The nature of crises: exploring some persistent myths
It is perhaps not surprising, given the lack of hard data; that most discussions about business continuity end up involving reference to various myths about the nature of crises. This article focuses on three of the most widespread and persistent of these. At one level these myths can be seen simply as convenient excuses to avoid spending time and money on business continuity but, as shall be explained, they actually demonstrate some important psychological phenomena with broader significance for resilience.
Examination of these three widespread and persistent myths about the nature of crises reveals that they are much more than lazy and simplistic excuses to avoid taking business continuity seriously. Specifically it highlights three ways of improving organizational resilience:
- Business leaders need to be encouraged to think longer-term when managing risk – using a five-year time horizon would yield probabilities with much more intuitive meaning;
- There should be a rigorous process for dealing with near misses to counteract ‘risk-inoculation’ and ensure that the underlying causes are adequately addressed; and,
- As well as addressing practical issues for plan improvement, post-incident reviews should also examine the difficulties encountered in making decisions in the absence of complete information.
See The nature of crises: exploring some persistent myths, by Patrick Roberts.
Tags: Business Continuity
