For Harvard Business Review
photo: Michael Blann/Getty Images
As companies prepare for crises, they too often fail to take a step back and ask a simple question: How are we designed? The author has spent years training and advising companies on disaster management and preparedness and has come to believe that good preparedness follows good organization — and bad preparedness can usually be explained by bad organization. Company leaders must take inventory of their “architecture of preparedness.” This means focusing less at first on training, protocols, leadership, and communications and more on the company’s internal reporting and governance structure. The fundamental question for all companies now, in an era of recurring disasters, is whether their management and leadership design is safe. To design their company’s management structure to better respond to crises, leaders should focus on three areas: position, access, and unity of effort.
In the business literature about crisis and disaster management, there’s a tremendous focus on topics like leadership, communications, and planning. Security personnel and those tasked with making sure companies are prepared tend to be more concerned with the technology and equipment needed to reduce physical and cyber risks. But between crisis leadership and tactical planning, a fundamental structural gap often exists — a dangerous chasm between those in charge and those on the ground.
As companies prepare for crises, they too often fail to take a step back and ask a simple question: How are we designed? I’ve spent years training and advising companies on disaster management and preparedness and have come to believe that good preparedness follows good organization — and bad preparedness can usually be explained by bad organization.
