CASE STUDY:

The Westfield Emergency Operations Center (EOC) [named changed for privacy] was activated following a major storm that caused widespread flooding and infrastructure damage. Several city departments, including Public Works, Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), were called upon to coordinate the response.

The EOC Manager, newly appointed to the role, aimed to streamline communication and ensure all agencies worked together effectively. However, tensions began to rise as the response unfolded.

To maintain strict control over the flow of information, the EOC Manager implemented a policy requiring all communication to go through his office before it could be relayed to field units or partner agencies. The intent was to reduce confusion and prevent conflicting instructions.

Specific policies included:

• No direct communication between departments without first routing the message through the EOC Manager.
• Daily briefings limited to department heads, with minimal information shared at lower levels.
• Strict adherence to written updates instead of verbal communication to reduce “misinterpretation.”

Despite concerns raised by department leaders, the EOC Manager insisted on maintaining this centralized approach.

The result was a significant breakdown in communication:

• Delays in information sharing: Critical updates from the field were held up waiting for approval, slowing down decision-making during time-sensitive operations.
• Confusion in the field: Field personnel often received conflicting instructions as the delayed updates were eventually superseded by newer developments.
• Low morale: Field units and department leaders grew frustrated with the lack of trust and autonomy. Many began bypassing the EOC entirely, creating informal communication channels to “get things done.”
• Eroded trust: The lack of timely, clear communication led to a loss of confidence in the EOC’s ability to coordinate the response.

The EOC Manager’s well-intended approach inadvertently led to three common communication pitfalls:

1. Over-centralization of communication
2. Lack of trust in subordinate leaders
3. Failure to balance control with flexibility

While the intent was to create order and reduce errors, the execution caused more harm than good. Let’s explore how these pitfalls could have been avoided:

• Delegation of authority: Effective leaders trust their teams. Establishing clear roles and empowering department heads to relay information directly to their teams would have sped up the response and boosted morale.
• Two-way communication: Encouraging open dialogue and feedback from department heads would have provided the EOC Manager with critical insights while fostering collaboration.
• Structured but flexible communication protocols: Instead of rigid control, adopting flexible communication protocols (such as clearly defining when messages need approval versus when they can be relayed directly) could have maintained order without stifling operations.