The largest group (21%) of leaders demonstrated ‘Hero’ bias, placing themselves central to resolving the issue, supported by view that a leader should be dynamic, strong at problem-solving and has dealt with similar situations in the past.

Participants then divided into five similarly sized biases:

Just a handful of senior leaders exhibited the remaining biases, which arguably demonstrate the most extreme forms of denial response. However, there were interesting differences even in these smaller groups, underpinned by the cultural perceptions of participants.

Insight into corporate culture is essential to understanding the context in which senior leaders approach, process and deal with crises.

Our research also revealed substantial gaps between the leaders’ self-perception and organisational culture. From the cohort, 25% described their organisation’s leadership culture as ‘dysfunctional,’ with just 21% believing it to be ‘collaborative.’ This raises questions about which version of the truth is on display in hostile media interviews – a leader’s own view or the company’s agreed position?

In an economic environment that requires innovation and ambition, few senior leaders associated their corporate culture with these descriptors. Only 3% agreed their culture was innovative, rising to 17% for ambitious. Confidence and optimism were in short supply, 21% and 19% respectively described their operating environment in these terms. And, despite underlying perceptions of working in a principled leadership team, only 25% described their workplace culture as authentic.

While sizing the biases demonstrated by senior leaders is useful, understanding differences in who exhibits which and the role of corporate culture drives real insight.

Correlation analysis showed that those who identify as ‘The Hero’ more likely come from cultures that may allow these kinds of leaders to operate with a greater degree of confidence and optimism about organisational capability to resolve crises i.e. those not described as ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘untrustworthy.’

Similarly, those who demonstrate ‘We’ve Got This’ this are significantly more likely to view their leadership culture as transparent versus those who demonstrate other biases. This positive perception may give them self-belief that a crisis is manageable.

Exploring what drives the more negative biases is equally insightful. Leaders exhibiting
‘Disaster’ bias are significantly more likely to be under 50 and from corporate cultures pre-disposed to being hesitant, unambitious and cautious.

The small number who were more dismissive of the impact of a crisis (‘Storm in a Teacup’ or ‘Lawful’) over-index on ‘confident’, ‘resilient’ and ‘collaborative’ cultural environments. This context may allow them to have greater self-belief in their ability to robustly defend their organisations from the potential impacts of a crisis.

The research highlights that, while organisations may prepare and test detailed plans to handle major incidents, the subconscious biases of leaders under pressure will determine how they play out in practice.

The behaviours that personal biases generate in a crisis, influenced and often exaggerated by corporate culture, have the potential to derail the most thorough and rehearsed plans and expose organisations to significant risk.

Leaders undoubtedly need resolve and courage to navigate through a crisis. They are also human, with personal responses to pressure shaped by life experience. Only through building self-awareness and helping them to recognise and manage their own instinctive pressure reactions is crisis preparedness truly set up for success.