are going to punt!

*silence fills the tent*

Ok, so you may not say “punt” but metaphors are a great way to communicate. People will often understand metaphors better than a risk matrix. I choose punting because it is a commonly used way of creating margin in football. By punting we create margin. The scenario described above is lacking margin. The other side must have had our playbook. That’s fine, it happens. Two medevacs were two too many. Line lost is unnecessary exposure. It’s time for a conscious decision to increase our margin.

Increasing margin accepts and allows for the inevitable botched play (error) or big play (success). Margin anticipates error and success. It allows as much time and space possible to respond to changes. Margin gives us the ability to absorb error and to capitalize on success. It is using all of our tools to build resiliency and redundancy in the system. Margin recognizes when time and space is about to shove you into a box canyon and helps prevent it from occurring. Margin means you always have a good kicker on the bench; the option to punt before we try a 4th and long underneath the convection column. 

Why margin? We call the combined interaction between fuels, weather and topography “Fire in the third dimension.” Cool title–heavy stuff really. Who thinks three-dimensionally? Spock? Add the human element into the equation (opinions, emotion, biases, beliefs, etc.) and welcome to the fourth dimension of firefighting: fuel/weather/topography/people. Good luck with that one; it’s too many variables to consider. The complexity of the fourth dimension of firefighting will quickly outpace our cognitive ability. The biggest supercomputer would be unable to process all of the potential interactions and outcomes of a large complex fire with hundreds of people and Mother Nature running wild.
Concept of Margin
(Photo credit: USDA Forest Service Office of Learning)
No need to simplify it. You are not that good. None of us are that good. That is a lot of risk to “manage” and a good time to have an all-star kicker on the bench. It’s a good time to build margin and have options. Margin recognizes our humanity. So, a conversation about risk is a conversation about an uncertain future. The human mind does not like uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to stress. Stress often leads to fear. Fear may be the single biggest barrier to critical thinking. The folks in that tent may not be thinking critically. Engage them in critical thinking. It is when we are stressed and scared that we need margin the most. Don’t be afraid to call in the kicker. 

What about Risk and Probability?
Viewing risk through the probability/severity model has value. It is a good equation if we know all of the knowns and unknowns and have large amounts of accurate data AND we operate in a system capable of absorbing error. A casino survives by the probability model, it has probability in its favor–it will win most of the time so it can afford to lose occasionally. How much loss can we absorb with 500 firefighters on the line? 5,000 firefighters? How rare are those anomalies like plume domination and unforecasted weather events or someone reading the map incorrectly? They are not rare. They are the norm. Do we plan for the norm–for the lowboy to get jackknifed on the escape route? On the fireground, unknowns will appear and error will happen. Our current use of the probability model does not embrace error; it attempts to reduce, eliminate or at times, ignore it. Margin recognizes error. It plans for it. It expects it. Error = reality and it lives side by side with success.

Why margin? Because we suck at measuring and understanding probability. Walk into any casino. Buy a lottery ticket. Eat a candy bar. Turn the music up. Text while driving…all of these actions are based on emotion, not data. Data says they are all bad yet we do them anyway. Why, because it feels good. Humans are naturally optimistic. We are emotional critters, not computers. We suck at measuring and understanding probability because it is boring and it doesn’t always give us the answer we want. We all see ourselves as potential lottery winners. What if we saw ourselves as potential causalities?

Look at the difference in these two questions:
  1. What is the probability of success?
  2. How much margin do we have?
Which of the two questions has an assumption built in? Which of the two encourages dialogue and sensemaking? Which one triggers critical thinking? Our current risk model uses green, amber and red. Colors are cool. Simple is cool. Green = Go. Yellow = Go (with mitigations). Red = IC approval to Go. What is wrong with this model? Our business is too complex to settle for three colors to rationalize a decision.

Probability in our business is cradled in the hands of Mother Nature and the decision-making of the individual. We may have great maps, an accurate weather forecast and we may have analyzed the predicted rates of spread down to a fraction. But what if we looked at risk from the perspective of the stressed out, physically- and mentally-fatigued, color-blind decision maker operating in a complex environment (forest fire qualifies as a complex environment, don’t you think?). What if we planned for something unexpected to happen? We botch the handoff, the burnout is too hot. We fumbled on the two-yard line, the safety zone was labeled wrong on the map. What then would risk look like? What if we viewed risk as a metric for uncertainty rather than a measure of probability?

We would be discussing margin.
Remember that next time you are asked “What is the probability of success?” You may want to focus on margin. Or you can just punt.

************************************
About the author: Curtis Heaton works for the US Forest Service as a National Incident Management Organization Operations Section Chief and has been heavily involved with the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program, including member of the L-580 Steering Committee.

We thank Curtis for putting himself out there and look forward to many more great posts. All expressions are those of the author.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Food for Thought - Balancing Risk


Leaders balance the risks against the potential gains of any decision and action. – Leading in the Wildland Fire Service, page 10
Leaders balance the risks against the potential gains of any decision and action. – Leading in the Wildland Fire Service, page 10
IGNITE the Spark for Leadership and SHARE throughout your networks.

‪#‎fireleadership‬ ‪#‎fireminis‬

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

A Bias for Bold Action

A Bias for Bold Action
by Bob Schoultz

I was recently invited to provide a Navy SEAL’s perspective to a conference on risk management. As I was preparing my remarks, I realized that throughout my career in the Navy, “risk management” had been inherent in my duties as an officer and leader of audacious men in high risk operations, but I had never given the concept of risk management much thought. I felt a little like the fellow who was amazed to learn that he’d been speaking prose all his life and didn’t even know it!

In thinking about it, I realized how important risk management can be to proper planning and success, but also how, if given too much emphasis, it can inhibit bold action and throw sand into the gears of progress.

Risk management is certainly an important aspect of good planning and decision making – an organization should go into any endeavor with its eyes open, understanding what could go wrong and how to manage potential impacts. Careful consideration of risk can help determine whether a plan has a reasonable chance of success, and whether potential benefits justify likely or even unlikely costs. All of that is indisputable.

But an over-emphasis on risk management can torpedo one of the most important factors in any plan’s success: Bold, confident commitment to a plan. Too much attention to risk management can focus an organization on all that can go wrong, rather than on what should go well and what bold action is required to ensure that it does.

A focus on risk can infect a team’s confidence, and over-caution can lead to inaction, or taking half steps, or playing not-to-lose. We’ve heard the catchphrase to: “Always hedge your bets,” and cautious admonitions to be prudent, play it safe, don’t expose yourself, leave yourself a way out, never over-commit. This can be practical advice – especially to ensure you get at least “half a loaf.” But, while the careful approach may sometimes be wise to ensure survival, it won’t promote bold, audacious action. And it won’t inspire subordinates to truly commit to a plan.

In their seminal book, In Search of Excellence, Peters and Waterman repeatedly found that great corporations had what they called “a bias for action.” They noted that “The most important and visible outcropping of the action bias in excellent companies is their willingness to try things out, to experiment…..Most big institutions… prefer analysis and debate to trying something out, and they are paralyzed by fear of failure, however small.” This was true 30 years ago, and it remains true today.

When I was serving at the Naval Academy, I presented an out-of-the-box proposal to then- Superintendent Vice Admiral Rod Rempt, to create an opportunity for midshipmen to participate in National Outdoor Leadership School courses during the summer. He responded that he didn’t think it was a good idea, that it didn’t fit, we’d never done anything like this before, midshipmen already had more options than they could manage, etc., but then he said (and I’ll never forget) “What the hell – let’s give it a try! How can I help?” Ten years later, over a quarter of midshipmen choose to challenge themselves for 24 days in the wilderness with NOLS every summer, and I give Rod Rempt a lot of the credit for his willingness to take a chance and support a subordinate leader’s initiative.

The bold leader inspires subordinates to believe in themselves, their team, their strategy, and their ability to get results. Subordinates know a risky plan when they see it, and it’s important that they trust that their leaders have competently weighed the risks involved, and share in that risk. But it is more important that they know their leaders are confident and committed to the success of the plan, and are ready to commit boldly to its execution – in spite of the risks. History is full of examples of committed and confident teams succeeding where success was deemed unlikely or impossible; there are also innumerable examples of timid leaders and teams snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Napoleon pointed out that in war, morale is to material as three is to one.

But there can be a fine line between being bold and audacious, and being blind and fool-hardy. The motto of the Navy Seabees is “Can Do,” but they also say “Too much ‘Can-Do’ can do you in.” John Wayne once said, “Life is tough. It’s even tougher when you’re stupid.” But I’m arguing against risk managers injecting too much “Can’t Do” into vision and planning.

Great leaders have a bias for bold action, but prudently manage risk. Excellent managers on the other hand, are expected to be the voice of prudence and caution, to be their organization’s risk managers, while still leaving room for experimentation and well-calculated audacity. In my own career, I have played the role of the cautious manager, raising red flags when (what I perceived to be) irresponsible and dangerous ideas were being proposed and considered. I have also been the bold, aggressive leader who my team routinely had to rein in, to make sure we didn’t get out in front of our own headlights. When the balance is right between bold but prudent leaders, and cautious but confident managers, there are few limits to what an organization can accomplish.

I was recently asked to speak on how great leaders and teams respond to chaos and uncertainty. In my remarks, I noted that bold leaders know that while chaos and uncertainty are dangerous and warrant caution, they also present great opportunities. The bold, aggressive leader will carefully watch chaos, staying alert, agile, ready to neutralize threats, but also ready to strike when opportunities present themselves. While the bold leader is wary of the danger inherent in chaos, s/he keeps the front site focused on opportunity.

When the going gets tough, the bold leader stays focused on opportunity. Chesty Puller, when told that the Chinese had him and his Marines surrounded in Korea, is reputed to have responded: “That simplifies the problem. The bastards can’t get away from us now!” He didn’t (as far as I know) then ask his staff for a risk management plan. But a good chief of staff would have prepared one for him anyway!

“The credit belongs to the man who strives valiantly; who spends himself in a worthy cause… who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid who neither know victory nor defeat.” (Teddy Roosevelt, adjusted slightly…)

Manage risk, but always with a bias for bold action.


*********************************************************
The WFLDP would like to thank Bob Schoultz, retired Navy Seal commander and certified  L-380 instructor for NOLS, for allowing us to reprint his blog post. Check out other articles on Bob's blog, "Bob Schoultz's Corner."

Friday, March 7, 2014

Leadership Traits, Core Values, and Expectations Associated with HROs

LTC Mitch Utterback, U.S. Army, 5th Battalion, 19th SFG
(LTC Mitch Utterback, U.S. Army, 5th Battalion, 19th SFG)
Through their actions, ethics, and traditions the Alpine Hotshots exemplify the firefighter leadership core values of safety, duty, respect, integrity, and teamwork. ~ Alpine IHC Vision
Today's "From the Field for the Field Friday" entry is once again courtesy of the Alpine Interagency Hotshot Crew (IHC). Thanks for your leadership and willingness to put yourself out there.

A Leadership Workshop with Lieutenant Colonel Mitch Utterback

Alpine IHC facilitated a leadership workshop with commanding officer LTC Utterback. This workshop focused on parallels of leadership traits, core values, and expectations associated of high reliability organizations (HRO).

LTC Utterback spoke to experiences within his profession while extending lessons learned over his career which applied to the risk management process within wildland fire management. Many similarities could be associated between U.S. military operations and wildland fire management attesting to the subject matter and relevancy of discussion points presented in his lecture.

Discussion topics included but were not limited to:

• Leadership - Supporting the Boots on the Ground
• Fitness: Physical/Mental - How One Endures and Overcomes
• Teamwork - Cohesion
• Communication - Chain of Command
• Setting Priorities vs. Responsibilities

What are you doing to IGNITE the Spark for Leadership that can be used as an example of leadership in action?

********************
LTC Mitch Utterback a commanding officer with the U.S. Army, 5th Battalion, 19th SFG



From the Field for the Field




Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Focusing Risk Managment Efforts Using Historical Wildland Fire Accident Trends

August 3, 2013

To:          Geographic Area Coordinating Group Chairs

From:        National Multi Agency Coordinating Group

NMAC Correspondence #2013-06

Subject:    Focusing Risk Management Efforts Using Historical Wildland Fire Accident Trends

Data analysis is an important component of risk management.  Trends identified through data analysis provide a sound foundation for making risk management decisions.  Over the past one hundred years, 90% of wildland fire fatalities can be attributed to five general causes:
  •   Low level flight operations
  •   Vehicle accidents
  •   Entrapments/burnovers
  •   Snags/felling operations
  •   Heart attacks
There is a high probability that most future fatalities will continue to share these causes.  Having experienced 28 fatalities in the fire community to date in in 2013, NMAC is encouraging leaders, managers and everyone throughout the wildland fire community to make every day a training day with an emphasis on our historical accident trends.  This can be achieved through the Six Minutes for Safety program (http://www.wildfirelessons.net/uploads/6mfs/home.html),  with the following resources addressing the 5 primary wildland fire serious accident causes:
Wildland firefighting continues to become more complex, but the primary causes of fatalities and serious accidents have not changed.   Please use this information to continue to focus your proactive efforts and situational awareness.  

/s/ John Segar
Chair, NMAC

(UPDATE since memo's release: 30 deaths to date)