Reflections on Crisis Response

When Steve Keogh arrived at the London bombings on July 7, 2005, he encountered a chaotic scene that no amount of planning could have truly anticipated: smoke-filled tunnels, injured individuals, and scant information regarding the potential for further attacks. As one of the first detectives on the ground, he had to make rapid decisions, all while navigating inconsistent reports and ever-shifting uncertainties.

Currently the Head of Corporate Training at Periculum Security Group, Keogh recalls that experience clearly. “There was no time to step back and plan all the options,” he noted. “You prioritized what you could see, what you could hear, and what your instincts told you to do first.” His observation aligns with research from the British Psychological Society, which indicates that sensory overload and time pressure can significantly diminish decision-making capabilities.

The scenario he faced underscores a broader reality: crises rarely unfold in a neat manner. They can lead to confusion, disrupt communication, and reveal the shortcomings of even the most carefully designed plans.

Why Traditional Models Fall Short

Many organizations employ decision-making frameworks that are typically suited for routine operations, like the National Decision-Making Model (NDM), popular among police and public services. While these frameworks are valuable for structured analysis, they often fail to accommodate the way people think under stress. They tend to emphasize logical progression, yet cognitive science shows that logic often goes out the window during moments of acute stress.

Under pressure, the prefrontal cortex, responsible for planning and rational thought, can falter. Conversely, the amygdala can trigger heightened emotional and fear responses, leading to instinctive reactions that may contradict established procedures. In a corporate context, this may result in hesitation, overreaction, or an unhealthy focus on minor details to the detriment of the bigger picture.

Keogh experienced these challenges throughout his police career. “NDM has value, but it does not reflect the chaos at the crime scene,” he remarked. “When a model is too abstract, it creates sensory overload, making it tough to use when conditions are continually changing.” His insights resonate with findings from the Journal of Contingency and Crisis Management, which notes that rigid frameworks can obstruct timely decision-making during fast-evolving situations.

Organizations often presume that their teams will adhere strictly to the established plan, but crises in real life demand a more adaptive approach. The disconnect between theoretical models and human behavior during emergencies frequently leads to flawed responses.

Misunderstandings in Crisis Behavior

Corporate crises seldom mirror written scenarios. Cyberattacks can spark internal disputes over communication lines. Financial scandals might erupt when key leaders are absent. Supply chain disruptions often involve not only talent shortages but also reputational risks. A recent report on Crisis Management revealed that over 60% of organizations misjudge their state of preparedness, primarily because they underestimate how individuals will act under stress.

During high-stakes incidents, teams can easily experience cognitive overload. Too much information—or even too little—can cloud judgment. People may latch onto data points that seem urgent but ultimately are irrelevant. This tendency has been observed in various incidents where organizations delayed external communication due to internal conflicts, leading to greater scrutiny and operational harm.

Keogh emphasizes that this fixation can pose significant risks. “People sometimes cling to the first explanation that resonates with them,” he observed. “But crises rarely unfold in a straightforward manner, so you need to be ready to adapt at a moment’s notice.” His experience with serious investigations, where early information can often be misleading, highlights the necessity for flexibility during a crisis.

Another prevalent issue arises when teams wait for certainty before acting. A workplace culture that prioritizes caution may inadvertently slow response times. However, crisis situations often necessitate decisions based on incomplete information. Leaders who hesitate until they obtain complete clarity might allow a situation to spiral out of control, exacerbating the problem.

The Need for Different Preparation

Many organizations view crisis planning as a mere documentation task, focusing on detailed procedures and communication protocols. However, research from the London School of Economics indicates that genuine preparedness hinges largely on individuals’ readiness to respond when feeling overwhelmed or anxious.

Keogh’s experiences, particularly those from his work on murder and terrorism investigations, shed light on what effective preparation entails. He draws similarities between policing and corporate environments; both require teams capable of weathering shocks, pivoting quickly, and making decisions as circumstances evolve. “I don’t think a crisis will go as planned,” he said. “What you can develop is the ability to think clearly when your plans fall apart.”

Periculum Security Group’s crisis management training, which includes the Now, Where, How® decision-making system, incorporates these insights. The training emphasizes structured thinking that can endure under stress, allowing leaders to address what matters most, even with incomplete information.

This perspective reflects a growing consensus among crisis researchers. Organizations often stumble not due to a lack of guidance, but rather because they lack individuals who can interpret and apply that guidance under pressure. The crucial factor frequently comes down to the psychological aspect—how individuals manage fear, confusion, and responsibility.

Reassessing Crisis Management Strategies

As crises become more intricate and unpredictable, organizations can no longer rely solely on established procedures or abstract frameworks. The experiences of professionals like Steve Keogh reveal that effective crisis response necessitates more than just a plan; it calls for individuals who can operate effectively when clarity is elusive.

The essential question for leaders is shifting from “Do you have a plan?” to “Do we have team members capable of making sound decisions amidst chaos?” An anatomical analysis of a crisis shows that the answer often lies not in documented procedures but in the human capacity to overcome uncertainty.