Barry Dorn and I drew on our experiences with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for an article on how the dimensions of meta-leadership can inform situational awareness that appears in the current issue of Disaster Recovery Journal. Among the lessons was:
"From a leadership perspective, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was a complex national event with emergent and divergent contingencies, requirements and responsible actors with mission critical activities, often at odds or inadvertently causing interference in the execution of situational actions. Like any incident of this scale, the oil spill and response required in actuality leadership of many events [technical, political, public health, etc.]...Each of these events had its own dynamics, timelines, and priorities in the minds of the different parties involved in the response. For a leader, situational awareness must incorporate each of these "events" to inform a comprehensive and unified approach to the response."
We invite you to read the entire article and leave your thoughts and comments.
We also have a case history of this event (and others) available on the NPLI web site.
Follow us on Twitter: @harvardnpli
Comments
Mark says:
Hello Eric,
Great article in DRJ and great to see the meta-leadership framework continuing to be reinforced within the DRJ readership. In your article, you and Dr. Dorn include the statement: "The meta-leader must traverse a four-step process to perceive what is happening, understand what it means, predict what is most likely to happen next, and decide what actions to take in order to respond or mitigate the negative impact of the threat at hand – what we call the PUPD loop." How have you found these leaders build themselves within Dimension 1 to be the most effective in handling these crisis situations? Do you find that it is based more on certain intrinsic traits or as function of their training and conscious, deliberate planning? How about in Dimension 2? Thanks and talk with you soon.
January 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM | Permalink
Eric says:
Great questions, Mark. The meta-leaders we see who are most effective are relentlessly curious. They are always asking questions and never assume that they have -- or any one person has -- the whole answer. They understand that situational awareness is achieved by synthesizing multiple perspectives. They also seem to understand that the incident never reads the plan therefore the event rarely unfolds exactly as expected.
The effective leaders also seem never to be satisfied with their leadership ability. They are always trying to get better. They are lifelong learners and take self-awareness seriously. They know that Dimension 1, the internal capacity to lead, is infinitely expandable.
I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for posing them.
January 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM | Permalink
Mark says:
Thanks, Eric. That's great. Have you found any particular common resources (books, training, organizations,etc.) that weave a common thread through these leaders, resources that they have accessed as they developed? Have you and your colleagues identified individuals (in addition to the ones in your article) that you have found particularly effective meta-leaders? If so, would you be able to compile a list so that those that would aspire to become better leaders could study these leader's lives to determine elements that might assist them as they continue to grow? Just a thought. Thanks again and here's looking toward a dynamic 2012.
January 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM | Permalink