From Buzzword to Clarity: Rethinking ‘Geopolitical Resilience’

We as an industry need to rethink the phrase “geopolitical resilience.”

We practice resilience during a volatile and chaotic period of political history. Look no further than the present war raging in the Middle East to find another example of unexpected, transformative change.

Problems on the world stage are complex and often present novel situations for our companies. They feel like “wicked problems” to those of us trying to protect something while having almost no ability to change the outcome. We’re nervous for our businesses because the assumptions and structures of our world system appear to be shifting and changing unpredictably.

Business resilience is about coordinating the chaos surrounding our organizations, and I believe the field is well-suited to respond to the kinds of threats and hazards geopolitical events often present.

However, as we watch the world (and our industry) respond to another geopolitical crisis, I’m concerned we’re making a mistake. It’s a semantic mistake, but a very common one. It misrepresents the value we and our programs already provide for this kind of problem, and it threatens to undermine our seat at the table as companies endeavor to weather this next storm.

I’m talking about the use of the problematic phrase “geopolitical resilience.”

Bear with me. I’ve heard the term used in webinars, conferences, articles, social media posts, expert opinions and commentary. McKinsey and ASIS have also used it.

It’s a problematic phrase because it doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t point to solutions and intended outcomes. At risk of sounding crass, we aren’t trying to make geopolitics more resilient, and our resilience programs do not need to sound like they have a geopolitical category.

When we speak of “operational” or “technology” resilience, we are trying to make those things more resilient, so the hat fits. This concept does not match with geopolitical resilience.

We are experts at defining business impact in many ways, but somehow when we talk about geopolitical events, it all becomes more nebulous and confusing. In trying to make sense of something often impossibly complex and deeply emotional, we end up relying on tired buzzwords or generalizations like VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) or “unprecedented times” and now also “geopolitical resilience.”

The credibility of our programs and practice relies on us demonstrating value between our core practices and the newest threats and hazards in practical, if not measurable, ways to protect the organizations we serve. We must be precise in our words and our methods, and this excludes phrases which point to barely anything at all. Fixing this problem starts with rethinking the phrase itself.

When I first encountered the phrase, I tried to accept it as “just semantics” because people would naturally “get the idea.” But I can’t accept what we’re losing here.

Words have the power to frame reality and what people consider possible, what leaders rely on as a guiding narrative in their own minds. Using such a vague phrase assumes everyone is on the same page. In reality, we fail to communicate properly. It’s a misnomer, a false concept for what we intend and what our businesses need.

Within seconds of hearing that term used as a resiliency category, every stakeholder in earshot will have created their own definition of what it means and framed their own idea of what a good outcome looks like before you’ve even had a chance.

The phrase is both grandiose and imprecise, and it sounds too much like other established terms which do have grounded meaning (like “supply chain resilience”).

As more and more attention is given to the business impact of geopolitical affairs, the lack of precision and clarity of the term is going to cost us more than ever. When our leaders come knocking – and our programs are tested by real-world disruptions related to political risk – a muddied response undermines our expertise. It’s possible we lose trust. Perhaps, our programs lose an opportunity to navigate a difficult problem. Worse yet, we could lose rapport with leaders who don’t have time for more ephemeral concepts or vague buzzwords which do not seem to offer immediate, grounded solutions.

What are we actually trying to say?

It’s clear the meaning of “geopolitical resilience” is a form of operational readiness and crisis management related to political/military affairs which may (or may not) have previously been considered in the scope of impacts resilience programs are meant to handle.

It points to managing the operational impact of geopolitical change and tries to describe how companies might handle threats related to the recurring upheavals we experience with a 24-hour news cycle. From supply chain disruptions, reputational risk, and market volatility–the phrase is vague because it’s trying to capture too wide a breadth of risks and impact types.

The practice of resilience is already equipped with the tools required to manage geopolitical risks and impacts. From process maps, recovery times, impact tolerances, and crisis communication, we actively build the “all-hazard” tools needed to respond to business impacts, regardless of the source. We already have the information to guide a response because geopolitical events are a known cause for which we already plan and exercise. The complexity of a given crisis is immaterial because we own the facts of our organization’s key process dependencies and can identify whether or not they were impacted. We can point to potential and actual impact before and during incidents. We are primed to lead and guard the narrative when crisis hits due to political events. In summary, we can define the situation and provide the clarity our leaders need to solve it.

Any resilience practitioner struggling to make sense of geopolitical events and their impact on business operations should start by asking themselves familiar questions. These relate to the basics of business continuity and operational resilience:

1. What exactly happened?
2. Where on a map did it happen?
3. Do we have assets nearby? Are they secure, and are people safe?
4. What is the measurable impact to those assets? Does the impact extend beyond the location of the event?
5. Are our customers and partners still getting what they need?
6. What plans and tools are in place for affected assets and the processes they require? Are we ready to use them?
7. What’s the worst, plausible way this could escalate in relation to our assets? Would our customers and partners still get what they need?

These are not new questions. They are useful for any kind of disruption, and like any kind of disruption they will create a grounded assessment of geopolitical risk events if answered with honesty and evidence.

To be sure, this approach requires your program is ready. You must have sustained a commitment to maintaining active situational awareness and to championing the basics of business continuity. If your BIA was not solid – or your plans are haphazard and lack strategy – you won’t be able to answer some of these questions. If you cannot trust your dependency map, you won’t be able to answer some of these questions. If you haven’t meaningfully tested your plans, then strategy may be obsolete.

These shortcomings do not mean you need a “geopolitical resilience program,” it means you need a better resilience program.

Like any other disruption event, solid resilience practice means solid resilience outcomes.

However, our discipline is capable of answering each of these questions with the truth about our organizations’ operating realities at enterprise scale, and that’s a strong testament to the value we offer.

We cannot – we must not – allow the confusion of world politics impinge on the clarity and value of a well-formed resilience scope of practice and a well-maintained program. Neither should we let it detract from the measurable, operational impact of these events from which we are already prepared to recover. The point of considering geopolitical risk and impact in the business continuity space is no different than considering the impact of most other threats and hazards – does it impact our operations, and what can we do to get ready and respond well?

Geopolitical risk events are characterized by uncertainty and confusion. Why should we contribute to the problem by using vague, impractical terms when we are supposed to define and prepare the nature of the threat and impact involved?

I expect some are already asking, “So what do you want us to call it?”

I propose we say it exactly as it is: “Preparing for and responding to the operational impacts of geopolitical events.”

Not a great buzzword, but it cuts through the complexities, nuances, and fears all at once.

It asks the core questions to resilience practice: “What’s happened? What happens to our business operations? Can we continue to deliver for our customers?”

I’ll say it again, we will never regret defining our terms and our objectives from the start to avoid confusion. As with every part of our programs, our organizations and stakeholders must have a specific and well-formed mental model of what could happen and how the organization is ready to respond, and this starts with us.

I recommend we drop the term “geopolitical resilience” and press forward with sound practices which already characterize resilience programs all around the globe.

The practice of resilience is already helping businesses thrive in an uncertain, changing world, so let’s be sure we are straight on how we are doing it.

***

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily represent the views, policy, or position of any other individual or entity with whom the author is or has been affiliated. These words are my own, and while I am thrilled by the potential AI offers to business resilience, it was not used in writing this article.