The shattering terrorist attacks and the causalities associated with them have resulted in the focus on security leadership issues. Terrorist attacks are often unexpected and the incidences bring panic and disruption to the organizations affected. The disruption makes it difficult to set up effective response plans because communication flow is disrupted making it difficult to coordinate response activities. The security leadership plan is based on being prepared and proactive in handling and responding to terrorist attacks through the establishment of a co-operative effort plan (Pischke & Hallman, 2008). The proactive approach is meant to enhance psychological preparedness which prevents battle fatigue.
The security leadership plan contains a purpose statement, security strategy, timelines, responsibility delineation, and assessment. The plan begins with the purpose statement which encapsulates the spirit and approach to terrorist attacks responses. The statement serves as the cornerstone for the organization’s policy and procedures, activities, and decisions (Gates, 2010). This helps members to act immediately an attack occurs in a manner that every individual is familiar.
The strategy focuses on short-range operational activities and contains a clearly thought out method of prioritization. Terrorist attacks may occur in different magnitudes and, therefore, the aspect of response should match up to the challenge presented. The strategy includes elements such as response tactics, procedures such as the use of force, the number of personnel who respond to the alarm, and the type of equipment to use. Members of the response group should have access to organizational leadership so that briefings can be held to set out a direction in the response plan and address the underlying uncertainties (Bethune, Sasirekha, Sahu, Cawthorn & Pullyblank, 2010). Communication is an important part of the strategy element and involves sharing information that includes threats and warnings before and during an incident. In the response to attacks, it is important to align response strategy with the threat and the system effectiveness. The strategy is significant in terms of security operations planning because it sets out specific plans and procedures that include evacuation, response, and recovery plans.
The aspect of responsibility delineation offers the prospect for the development of a more integrated response framework. This is the basis of harmonization and managing the process. Leadership efforts to combat terrorist attacks are fragmented considering there is no single focal point overseeing the many functions conducted by other departments in the security docket (Church, 2010). Since the security team is usually made up of different agents or individuals, it is important to assign roles based on the expertise of the individuals and the areas of response. In assigning roles, leadership responsibilities will be shared in practice and this helps to fulfill the major responsibility of overseeing the response and operations.
The last component is the assessment of the effectiveness of the response which will be determined to identify areas that may need improvement and those that may be carried forward in the long-run. It is at this point that debriefings are vital because the team is involved in identifying the strong and weak areas and a report on the response action is developed. Processing the facts of the operations promotes group cohesion thus reducing the cases of self-blame (Miller, 2002). The effectiveness of the leadership plan is critical at this stage considering that the security team will require an approach that takes into consideration the teamwork rather than who did what individually.
The security director is responsible for coordinating the physical and technical security areas. The role of the director is to give advice, suggest alternatives, and help to solve underlying problems in the plan. The director also has a role in developing the security procedures and although not all individuals may be responsible for the security functions, the director deals with the aspect of awareness on the security policies and procedures. The roles can be achieved by the director being actively involved in operations and also by interjecting into the decision-making process together with the managers. This means that the director must be able to fundamentally understand security operations in relation to the organization operations.
References
Bethune, R., Sasirekha, G., Sahu, A., Cawthorn, S., & Pullyblank, A. (2011). Use of briefings and debriefings as a tool in improving team work, efficiency, and communication in the operating theatre. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 87, 331-334.
Church, K. K. (2010). Enhancing Unity of Effort in Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and Civil Support through Interdisciplinary Education. Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, California. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518559.pdf
Gates, L. P. (2010). Strategic Planning With Critical Success Factors and Future Scenarios: An Integrated Strategic Planning Framework (No. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-037). Retrieved from Research Showcase @ CMU, http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&context=sei
Miller, J. (2002). Affirming Flames: Debriefing survivors of the World Trade Center Attack. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 2(1), 85-94. Oxford University Press.
Pischke, P. J., & Hallman, C. J. (2008). Effectiveness of Critical Event Debriefings during Operation Iraqi Freedom II. The Army Medical Department Journal, 18-23.
