P-DRIVEN: First Experimental Evidence
An exploratory experiment compared three crisis management approaches directly. The result challenges a widespread assumption: experience and formal procedures are not a reliable proxy for crisis management quality.
Background
In the first scientific comparative experiment on crisis management approaches, conducted at NBS Northern Business School Hamburg, three different approaches competed directly.
Compared:
- An experienced team without additional intervention (approximately 40 years of cumulative experience)
- An inexperienced team with one hour of training in DV 100 (the standard German crisis management guideline)
- An inexperienced team with a single facilitator trained for one hour in P-DRIVEN
What the Experiment Shows
Across multiple observer-based criteria, the strongest improvements were consistently found in the P-DRIVEN team. This pattern remained stable when performance changes were normalized relative to baseline predispositions and the amount of intervention input.
In simple terms: with comparatively little but clear structure and minimal facilitator training, measurable crisis management performance improved more than in teams relying primarily on experience or formal procedures.
Concretely, the P-DRIVEN team’s communication and team behavior after the intervention was such that observers could barely recognize it as the same team.
The Self-Assessment Paradox
The most notable finding was not the performance outcome. It was the discrepancy between observed performance and self-perception.
The team with the strongest observer-rated improvements reported only marginal subjective progress, in some cases even decline. Another team reported strong self-assessed improvements despite limited observable change according to observer criteria.
Qualitative feedback suggests: high communication intensity and visible activity generate a strong subjective sense of control. But in this experiment, that feeling was not a reliable indicator of actual decision quality.
What This Means for Practice
Self-assessment is a fragile foundation for evaluating crisis management capability.
Organizations that assess their crisis readiness on the pattern of “we had a good exercise” may be measuring the wrong thing. The feeling of having handled an exercise well does not necessarily correlate with what teams produce under real pressure.
Experience alone is not a reliable proxy for crisis management quality. The same applies to formal process compliance. What matters is structured decision capability under conditions that cannot be predicted in advance.
Limitations
The experiment is exploratory. Causal claims are not possible. The results are a starting point for further research, not proof.
The underlying question remains: are we measuring crisis management quality by how effective it feels, or by what teams actually produce under pressure?
Quotable
“Experience and formal process compliance are not reliable proxies for crisis management quality under pressure.”
“The feeling of having handled an exercise well does not necessarily correlate with what teams produce in a real situation.”
“With minimal but clear structure, measurable improvements can be achieved that extensive experience does not guarantee.”
→ The methodological model behind this: Approach → Crisis exercises as diagnostic instruments: Services