Last week I had the pleasure of being invited to speak at a conference on incident management. This two-conference covered a variety of topics ranging from preparedness, response, and recovery; and while there was a lot of discussion on mass shootings, the conference covered all hazards. There were a number of great presenters providing interesting insight and information. Of course one of the most interesting and effective ways of learning, in public safety and other industries, is through lessons learned of actual incidents and events. We had some detailed reviews of various incidents, including the Dallas shooting, the Aurora theater shooting, and the San Bernardino shooting. These had extraordinary detail and discussion, driven by presenters who worked those incidents.
There was one presenter, however, who enjoyed telling stories of incidents which he had no involvement in. Generally, most people who do such a thing have the common sense of keeping it to brief illustrative points based on specific factual information. If someone is taking a scholarly approach, we would see more detail, but based upon their research and interviews. This particular presenter, we’ll call him Bart (name changed), took neither approach. He was a retired Sherriff’s deputy from a county in California. He clearly had enough credentials to get himself invited to things, but if this was his general pattern of presenting, I’m guessing he rarely gets invited back.
Aside from his presentations not at all addressing the topic, he liked to tell stories, speaking at length about incidents and locations he has never been involved in. He even admitted to not having any involvement, and instead citing ‘something he read’ as his source. This would be sketchy on the surface, but it was even more frustrating when he told stories of NYC 9/11 and recent events in the National Capital Region with myself and a colleague seated at the front table… myself having worked a variety of aspects of 9/11 and my colleague who presently works in the National Capital Region.
Bart presented twice, once the first day, and again on the second day. While we casted a couple of corrections his way on the first day, we were mostly shocked that he would venture into such territory, providing information that was at best 80% fact. During his presentation the second morning, we were much less forgiving. His continued anecdotes about these areas and incidents were relentless, and his lack of facts in the telling of these stories was simply unprofessional. We called him out on it several times and it was clear from body language and general lack of interest that the room fully understood what was going on.
My general rule of thumb is to speak from experience. Don’t tell someone else’s story. That’s not to say you can’t speak about an incident or event you weren’t involved in, just make sure you stick to the facts and be respectful that you have ventured into someone else’s territory. If you were involved in an incident, you may be inclined to be a bit more casual about your manner because you lived it, but if you weren’t at the incident, keep it formal, cite your fact, associate it with your point, and move on. Don’t be Bart.
Needless to say, I had several conversations with the conference organizer, who had no prior experience with Bart and was rather appalled at his presentations.
When in doubt, speak from experience. Don’t be Bart.
© 2017 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP