The Blog will continue, as soon as is feasible, and we will have announcements about several new clinicians and projects.

A few spots for our March Retreat are still available, so please continue to inquire.

We will be back shortly…

The goals of the retreat are as follows:

1) To ease discomfort with the traumatic death of a family member;
2) To assist participants with the process of reclaiming and redefining their lives, following their traumatic losses.
3) To find constructive ways to honor and give meaning to the life and death of the deceased;
4) To identify, develop and strengthen on-going strategies to support recovery.

Schedule is as follows:

Session I Thursday evening, 3/20/2007
6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Introductions and orientation to the retreat. Workbooks will be distributed and participants will prepare for Friday and Satuday’s intensive sessions.

Session II Friday, 3/21/2007
10:00 a.m. - 8 p.m. (with meals and breaks)

Intensive Work Session, during which participants will be able to share their post-traumatic loss experience, assess the course of their recovery, and identify their individual objectives for the retreat. The therapeutic group process will be developed and core retreat work will begin.

Session III Saturday, 3/21/2007
10:00 a.m. - 6 p.m. (with meals and breaks)

Continuation of Intensive Work Session.

Session IV Sunday, 3/22/2007
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Wrap Up, Plans for Follow Up.

Participants will be interviewed telephonically, to determine readiness for this intensive Retreat. Clearances from participants’ treating clinicians will be required, for those who are in treatment in their home locales. Those not in treatment may be required to complete a full clinical assessment before acceptance to the Retreat. Adult participants only.

Retreat Arrangements:

Sessions will take place at the Retreat House in Austin, TX (Exact location will be provided to registered participants). Meals, lodging and travel expenses will be the participant’s responsibility. The Retreat facilitators will assist with hotel and meal recommendations.

Retreat Registration Deadline: 2/29/2008 Payment must be received in full by this date and all required clearances must be received

Cost for Retreat: $600.00 per participant.

For more information, to begin clearance and registration process, please e-mail through the Blog or Website.

The reason for this is that each time we encounter a manager who is described as respected by the employees that they direct, we consistently find dedicated workers who put forth their best efforts, and who have developed a peer culture in which employees take interest in each other’s performance. It doesn’t get better than that.

The question that naturally follows is: What characteristics does such a manager possess, that commands such loyalty and dedication? From my informal queries, it seems that respected managers have four major qualities, all of which are present: 1) Excellent organizational skills, 2) Excellent interpersonal skills, 3) Industry-specific expertise, and 4) A genuine caring and concern for their employees. It is the fourth of these qualities that moves managers beyond an effective rating and into the ranks of those respected.

As organizational consultants, we help managers to develop organizational and interpersonal skills, and we encourage them to be experts in the work that they are directing. The fourth quality, however, is one that cannot be taught and cannot be approximated. Either a manager believes that each of his workers is a unique human being, who merits respect and who has a unique contribution to offer, or he does not. For this quality to exist, it must truly be “felt”.

We have watched managers act “as if” they value their employees and we have watched them utterly fail. On the other hand, we have observed that, even though no two managers will have the same interpersonal or managerial style, genuineness and caring will be clearly read by others, when it is present.

We’ve been asked how it can be possible, for any given manager, respected or otherwise, to reach all employees, and move them to give their utmost at work? The answer, of course, is that no manager can motivate everyone. However, a manager who is respected will reach a larger percentage of employees than any other, and in keeping with their highly effective management style, he/she will not keep undedicated employees on the team, who might negatively affect production and the positive peer culture that has been developed. And since the top notch manager is most likely to be respected by his/her superiors, her efforts to maintain a highly effective team will most likely be supported.

If genuine caring and concern cannot be taught, then how can a manager shift their belief system? This is not the work of workshops and trainings, though the concept is often introduced in such forums. However, if a manager is ready and open to changing the way that they view other human beings, a coach or therapist may be able to help him to sort through blocks and resentments, so that he can begin to relate to others in ways that bring out the best that they have to offer.

Pre-incident planning is a crucial part of the work of Critical Incident Stress Management Teams. During this phase, which often allows us the opportunity to interface with experts from a wide range of disciplines, protocols are designed to increase workplace safety and to manage traumatic incidents.

As Critical Incident Stress Responders, our part of the pre-incident planning effort is two-fold: To prepare management and workers to function under extreme circumstances and to increase their readiness to negotiate the emotional impact of a trauma.

During and immediately following a critical incident, demands are great and emotional resources are challenged. The traumatic event may be brief or it may be prolonged. Decisions made by management may shorten or limit the damaging effects. On-going operations may need careful monitoring, so that safety is not further compromised, until they can be shut down. Shut down may be a complicated process, that requires the undivided attention of some workers. Assistance will be needed for injured individuals and the safety of others in the vicinity of the incident must be safeguarded. One or more employees may need to be available to provide information to firefighters, paramedics and police. Contact will need to be made with the families of the injured, or deceased. The tasks are many and often need to be executed simultaneously, all while each manager and employee grapples with their own reactions to the accident, robbery, or whatever the critical incident may be.

To function effectively under these conditions, planning needs to give consideration to the range of potential critical incidents in each given industry, and to the delineation of all activities which would have to take place, should one occur. A series of trainings is then designed to teach managers and employees to function successfully, while negotiating the stress reactions that are likely to be experienced. Concrete skills to manage the emotional, behavioral and physical components of these reactions is key to these trainings. As I mentioned in my post introducing Dr. Ottenstein and his armed Robbery Survivial Skills Training, behavioral rehearsal is an important part of this pre-incident trainig phase, as knowing what to do and doing it are two different things.

Additionally, those that are prepared for the range of reactions that are common in the hours, weeks, days and months after a trauma, have the best chance for quick recovery from their traumatic exposure. To this end, a comprehensive review of post traumatic stress symptoms and syndromes is also part of the pre-incident phase. Focus on specific ways that trauma affects individuals at different life stages, with a variety of life circumstances, with previous traumatic experiences and losses, or with pre-existing emotional conditions should be included, for the training to truly be useful in to participants. Finally, self-care strategies to be implemented immediately after the traumatic occurrence and throughout the post-traumatic period should be throughly reviewed, with each participant developing her/his own plan, based on the training and their knowledge of their own reactions.

Industry and workforce specific guidelines must also be developed to assist management with return to operations after the critical incident. Procedures to assess the readiness of each employee to return to work, is the final task of pre-incident planning, which is very important to insuring that additional critical incident risk factors are not being created.

For those of us with frequent contact with the pain and anguish that surrounds critical incidents, it is indeed rewarding for our Team to be able to utilize their skills to both prevent and limit post traumatic suffering. We forsee a time coming when pre-incident planning and education will be a standard part of safety planning and orientation in the corporate environment, as is now occurring in post 9/11 public safety initiatives.

In my posting on critical incidents and grief, I concentrated on grief related to loss of life. Grief is also experienced related to other types of losses, such as the loss of the security of home and community, and of the possessions that represent our hard work, our passions and our memories of special moments in our lives.

The mourning and healing of Southern Californians will go on for some time to come. Some will experience post traumatic syndromes as well, including fears of future fire catastrophes. Some will stay and rebuild in their communities; others will leave.

As those effected resume their lives, there will be lessons learned, about arson (which is suspected in some of the fires), fire prevention and community emergency support efforts. I will attempt to share that information as it becomes available.

If you have not already done so, please visit The National Fire Protection Association website, referenced in my last post. It contains information related to many types of fire hazards, including wildfire management. The more informed we all are of such dangers, the safer we all are.

Innovation leads to new dangers, that are not always immediately apparent. Multiple demands can leave folks distracted, and at high risk of injury. Sometimes, being too careful leads to accidents itself, such as in the case of the nervous driver, going 35 mph in a 70 mph zone, who causes a multi-car collision. And at other times, we make the decision that it is worth taking a calculated risk, to pursue our interests, hobbies, occupations and dreams. We know that these will work out a good majority of the time, but not always.

Despite these realities, it certainly doesn’t hurt to think about safety and prepare for known dangers, when we can. The National Fire Protection Association has some excellent fact sheets that address fire safety issues in the home, in the workplace, for special populations (such as children and the disabled), etc. It is well worth taking a look at these, if you have a moment.

Even better than helping people to heal from the emotional trauma of a critical incident, is preventing them from happening in the first place. Happy reading…

Insights that you have gained, coping strategies that have and have not worked, and your recommendations to others who have passed through similar experiences, would be helpful to include.

Please use the “Contact Us” e-mail address on the Blog, to arrange for your posting. This is an open and on-going invitation.

Most writings related to critical incidents focus on post-traumatic stress syndromes, which indeed are the most common reactions that we see following such events, and those that are most expected. However, as one might imagine, events that affect us powerfully enough to frighten, confuse, and overwhelm our usual coping mechanisms, often involve death. And where there is death, there is grief.

Central to traumatic stress reactions is an alarming and life threatening occurrence, which produces reactions that include shock, disbelief, fear, confusion, flashbacks of the incident, anger, sadness and feelings of helplessness in the face of forces that could not be altered. Central to grief is the finality of death and all that it signifies, including the loss of the deceased person’s future dreams, goals and relationships, and our loss of our relationship with him/her. While grief produces some of the same emotional responses as does post traumatic stress (for example, disbelief, anger, sadness), people often experience these reactions as separate, since they are directed toward the loss, as opposed to a shocking and dangerous event.

I have noted that when a critical incident results in witnessed death, people do not necessarily have to have known the person who died well, or for a long period of time, to experience a grief reaction. At times of crisis and tragedy, the usual social distance that people maintain tends to shrink and people often feel more bonded with each other. What we do know about the deceased’s life, work and death, can seem much more significant than it did before.

When we respond to critical incidents in the workplace, we frequently observe this phenomenon. Coworkers will tell us that they did not know the deceased well, and then proceed to tell us about the person’s daily rituals and habits, what kind of worker he was, what they knew about his family, what he found humorous. They also then tell us about the many ways in which the person will be missed and demonstrate shock, sadness, anger, and deep sadness about the individual’s death.

We recommend that individuals who have witnessed both a traumatic event and an associated death, treat themselves gently and with great care as they go forward. The days, weeks and months that follow a critical incident that includes loss, may represent some of the most difficult moments in their lives. It can be an exceedingly difficult period.

People seem to alternate between their traumatic stress and grief reactions, which can be especially confusing, exhausting, and distracting. It is of utmost importance, that they connect with those who they can trust and confide in, and from whom they can ask for the support that they need. They must understand that their emotional turmoil is a normal response to horrific events, and that it is quite usual to feel “unable to function” for a period, which is our psyche’s signal to us that we need to slow down to process all that has occurred.

After a critical incident involving death, employers who provide needed latitude to those who are traumatized and grieving, will be fostering their recovery and stand a better chance that these employees will return to work with full concentration and the ability to safely and effectively perform their job functions.

As I continue to post, I will continue to return to the relationship between critical incidents and grief, as this is a crucial one to recognize, to fully comprehend the profound impact that these events can have upon us.

While both commentaries recognize John’s inappropriate behavior in the Scenario (misusing work time and misleading his company about his activities), both also identify with him, and wonder if he feels recognized and rewarded at work. Might these folks be non-management employees, experiencing some frustrations of their own? They would have to let us know. Regardless, their comments do suggest a viable approach to Juan’s behavior.

As I addressed in a previous post (”Management Doesn’t Care About Us”), there does seem to be a pervasive disconnect between management and non-management groups across many industries. Keeping this in mind, management could take the approach of viewing Juan’s behavior as a “statement”, if you will, of how he feels about some aspect of his job (whether it be related to the quantity of work that he is assigned, to the level of recognition that he feels he receives, or to the degree of respect he has for the organization, etc.). Finding out how John is feeling and what he is thinking could be a first step.

If the management group is receptive to employee input, John’s feedback could help them to make modifications that allow him, and perhaps others, to feel more connected to the company. Alternatively, this approach might lead to a fruitful exchange, that in and of itself, helps John to feel more included and acknowleged by the organization.

Many managers would opt to confront John’s inappropriate behavior directly, instead of using the more gentle approach outlined above. Confrontation, along with informal or formal warnings, is certainly an option. However, it’s worth considering that opening the lines of communication first, does not preclude disciplinary action later. And John may get the message, that there are better ways to make “statements” to management than he has chosen, without having to address his behavior at a higher level.