Why Put a Crisis in the Classroom?

1. The first question: Do you recognize that you are already in a crisis?

It is easy to think of crisis management as simply solving a problem as quickly as possible once something goes wrong.

But the course starts one step earlier. How do you recognize that you are in a crisis? How should you respond? And why is this a managerial responsibility, rather than merely one department’s problem?

The course also distinguishes between two kinds of work: managing day-to-day operations and preparing for a threat whose precise nature you do not yet know. The latter calls for a different mindset and different tools.

This brings to mind a difficulty in running a business: sometimes we can see a problem, but we continue to treat it as an ordinary issue even after its nature has changed.

A project delay might be a small scheduling deviation. It might also mean that the original plan no longer holds.

A customer’s objection might require a specific conversation. It might also reveal a deeper problem with the product, delivery, or internal management.

For me, the most useful takeaway is not the general advice to stay calm. It is a more specific reminder:

Before solving the problem, ask whether it is still the same kind of problem.

2. The second session: Enter the simulation instead of listening to another lecture

The second part is called Crisis Simulation. According to the course description in my notes, the readings and assignments for the simulation are distributed in class. The following session is devoted to debriefing it.

I find that this sequence—participate first, then debrief—adds something beyond listening to a case about success or failure.

When we hear a case, it is easy to judge with hindsight. Why did they not act sooner? Why did they ignore a different view? Why did they choose that path?

A simulation puts the learner in the position of having to make a judgment.

It makes me think that we need to test not just whether we can explain the right principles, but how we will judge and act when the problem is ours.

Bringing that training approach back to work, I would ask myself:

What was my judgment based on? Which elements were confirmed facts, and which were assumptions? Did my commitment to the initial judgment cause me to overlook information that arrived later?

These are self-checks I draw from the course design, not a way of scoring someone else after the event.

Analyzing another person’s decision and understanding your own decision-making process are different abilities.

3. The counterintuitive idea: Why might leadership become easier in a crisis?

The third part debriefs the simulation and examines leadership in a crisis.

According to the course description in my notes, a crisis can leave an organization shaken or even paralyzed, increasing the need for leadership. Yet that same disruption can sometimes make leadership more effective or easier to exercise.

This does not mean that crises are good, or that decisions become easy.

My interpretation is that, in ordinary times, every department has its own goals, rhythms, and reasons. Getting people to change priorities can take a long time.

When a shared problem can no longer be avoided, people may be more willing to acknowledge that the old approach must change and that they need to act together.

But there is an important distinction:

A crisis may open a window for change. It does not automatically produce good change.

More frequent reminders and more forceful instructions do not necessarily make it clearer to an organization what it should do.

The questions that need answering may be these: What matters most now? What can wait? Who is responsible for judgment, and who for execution? What new information would require us to revise the plan?

In my view, a leader’s role is not to appear more certain than everyone else. It is to help a shaken organization regain the ability to judge, collaborate, and act.

4. Bringing it back to investing: How would I assess a company?

After nearly two decades in investing, I naturally connect courses like this to the companies and projects I know.

Beyond the product, market, financials, and team’s track record, I want to examine something else more carefully: How does the organization work when its original plan stops working?

When bad news arrives, do people work to establish the facts quickly, or first explain why they are not responsible?

When there is disagreement, can the team put the different evidence on the table, or does everyone wait for the most powerful person to speak?

After a decision is made, are there clear owners and checkpoints? Or does everyone agree in the meeting and then return to working separately?

This is not an investment checklist supplied by the professor. It is a perspective I take from the course.

It reminds me not to assess a company only by how it performs when things go well. Under pressure or when results deviate from the plan, the way information flows, decisions form, and actions get carried out also deserves close attention.

5. Put the crisis in the classroom; bring the judgment back to work

What I value about the course is that it goes beyond discussing the qualities a leader should possess. It includes a simulation and then asks learners to look back at the experience.

First understand the problem, then participate, and finally examine your own judgment and actions.

For me, learning this way is not about taking home an impressive quotation. It offers another way to examine myself:

When events no longer follow the plan, am I trying to prove that my original judgment was right, or helping the team see what it should do now?

That is one lesson I want to share from the Stanford classroom.

Not everyone needs to take the same course. But before our next important discussion, this question is worth asking ourselves.