Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Power, Nicola ORCID: 0000-0001-6196-1284 and Alison, Laurence ORCID: 0000-0003-2459-0976 (2017) Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 90 (1). pp. 51-76.

Access the full-text of this item by clicking on the Open Access link.

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:label /><jats:p>When operating in multiteam settings, it is important that goals are cohesive between team members, especially in high‐stakes, risky, and uncertain environments. This study explored goal consistency during a multiteam emergency response simulation. A total of <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 50 commanders from the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">UK</jats:styled-content> Police Services, Fire and Rescue Services, and Ambulance Services took part in a simulated terrorism exercise, who were split into <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 13 teams. Each team responded to the same simulated terrorist event, which was based on a ‘Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack’ (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MTFA</jats:styled-content>) at a city centre train station. Data were collected using electronically time‐stamped ‘decision logs’ and post‐incident questionnaires that measured team members’ self‐reported goals. Goals that were ‘attack’ focussed (e.g., ‘treat patients’) were coded as ‘approach’ (i.e., focussed on achieving <jats:italic>positive</jats:italic> outcomes) and goals that were ‘defence’ focussed (e.g., protect emergency responders) were coded as ‘avoid’ (i.e., focussed on avoiding <jats:italic>negative</jats:italic> outcomes). It emerged that different agencies prioritized different goal types; Fire commanders initially prioritized avoid goals but then increased approach orientations, Ambulance commanders were consistently approach oriented, and Police commanders showed goal conflict (tensions between adopting approach and avoid goals). Despite goal differences, participants rated that their interagency goals were consistent in a post‐scenario questionnaire, suggesting that commanders were unaware of the nuanced differences between their agency‐specific objectives. At the multiteam level, teams who predominantly held attack/approach goals were significantly faster at decision logging early in the incident, yet defend/avoid teams were faster at decision logging later into the incident. Implications for multiteam coordination are discussed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Practitioner points</jats:title><jats:p> <jats:list list-type="bullet"> <jats:list-item><jats:p>The ‘save life’ goal in multiteam emergency response settings is vague and open to interpretation. This can impede coordination when agencies assume that they are working towards the same ‘save life’ goal, but are actually focussed on different and role‐specific objectives with regard to how they will achieve it.</jats:p></jats:list-item> <jats:list-item><jats:p>A joint decision model that helps to clarify agency‐specific tactical priorities may be more useful in multiteam contexts than one that uses ambiguous and abstract (i.e., ‘save life’) interagency goals.</jats:p></jats:list-item> <jats:list-item><jats:p>A focus on achieving <jats:italic>positive</jats:italic> outcomes (attack/approach goal; e.g., ‘treat patients’) can speed up decision‐making during the early stages of an incident, but when the situation becomes more complex and dynamic, then a focus on avoiding <jats:italic>negative</jats:italic> outcomes (defend/avoid goal; e.g., protect emergency responders from harm) might lead to faster action.</jats:p></jats:list-item> <jats:list-item><jats:p>When responding to complex emergencies, practitioners should focus on satisficing to achieve ‘least‐worst’ outcomes rather trying to maximize gains.</jats:p></jats:list-item> </jats:list> </jats:p></jats:sec>

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Clinical Research, Generic health relevance, 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Divisions:	Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of Management Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Population Health
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	19 Jun 2023 08:58
Last Modified:	14 Mar 2024 17:54
DOI:	10.1111/joop.12159
Open Access URL:	https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/81539/2/JOOP...
Related URLs:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3171075