Why some organisations make better decisions under pressure

I’ve often joked that some people seem to enjoy crisis management.

Sean Ryan, now Media First’s director of strategic communications and resilience, is one of them.

A former Sunday Times foreign editor and communications director at Save the Children, Sean becomes calmer and more focused when difficult situations emerge. While others see uncertainty and escalating risk, he starts working out what needs to happen next.

Anyone who has worked through a crisis will recognise the contrast.

An issue emerges. Phones start ringing. WhatsApp groups light up. Journalists may be calling. Senior leaders want answers. Everyone is looking for direction.

The immediate focus is often communication.

What should we say? Who should speak? How quickly do we need to respond?
Those questions matter. But the quality of the answers depends on something that happens first: how leaders interpret the situation, distinguish evidence from assumption and decide what to do.

A crisis statement cannot compensate for confused leadership or poor decisions.
That is why effective crisis preparation must test more than messages and media handling. It must test how people think and behave when information is incomplete, time is short and the consequences feel serious.

Pressure changes how people interpret events

Laura Bridgeman, an executive coach who helps leaders improve their thinking, behaviour and decision-making under pressure, believes the difference often begins with interpretation.

As she explains: “Some people naturally interpret a crisis as a problem to solve rather than something happening to them.”

Psychologists sometimes describe this as the difference between a threat mindset and a challenge mindset. The circumstances may be identical. The interpretation is not.

A threat mindset says: “I’m not sure I have the resources to deal with this.”

A challenge mindset says: “This is difficult, but I can work out what to do next.”

When people experience an event primarily as a threat, their thinking can narrow. They may jump to conclusions, concentrate on the worst possible outcome or feel compelled to act before they understand what has happened.

That does not mean leaders should downplay a crisis. It means they must recognise when pressure is starting to distort judgement.

A realistic crisis exercise can reveal that distinction. Does the team pause to establish what it knows? Or does it begin making consequential decisions based on an imagined version of events?

Separate evidence from imagined consequences

One of the greatest risks under pressure is catastrophising.

A customer complaint becomes:
“What if the media picks this up?”

That becomes:
“Everyone will see it.”

And then:
“Our reputation will be destroyed.”

Several assumptions have been made, but little evidence has been gathered.

Laura describes catastrophising as the moment when:
“The brain starts treating imagined consequences as though they’re already happening.”

When this happens, people can become reactive, defensive and less curious. Instead of asking questions, they search for certainty. Instead of considering options, they rush towards the first action that appears to offer control.

A useful way to interrupt that pattern is to ask three questions:

• What do we know?

• What are we assuming?

• What are we afraid might happen?

These are different categories, but they quickly become blurred during a fast-moving incident.

Separating them helps a crisis team regain perspective.

It also gives communicators a firmer basis for advising leaders, assessing stakeholder expectations and developing messages that reflect reality rather than fear.

Leaders determine whether challenge is welcomed

Pressure rarely affects only one person.

Teams look to senior leaders for signals about how serious the situation is and how they are expected to behave.

As Laura puts it:
“If the most senior person in the room is panicking, blaming people or demanding instant answers, everybody else’s threat response increases too.”

The consequences are practical, not merely emotional.

When people feel anxious or unsafe, they may become less willing to challenge an assumption, admit uncertainty or raise an uncomfortable concern. The leader may then make decisions using a narrower and less reliable picture of the situation.

The strongest crisis teams are not those where everyone agrees.

They are those where someone can say:
“I think emotion is influencing this decision, and we need another ten minutes to look at the facts.”

Crisis exercises should test whether that challenge is genuinely possible.

Do senior leaders invite dissent? Are roles and decision rights clear? Can subject-matter experts correct an inaccurate assumption? Does the team record why important decisions were made? Can someone ask for more evidence without being seen as obstructive?

These behaviours are difficult to assess through a discussion-based walkthrough alone. They become visible when teams face realistic time pressure, uncertainty and competing demands.

Communicators should act as a circuit-breaker

Many organisations still treat communications professionals primarily as statement writers.

That overlooks one of their most valuable contributions during a crisis.

Laura describes an experienced communicator as a: 
“Cognitive circuit-breaker for senior leaders.”

Communicators can challenge assumptions, represent stakeholder expectations and identify the difference between what the organisation wants to say and what its audiences need to hear.

They can also ask whether the proposed response matches the evidence.

Is the team reacting to something that has happened, or something it fears might happen? Does the organisation understand who has been affected? Are leaders moving too quickly to reassurance before the facts justify it? Could an operational decision create a larger reputational problem?

This role can be every bit as important as drafting a holding statement or managing media enquiries.

It should also be tested. A crisis exercise can show whether communications has sufficient access, authority and confidence to influence decisions—or whether it is brought in only after those decisions have already been made.

Move the team from “What if?” to “What now?”

Scenario planning requires organisations to consider what could go wrong.
But during a live crisis, endless “What if?” questions can become paralysing.

What if this gets worse?
What if journalists escalate it?
What if customers lose trust?

Laura recommends shifting the question:
“Move from ‘What if?’ to ‘What now?’”

What has actually happened?
What needs attention now?
What is the next useful decision?

A second framework can help teams translate that thinking into action:

• What can we control?

• What can we influence?

• What do we need to monitor?

These questions do not remove uncertainty. They prevent uncertainty from consuming the team’s attention and help restore focus, perspective and momentum.

Test decision-making, not just the response plan

The organisations that handle crises well are rarely those with the cleverest statements.

They are usually those that have thought carefully about how decisions will be made when information is incomplete and pressure is rising.

Sean Ryan says journalists quickly notice the difference between organisations that are prepared and those that are not.

“Preparation is key. We know you might have to deal with a cyber attack, misconduct or an accident because these are so common. It’s easier to keep everything in perspective if you’ve thought about things in advance.

“Most crises are predictable, and we can help you prepare so that when the moment comes, you know what to do. That removes a lot of the pressure that leads to slow decision-making in a crisis that’s developing fast.”

A useful exercise should therefore test more than whether the crisis plan can be located and a holding statement produced.

It should reveal:

• Whether roles, responsibilities and decision rights are understood.

• How quickly the team separates facts from assumptions.

• Whether senior leaders invite informed challenge.

• Whether operational and communication decisions remain connected.

• How uncertainty and competing priorities affect judgement.

• Whether the team can identify the next useful decision without losing sight of longer-term consequences.

These are often the capabilities that determine whether an organisation responds with clarity or compounds the original problem.

Clear communication begins before anyone starts writing

The quality of crisis communication is often determined long before a statement is drafted or a spokesperson is briefed.

It is shaped by preparation, leadership behaviour and the ability to make sound decisions when events are uncertain and emotions are running high.

Organisations cannot eliminate that pressure.

But they can prepare people to recognise how it affects them—and practise responding more effectively.

Practical takeaway

In your next crisis exercise, test how leaders distinguish facts from assumptions, invite challenge and make decisions under pressure - not just how the communications team drafts messages.

If you want to understand how your organisation will really think and respond when pressure rises, Media First can design and facilitate a realistic crisis exercise that tests decision-making, leadership and communication together.