Why a balanced mindset is important for terrorism preparedness

By J.D. Stout, Chaplain
Tucson, Ariz.

My father, the late Rev. Loyd Stout, was fond of telling a story about my grandfather, who served as a deputy sheriff for Sebastian County, Ark., during Prohibition. One day he obtained information that a gang of bank robbers led by the notorious George “Machine Gun” Kelly was headed to his town. He and the local banker therefore closed the bank and went fishing for the day. The bank was never robbed, and the two men had a fish fry to celebrate their victory.

Thinking about this story after spending 18 years in law enforcement, I find it to be a stroke of crime prevention genius that was very appropriate for its time. In today’s fast-paced, 24/7, globalized society, however, we can’t afford to close the doors and go fishing in such a “Mayberry”-like fashion when a threat is assessed.  But for the sake of making a point, I invite you to go with me to a hypothetical fish fry.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the electrical generating facility for your area is at a dam on a large lake. Twelve hours ago, an eco-terrorist group assumed control of the power plant, shut down the power grid supplying your town, and rigged the dam with explosives with the intention of blowing the dam unless their demands were met. This group claimed that their attack was in response to the endangerment of the spawning habits of the blue catfish.

Fortunately, the hostage negotiator was able to talk the suspects into custody, the explosives were removed safely, and the only injuries sustained by the public were from a few traffic accidents that occurred when the traffic signals went out. Further, an elderly couple was treated for heat exhaustion when their air-conditioner stopped working.

As a result of this successful response, the power company has invited all the responders to a fish fry this evening to thank them for their efforts. All the responders and their corresponding chains of command attend the fish fry (catfish, of course) and are now performing the customary informal after-action review of the incident in their own respective groups.

Possibles and Probables

Some of the saddest aspects of the 9/11 story are the outstanding efforts of so many individual officials straining, often without success, against the boundaries of the possible. Good people can overcome bad structures. They should not have to.

— 9/11 Commission Report (page 399)

Interestingly, instead of the attendees breaking up into their normal peer groups (law enforcement, fire, EMS, emergency management, the power company, etc.), they’ve broken up into two groups based on personality, which we’ll call the Probable Group and the Possible Group.

The Probable Group largely consists of management and other leadership all the way up to the chief levels and includes intelligence personnel. The Possible Group largely consists of the rank-and-file personnel who responded to the incident. The reason these are broken down this way is not meant to be exclusive. Rather, I want to illustrate a point about the personality types we often see in disaster preparedness and anti-terrorism organizations.

Over the fish and beer, two topics evolve. The Probable Group began their conversations along the lines of “I knew this type of incident was possible. but never really thought it would happen based on the threat assessments we had performed.” The Possible Group began their conversations along the lines of “I knew it was just a matter of time before this would happen.” 

These are two very different points of view emerging in the aftermath of this response and they clearly define the two personality types that are my topic. Which group is most correct? Which group is more practical in their view? In fact, they’re both correct. The culture of preparedness and anti-terrorism that we foster in today’s organizations demands both points of view, so we can have a balanced approach in addressing the threats we face.

In showing the original draft of this article to several of my colleagues in the disaster preparedness arena here in Tucson, I found that several broke these two groups down into the “practical’ and the “impractical.” While that might seem appropriate, it dismisses the deeper aspects of balance in these personalities that we as a preparedness community need to embrace when selecting personnel, analyzing threat intelligence, and funding training and equipment.

If we base all of our plans on what’s possible, we will soon exhaust our resources and become unable to deal with threats to our communities. Therefore, we base our operational training and budgets on the threats that are most likely, or probable, to our community. This is a prudent, practical and responsible way of managing organizations.

However, those incidents that are possible, meaning likely but not supported by threat analysis or other intelligence, will exploit our weak points in response. I use “exploit” here with purpose. While that word might seem too deliberate in the realm of natural disasters or manmade accidents, when we consider that anti-terrorism efforts deal with persons who consider themselves actively at war with an organization, government or idea base, “exploit” takes on a new perspective. We know that terrorists gather their own intelligence in target selection and will most likely exploit the softest target on their list.

The uses of the Possible

Here is where the Possible Personality finds a home in planning for an all-hazards situation. The ability to respond effectively to an all-hazards incident is the goal of our current National Incident Management System. Therefore, we find the need in planning and response for personnel who display the tendency for both personality views, the Probable and the Possible.

The efficiency of the Probable Planner must be used to effectively manage our response, and the Possible Planner must not be excluded as impractical. The many responders who exhibit the Possible Personality will most likely be correct in their assumptions at least once, and that one time could be very costly and traumatic to the communities we serve. 

We cannot afford to relegate the Possible Personalities to the alienation of modern day “Chicken Littles” or as the police department’s “Tackleberry.” Yes, we all know they are there, but they often provide a deeper perspective that should not be readily dismissed based on an immediate judgment of impracticality.

I am sure you know of whom I’m speaking, since every department has an Officer Possible. At the fish fry after the incident, he stands there with every form of police tool on his duty belt that the local police supply store can supply. He smokes like a freight train, drinks coffee by the gallon and has worked midnight shift so long that sunlight hurts his skin. Officer Possible is a distinct personality in our field, and he was placed here for a reason.

This is the person you want looking at the criminal element of your area, because he’s always trying to determine their next move. This is the personality you want on your checkpoint or on your security gate, because very few things will get passed him unnoticed. This is the person you want performing your fire inspections in facilities, because he can see where the weak points in suppression are.

This personality has a place in our efforts that does extend into the planning portion. The focus, of course, is to balance these two personality types in the person, so they can see both points of view in planning and response and not proceed into the extreme, where they will be ineffective.

Balancing opposites

As you can see, I hope, the two distinct personality traits in preparedness and anti-terrorism planners both have their proper places at the fish fry. The Probable will spend money wisely, and the Possible will rarely be caught by surprise. We need to balance these two schools of thought to increase our effectiveness in preparedness.

Where are you standing at the fish fry? Do you lean toward the possibilities in your preparedness efforts? Do you always find yourself having to narrow your focus into a more established train of thought? Are your leaders always turning you down for requested equipment or training because you just can’t justify it? Or are you a Probable Person, finding yourself having to continually expand your focus to see where your efforts could be exploited?

Of equal importance, do you have a balance between these two personalities among your responders or investigators? If not, the opposite personality type may be needed to balance your efforts. The Possible Person needs the reflection of the Probable point of view to help balance their efforts in addressing situations in a more focused manner. Conversely, the Probable Person needs the reflection of the Possible point of view to help open their focus to other options and not move towards the redundancies that are often seen in extreme micromanagement.

Knowing where your own personality is focused is a must if you’re to achieve the balanced approach that will prepare you for the coming day. Once these personality types are discerned in people the reflection of the opposing thought process in training and other planning will serve to balance the points of view from which their decisions are made. And this constant reaffirmation of opposites will in turn lead that person to a more effective planning process.

Tips for Balancing Preparedness Mindsets

• During training exercises, allow more limited and structured indulgence of the “What-ifs” brought up by response personnel.
• Scenario role-playing for oppositional thinking: Give a person who you know leans to one side of the issue a scenario to manage and then interject the opposing side of the thought process.
• Allow Possible-minded personnel to vent relevant concepts in a structured forum.
• Encourage Probable-minded personnel to make additional threat assessments in the Possible area as well as the Probable area.
• Set aside a limited portion of training exercises to address Possible scenarios as well as Probable ones.
• Do not refer to the Possibility aspect as “thinking outside the box,” as that buzz term will distract response personnel.

About the author
Chaplain Jim Stout has been a law enforcement officer for 18 years, beginning in military law enforcement with the U.S. Army. He then proceeded into local law enforcement in his native southern Oklahoma. Currently, he continues to serve in one of our nation’s most active federal law enforcement agencies. During his career, he has responded to two terrorist bombings and numerous other manmade and natural disasters. He maintains instructor certifications with several major trauma and stress foundations internationally. He also coaches boxing and karate and has medaled in several of these areas in the Arizona and International Police Olympics.