How the Sydney siege was a test of leadership
We are all going to die. That's the thought that actually occurred to some in Sydney's CBD on December 15, 2014. News feeds in every building told occupants: there was a hostage siege at the Lindt Cafe in Martin Place, the Opera House had been evacuated due to the discovery of a suspicious package and there were devices planted across the CBD.
Everyone, in each corporate enclave in each building in the city that day, had the same facts. But when facts are scant, fear pervasive and human existence at stake, when it becomes clear that we have no control, how do leaders respond? In a crisis, real leaders pluck up the courage to use their own judgment and own the consequences. On December 15, some companies demonstrated this. They leapt into action, making decisions quickly and communicating them clearly. They took a scalding hot knife to the molasses of policy, compliance and hierarchy.
How to respond in a crisis: lessons for employers from the Sydney siege
A listed property company directed its people out of the CBD within 90 minutes, chartering emergency ferries and catapulting regular CEO updates into inboxes with the assurance that you, men and women of toil, are our first priority. A major power company gave its people a choice, quickly: as adults with all the information, make your own decisions to stay or go, the organisation said, and we will support you. A leading investment group did the same.
The protagonists in these companies – whether formally in leadership positions or not – did not have more facts than any others. They bucked process and acted on impulse and emotion, literally in survival mode. They were scared. Perhaps they were following policy, perhaps they weren't. Perhaps they knew there might be consequences later for non-compliance. But they charged through. They understood that when all the returns are in, a crazed gunman eats corporate policy for breakfast.
Others around the CBD employed the Socratic method of decision-making, round-tabling questions of authority, data and the implications of dusting off various policies, all excitedly drafted by Gavin from risk management in 2003: the standard incident management policy, the more specific terrorist policy, or even – dare we do it? – the national emergency policy.
As the debate wore on, hours passed and employees in their offices watched the media with increasing horror. Communications were not issued. Decisions were not made. The silence was confusing; the inertia, chilling. In committee-land, the delusion of control was maintained. Whatever we do, they said, we must not rush a decision. We must look like we're in control.
Days later, psychologists debriefed affected staff across the CBD. In the committee-run organisations – which were common – the sessions threw up employee sense of abandonment and a lingering anxiety about their safety at work.
There are always reasons to delay making a decision. On December 15, there were valid questions to answer: who's in charge here, the building owners or the corporate tenants? Who has the power to make an announcement to building occupants? Do we invoke the incident management hierarchy or stick with BAU? How do we know who the most senior person in the building is today? What are the police telling us to do?
Reasonable questions, of course. But in a crisis, real leadership cuts through these and creates clarity, quickly. And in comparison, these questions seem like excuses: a way to defer a judgment call.
“Who is brave enough to use their own judgment to take whatever decisions are necessary? These are the leaders who will win in business. And they also might just save lives.”
None of us ever really know what we'll do in a crisis until it happens. In mature businesses, competitors often have access to the same facts. They are analysing the same data. The win comes when someone is brave enough to take that and apply judgment, make a call and break through.
And in a crisis, or even the sniff of a crisis, it is this breakthrough leadership which will be remembered. The most confident leaders knew this on December 15. They overcommunicated and overspent. The best outcome, they knew, would be getting the troops home safely and having to explain themselves the next day if the whole thing turned out to be a hoax.
And while no one really knew whether the right decision was to stay or go on December 15, what's emerged is a strong bias towards the latter. An employer has no power to detain employees in the building and many will make their own decisions anyway. This happened, and left the more compliant colleagues languishing in the office.
In the September 11, 2001 World Trade Centre attacks, 17 minutes passed between the first plane crash into the North Tower and the second plane crash into the South Tower. In that time, South Tower occupants – watching the North Tower tragedy – were told they were safe and to stay in place. Seventeen minutes was enough time to follow instinct and flee.
Even without the looming threat of terrorism, our world is ever more ambiguous and complex. Who among us is comfortable with only some data, not the whole picture? Who is brave enough to use their own judgment to take whatever decisions are necessary? These are the leaders who will win in business. And they also might just save lives.
Margot Faraci is a former executive who has worked in the property, financial and legal sectors.
