Written by Michael Szudarek

Annie Duke, a former professional poker player and author, introduced the concept of "resulting" in her book Thinking in Bets. Resulting refers to the common tendency to evaluate the quality of a decision based on its outcome rather than the decision-making process itself. In crisis communications, this concept offers valuable lessons, particularly in planning and execution, where outcomes can be unpredictable, and the stakes are high.

Understanding “Resulting”

In poker, as in life, decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty. A good decision can lead to a bad outcome, and a bad decision can lead to a good one. Resulting occurs when people judge the quality of a decision solely based on its outcome. For example, if a company takes a risk that leads to a favorable outcome, the decision is often deemed wise, even if it was flawed. Conversely, if a well-thought-out decision leads to an unfavorable outcome, it is often criticized, even if the process was sound.

The Danger of “Resulting” in Crisis Communications

In crisis communications, resulting can lead to misguided assessments of both past actions and future strategies. When a company faces a crisis, the natural inclination is to analyze what went wrong. However, if this analysis is overly influenced by the outcome, it can lead to the wrong conclusions. For example, a company may believe that a particular communication strategy was effective simply because the crisis was resolved, ignoring the role of other factors like timing or external circumstances.

This type of thinking can be particularly dangerous in crisis planning. If a company bases its crisis communications strategy on what worked (or didn’t) in past crises, without considering the specific context and nuances of each situation, it may find itself unprepared when a new crisis emerges.

Applying Duke’s Theory to Crisis Communications Planning

To avoid the pitfalls of resulting, communicators should focus on the quality of the decision-making process rather than the outcome alone. It’s something that we make sure to do with our clients and here is how:

1. Develop a Robust Decision-Making Framework: Establish clear criteria for decision-making that consider various possible scenarios and outcomes. This framework should be based on principles that prioritize transparency, consistency, and the protection of the organization’s reputation.
2. Conduct Post-Crisis Reviews with Process Focus: After a crisis, conduct a thorough review of the decisions made, focusing on the reasoning and process rather than the outcome. Ask questions like: Were the decisions made based on the best available information? Were risks appropriately assessed? Were stakeholder interests properly considered?
3. Plan for Multiple Outcomes: In crisis communications, there are often multiple possible outcomes, each with different implications. Develop strategies that account for these variations, so that your response is flexible and adaptable, rather than rigidly tied to a single expected result.
4. Educate Stakeholders on Uncertainty: Communicate to stakeholders that not all outcomes are within the company’s control. Help them understand that a well-prepared crisis communications plan is designed to manage uncertainty and mitigate risks, not to guarantee a specific outcome.
5. Build Resilience into Your Strategy: Recognize that even the best-laid plans may not lead to the desired outcome. A resilient crisis communications strategy is one that can absorb shocks and still function effectively, even when things don’t go as planned. 

Annie Duke’s concept of resulting highlights a critical challenge in crisis communications: the temptation to judge decisions by their outcomes rather than the quality of the decision-making process. By focusing on robust processes, planning for uncertainty, and conducting thoughtful post-crisis reviews, organizations can better prepare for and respond to crises. This approach not only improves the effectiveness of crisis communications but also builds a stronger, more resilient organization.