How I Plan to Lead Safety, Security, and Humanitarian Access Team Differently.

September 23, 2025

Taking on the role of Safety and Security Manager isn’t just a career move for me—it’s a moment of reflection. After years of working in high-risk humanitarian settings, coordinating access, responding to emergencies, and supporting teams under pressure, I’ve come to realize something simple but powerful: what stays with you isn’t the protocols. It’s the people.

•  It’s the quiet resilience of a colleague who kept going when things got tough.

• It’s the trust built in a tense negotiation.

• It’s the moments when leadership meant listening, not instructing.

So as I prepare to lead a new safety team, I’m not walking in with a rigid manual. I’m walking in with a mindset—one shaped by experience, but grounded in something deeper: the belief that safety isn’t just about control. It’s about dignity. It’s about growth. It’s about shared responsibility. I call it Adaptive Leadership for Safety Teams

Seeing the team as people, not positions. I’ve learned that titles don’t tell the whole story. What matters is how people show up—how they think, how they respond, how they lead when no one’s watching.

Over time, I’ve noticed four leadership modes that tend to show up in every team:

• The Executor—steady under pressure, focused on getting things done. But sometimes so task-driven they miss the bigger picture.

•  The Observer—quiet, analytical, often the first to spot what others overlook. Yet sometimes hesitant to speak up.

•  The Initiator—full of energy and ideas, always pushing for better. But occasionally disruptive when structure is needed.

• The Facilitator—empathetic, diplomatic, the bridge between us and the communities we serve. Though sometimes avoids conflict or tough calls.

And then there are the patterns that don’t fit neatly into categories, but still shape how teams function:

• The silence that creeps in when someone feels unheard.

•  The rigid compliance that hides a fear of failure.

• The over-reliance on hierarchy that stifles creativity.

•  The quiet withdrawal that signals burnout.

I don’t see these as flaws. I see them as signals—clues that help me understand where to support, where to challenge, and where to listen more closely. My goal isn’t to fix people. It’s to create a space where they can grow, reflect, and lead in ways that feel real and adaptive. Leadership isn’t one-size-fits-all. It shifts depending on the situation. That’s why I’ll be using a tool I’ve developed—an Adaptive Grid—to match people to the context they’re best suited for.

• In emergencies, Executors and Observers will take the lead.

•  In negotiations, Facilitators and Initiators will step forward.

• During assessments, Observers will guide the process.

We’ll revisit the grid regularly, adjusting as we learn and grow together.

 I believe leadership should be shared—not just delegated. That’s why I’ll be introducing “Hat Exchange” sessions. Once a month, we’ll sit together and step into each other’s roles. The Executor will try negotiating. The Facilitator will analyze risk. The Initiator will lead a debrief. These sessions aren’t about performance. They’re about perspective. About seeing ourselves—and each other—differently.

To track our growth, I’ll introduce a Team Maturity Index. It’s not a scorecard. It’s a mirror. We’ll look at how we’re doing in four areas: initiative, critical thinking, communication, and learning from incidents. The goal isn’t perfection—it’s progress. And that progress will guide how we train, delegate, and prepare for what’s ahead.

Transforming a safety team into a strategic, empowered unit takes time. I’ve designed a rollout plan that balances structure with flexibility—leaving room for feedback, growth, and adaptation.

1. Stage One Laying the Groundwork (Months 1–2):  I’ll start by observing how the team operates—how they respond under pressure, how they communicate, and where their strengths lie. I’ll introduce the leadership modes and begin mapping each team member. We’ll pilot the Adaptive Grid and start assigning roles based on context, not hierarchy.

2. Stage Two Shifting Perspective (Month 3):  We’ll launch our first Hat Exchange session. Team members will step into new roles, reflect on their leadership styles, and begin to see each other with fresh eyes. I’ll also introduce the Team Maturity Index to start tracking our growth.

3.  Stage Three Refining and Embedding (Months 4–5): With feedback from the team, I’ll refine the grid and the exchange format. We’ll begin linking our leadership model to real incidents—asking not just “what happened?” but “how did we respond?” and “what could we do differently next time?”

4. Stage Four Consolidating and Scaling (Month 6): I’ll consolidate what we’ve learned and present the model to senior leadership—not as a finished product, but as a living framework. I’ll propose scaling it to other field teams, integrating it into onboarding, and using it to shape future training. Most importantly, I’ll ask the team: Do you feel more empowered? More prepared? More seen?

5. Stage Five Monitoring and Prototyping (Months 7–12): In this final phase, I’ll monitor how the system is working, prototype refinements, and apply corrective measures where needed. This will help ensure the model stays responsive, relevant, and grounded in real field experience.

 What I Hope This Creates

•  A team that doesn’t just follow safety protocols—but shapes them.

•  A team that doesn’t just respond to incidents—but learns from them.

•  A team that protects not just operations—but the values we stand for.

•  In this role, I won’t just manage—I’ll mentor.

•  I won’t just enforce—I’ll empower.

•  And I won’t just lead—I’ll listen.

Because in humanitarian work, safety isn’t just about keeping people out of harm’s way—it’s about making sure they feel respected, supported, and valued every step of the way.

 As excited as I am about this plan, I know that no leadership model is perfect. Adaptive Leadership is bold, human-centered, and deeply participatory—but it also comes with its own set of risks. And I believe that naming those risks is part of leading responsibly.

On the positive side, this approach has the power to transform how safety teams operate. It empowers people beyond compliance. It encourages initiative, reflection, and shared ownership. It humanizes leadership—turning it into a process of growth, not just control. It improves decision-making by matching people to context, and it builds a culture of learning that can ripple across the organization. If done well, it’s scalable, replicable, and deeply aligned with the values we claim to uphold in humanitarian work.

But I also know what could challenge it. Some team members might resist role fluidity. They may feel uncertain or even threatened by the idea of stepping into unfamiliar leadership modes. In emergencies, the system might feel too abstract—too slow for the urgency of the moment. And if the broader organization expects rigid hierarchy or traditional reporting, this model might seem unconventional or “soft.”

There’s also the emotional side. The Team Maturity Index, if not framed carefully, could feel like judgment rather than support. Hat Exchange sessions might stir discomfort. And carving out time for reflection in fast-paced environments will require real commitment—from me, and from the team.

That’s why I’m approaching this plan not as a fixed blueprint, but as a living framework. I’ll start small. I’ll listen closely. I’ll adjust as we go. I’ll make sure the tools feel like invitations—not evaluations. And I’ll advocate for the strategic value of this approach, not just its emotional appeal.

Because at the end of the day, I’m not trying to build a perfect system. I’m trying to build a team that thinks, adapts, and leads with dignity. A team that feels empowered to protect not just operations—but each other. And if we can do that—even imperfectly—I’ll consider it a success worth building on.