Crisis Decision-Making Frameworks: How to Make the Right Call Under Pressure

In a crisis, decisions must be made fast, often with limited information and high stakes. The difference between a well-handled crisis and a catastrophic failure often comes down to the decision-making process used in the moment. This article examines different crisis decision-making frameworks you can readily apply to your crisis teams.

Studies have shown that during crises, cognitive biases, stress and incomplete data can severely impair decision-making. A report by McKinsey found that companies with structured crisis decision-making frameworks recover 40% faster than those without.

So how do you ensure effective, structured decision-making in a crisis? The answer lies in proven decision-making frameworks that help leaders assess risks, prioritise actions, and make clear, confident choices under pressure.

1️⃣ The OODA Loop: Rapid Decision-Making Under Pressure

🔹 What it is: The OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) was developed by US Air Force Colonel John Boyd to help fighter pilots make split-second decisions in combat. It is now widely used in crisis response, military strategy and business resilience.

🔹 How it works:

1️⃣ Observe: Gather real-time information about the crisis. What’s happening? What’s changing?

2️⃣ Orient: Analyse the situation, assess risks, and determine how it impacts your objectives.

3️⃣ Decide: Choose the best course of action based on available information.

4️⃣ Act: Implement the decision swiftly, while continuing to reassess and adapt as needed.

🔹 Why it works in a crisis: The OODA Loop allows teams to outpace the crisis by making fast, iterative decisions rather than waiting for perfect information.

📢 Example: During the 2011 Queensland floods, emergency response teams used a variation of the OODA Loop to rapidly assess rising water levels, adjust evacuation zones, and deploy resources to at-risk communities in real time.

2️⃣ The Cynefin Framework: Matching Your Approach to the Crisis Type

🔹 What it is: Developed by Dave Snowden, the Cynefin Framework helps decision-makers classify situations into five domains:

✅ Simple (Clear solutions, best practices available)

✅ Complicated (Expert analysis needed, but predictable)

✅ Complex (Unpredictable, requires adaptation and experimentation)

✅ Chaotic (Immediate action required to stabilise the situation)

✅ Disorder (Unclear where the crisis fits—first task is to categorise it)

🔹 How it works in crisis management:

• For chaotic crises (e.g., an active shooter, sudden cyberattack): Immediate command-and-control leadership is needed to restore stability.

• For complex crises (e.g., a global pandemic): Decision-making should be adaptive, allowing for experimentation and learning as new information emerges.

🔹 Why it works in a crisis: Leaders often make mistakes by treating complex or chaotic crises as simple problems, leading to oversimplification and failure. The Cynefin framework prevents this by forcing decision-makers to match their response style to the crisis type.

📢 Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments initially treated it as a complicated problem (assuming experts could model and control it) when it was actually complex—requiring adaptation, experimentation, and decentralised decision-making.

3️⃣ Crisis Decision-Making Considerations for Leaders

Before making a decision, crisis leaders should ask:

🔹 1. What do we know, and what are we assuming?

• Are our facts verified, or are we acting on untested assumptions?

• What critical information is missing, and can we get it in time?

🔹 2. What is the worst-case scenario if we make the wrong call?

• How severe are the consequences of failure?

• What are the second- and third-order effects of this decision?

🔹 3. What are the time constraints?

• Is this an immediate, time-sensitive decision (e.g., life safety, operational shutdown)?

• Can we delay for more information without increasing risk?

🔹 4. Who will be impacted by this decision?

• Have we considered the stakeholders involved (employees, customers, partners, regulators, public)?

• How will different groups react to our decision?

🔹 5. What is the long-term reputational impact?

• Does this align with our company’s values and ethical standards?

• Will this decision build or erode trust in leadership?

🔹 6. Are we falling into cognitive biases?

• Are we overconfident, anchoring on bad data, or suffering from groupthink?

• Have we challenged our assumptions and sought diverse perspectives?

By structuring crisis decision-making around these key considerations, leaders avoid knee-jerk reactions and ensure more strategic, risk-informed choices.

4️⃣ The Eisenhower Matrix: Prioritising Crisis Actions

🔹 What it is: The Eisenhower Matrix is a prioritisation tool that helps leaders cut through noise and focus on what truly matters in a crisis.

🔹 How it works: Tasks are categorised into four quadrants:

1️⃣ Urgent and Important – DO immediately (e.g., evacuate, contain damage)

2️⃣ Important but Not Urgent – PLAN for next steps (e.g., recovery strategy)

3️⃣ Urgent but Not Important – DELEGATE to crisis response teams (e.g., media handling)

4️⃣ Neither Urgent nor Important – ELIMINATE (avoid distractions)

🔹 Why it works in a crisis: In high-stress situations, people often waste time on low-priority tasks. The Eisenhower Matrix ensures leaders focus only on what’s critical.

📢 Example: During natural disasters, emergency response teams use this model to prioritise life-saving actions first, then shift to long-term recovery planning.

Conclusion: The Right Framework for the Right Crisis

There is no one-size-fits-all decision-making model for crises. The best leaders use multiple frameworks depending on the situation:

✔️ OODA Loop – For fast-moving, high-pressure crises.

✔️ Cynefin Framework – To match response style to crisis type.

✔️ Eisenhower Matrix – To prioritise crisis response tasks effectively.

✔️ Decision-Making Considerations – To validate choices before acting.