Crisis avoidance requires courageous leadership

I cannot recall how many crisis situations I have found myself in the middle of, but each one has something in common. The crisis typically provides opportunity for everyday individuals to step into a heroic role. I have seen employees put themselves in extreme danger outside of their area of expertise, to save a life in a war zone. I have seen managers work countless hours to ensure the safety of team members who are stuck in the middle of a terror attack. I have seen volunteers quit their executive level positions to work a soup line for months, doing what they can to help victims of a natural disaster. These people are heroes, but why are they having to step into that role?

I too have had to step up in the middle of a crisis situation. But I typically end up orchestrating a rescue or providing advice to clients after they have ignored the mitigating factors I recommended long before. And I always end up with more money in my pocket due to the rates I charge that client for not implementing the recommended policies and changes. Those clients typically do not see a return on their investment and often avoid me after the crisis due to the shame they feel.

What if the intelligence analysts and operations planners involved in crunching data and identifying vulnerabilities and indicators were awarded that same hero status as those who react to a crisis? I know extremely dedicated professionals that work ridiculously hard to avoid crisis on a daily basis. It is their passion and most view it as a calling rather than a vocation. The idea that they might be able to stop a crisis from happening in the first place gets them excited when they start their day.

Unfortunately, the same people are constantly fighting with different risk management disciplines and their senior leaders. The recommendations they make may save lives, but there is often a price tag associated with those recommendations. Most companies are more familiar with financial risk management that emphasizes mitigating revenue loss rather than the loss of life, limb, or eyesight. This creates a combative relationship between senior management and the individuals charged with employee safety. It is difficult to choose between revenue loss (guaranteed) and personnel safety issues due to a crisis that might or might not happen. Often the analysts and their predictions are pushed aside because that senior leader is not up for explaining it to their boss.

What is worse is blame game that takes place after a crisis ensues. The same people responsible for avoiding the crisis are often tasked with managing the very crisis they warned their leaders about. Outside of the fantasy we see in the movies, this is an impossible task to see through successfully. I say impossible because ninety-nine percent of the time, there are casualties and loss regardless of the crisis management plans in place. It is impossible to mitigate all risk and plan for everything. Successfully resolving a crisis is relative.

There is a balance between company growth and safety. It requires all risk management personnel, regardless of their discipline to give a little. The key to striking that balance is for leaders to step in, understand all of the risks, take ownership, and make a decision.

Something I learned as an Army officer is that risk spans all disciplines within operations. It is not restricted to personnel or budgets. Before any task that I owned as a commander, I was required to do a risk assessment. That assessment was not delegated to my subordinates. I owned it. Of course, I also required my subordinates to conduct their own risk assessments to inform mine. The process was part of my daily routine and conducted before any task. I know it saved lives as well as desperately needed funds, and contributed to numerous successful missions.

There is an overabundance of managers in the world currently, and a lack of leaders. That of course is my perspective, but it comes from lots of research and years of experience consulting with other leaders. The ownership of risk mitigation is the key to avoiding a crisis. The analysts on all sides can provide all the data in the world, but the decision to act is on the leader (or manager). Leaders need a better understanding of all risk in order to make an informed decision that might save lives. They also need to accept that they might be wrong every once in a while.

I know the picture I am painting might seem like a good reason to stay away from protective security and risk management, but those of us who are called to this line of work will not be dissuaded. We understand that it will always take persuasion and negotiation to get buy in and action from our colleagues and leaders. However, it would not hurt for those in leadership positions to understand the jobs of the analyst and planners, and give them well-deserved kudos for what they do. As long as risk mitigators continue to be the best at what they do, and their leaders take ownership and make decisions, lives will be saved and the company will grow through crisis avoidance.