Preparing, Planning, & Practicing Your Response To A Crisis May Be The Difference Between Managed Success & Failure
There is a point in every crisis when seconds stretch and compress at once. The meeting room grows crowded, phones erupt with alerts, and fragments of data arrive faster than the mind can process them. In that moment, everyone searches for direction, sometimes clarity emerges, sometimes authority, and often merely the quiet hope that someone else will take the lead.
Uncertainty in a crisis is inevitable, yet many organizations assume they will navigate that instant skillfully despite never having rehearsed it. In virtually every other field, this would seem unthinkable. No professional football team would forgo its offseason training, neglect to develop a playbook, and step onto the field believing raw talent alone will secure victory. No concert pianist would approach a grand piano before thousands without dedicating hours to rehearsal, trusting that instinct will fill every gap. We understand, almost instinctively, that excellence under pressure hinges on repetition, coordination and mutual trust built long before performance begins.
Yet in crisis management it is common to draft procedures, file them away, and reassure oneself that a binder exists somewhere. Organizations comfort themselves with the notion that when the crisis hits people will simply “figure it out.” A crisis quickly exposes the fragility of that assumption. As soon as something goes wrong, a cascade of practical questions floods in: who holds authority, which decisions take priority, which facts matter, how rumors must be distinguished from reality, who requires notification, what messages must be sent immediately and what can wait. These are operational demands that require rapid answers and punish any hesitation.
A crisis playbook provides structure, defining roles, responsibilities, escalation paths and communication protocols. It creates a shared vocabulary, reduces friction and offers a starting point. But no document can predict how individuals will respond when stakes are high. People who remain composed in board meetings may freeze under stress. Those who seldom speak may suddenly dominate every conversation. Tensions buried during normal operations can erupt once uncertainty enters the room. Lines of authority that appear clear on paper blur in practice.
These dynamics become visible only through practice, by sitting together, working through realistic scenarios and learning to navigate the discomfort of disagreement before it matters. Tabletop exercises, simulations and crisis panels are not designed to produce perfect answers. They reveal how decisions will actually be made when time is short and information remains incomplete. These sessions show where assumptions collide, who leans toward immediate action and who exercises caution, and which conflicts might emerge at the worst possible moment.
With no practice, organizations discover their true character mid‐crisis. With practice, they learn quietly in advance, when mistakes remain safe and corrections remain possible. Early decisions often shape everything that follows. Choices about life safety, operations, public messaging, regulatory engagement and overall strategy can become impossible to reverse. Even seemingly minor decisions constrain future options in ways that only become clear later.
When preparation is absent, uncertainty multiplies and improvisation sets in. Different functions interpret information through their own lenses, legal teams worry about exposure, communications teams worry about perception, operations teams worry about continuity, risk teams worry about escalation. Each believes it is supporting the response, but without alignment, support fractures into confusion. Manageable incidents spiral downward not because the initial problem was catastrophic, but because coordination fails under pressure.
I have witnessed crises in which the original issue was limited, yet a disjointed response magnified its impact. Conflicting messages spread to stakeholders. Decisions were delayed while teams argued over wording. Authority was unclear and initiative stalled. The organization lost control of the narrative not for lack of expertise, but for lack of cohesion.
Cohesion does not emerge spontaneously; it must be built. A crisis panel convened before a crisis changes everything. Bringing together leadership, legal, communications, operations, risk specialists and external advisors allows each participant to understand not only individual responsibilities, but also how others will view the same situation. That familiarity fosters trust, clarifies who leads and who advises, and defines how discussions turn into actions.
Such exercises also reveal the most important variable of all: human response to stress. Under pressure, people take mental shortcuts, fill informational gaps prematurely, react emotionally and guard themselves against blame. Self‐preservation can compete with the organization’s best interests, and transparency erodes when mistakes feel punishable instead of instructive. These reactions are not moral failings, but natural impulses. The only way to surface them safely is through realistic drills.
Emergency drills feel different from actual events precisely because participants know they are practicing. In a real crisis, true behavior emerges. Leaders who believe they will remain composed sometimes discover otherwise. Others learn they can steady an anxious team simply by slowing the pace and asking focused questions. Such insights cannot be gained from slides alone.
Preparation also transforms the role of external experts, law firms, communications agencies, forensic specialists and insurers. These advisors bring deep experience across industries, but they lack the living context of your organization’s culture, priorities and nuances. When internal teams are unprepared, external advisors fall into a reactive mode, scrambling to impose structure while simultaneously learning context. When teams have practiced thoroughly, advisors become force multipliers, moving swiftly, recommending precisely and shaping outcomes instead of merely containing damage.
Credibility in a crisis depends on alignment. Once messages diverge, trust erodes quickly. In a world where information circulates instantly and indefinitely, inconsistencies are recorded, shared and remembered. Stakeholders do not demand perfection; they demand coherence. They expect clear leadership, a genuine understanding of events and actions that match spoken commitments. Achieving all this demands far more work before a crisis than during it.
Organizations that manage crises effectively often leave little trace behind. Their issues do not dominate headlines. Their responses feel calm, deliberate and proportionate. Observers may chalk their success up to luck, but more often it is the result of rigorous preparation. That preparation is quiet, provides no immediate returns and competes against growth‐oriented initiatives. It requires time, attention and a willingness to imagine failure before success, discomfort before reassurance.
Yet it is this very work that enables an organization to act with confidence when it counts, confidence grounded in familiarity, built on shared experience and earned through practice. A crisis will always test an organization. The difference lies in whether that test becomes a moment of discovery or a painful confirmation. Whether leaders learn who they are under pressure or are exposed for who they hoped not to be. Planning matters, practicing matters more. The divide between reacting and responding is not instinct but preparation remembered under stress. And that preparation must begin long before anyone realizes it is needed.
Stay tuned for additional posts on Crisis Management – Who Has Gotten It Right…Or Wrong as well as What Is A Crisis Management Panel (And Do We Really Need It).
Let’s discuss how to ensure your crisis response may be improved to ensure you are ready. Click here to schedule a Discovery Session or use the Discovery Session button on my website.