Preparing for Imperfection
Building Confidence in Critical Moment Decision Making
The best-laid plans don't always hold up when reality hits. Statements like "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" become cliches because many of us have experienced their truth firsthand.
While this isn't an excuse to skip planning, such clichés often shift responsibility squarely onto the shoulders of those on the ground. They imply it's solely the operator's job to adapt when a plan doesn't perfectly fit the reality they face.
But adaptability isn't just the operator's responsibility. Leaders and executives must also be prepared for plans to falter. Their readiness matters because they'll be judged just as critically when situations go sideways, even if that judgment typically comes from within the organization.
Consider evacuating an entire community during a wind-driven wildfire. Ideally, every resident leaves safely and calmly, with ample time to pack their belongings and get out of harm’s way. But real-world evacuations rarely match this ideal scenario. The reality is incredibly complex: first responders are forced to make rapid, critical decisions under intense pressure, based on limited time and incomplete information.
As a result, public safety organizations risk two kinds of failure:
Failure #1: An evacuation that, in hindsight, wasn’t necessary.
Failure #2: An evacuation initiated too late—or not at all.
The first type of failure is undoubtedly an annoyance and frustration for people who were evacuated unnecessarily, and can influence their future behavior when they receive evacuation guidance, but it often results from the inherent difficulty of forecasting how a wildfire will behave.
The second type of failure is far more dangerous and frequently occurs because decision-makers wait too long for perfect information and complete clarity about the situation. In my experience, it often comes from people who want to avoid making a wrong decision.
Not wanting to get the decision wrong strikes a chord and was something Jason and I thought a lot about when writing Left of Bang. In telling the story of the Marine Corps' Combat Hunter program, we wanted to emphasize that the Baseline + Anomaly = Decision framework was developed to ensure Marines and Soldiers could make decisions at the speed of combat.
But it’s worth remembering that the process was designed to make timely decisions that are "more often right than wrong." But "more often right" doesn't mean always right. Mistakes and imperfections are inevitable. Fear of making the wrong decision is understandable, but it can be paralyzing, and paralysis can lead directly to tragedy.
For operators on the ground, these imperfect decisions carry real consequences—physically, emotionally, and psychologically. Leaders need to openly recognize this burden, building trust within their teams by acknowledging the courage and confidence required to act decisively in uncertain situations.
Yet, the decisive moment doesn’t end when the decision is made. How leaders respond publicly afterward shapes whether the first type of failure leads directly to the second. Executive communication determines whether an organization learns and grows or becomes trapped in a cycle of repeated failures.
When working with organizations preparing for an uncertain future, one of the first things I evaluate is their process for activating response plans. To effectively reduce these two types of failures, successful organizations typically focus on two practical elements at the organizational level:
Clearly defined watch points and action points: Organizations should be able to specify and widely communicate the conditions that warrant proactive shifts from normal operations to heightened awareness and monitoring, and resource pre-positioning or response to an incident.
Transparent decision-making criteria: Leaders should be able to clearly articulate their rationale for decisions, distinguishing between observable facts and informed judgment calls their teams make. They should be able to openly communicate how uncertainty influenced their decisions, demonstrating deliberate thoughtfulness.
Of course, these two elements cannot be built without deliberate planning and then reinforced through consistent and continual training. Without planning and training, not everyone will understand the expectations and standards guiding any evaluation of their performance.
These practical elements indicate an organization that’s serious about getting left of bang and committed to genuine prevention, preparation, and proactive response. When decision-making processes are clear, organizations unlock strategic opportunities for enhancing their capabilities. Teams can confidently devise strategies and tactics for response scenarios and create contingencies for rapidly evolving incidents. Senior executives’ experience becomes woven into daily operations, elevating the entire organization's readiness and resilience.
Ultimately, thoughtful preparation is a leadership responsibility. It's about creating clarity amid chaos, reinforcing trust amid uncertainty, and turning inevitable mistakes into catalysts for lasting improvement. Clear decision-making frameworks not only guide immediate response but also accelerate post-event learning, enabling organizations to adapt swiftly and effectively in future incidents.