By Michael Szudarek

I’ve sat in more crisis rooms than I can count. Sometimes as the one partnering with the head of comms and general counsel, other times as the one directly advising CEOs and boards. And across all those situations, one mistake seems to show up again and again: leaders treat a crisis like it’s a debate club instead of a command center.

They argue over wording. They wait for perfect information. They let legal, finance, and operations tug in different directions while the clock ticks and social media fills the vacuum for them. That’s not just frustrating, it’s fatal to credibility. All that confusion, however, usually traces back to one thing: risk tolerance.

Each executive brings a different level of risk tolerance to a crisis situation. Some favor caution, while others are more comfortable acting quickly amid uncertainty. Neither perspective is inherently wrong, but when those differences aren’t recognized or aligned, decision-making tends to slow or stall.

Why Risk Tolerance Matters More Than You Think

Every big crisis decision is a bet. It’s a trade-off between speed and certainty, control and exposure.

· Do we speak now with 70 percent of the facts, or wait until we’re 95 percent sure?

· Do we lead with empathy and ownership, or stay guarded to protect the brand?

· Do we put the CEO out front, or keep leadership behind the curtain?

Low risk tolerance sounds responsible (more checks, more data, more waiting). But in a crisis, every hour of silence damages trust. A higher risk tolerance isn’t recklessness, it’s recognizing that credibility and timing often matter more than perfection. The issue isn’t that people view risk differently. It’s that most leadership teams don’t talk about it until they’re already in the fire. That is the problem.

Get Ahead of It. Map Risk Tolerance Now

Here’s what I advise clients who wants a crisis plan that actually holds up under pressure: Gather your executive team and board (obviously before a crisis) and have an honest conversation about how each person approaches risk when the stakes are high.

Ask real questions like:

· How comfortable are you speaking publicly when all the facts aren’t in yet?

· What’s your instinct: lead with an apology or wait until we’re certain?

· How much legal or reputational risk feels acceptable to protect long-term trust?

Keep it simple. Create a one-page “leadership risk profile” showing where each person leans on speed, transparency, visibility, and accountability. Then build your crisis plan around those actual tendencies (not a generic best-practices template). Once you do this, things change fast:

· The late-night debates disappear

· Approvals move faster without stepping on anyone’s toes

· Crisis simulations start to feel authentic instead of scripted

· And the team acts in sync, especially when under pressure

That alignment turns hesitation into confident, coordinated action.

The Bottom Line

A strong crisis plan isn’t just holding statements, dark sites, or spokesperson training. Those are tactical tools. The real foundation is understanding how your leaders handle risk when the pressure is on. Do that work now, while the sky is clear. When the next storm hits (they always do) you’ll move faster, communicate smarter, and better protect your credibility. Teams that navigate crises best aren’t always the ones with the biggest agencies or budgets. They’re the ones who already know where everyone’s risk dials are set, and they’ve built their playbook around it. If your leadership team hasn’t had that conversation, put it on the next agenda. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did