One Thing Leads to Another
Communicating is complex & requires a loop of information exchange
By Billy Schmidt

“The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” -George Bernard Shaw

Communicating effectively is a necessary part of operating in complex and dangerous environments. It reinforces observations and provides needed information, leading to safer operations and better performance. The basic process for communicating is complex and requires a “loop” of information exchange to overcome obstacles and frictions.

In this month’s FF-360 column, I’ll define the communication loop and explain how obstacles threaten the flow of information exchange, leading to unsafe practices and ineffective execution. Finally, we’ll look at two examples, one successful and one not so successful, of communicating under stressful conditions.

A Loop Makes the Connection
To understand a complex process such as communication, it often helps to use a model. The one I find most accurate to describe communication is a loop.

Effective communication travels in a cycle. It begins when the sender “encodes” the idea they want to transmit. That requires choosing the right wording, technique or other form of communication to convey the idea—speaking, writing or making hand signals or gestures. Once transmitted, the idea travels through a series of “filters.” Filters are obstacles that cloud or dilute the intended idea (we will discuss obstacles more in a minute).

Next, the receiver (the person the idea is being conveyed to) becomes part of the loop. The receiver “receives” the message by listening to what was said, reading what was written, or watching the hand-signals or gestures. Once the receiver has the message, they “decode” it. This is where the work really begins.

The receiver must now interpret the choice of words, body language or tone of voice to translate the message. Such interpretation is based on the receiver’s perception, and everyone’s perception is different. Ask a room of 10 people to describe the same object, and most likely, you’ll get 10 different answers.
The whole cycle starts over when the receiver responds back to the sender.

Communication Breakdowns
Obstacles can threaten to interrupt the constant flow required to complete the communication loop, including inadequate or inoperable technology and the human element.

Although technology can help or hinder communication, it’s not the root cause of most communication problems. Most often, human factors are the culprit. Misperceptions, the omission of important information, pre-conceived notions, or just plain not paying attention are all human factors that can weaken the communication link.

Mark Twain said, “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” To make matters worse, the 500 most common words have over 14,000 meanings. The very basic question becomes, “Is what you said really what they heard?”

Communication Frictions
Communication is also challenged by frictions, which can affect every level and every stage of an operation. Frictions can include uncertain instructions, insufficient instructions, disregarded commands, commands with difficult prerequisites, poor or incorrect terminology, or failed or cutoff communication. Unnoticed or unaddressed communication frictions will eventually build and overcome any operation, leading to misperceptions, miscalculations and missed opportunities.

In a dangerous and highly stressful environment like the fireground, frictions are even more common. That’s why it’s important for firefighters and officers to analyze and address the variety of frictions that can interfere with communication.

Command and communication are the centerpieces that allow fire crews to operate. They are interdependent. Good commanders with poor communication are no better than bad commanders with good communication. Both good command and good communication performance is required in dangerous and complex environments.
Now let’s take a look at some examples of good and bad communication.


Example of a Critical Communications Failure
Aug. 5, 1949; Mann Gulch, Mont. Less than 2 hours after a group of 15 firefighters parachuted into a fiery gulch, crew leader Wagner Dodge found himself facing the event of a lifetime. Dodge’s ability to communicate with his crew, quickly and effectively, would mean the difference between a safe escape and death.

In his book, The Leadership Moment, author Michael Useem describes the most damaging thing to Dodge’s credibility as “a management style that fostered little two-way communication.” Dodge didn’t say much, nor did he look for information from his people. This lack of communication, or information exchange, diluted the trust and compliance needed between Dodge and his crew for a quick response during an unexpected event.

At one point, as a wall of fire was racing toward them, Dodge told his crew to drop their gear—a sensible command for a more rapid movement away from the blaze toward safety. But the crew, because there was no communication connection established with Dodge prior to the event, had a hard time understanding what their leader was thinking. Was he asking them to shed important tools that they believed defined them as a wildfire crew? Tools they had been taught would protect them? As a result, many crewmembers kept their tools, and, weighted down by the gear, failed to make a safe escape. Less than an hour after their jump, only three of the 15 firefighters would be alive.

The bottom line: To build trust and understanding, especially during complex and dangerous operations, people must explain themselves early and speak up often. Little or no communication can be a prescription for disaster.

Read more about Mann Gulch: The Leadership Moment by Michael Useem and Young Men and Fire by Norman Maclean.

Example of a Successful Communication Operation
January 2009; Hudson River, N.Y. American Airlines Flight 1549 departed New York with 155 people on board. Within 90 seconds after take-off, the aircraft was involved in a catastrophic incident. A bird strike had seriously damaged the aircraft, creating a very challenging event that required a quick response and effective communication from the flight crew.

Realizing the intensity of the situation, Captain Sullenberger immediately communicated clearly and directly to his first officer that he now had control of the airplane. He put his hand on the flight controls and said, “My aircraft.” The first officer answered, “Your aircraft.” A communication exchange, or loop, that was built on prior training and trust was successfully completed during a dangerous and complex event. Effective communication, between the flight crew and other support agencies, was an important factor leading to the successful water landing and rescue of everyone on board Flight 1549.

A Final Word
The next FF-360 column on communication will further analyze communication frictions and how they bungle command and control—and how to prevent them and improve performance.
Until next time, get prepared, be ready, and stay safe!

Billy Schmidt is a district chief assigned to the 3rd battalion with Palm Beach (Fla.) County Fire Rescue. An adjunct instructor for the department’s Training and Safety Division, he has a master’s degree in organizational leadership, a bachelor’s degree in human resource management and an associate’s degree in fire science. He’s a member of FireRescue magazine’s Editorial Board.


Copyright © Elsevier Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. SUBSCRIBE to FIRERESCUE