Author: Dr. Lina Kolesnikova, Fellow/Director of European & International Affairs of ICPEM (UK). Dr. Kolesnikova has researched and written on a wide range of topical issues arising from recent events on the global scene and is also a frequent speaker and moderator at international events. (Linkedin Bio)
Over the years, I’ve participated in and observed many crisis management exercises — from small tabletop simulations to large, resource-intensive drills with invited external experts and cross-functional teams. One pattern stands out: the more comprehensive and expensive the exercise, the more likely it is to be described as “successful.”
High-profile exercises involve preparation, observers and reputational stakes. No organization wants to publicly rehearse failure. As a result, scenarios are often calibrated to remain challenging but manageable.
Real crises, however, are rarely scripted. Information is incomplete. Systems degrade simultaneously. People disagree. Fatigue accumulates. Authority may be unclear or controversial. Technical and organizational failures overlap.
This is where organizational resilience is tested — not in smooth coordination, but in sustained uncertainty. An exercise that runs flawlessly may demonstrate capability. But it does not necessarily test vulnerability. A drill that produces no visible friction may not signal robustness, but insufficient stress-testing.
My conclusion is not that large-scale exercises are unnecessary. Complex organizations require complex simulations. The question is not about scale or cost — it is about design intent. Are we validating capability, or discovering limits?
If the objective is learning rather than reassurance, the focus shifts. Instead of asking only whether the crisis was resolved, we might examine:
• Where did confusion emerge?
• Which roles became overloaded?
• How were conflicting interpretations handled?
• What slowed coordination down?
Process often reveals more than outcome. Hesitation, disagreement and bottlenecks are not signs of failure — they are indicators of where resilience must deepen.
Equally important is creating space for controlled failure. A resilient organization is not one that avoids exposing weakness, but one that can afford to discover vulnerabilities in simulation rather than in reality. This requires more than budget and logistics; it requires leadership willing to tolerate visible discomfort and treat friction not as embarrassment, but as data. Perhaps the most valuable crisis exercises are not those that confirm excellence, but those that safely expose fragility.
Readiness is not the ability to execute predefined steps under structured conditions. It is the capacity to adapt when those conditions deteriorate.
In some of the most carefully designed exercises I’ve seen, the most valuable learning emerged not from the scripted escalation, but from unplanned human dynamics. These moments rarely appear in after-action reports. Yet they often determine real-world outcomes.