Much is made of the importance of proper planning to anticipate and manage a crisis. Crisis planning is essential, as long as it is coupled with a clear-eyed view of what, in the real world, implementing it will be like. No one truly knows how effective a plan will be until a crisis is confronted.
But there is another preparatory step that may be even more important — one that is certainly harder to plan for and to execute. That dynamic has more to do with determining success in managing a crisis than almost anything else, and it is essential if you’re going to learn from the experience.
What matters most is understanding how decisions will be made once the crisis is underway.
The Uncertainty Principle
Planning assumes order. Decision-making unfolds in uncertainty.
At the heart of crisis decision-making is evaluating not only what is known, but what is not known. Decisions made solely on the former often go awry. And yet, leaders naturally ask: what alternative do they have? They can only decide based on the facts they have in hand, not the ones they do not.
That is sensible—but not a fully realistic view of how crises develop.
The more important discipline is identifying what must still be learned before final decisions are made. Considering what is unknown, and what may later emerge, is often more consequential than acting quickly on partial certainty.
This is where crisis management becomes something of a Rubik’s Cube.
Imagine discovering evidence of fraud or corruption by a senior executive. There may be documentation of what was said and done and even a corroborating party, such as a whistleblower. Some of the “known unknowns” are straightforward: Who else may have been involved? Who may have witnessed it? Who was harmed by it?
But beyond those known unknowns lie the “unknown unknowns,” beginning with motivation. Why would someone commit such an act knowing the potential consequences.
Read the full article at O’Dwyer’s.