Welcome back to The CP Journal, where we break down what it takes to get left of bang.
As the debate over AI rages on, I find it increasingly frustrating how often the people who stand to benefit from improvements in technology get dropped from the conversation.
In the context of emergency management and public safety, the question I come back to is pretty straightforward: are we giving enough attention to how this technology could help local governments become better prepared to serve their communities on a horrible day?
Of course, there are legitimate legal, ethical, and operational concerns surrounding AI and the adoption of new tech. Those deserve serious consideration, and I’m not dismissing them.
And there’s also the question of how AI will disrupt traditional ways of working. It absolutely will, and I think that’s a conversation worth having too.
But I wonder how much of that discussion is shaped by what technology means for us as practitioners, compared to what it could mean for the people we’re responsible for serving.
Our preferences for how we do the work should never carry more weight than the interests of the communities we’re doing it for.
We often continue these conversations on LinkedIn if you’d like to join in.
Things We’ve Read
With that, here are a few things we read over the past few weeks and wanted to share.
Article | Beyond the Snapshot: How John Boyd’s Destruction and Creation Saves Lives on the Beat.
Enjoyed this look at situational awareness by Fred Leland and recommend it for anyone who is continually finding themselves in dynamic situations, sometimes anchored to a high-level understanding of what’s actually happening, and having to figure it out.
In the article, Fred hits on the danger of assuming your initial snapshot of the situation is complete, highlights the number of variables present in a situation using the drink you have in your hand right now, and the benefits that come with framing your orientation of the situation as a “best guess.”
And it offers a clear way forward for organizations as well, with his recommendation to replace common incident debrief questions like “Did you have situational awareness?” with “What was your initial hypothesis?”
For paid subscribers to The CP Journal, we wrote about how John Boyd’s views on the way “decisions are hypotheses” can unlock an iterative learning process, much like Fred talks about in his article.
Article | Knowing You Can Raise Versus Guessing
Where does confidence come from? We talk a lot about developing capabilities on The CPJ in the context of public safety and corporate security, but I enjoyed this look at how it manifests in business contexts.
In the article, investor Charlie O’Donnell looks at three different business founders who, by the time they needed to raise money from investors, already knew they would succeed. Even if they aren’t using these words, it comes from having validated that the people in your organization responsible for doing something have the skills to execute the plan, while using the resources they have.
It doesn’t matter if you’re raising money or preparing to evacuate a neighborhood; confidence stems from having validated what you can do.
Report | From Alert to Agency: What Turns Warnings Into Action
This report is a must-read for emergency managers and public safety leaders looking to develop and improve the alert and warning capabilities in their communities. Informed by Gallup’s World Risk Poll (143,000 interviews conducted across 140 countries), it identifies trends in how effective warnings of impending hazards are at actually protecting people.
Here are three key findings that caught my eye. While the concepts might not be shocking, some of the data and discussion may be able to help leaders drive improvements in their communities.
Being warned and being able to act are different things. In their study, 2/3 of people who received warnings were able to act, while 1/3 of the audience could not.
Three warning channels is a significant threshold. Each additional channel/method of communication beyond the first one substantially increases the likelihood that a person takes action. Repetition is necessary.
Warning system expansion needs to be paired with household preparation and personal agency. People without a plan are less likely to act on an early warning, undermining the value of the investments made in developing warning system infrastructure.
The numbers and dynamics may shift from an international scale to how it impacts you, your organization, or your community, but I’m willing to bet that a lot of the takeaways can be applied to improve your level of readiness.
For paid subscribers to The CP Journal, I’d consider pairing this report with our “Individual Readiness Playbook,” for people looking to improve and prepare for an uncertain future.
Podcast | The Business of Seinfeld
Seinfeld (the TV show) hasn’t made a new episode in nearly three decades. But in 2026, 72 million Americans have already watched an episode (and the year isn’t done yet). This “Acquired” podcast episode is really long (nearly 4 hours), so it took me a couple of weeks to finish it, but it might be one of the best podcast episodes I’ve ever listened to.
From obsessive creators, a refusal to follow the conventional rules of what made a TV show great, and some luck (with timing, support from executives, and the business/regulatory environment), Seinfeld became the number-one-watched show in history.
Give it a listen!
Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next week.
—Patrick