Situational Awareness of Decision-Makers in Different Phases of Crisis Management
Purpose: The research aims to determine how different levels of situational awareness among decision-makers influence the effectiveness of their decisions across various phases of crisis management. The article examines the three levels of situational awareness—perception, comprehension, and projection—and evaluates their significance in each phase of a crisis, as well as their impact on decision-making accuracy under uncertainty and time pressure. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study is structured around the following central research question: Which level of situational awareness is most critical in the different phases of crisis management? The research problem is examined to verify the hypothesis that perception constitutes the most important element of situational awareness in all phases of crisis management in terms of decision effectiveness. The research draws on M. R. Endsley’s three-level model of situational awareness and employs a qualitative case study of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. Findings: The results indicate that the relative importance of each level of situational awareness (SA) shifts dynamically depending on the phase of crisis development. Decision effectiveness throughout the crisis management cycle depends on striking an appropriate balance among the three SA levels. Although perception is fundamental, it is not always sufficient for effective and accurate decision-making. It should be noted that the findings cannot be generalized to all crisis situations, as these differ in dynamics, causal structures, complexity, and decision-making contexts. The Chernobyl disaster represents a sudden and violent technological crisis in which rapid response was crucial. By contrast, in other types of crises—such as natural disasters, epidemics, or social and economic crises—the decision-making process unfolds more gradually and entails different priorities. Consequently, the significance of each SA level varies depending on the type of threat, the availability of information, and existing time constraints. In summary, the results may be partially generalized: effective crisis management requires situational awareness built on the synergy of all three levels. Nevertheless, the precedence of one SA level over another may vary depending on the type of crisis and prevailing conditions. Perception appears to be crucial in the initial phases of sudden and dynamic crises—such as industrial disasters or terrorist attacks—whereas comprehension or projection may play a greater role in long-term crises, including climate-related events. Practical implications: The findings have significant practical implications and may serve as a foundation for training programs dedicated to crisis-management decision-making authorities. The analysis identifies which SA levels are most critical in specific phases of crisis management and for particular decision-making roles. Training programs enriched with modules targeting specific SA levels could substantially enhance the quality and effectiveness of crisis management and strengthen the institutional resilience of security systems. Originality/Value: The novelty of this research stems from its holistic examination of decision-makers’ situational awareness across the entire crisis management cycle, and from its application of the M. R. Endsley model to a case study of a real-world disaster with global consequences. Its value lies in empirically demonstrating the relationship between situational awareness levels and decision effectiveness, and in identifying the cognitive mechanisms that shape effective action under conditions of uncertainty and risk.