Thinking “outside the box”–when is it an effective tool, and when is it an excuse for non-conformance or non-compliance with operational practices? Are there rules that govern creative thinking? And, even more importantly, how does it affect our safety at the incident scene? Can–or rather should–we create some ground rules on this issue? I suggest we should.
Creativity Gone Wrong?
Imagine that you’re part of a response team at a serious hazmat incident. Your community and fellow firefighters are counting on you to mitigate the problem. The team begins its important work and the whole unit is in sync.
Without forewarning, the senior hazmat technician takes an action that places himself and his fellow teammates in harm’s way. Everyone is forced to react to the new set of circumstances. Fortunately, the team is able to recover from the action and resolve the incident.
So why did the team member deviate from established protocol? This thought troubles other team members, and in fact, they feel betrayed.
During a heated post-incident analysis of the event, the technician says he deviated from protocol because he was thinking “outside the box.” In his estimation, the event would’ve been resolved with reduced risk to everyone, had he been successful. He argues that he saw an opportunity and he took it; had he hit a home run, so to speak, it would have proved his point. Unfortunately, things didn’t go as planned and the situation worsened. Now, the technician feels he should be given credit for his “outside-the-box” thinking. Instead, he’s being criticized by the team.
Is there merit to the technician’s argument? After all, he was only trying to help. Should creative thinking be allowed only when it results in a home run? That seems a bit unjust, and it creates a Catch-22: We won’t know if our idea works unless we try it. So if we have rigid, established protocols, when can we implement innovative ideas?
On the other hand, response teams rely on everyone to carry out specific assignments. They expect members to take certain actions. In this case, failure to do a specific task as directed placed the entire team, not to mention the community, at risk.
So did the team have a right to be upset? Did the technician’s actions jeopardize the mission? If so, when and where can we implement our “outside-the-box” ideas?
Rules for Creative Thinking
I suggest the following rules to help us determine when thinking “outside the box” is appropriate in an industry governed by policy.
1) Don’t think outside the box for the sake of thinking outside the box. Is there a reason to be “out of the box”? If not, stay in the box! Team members don’t deviate without reason. There must be a catalyst for creative thinking. Failure to conform can be interpreted as rebellion. Don’t alter things when the solution at hand is very familiar and very effective. Be predictable.
2) Identify those affected by the “out-of-the-box” thinking. Are you the only affected party? If so, be bold. Feel free to think and react without restriction. Use your imagination and creativity. As the only impacted party, you’re free to assume the risk of your actions. However, when your mission and actions are critical to the rest of the group, proceed with caution. Teams are far more effective when everyone is in sync.
3) Forewarn. When you resort to “out-of-the-box” thinking, it should be announced in advance. It’s like playing basketball and making a long shot “off the glass”; you have to call it beforehand for the intent to be believed. You can’t try something unique and then, as an afterthought, suggest that it was done on purpose, regardless of the outcome. Innovative thinking must be purposeful. It must have intent and that intent must be understood in advance.
“Outside-the-box” thinking is not an excuse for ignorance or failure to follow proper procedure. So you must have a way of differentiating between individuals who are creative and those who are unwilling or unable to follow rules or execute a plan.
With that in mind, invite scrutiny of new ideals and allow others to look at them critically. If a crisis or unmet need exists, all would welcome new thinking. But the new thinking must be examined and deliberated. Once this occurs, there will be less complaining about the decision or resulting outcome, even where results are less than satisfactory. Everyone knows the rationale for the decision in advance and is given an opportunity for input.
4) Timing is critical. Creative approaches work best when there’s time to test their premise or when other standard approaches are unavailable. This usually occurs in training where others have an opportunity to react or adjust to the deviation without fear of serious consequences or time constraints.
Likewise, “out-of-the-box” thinking works better when others can reasonably anticipate a change in a course of action. For instance, if team members understood the technician was unable to follow pre-scripted procedures because of circumstances beyond his control (situational), they would adjust accordingly. Example: When equipment failure forces a change in tactics, actions that are planned and drilled repeatedly may be altered due to that unanticipated failure. Therefore, although originally expecting actions that are tested, familiar and proven, the team could foresee a change because the technician has no recourse but to deviate from original plans. Hence, the team would expect some alteration and react accordingly.
It’s important to note that in either case (training or situational), a less than desirable outcome may result from “outside-the-box” thinking. But, with forewarning and reason for creative thinking, unsuccessful results will be reduced, minimized and used as opportunities for improvement. Without rationale, a deviation in plans likely results in a poor outcome.
Final Thoughts
With the aforementioned rules in mind, let’s reconsider our initial scenario and when creative thinking might have application. It’s reasonable for the technician to adjust tactics if existing procedures are ineffective or worsening the situation. This is especially true if safety is compromised. Likewise, it’s reasonable to adjust tactics if unanticipated circumstances occur, altering conditions and requiring immediate adjustment (i.e., equipment failure). Preferably, in either case, the technician would forewarn others. However, in those circumstances, deviation can be anticipated, or at least understood, by the team. Absent considerations like those, the technician should be knowledgeable of, and compliant with, existing department practices. Otherwise, other team members have every right to be upset with the actions of the non-conforming technician who places everyone at risk.
Thus, in sum, when considering taking a step that doesn’t fit with a standard operating guideline, ask yourself these questions: Is there a reason to be “out of the box”? Will it improve the situation? Who does this situation affect, internally and externally? Then, forewarn people–tell them in advance so they can anticipate your actions. And finally, try your action in training or when situational circumstances demand it. This should help us determine when “outside-the-box” thinking is appropriate–and safe.
