A leader’s success in a crisis rests heavily on the ability under uncertainty and time pressure to make informed choices among competing priorities. In part, this skill can be developed through experience. Seasoned officials thrive in the hectic pace of deliberations and decisions. Many tend to develop astute self-confidence in their abilities to handle high-pressure situations. The French Presidency of 2008 excelled in this skill, while the subsequent Czech Presidency paled in comparison.

The distinctive feature of national and multinational crisis decision making, however, is the onslaught of qualitatively new challenges. There are limits to the ability of political leaders to prepare for crisis coping through on-the-job experiences. You also need systematic training through scenario-based simulations to instil a sense of the unique features of crisis decision making compared with other and more frequently experienced types of policymaking situations. It is better to discover your shortcomings coping with a crisis in discrete training settings than expose them live in the media limelight.

Giving strong verbal commitment to an improved crisis-management capacity in the immediate aftermath of tragic events, such as 9/11, 11/3 or 7/7, is commonplace among leaders. How many of them, however, really follow it up? The responsible public leader commits to the task of continuous capacity enhancement long after such dramatic events. Without a leadership commitment, the work towards improving the organisational capacity for low-probability but high-consequence events will soon slide into a low-prestige ritual without adequate staff motivation.