Crisis-Ready Teams: Data-Driven Lessons from Aviation, Nuclear Power, Emergency Medicine, and Mine Rescue
The book behind the argument that crisis performance is decided before the crisis, and the anchor for a small cluster of studies this map has otherwise been citing second hand. Waller and Kaplan synthesise their own programme of research with the wider literature on how teams behave under high-magnitude threat, drawing on recorded and coded audio and video from hundreds of hours of crisis simulations across flight crews, nuclear power plant control rooms, mine rescue teams, and emergency medicine. The central claim, and the one that cuts against the leadership-under-pressure genre, is that the behaviours which decide the outcome are established in advance: teams that already work together fall back under pressure on whatever interaction patterns they settled into in ordinary conditions, and swift-starting teams assembled for the emergency itself are shaped by how deliberately they set the tone in the opening minutes rather than by anything that happens at the peak. Several specific findings matter for psychological safety. Balanced early communication predicts later implicit coordination, while domination of the opening window by the senior clinician predicts worse performance. High performing multidisciplinary teams move more slowly through structuring and information sharing before deciding, on the reasoning that people from different professional backgrounds reach different conclusions from the same information and those readings have to be voiced to be reconciled. And the fastest-acting teams use more closed-loop communication and more explicit coordination, because implicit coordination presupposes a shared picture that a novel crisis is precisely what removes. This node is provisional and marked as such. It is placed from the surrounding literature, from the publisher's account, and from Jade Garratt's reading of it in Crisis-Ready Teams, not from a full text read end to end, so the desc states the argument rather than auditing the evidence behind it. The underlying studies are the place to check the claims: Zijlstra, Waller and Phillips on early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams, Uitdewilligen and Waller on information sharing and decision making in multidisciplinary crisis management teams, Waller on the timing of adaptive group responses, and Su and colleagues on whether prearrival team behaviours predict trauma resuscitation performance. Several are candidates for this corpus in their own right, and would carry the empirical weight this node does not. Two cautions worth holding. It is a practitioner-facing synthesis from a university press rather than a primary report, so the evidence for any given claim sits in the papers rather than here. And the research base is simulation-heavy, which buys observability and coded behavioural data at the cost of real consequence: a simulated mine rescue is watched, bounded and survivable in a way the thing itself is not, and threat rigidity is a response to threat actually believed.
Save this paper to a bibliography, keep notes on it, and export citations. Create a free account →
Neighbours (12)
- Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
- Organizing for High Reliability: Processes of Collective Mindfulness
- Crew Resource Mgmt
- Safety Voice and Safety Listening During Aviation Accidents: Cockpit Voice Recordings Reveal That Speaking-Up to Power Is Not Enough
- The Evolution of Crew Resource Management Training in Commercial Aviation
- Threat Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis
- Crisis-Ready Teams
- High & Low Context Communication
- Learning Teams
- The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster
- Time Is Not Enough: Exploring the Processes That Shape Team Psychological Safety
- CAP 737: Flight-crew Human Factors Handbook