Issues + Insights March-April 2007

Past Issues + Insights

Crowd at train stationTactics: Sometimes good decisions lead to bad outcomes

Second-guessing critical decisions and their outcomes

The morning after the Virginia Tech tragedy, there is a predictable amount of second-guessing going on in the media, around water-coolers and amongst security and crisis management professionals.  What were police doing during the two hour period between the first shooting incident and the subsequent massacre?  Why did university officials allow classes to continue?  When did they implement a lock down, with students contained in their classrooms, and did this expose students to more or less danger? Why didn’t anyone recognize danger-signs in the shooter long before he turned violent?  No doubt there will be scores of difficult questions in the hours, days, weeks and months to come.

But today, based on the publicly available information, there is no evidence to suggest authorities made bad decisions during the crisis.  Yet, the outcome was horrific.  There is a natural tendency for people to assume that, because the incident ended so terribly, it must have been mismanaged.  During this period of “Monday morning quarterbacking,” it would be prudent to discuss a phenomenon that frequently happens after a critical incident.

As human beings, we have a natural tendency to assess the quality of a decision based on the outcome of that decision.  We look at an event, including the attack yesterday at Virginia Tech, and are tempted to say:  because the outcome of the decision was bad, the decision must have been poor.  Conversely, and often more dangerous to an organization, we look at outcomes that were good and decide that the decisions which led to those outcomes must have been good decisions.  This causal assumption is, simply put, fallacious.  And, it can be dangerous.

Early in my career as an army officer, I witnessed numerous situations where the right decision preceded a poor outcome.  Simply put, people did all the right things – and things still ended up horribly.  This is particularly the case when there are active elements in a situation (“the enemy” in the case of military operations) who are working hard to prevent a positive outcome.

I also saw many circumstances where terrible decisions were made, but things turned out reasonably well, just the same.  People would walk away from these events saying to themselves “wow, we did good.”  Unfortunately, they were very likely to remember the decisions they made and how well they turned out and assume that B happened because of A.  And, they were far more likely to make the same mistakes again – perhaps without the same good fortune – and precipitate a negative outcome.

Just because a crisis ends poorly does not mean the decisions made during the crisis were wrong.  They may have been, but the outcome alone is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.  Someone at VTI decided to lock down the students.  Just because dozens of students were subsequently killed in those classrooms does not necessarily mean that was the wrong decision to make.  To assume so, would require us to also assume that we live in a zero-risk universe.  We don’t.  There is never a zero-risk option. 

Every decision in a crisis involves weighing risk versus risk.  There was a risk in locking down the students.  There was a risk in not doing so.  On balance, we simply do not yet have enough evidence to automatically praise or condemn the decisions that was made.

Crisis managers must understand this principle.  It has two ramifications. 

First, even if you make all the right decisions – things may still go pear-shaped.  That’s a risk.  Your job as a crisis manager is to manage the risk as best you can, choosing the options that are most likely to a) move you closer to strategic success and b) minimize (although you can never eliminate) the overall risk.

Second, it’s important to note that just because a crisis turns out well – as it often does – it doesn’t mean you necessarily made the right decisions.  This is a particularly dangerous fallacy because it affects subsequent preparation and assumptions for the next crisis. 

During the SARS crisis in Toronto , for example, a number of poor decisions were made by authorities – yet, the crisis was eventually resolved and victory was claimed.  In many cases, those bad decisions have gone unrecognized because things turned out OK.  But, they were still bad decisions and we may not be as lucky next time around.  Today, as we prepare for a potential pandemic situation, many in authority are basing their plans on the decisions “validated” during SARS.  Except, those many of those decisions were not validated.  Sometimes things turn out OK despite bad decisions – not because of good ones.

So, as we learn more about the circumstances leading up to and during the Virgina Tech crisis, we should all keep in mind that bad things sometimes happen despite good decisions – and that good things sometimes happen despite bad decisions. 

This phenomenon is a powerful one – especially in political charged circumstances where assumptions and conclusions are drawn in public based on little or no valid evidence:  exactly what happens in the media-facilitated environment of a major violent crisis. 

It is vital that crisis managers understand this phenomenon and work hard to mitigate it – by insisting on disciplined, evidence-based after action reviews to understand what decisions were made and why they were made –  what evidence and circumstances they were based on – and how they contributed to the eventual outcome.  This type of disciplined approach can help draw out valid lessons for future crisis – and, more importantly, prevent invalid lessons from crippling future risk and crisis management efforts.

Are you drawing the right lessons from your crisis experiences?

Top

Strategy: Crisis management is not enough!

Want to start an endless discussion?  Ask a group of your peers to explain the difference between management and leadership.

Obviously, there are many different schools of thought on this difference.  Some would argue that management and leadership are two, distinctly different, functions.  Others would suggest that leadership is a quality inherent in good management.  Still others would suggest that management is a subset of leadership.

My experience, such as it has been over 25 years of leading people through often arduous circumstances to achieve occasionally ridiculous objectives on four continents, leads me to believe the last group of philosophers have it right.  All good leaders are good managers.  But, not all good managers are good leaders.

Locked up in my library is an ancient (mimeographed, I believe) copy of a typewritten article for Canadian army officers that explains the army’s take on leadership.  I like it.  It describes good leadership as the ultimate combination of excellent management and potent inspiration.

Good managers understand the plan, anticipate problems, ensure they have the right resources available for the task at hand, allocate those resources efficiently to tasks, monitor performance and ensure results are achieved on time and on budget.  They are good communicators and keep everyone who must be informed, informed.  But, they are not necessarily good leaders.

Good leaders are good managers.  But, they are much, much, more.  Good leaders have vision. They understand the big picture, they see how things can come together and where they may diverge.  They understand how the little things fit, like an intricate puzzle, into the bigger world.  Good leaders are like sparkplugs.  They get things going.  They make things happen.  Even, when there is no plan, no precedent.  Good leaders understand people and they are able to inspire exceptional performance from anyone capable of exceptional performance – and even some who may not be.

In a disaster scenario, good leaders pick themselves up, dust themselves off, survey the situation, make a decision and say “follow me!”  They decide what needs doing and they inspire people to do it.

Now, imagine a major crisis.  Not a minor crisis.

A minor crisis is almost any crisis for which you have a response plan.  If you can anticipate what will happen and plan for it in detail, then it’s not likely to be a major crisis.  You can preposition the resources required to deal with the problem, contain it, arrest it, clean it up, and move on.

Of course, the salient word in the penultimate sentence is “if.”  “If” you can anticipate it.  Of course, as they say in the military “no plan can survey first contact with the enemy.”  And, as all experienced crisis managers know all too well, no crisis ever happens exactly the way you expect it to.  That’s what makes it a crisis.

I have expounded before on the uncertainty of crisis – how one fundamentally, definitive even, trait of crisis is its characteristic identification as a “turning point.”  A crisis is characterized by lack of certainty in its outcome.  A crisis is an event that may turn out quite normally – or may turn out quite horrifically.  How it turns out depends, often entirely, on the decisions you make during it.

So crisis is marked by uncertainty of outcome.  Crisis demands decisions.

A major crisis is one that is almost entirely unanticipated, often almost without precedent.  A major crisis may destroy the very resources upon which your crisis management plan depended.  A major crisis unfolds in a way that is entirely different from how you expected and requires you to make a new plan as you go.

A major crisis demands the ability to look after oneself, to stabilize and then assess the situation, make critical business decisions, create plans on the fly and then mobilize people to make things happen.  People, who may not be that interested in mobilizing.  Major crisis demands leadership.

Too often “crisis management” is a mindset marked by over-reliance on anticipatory plans and compliance with tested procedures.  A major crisis will transcend those plans and outpace those procedures.  While good management is essential to the effective resolution of crisis, crisis cannot be left to the managers.

When we are selecting people to fill pivotal roles on crisis teams – we should be selecting them for their leadership skills, not just for their crisis management expertise or business continuity certifications.  A certified business continuity planner has an important role to play in preparing your organization for crisis, and in managing through one when it occurs.  But, it is her leadership skills, not her professional expertise, that will ultimately inspire others to do the impossible and lead your organization to success through the next major crisis. 

If your business continuity manager is not also one of the best leaders in your organization, you should choose someone else to lead your crisis team.  Let the technical expert fill a crucial staff role, but put a leader in the leadership role.

This, of course, brings up an interesting Catch-22 for most organizations.  Business continuity, disaster recovery, crisis management, emergency preparedness is not normally on the senior executive career track in most organizations.  Perhaps it should be. 

Are you attracting quality leaders into those roles?  Should you be?

Top

TCG News

Are you a crisis leader?

Research participants needed for leadership study

TOWHEY Consulting Group Inc. is currently conducting a two-part study exploring the behavioral attributes of crisis managers and crisis leaders.  Results of the study will be presented at the 17th World Conference on Disaster Management in July.

We are looking for volunteer participants who meet the following criteria:  individuals who are currently, or who have in the past been, employed in a leadership role with crisis management responsibilities.  If you have led people in the management of a crisis, or been responsible for planning/training for crisis response, please consider participating.

Participants will complete a two-part survey.  Part One is a 5-minute online demographic survey designed to identify and categorize your crisis leadership experience.  Part Two is a 12-minute scientifically valid online psychometric test.

All survey responses are entirely confidential.

Survey results will be used to look for common characteristics that may be correlated with success in crisis management/crisis leadership roles.  Identification of these common factors, if any exist, may help organizations select, or develop training opportunities, for future crisis managers.

Your help would be much appreciated.  If you meet the criteria above, please click on the link below.  If you know others who would meet the criteria, please forward this link to them and encourage them to participate.

Thank you for your assistance!

Click here to begin the survey!

Top

Two new country partners join global network

We've added two new country partners to our global alliance.  One Team Public Relations in Greece and Matrix Public Relations in Dubai have recently joined our multinational network that already includes partners in six major countries:  docleaf in the United Kingdom; Bernstein Crisis Management LLC in California, USA; Ross Campbell & Associates Crisis Management in Australia; Vuma Corporate Reputation Management (Pty) Ltd. in South Africa; and Adfactors Public Relations in India.  And, of course, TOWHEY Consulting Group Inc. in Canada and the U.S.

Additional partners are expected to join the alliance as the network expands over the coming months.

For more information see Global Reach.

Top

Continuity e-GUIDE publishes "5 Steps" article

A version of the our February 2007 article How to manage a crisis in five stages was published in the April 11, 2007 edition of Disaster Resource Guide's Continuity e-GUIDE . It can be found online here.

Top

 

©1998-2007 TOWHEY Consulting Group Inc. All rights reserved.