Back to the Basics: Navigating Crisis Leadership

Crises, by their very nature, are inevitable. From historic catastrophes to today’s challenges, they continue to pose significant threats, reminding communities of the importance of preparation. The catastrophic floods in the southeastern United States in 2024 and wildfires in the winter of 2024-2025 that ravaged Los Angeles County highlight this reality. Although the exact timing, location, and severity of these events could not be predicted, their occurrence was not unexpected. This stark reality underscores the need for extensive pre-crisis planning and preparation to mitigate the impact of such events.

Pre-Crisis and PACE Planning

Pre-crisis planning is an essential responsibility for any organization. Leaders, particularly in disaster response, must anticipate potential failures in primary plans and establish robust contingencies to ensure continuity in rapidly changing conditions. Anticipating the “worst-case” scenario and the “most likely” scenario is not only prudent but expected. This process, when done effectively, provides a deeper understanding of scenarios that may be low probability but high impact (e.g., black swan events). Coupled with an assessment of the most likely outcomes, this approach enables planners to more accurately evaluate probability, risk, and, ultimately, the allocation of resources for contingencies.

Pre-crisis planning is an essential responsibility for any organization and can significantly improve preparedness, but it is not a guarantee of success. Factors, some of which are beyond human control, can derail even the most robust plans. Hurricane-strength winds in the Los Angeles fires provide a striking example of this reality. Kerstin Eriksson and Allan McConnell highlight this complexity in their 2011 article “Contingency Planning for Crisis Management: Recipe for Success or Political Fantasy?” in which they explore the strengths and limitations of pre-crisis planning. They argue that planning is critical, but unforeseen variables, which can be enabling or impeding, often dictate the ultimate outcome of a crisis. One alternative that might help mitigate at least some of those unforeseen variables would be the “all hazards” approach, for which an emergency preparedness plan is developed with response capabilities that apply to a wide range of potential emergencies and disasters, rather than creating a plan for each specific threat.

The U.S. military relies on the PACE (Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency) framework to prepare for inevitable system breakdowns during high-stress situations. Originally developed for communication planning, the framework’s principles have broader applications for contingency planning before and during crises. This approach compels leaders to proactively anticipate potential failures and implement mitigating measures to address them. Planning at this level of redundancy may exceed the needs or capacity of some organizations. However, the deliberate process of thoroughly considering contingencies serves as a cognitive and decision-making hedge and helps identify potential risks or deficiencies that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Rehearsals and Checklists

An essential best practice for crisis preparation is rehearsal practice. For instance, prior to every mission, Navy SEAL teams conduct detailed rehearsals to hone tactical proficiency for a range of anticipated scenarios, including the most dangerous and the most likely outcomes. Rehearsals should be designed to be as realistic as possible, incorporating the organization’s internal as well as external or supporting assets. The latter often present the greatest challenge, frequently leading to communication and coordination breakdowns. This was evident in the cross-organizational failures between local law enforcement and the Secret Service during the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Another proven tool that organizations should consider when preparing for potential crises are checklists. Their simplicity may obscure their importance, but even military and civilian pilots rely on checklists before every flight despite thousands of hours of experience. Checklists are invaluable not only as pre-crisis tools but also during crises, where they serve as a “handrail” to help leaders think and act clearly amid chaos. Furthermore, their deliberate design should encompass a comprehensive set of planning considerations and actions that are clearly stated and purposefully sequenced.

Execution in Crisis

Contrary to the popular belief that people rise to the occasion in a crisis, the reality is that they fall back to their highest level of training. Instances of extraordinary leadership or heroism tend to be outliers. In most high-stress scenarios, individual and organizational performances fall below expected levels. Even highly disciplined SEAL teams, which train relentlessly to ensure that their actions are instinctive amid chaos, are not immune to this reality. The complexities of stress, confusion, and unforeseen challenges can significantly erode cognitive and physical performance. For example, in high-stakes scenarios, Healthline noted stress-induced decision-making impairments, and Firehouse pointed out the detrimental effects of stress on motor skills. This reality must be considered in pre-crisis planning. An operational imperative should be to implement challenging and realistic trainings that make physical actions and decision-making responses second nature.

Reflection and Lessons Learned

A hallmark of any high-performing organization is its commitment to performance and, more importantly, deficiency assessments. No area of self-assessment should be overlooked. It is essential to confront hard truths across relevant domains, including risk assessment, resourcing, communication, and execution. Although it can be uncomfortable to highlight planning or performance shortfalls, candid and objective deficiency assessments can help individuals and organizations improve. Without this commitment, organizations miss the opportunity to gain critical and often life-saving lessons from their experiences.

Effective self-assessment not only identifies gaps but also drives the development of systems that ensure readiness under pressure. In the Navy’s submarine and surface fleets, during general quarters—a temporary state of maximum readiness—every crewmember quickly moves to a highly specialized role they are trained to execute. Similarly, organizations may benefit from adopting a version of this system, ensuring critical roles are filled by those best equipped to perform under pressure. Smaller organizations, with fewer personnel, should focus on prioritizing training for key individuals in critical positions.

Crises will always occur, even with the most comprehensive planning and preparation, making it imperative for leaders to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their teams and how well-suited individuals are to operating effectively under pressure. Not everyone handles high-stress situations equally well, which underscores the importance of assigning roles deliberately and tailoring responsibilities to individual capabilities.

Ultimately, pre-crisis planning, realistic training, and objective assessments are the key components of crisis readiness and leadership. While these concepts may not be new, recent events are reminders that there is always room for improvement. By returning to the basics and prioritizing deliberate preparation, organizational leaders can build greater resilience, enhance performance, and lead effectively when it matters most.