Crisis situation: A team-specific technical language helps

Don't think of a pink elephant! If this is difficult for you now, you are not alone. Thinking and wanting sometimes drift apart. This is due to physiological, psychological and situational factors that are also at work in safety-related situations. This can be corrected.

The example with the pink elephant shows that humans transfer verbalizations into mental images. The ability to do this varies, but only very few people have a very low level of it. Mental trainers use this ability to achieve better performance with visualizations. In security research, so-called "shared mental models" are used to make participants talk about what they have in common (cf. Horn & Strohschneider 2005). These images serve to ensure that the situation is adequately grasped and misunderstandings are minimized. Why does this work? Starting from this question, this text discusses the limits of processing ability in stressful situations and shows how communication errors arise. In addition, approaches are described on how to arm oneself against them.

Processing time and sense of time

The human brain receives an estimated 11 billion units of information every second. In consciousness, only about 40 of these are processed (cf. Kopp 2015). This shows that consciousness is limited by an enormous reduction in data. This fact is particularly relevant in crisis situations, when a lot of information has to be processed and decisions have to be made quickly. In this context, there are aspects by which the situation is exacerbated. For this purpose, we take a closer look at language processing and information exchange. In language research, it was determined that people record and process about three words per second. This information is stored in the working memory for about five seconds and is thereby related to each other. This duration is called the present tense duration (cf. Ungerer 1997). What does the figure of around five seconds mean now?

In lectures, there are speakers who captivate the audience with their performance. With others, you almost fall asleep. People experience the duration of time differently: In one case, time seems to fly by, in the other it almost stops. Presumably, the rhetorical skills of the bored speaker work against one's own way of thinking. If this person speaks in endlessly long sentences, then one cannot follow the content and loses interest. One begins to digress mentally or to become restless oneself. Perhaps one tries to remember what was said. In any case, this situation is problematic because information is not processed. However, this is not enough. There is another blind spot in this situation, which an affected person does not even notice. The so-called auditory speech failure - called lacuna - leads to the fact that the spoken word is not processed (cf. Ungerer 2006). It is blocked, so to speak, because the processing process is overloaded. What is said during a lacuna is completely missing. Now, the human brain is able to fill in such "errors" without being noticed. A well-known effect is the "blind spot" of the eye. It is known that there are no sensory cells in this place in the eye. So there is a spot in the visual perception which does not provide any data. In one's own perception, one does not see this gap. It is filled by neuronal processing. For this purpose, the stimuli of the adjacent sensory cells are used. This spot is quasi "painted over". The same happens in hearing with the sensory lacuna. The lacuna is "painted over". The affected persons do not realize that the overload of processing has led to loss of information.

Information is missed in crisis situations

Let's come back to the present duration at this point. This is that period of time in which persons connect perceptions in such a way that they represent the present, so to speak. Earlier it was already stated that this lasts about five seconds. Time is relative. Beautiful moments fly by, under time pressure time runs out. In unpleasant situations it seems to stand still for it. The present duration also seems to be influenced by the sense of time and the general conditions. The present duration is not a constant. It reduces under mental stress or also during phases of increased pulse. The problem is that the present duration is responsible for the ability to understand a sentence. If the sentence is longer than the present duration, the throttling of processing sets in, the lacuna. For crisis situations it is significant that the present duration is reduced. Thus, there is less processing time for verbal information. In stress, lacuna occurs more rapidly. One no longer processes around fifteen words, but only nine to twelve. One misses information! (cf. Ungerer 2006).

What to do?

Two major factors are crucial when information processing deteriorates: exceptionally high stress and inefficient communication patterns. Both can be worked on, and improvement can be achieved for both with specific training. Since both topics offer very extensive approaches, this technical paper will be limited to the area of communication. It is important to note that only a coherent overall concept can ensure a high level of effectiveness. Security must be thought of holistically (cf. Hofinger 2008). Systemic approaches deal with the processes, the technologies used, the people and the interaction of these areas. Only the consistent joint consideration of all areas creates success. In this sense, it is important that communication, associated training and exercise procedures are also coordinated with the overall concept (cf. Schaub 2006).

What are the areas of a coherent communication training? Training must take place at the individual level as well as within the team (see Kanki & Helmreich & Anca 2010). Only the coordination leads to coherent and structured processes. At the same time, joint exercises and training sessions help members of non-permanent teams to get to know each other better, making constructive use of strengths and weaknesses. Staff exercises or crisis scenarios require clear assignment of responsibilities and the creation of a common understanding and shared images. At the same time, a team-specific technical language is created. This should be created in a controlled manner so that it is functional in the event of a crisis with external elements. Ambiguities lead to misunderstandings and slower processing. Developing standardized communication has more than one function in this respect (cf. Horn & Strohschneider 2005).

Take a team test

Standardized communication leads to shared images and the associated conception of the terms. These are, for example, the "shared mental models" mentioned at the beginning (cf. Horn & Strohschneider 2005). If you succeed in creating shared images in the course of preparation, training and exercises, these will help the team to talk about the same things in the crisis. For this purpose, make a test in the team: Ask the employees to draw a table on a sheet of paper in five minutes. Then compare the results with each other. You will see that tables are depicted everywhere, but in different perspectives, shapes and colors. You will also see different objects. The same applies to the different understandings of procedures, processes or even terms. In a given team, similar and the same words are used, but images and understandings are different.

What is the benefit of creating shared images?

First, semantically unambiguous terms are better processed (cf. Ungerer 2006). This reduces the likelihood of a lacuna; the team members do not have to think about what is meant. At the same time, the common images and terms mean that the associated contexts are grasped more quickly. This means that they can be processed more quickly and better connected to the current situation. You save "brain energy", so to speak, and avoid misunderstandings.

So how do you incorporate these insights into your day-to-day operations?

Improvement approaches - organizational integration

The prerequisite of improving human performance in an organizational context is that a comprehensive systemic analysis has first been conducted as a baseline. The arrangement of instruments in aircraft can cause crashes in emergency situations. Incorrectly arranged process flows can lead to accidents despite optimal communication. Only the holistic analysis minimizes the dangers (cf. Russ et al. 2013).

In communication itself, it is important to create clear common images and understandings. Train efficient and clear communication for stressful situations. Keep it short and simple! Make sure that the communication structures of all participants are designed in such a way that they promote each other and the flow of information can be maintained. Remember the example of the pink elephant. Communicate clearly what is wanted and what facts are available. Avoid negations.

You can reduce restrictions under stress by adapting language and communication. At the same time, you increase efficiency in the team and thus also reduce the load itself. For optimal development, use a combination of individual training, joint training in the team and realistic exercises that are accompanied by experienced personnel and improved together.

Author: Dr. Karl Testor, management consultant for leadership and communication, founder of the Institute for Neurocognition and Leadership. As a career officer in the Austrian Armed Forces, he has practical experience with team leadership in crisis situations. He teaches and conducts research at the Theresian Military Academy and National Defense Academy.

Sources

• Hofinger, G. (2008): Errors and accidents. In: Badke-Schaub, P & Hofinger, G. & Lauche, K. (Eds.): Human Factors. Springer. S. 36-55.

• Horn, G. & Strohschneider, S. (2005): Communication in the crisis team. In: Hofinger, G. (Ed.): Communication in critical situations. Frankfurt am Main. Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft. S. 101-20.

• Kanki, B. G. & Helmreich, R. L. & Anca, J. (2010): Crew resource management. Academic Press, an Elsevier Imprint.

• Kopp D. (2015): 11 million vs. 40 bits. In: Focusing. essentials. Springer, Wiesbaden. S. 27-8.

• Russ, A. L. et al. (2013): The science of human factors: separating fact from fiction. In: BMJ Quality & Safety 2013; 22. pp. 802-8.

• Schaub, H. (2006): Disorders and errors in thinking and problem solving. Na.

• Ungerer, D. (1997): Stress and leadership behavior in operations. In Mitschke T. (Ed.), Handbook for Technical Operations Leaders. Stuttgart. Kohlhammer.

• Ungerer, D. (2006): Stress in communication - gaining knowledge through speech control. In: Schwan, S. & Litzcke, S. M. (Eds.): Message Psychology 4. Brühl Rheinland. Federal University of Applied Sciences for Public Administration. S. 87-116.