Incident Command Leadership Insights

Question: Is incident command/emergency response the right place for a servant leader?

Early in my Chevron career, I managed a small group that watched over marine (barge) operations in the US West Coast (UCWC).  Part of my role included serving on the worldwide spill response advisory team.  I got the honor of attending a seven-day oil spill response/incident command training session at Texas A&M Galveston.  This training included an understanding of the Incident Command Structure (ICS).

Fresh with my newly-found knowledge, I attended an oil spill drill.  There were two cool things about this drill.  First, it was in Honolulu, Hawaii (much better than Galveston, Texas in the summer!).  Second, I acted as the Cargo Owner, so I really had a seat on the sidelines.  I got to witness a very experienced Incident Commander (former Air Force officer) run the drill perfectly.  This showed me how an effective ICS could respond to an emergency to the satisfaction of local, state, and federal officials.  The Incident Commander (IC) exhibited a very calm, confident style.  He was directive in many aspects of the response, but was open to input from various ICS leaders.  I had a prior commercial relationship with this IC, so I had seen him in a collaborative environment naturally.  Watching how he transitioned from a collaborative approach to a directive approach was eye-opening to me.

I had two direct experiences with actual incident command response.  The first occurred in December of 2003.  I was over the US West Coast fuel oil operations.  I got a call in the middle of the night that one of our barge deliveries of industrial fuel oil experienced a spill while loading at a terminal.  Initial reports indicated a small spill, so I agreed with our operations coordinator to show up in the office early to plan a response.  Since we were the cargo owner, we were letting the carrier (barge owner/operator) take primary responsibility (in line with ICS protocol).  Should the carrier fail to manage the spill in a responsible manner, the cargo owner is next in line for responsibility.  Our company had an Advisory Response Team (ART) that could be activated to assist the carrier’s response.  This team hadn’t been activated in many years.  When it became evident that the spill was much larger than initial reports, and had shown up on CNN, I made the call to activate ART.  I then flew to the site of the spill (Pacific Northwest) and got to witness first-hand the ICS in action.  Fortunately, the carrier did an excellent job of responding and we (as cargo owner) stayed in an advisory function only.  I got to witness how the IC balanced the needs for the directive approach to cleanup and the collaborative approach with the local population and regulators (local, state, and federal).

My second direct experience was application of ICS to a hurricane recovery effort in 2005.  Approximately one month after Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita impacted our largest lubricants blending facility in Port Arthur, Texas.  The facility was severely damaged.  The loss of this facility impacted our entire North America supply chain, and had an impact on European and Latin America export supply.  We had two incident command structures in place to respond.  The first (most critical) was the physical response at the plant – ensuring the employees were safe and the plant was safely returned to operation.  The second was to manage the damage to the supply chain.  I was named the IC of the second effort.  Since I was over all North America supply chain operations, I also played a role in ensuring the plant-level response effort was effectively managed.  In this dual role, I got to see how the ICS can be used effectively (plant-level) and ineffectively (supply chain response).  In my supply chain IC role, I had to work within a management structure that had little to no ICS experience.  As a result, I had to continually explain the situation and defend actions taken while managing an incident response.

My experience in understanding and applying the principles of incident command gave me two key insights:

1. A servant-leader can effectively manage incident command.  A truly effective IC will be able to balance the “command and control” aspects of incident response (directing people to complete tasks, making decisions that affect the incident response, and ensuring accountability of all responders) with the more collaborative needs (public affairs, media response, regulatory oversight, etc.).  The collaborative approach comes naturally to a servant-leader.  If this is done well, it provides a buffer to the incident response team.  This allows the team to proceed with responding to an incident without having to worry about demands from stakeholders and community.  I saw this play out in the oil spill drill in Hawaii.  The IC was sensitive and directive (as needed by the decision or instance).  I appreciated how my team rallied around me to respond to a significant supply chain disruption.  My team saw how I took full responsibility from various stakeholders, and allowed them to do what they were supposed to do (restore the supply chain).
2. Incident command structure brings clarity around accountability and decision-making.  While this clarity doesn’t prevent inclusion and collaboration, it helps the leader with certainty over responsibility.  Structure does help effective response.  It makes delegation easier (specific roles and responsibilities), and clarifies accountability and responsibility.

While I wouldn’t suggest volunteering as an Incident Commander to an actual disaster as a way to hone a person’s leadership skills, I encourage all leaders to embrace the learning that can occur when faced with any challenge driven by unfortunate events.

I’d love to hear your comments on this post.