Policy and the Comfort Blanket of Control: Why Trust, Doctrine and Command Intent Matter More

Abstract / Teaser

Emergency management has become addicted to policy as a comfort blanket for senior leaders—something to wave at inspectors, but of little use when the crisis hits. What truly matters on the incident ground is not control from the top, but trust, doctrine, and clear command intent. This blog challenges the culture of over-reliance on policy and argues for a shift towards empowered delegation, shared doctrine, and the courage to let go of control when it matters most.

In emergency management, we often congratulate ourselves on our policies. We produce detailed strategies, issue high-level statements of principle, and assure ourselves that because the documents exist, resilience has been achieved. For many senior leaders, policy functions as a comfort blanket—a reassurance that order has been imposed on complexity, that someone, somewhere, has codified the risks and responses into neat words on paper.

But the lived reality of crisis quickly tears that comfort blanket to shreds. When the phone rings at two in the morning, when the flood defences are overtopped, when a hazardous plume spreads faster than models predicted, no policy document will tell a commander exactly what to do in that moment. Policy is static; emergencies are dynamic. Policy is abstract; emergencies are painfully concrete.

That is why doctrine and trust must take precedence.

The Illusion of Control

Control is intoxicating for senior leaders. It offers the illusion that if only enough policy exists—enough rules, enough frameworks, enough centrally approved checklists—then the messy uncertainties of real-world emergencies can be managed from the top. It is a comforting story: risk can be eliminated through prescription, failure avoided through control.

Yet this is precisely the wrong lesson to draw from history. Major incident inquiries, from Grenfell to Manchester Arena, consistently reveal not a lack of policy but a lack of adaptability, coordination, and trust. Overly rigid procedures and centralised control often prevent those closest to the problem from acting quickly and effectively. Policy cannot anticipate every variable in a crisis; it cannot legislate for human behaviour, cascading system failures, or the brutal pace of uncertainty.

Leaders who cling to policy as a safeguard are in danger of confusing the existence of documents with actual preparedness. Policy creates the boundaries of intent, but it cannot deliver outcomes on its own. That requires something deeper.

The Case for Doctrine

Doctrine is often misunderstood. It is not another policy, nor a manual of detailed instructions. Instead, it is a shared body of principles and practices that enable professionals to act coherently under pressure. Doctrine provides the “why” and the “how” in broad terms, without seeking to script every decision.

In the UK context, National Operational Guidance in the fire and rescue service, the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP), or NATO’s resilience doctrine are examples of attempts to codify shared understanding. They do not dictate precise steps for every scenario but instead offer an underpinning philosophy: common principles, common language, and common expectations.

The power of doctrine is that it creates unity of purpose without uniformity of action. When responders share doctrine, they can anticipate how colleagues will act, even without direct communication. They know the principles that guide decision-making. They can improvise, adapt, and innovate—safe in the knowledge that they are aligned to a broader intent.

Command Intent and Delegation

This brings us to command intent. At its heart, intent is the leader’s clear articulation of purpose and desired outcome. It is not a list of tasks. It is a compass, not a map. In complex, fast-moving crises, intent empowers subordinates to make rapid, informed decisions without waiting for explicit instructions.

Delegation, underpinned by intent, is essential. No gold commander can ever have sufficient situational awareness to dictate every move. Attempting to control every variable creates delay, disempowers frontline staff, and can ultimately cause harm. Conversely, when leaders trust their teams—when they invest in competence, foster confidence, and allow professional discretion—the system becomes agile.

This is not about laissez-faire leadership or abandoning accountability. It is about recognising that agility beats rigidity, that empowered professionals outperform controlled automatons. Command intent provides the guardrails, but within them, trust enables decisive action.

Policy as a Crutch

So why do senior leaders so often default to policy as their preferred instrument? Because it feels safe. Policy is tangible: it can be published, signed off, presented to committees, and waved at inspectors. It signals diligence and gives the impression of control. For boards, regulators, and politicians, the presence of policy demonstrates responsibility.

But this safety is illusory. When crises hit, responders rarely reach for the policy binder. They reach for training, experience, doctrine, and the intent communicated by their leaders. They rely on trust: trust in colleagues, trust in systems, trust in principles.

Over-reliance on policy can even become dangerous. It fosters a culture where staff look upward for direction instead of outward at the problem. It creates dependency, sapping initiative. It leaves leaders believing they can command through documents rather than through clarity of intent and confidence in people. Policy as a comfort blanket may reassure the boardroom, but it constrains the incident ground.

Towards a Culture of Trust

If we are serious about improving emergency management, we must shift the cultural balance. Policy will always have a place, but it must be recognised for what it is: a framework, not a solution. The real solution lies in cultivating doctrine and trust.

That means investing in shared doctrine across agencies—common principles that cut across silos. It means training leaders to express intent clearly and concisely, avoiding the trap of micromanagement. It means nurturing a culture where delegation is the norm, not the exception, and where initiative is celebrated rather than penalised.

Most of all, it means confronting the reality that control is an illusion. Emergencies will never unfold according to our neat documents. The leaders who succeed are those who can set intent, trust their people, and empower professional discretion underpinned by doctrine.

Conclusion

In the end, policy is necessary but insufficient. It may comfort leaders, but it cannot substitute for doctrine and trust. Emergencies demand agility, adaptability, and empowerment. They demand leaders who can articulate command intent and delegate authority with confidence.

The next time we are tempted to reach for more policy as the solution to complexity, we should ask ourselves: are we creating resilience, or are we clutching at a comfort blanket? If we are serious about delivering effective emergency management, we must be brave enough to let go of control, to trust in our doctrine, and to trust in our people.