The Crisis Readiness Delusion

​When I was running the crisis practice at Burson Marsteller in London, we published research that categorised organisations as either “Boy Scouts” or “Ostriches”. The Boy Scouts were the companies that prepared relentlessly for the unexpected. The Ostriches, meanwhile, preferred to keep their heads in the sand, hoping that a crisis would never come their way.
That was some years ago. Surely, things have moved on. In an age of cyber-attacks, geopolitical instability, social media outrage and instant global scrutiny, organisations must be far better prepared today.
​
Or are they?

My experience suggests that while many organisations believe they are crisis-ready, a significant number are suffering from what might be called the “crisis readiness delusion”: an inflated sense of preparedness that bears little relation to reality.
The gap between perception and reality is often striking. In my view, there are four common delusions that continue to undermine organisational resilience.

The first is the belief that having a crisis manual means being prepared.
Many organisations have taken the first steps. They have written a crisis plan, established procedures and perhaps even identified a crisis team. The document may be perfectly adequate. Equally, it may be little more than a collection of phone numbers and generic holding statements.

What is often missing is the hard work that should precede the manual: a rigorous audit of vulnerabilities, decision-making structures, communications channels and organisational culture. Without that assessment, companies have no way of knowing whether their plans are fit for purpose.

Research suggests that organisations are often far more confident in their preparedness than the evidence warrants. PwC’s Global Crisis and Resilience Survey found that nine in ten organisations had experienced at least one major disruption in recent years, yet many continued to overestimate their ability to respond effectively.

The mistake is straightforward: organisations create a crisis plan, put it on a shelf and assume they are ready.

The consequences become apparent only when the pressure mounts. Suddenly, roles are unclear, approval processes grind to a halt and executives discover that they have never agreed who is responsible for making critical decisions.

The second delusion is the comforting belief that “it won’t happen to us”.
Every year, business leaders read headlines about cyber breaches, supply-chain failures, regulatory investigations and reputational crises. Most acknowledge, at least intellectually, that they should prepare. Yet preparation costs money, consumes management time and competes with more immediate priorities.

The result is a dangerous calculation: yes, we should invest in crisis preparedness—but what are the chances that we will actually need it?

Deloitte has identified what it calls “unrealistic optimism”: the assumption among leaders that a major crisis is unlikely to happen to their organisation, leading to chronic underinvestment in planning and training.

Yet the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Risks Report paints a very different picture, identifying cyber incidents, misinformation, geopolitical tensions and economic confrontation among the most significant threats facing organisations and societies today.

The third delusion concerns speed.
When a crisis erupts, organisations are often criticised for failing to respond quickly enough. Ironically, the seeds of that failure are usually planted long before the crisis itself.

Edelman’s Connected Crisis study found that three-quarters of executives believe the digital environment has made crises harder to manage, while only around half feel prepared to coordinate communications across all channels. The pressure to respond instantly is immense, but many organisations remain paralysed by internal processes and a desire for perfect information.
The mistake is waiting until every fact has been established before saying anything.
The consequence is predictable: employees, customers and social media fill the information vacuum. Narratives harden, speculation flourishes and trust begins to erode.
In my experience, the first 24 hours of a crisis are rarely won or lost on the strength of a media statement. They are won or lost months, and often years, before journalists pick up the phone.

Finally, there is perhaps the most damaging delusion of all: treating crises as communications problems rather than leadership challenges.

Too many organisations assume that once a crisis becomes public, the communications team can somehow “fix” it. But modern crises do not respect organisational boundaries. They cut across operations, legal, cyber security, human resources, public affairs and the executive suite.

Edelman’s research argues that crisis management can no longer sit solely within communications departments. The organisations that respond most effectively are those that integrate leadership, operations and communications into a single decision-making framework.

The companies that navigate crises successfully tend to have several things in common: a clear crisis team with defined responsibilities; systems that identify issues before they escalate; tested scenarios and response plans; leaders who can communicate under pressure; and the confidence to make decisions based on evidence rather than emotion.

Over the years, working with leadership teams across technology, healthcare, commodities and international organisations, I have come to one conclusion above all others: preparation turns potential crises into manageable issues. Lack of preparation allows issues to become crises.

Henry Kissinger once observed that “an issue ignored is a crisis invited”.
​
It remains a useful test for any leadership team. If a major issue landed on your desk tomorrow morning, would everyone in your organisation know exactly what to do?

---