When you establish your crisis management capability, conduct crisis management exercises, or actually go through crises, what are the most common issues or gaps that are uncovered? Within episode 5 of the PreparedEx podcast, Rob describes 10 of the more common issues that are observed when conducting simulation exercises and monitoring events as they happen or reviewing reports after crises. These common mistakes are taken from sectors including: financial services, oil and gas, chemicals, consumer products,insurance and healthcare to name a few.

Not Having a Clearly Defined Organizational Policy and Senior Leadership Approval

An organization’s crisis management capability needs to be developed within the unique context of that organization and will, with time, become dependent on it. For the crisis capability to have any credibility, it should be developed based on clearly defined organizational policies approved by senior leadership. The capability to manage crises should not be seen as something that can simply be developed as and when needed. It requires a systematic approach that creates structures and processes, trains people to work within them and is evaluated and developed in a continuous, purposeful and rigorous way. The development of a crisis management capability should be viewed as a mainstream activity and one that is proportionate to an organization’s size and capacity.

Lack of a well-established Crisis Management System

A crisis management system should be part of the mainstream of organizational management and not just a set of arrangements for responding to the “day of the crisis.” That implies it will be apparent that additional work for the organization and, possibly, some significant changes. But developing, exercising and being able to use a crisis management system can provide a shared sense of focus, a collective purpose and higher levels of confidence and morale. This can lead to an organization that is generally more resilient and better able to adapt to change. Well-prepared organizations that deal effectively with actual or potential crises may emerge from the experience stronger, internally and in terms of their brand, even after suffering significant short-term losses. On the other hand, organizations that are seen to have failed to prepare for a crisis will suffer potentially massive reputational damage. They may even be seen as having betrayed their staff, customers, and stakeholders.

Indecisive Leadership

One of the most important functions of a leader in a crisis is to stabilize the situation as much as possible. A very important aspect of crisis leadership at the start of the response is the ability to identify and take steps that will limit the damage already caused and contain it, so that subsequent activities have a firm basis. Chaos will reign as a crisis evolves and the leader’s primary role initially is to demonstrate calmness, authority and determination. This will serve to defuse tensions, provide a focus for activity, inspire confidence in the team and reassure stakeholders that something is being accomplished. Strong leadership at times exhibits a literal strong personal force, but the leadership in a crisis also needs consensus building and is a collective product, where more often decisive decisions have more to do with teamwork, flexibility, communications and brokering solutions. At both levels, leaders need to be comfortable within the uncertainties that crises present and capable of driving an organization coherently through very confused situations. Many will argue that the number one personal attribu...