The Crisis Meeting That Wouldn’t End
When repeated consultation puts a decision beyond reach
Lilien Gerlach
21 January 2026
The meeting did not feel particularly dramatic at first. On Thursday morning, the partners of an established financial consultancy gathered to discuss a problem that had emerged during the final preparations for a major assignment.
The firm had secured a three-year contract with a European bank. Work was due to begin on Monday. Ten additional consultants had been recruited for the assignment. Finding, securing and preparing them had taken considerable time and investment. They were ready to start.
Then the risk management partner raised a concern. The bank’s contract included a liability provision that went beyond the consultancy’s usual contractual obligations. Its existing professional indemnity policy covered specified professional liabilities, but the provision could leave the firm responsible for losses that the insurer would not necessarily pay.
The broker had approached the insurer. After reviewing the contract, the insurer had offered an endorsement extending cover to the identified contractual exposure, subject to a specified limit and conditions. The additional premium was substantial. The quotation was valid until Friday afternoon, after which the insurer would need to reassess the terms. The managing partner had authority to approve the arrangement after consulting his colleagues and had called the meeting to examine the options.
The commercial partner opened with the client commitment. The bank had completed its preparations and expected the team on Monday. Revisiting the contract at this stage would be difficult, particularly after months of negotiations. The operations partner added that the consultants had already been assigned to the project. Their onboarding was complete. Postponing the work would leave the firm paying for capacity it had deliberately recruited and could not immediately redeploy.
The risk management partner explained the potential exposure. The concern had arisen from the liability clause in the bank’s contract, rather than the professional competence of the newly recruited consultants. The insurer’s proposed endorsement addressed that particular gap, within the limits set out in the quotation.
A senior equity partner questioned the additional premium.
“Are we certain we need to buy this cover? We could ask the bank to amend the clause.”
The commercial partner was doubtful. The contract had been signed, and the bank was expecting work to begin. Reopening negotiations could affect both the timetable and the relationship.
The managing partner asked the risk partner to explain precisely what would remain uninsured. He then asked the equity partner which part of the premium he considered unjustified. Both questions helped establish the available choices. The firm could accept the endorsement, seek a contractual amendment or proceed while retaining the identified exposure, provided doing so remained consistent with its obligations to the bank.
By the end of the meeting, the managing partner had heard the competing assessments and ensured that the partners understood the available options. They continued to attach different weight to the financial exposure, the additional expenditure and the commercial consequences of reopening negotiations.
The second conversation
By Thursday afternoon, the broker had confirmed the insurer’s terms in writing. The risk partner had also reviewed the contractual position with the firm’s legal adviser. The proposed endorsement addressed the identified liability provision within its stated limits. The bank had not agreed to an amendment, and there was insufficient time to assume that renegotiation could be completed before the project began.
The commercial partner supported purchasing the additional cover, as did the risk partner. The equity partner remained unconvinced. He was concerned that agreeing to a substantial additional premium at the last moment would establish an expensive precedent. Future clients might demand similarly broad liability provisions, leaving the partnership repeatedly paying to insure obligations it should have challenged during negotiations.
The managing partner asked whether the partners could support the recommendation. The equity partner repeated his objection. He wanted another attempt to negotiate with the bank.
“Which part of the assessment do you disagree with?” the managing partner asked.
“The assessment isn’t my problem. It’s the price we’re paying for accepting that clause.”
The equity partner understood the exposure and the protection offered by the insurer. He questioned whether purchasing that protection represented an acceptable commercial decision.
The managing partner asked the risk partner to explain the insurer’s position once more. She repeated her assessment, after which he invited the commercial partner to reconsider whether the bank might accept a late amendment. The response was unchanged. They agreed to meet again on Friday morning.
The managing partner had built strong relationships with his partners partly by allowing disagreements to be examined properly. Colleagues could challenge proposals without being dismissed, and he generally preferred agreement before committing the firm to a consequential decision. His approach had helped the partnership establish the facts, examine the available choices and identify their consequences. The partners now understood the alternatives but remained divided over which course the firm should take.
The bank contacted the consultancy early on Friday, asking for final confirmation of the project team. The operations partner had the list ready but wanted to know whether any restrictions would affect the consultants’ assignments. The broker also sent a reminder that the insurer needed acceptance of the additional cover that afternoon.
At the meeting, the managing partner began by asking whether anyone had reconsidered their position. The risk partner confirmed her recommendation. The commercial partner supported proceeding. The equity partner still believed the firm should avoid paying the additional premium.
“Could we go back to the bank once more?” he asked.
“We can ask,” the commercial partner replied. “But we have no indication they’ll change a signed agreement before Monday.”
The managing partner turned to the risk partner.
“Is there anything else we could establish before deciding?”
“About the cover? We have the wording, the limits and the premium. I’ve explained what it addresses and what it leaves with us.”
The managing partner looked towards the equity partner.
“Would another discussion with the broker help?”
The risk partner glanced at the clock.
“The broker is waiting for our answer.”
The managing partner suggested they take a little more time to consider whether everyone could support the proposed arrangement. Nobody had introduced a new risk, a different quotation or a workable alternative. The insurer’s deadline was now only hours away.
When another question changes nothing
Leaders have good reasons to encourage discussion, particularly when a decision depends on information held by different people. Michael Hoven and colleagues (2023) examined video recordings of twelve emergency-management exercises, studying how leaders encouraged or restricted contributions during different meeting phases. They found that closing statements were more common during decision-making. In the first meetings, leaders of teams with poorer situation awareness also invited more contributions during that phase. The study could not establish whether the invitations contributed to poorer situation awareness or reflected leaders’ attempts to resolve it.
Corinne Post and colleagues (2022) examined leadership behaviour through experiments involving 72 crisis-management teams. Participative leadership improved decision accuracy in unfamiliar emergencies, while directive leadership improved accuracy in familiar emergencies and enabled faster decisions in those circumstances. Both studies concern emergency-management teams, so their findings cannot establish what causes delay in a professional partnership.
The managing partner’s questions on Thursday had a clear purpose. The contractual exposure needed examination. The partners needed to understand what the insurer would cover, what would remain with the firm and whether another arrangement was available. By Friday, the relevant assessments were complete. The equity partner understood the risk partner’s recommendation and continued to oppose the expenditure. The commercial partner understood the concern about future contractual precedents and remained unwilling to jeopardise the client relationship through another round of negotiations.
Each partner was evaluating consequences that fell within their area of responsibility. Further consultation could have been justified if someone had identified an unresolved factual question or an alternative that could realistically be pursued before the deadline. The managing partner continued inviting discussion without identifying what additional information it was expected to produce.
His questions acknowledged his colleagues’ concerns and maintained an atmosphere in which disagreement could be expressed openly. Meanwhile, the same assessments occupied successive meetings, and the time available to accept the insurer’s offer was steadily diminishing.
The firm could continue debating the commercial wisdom of accepting broad contractual liabilities, and that discussion might improve future negotiations. The current contract had already been signed. By Friday afternoon, the partnership had to determine whether to accept the available insurance, retain the exposure within its contractual obligations or pursue another course whose feasibility had become increasingly uncertain.
The decision still belonged to him
The managing partner’s preference for consultation had considerable advantages. His colleagues were accustomed to having their concerns examined, and they had good reasons to trust that he would listen. The first meeting demonstrated the value of that approach. A significant contractual exposure had been identified and assessed, and the partnership had obtained an insurance proposal addressing it.
The difficulty emerged as the same objections returned without materially changing the decision. The commercial partner was concerned about the client relationship, the risk partner about financial exposure and the equity partner about expenditure and contractual precedent. Their responsibilities gave them different reasons to favour particular outcomes. Their disagreement could continue after the managing partner exercised his authority.
A defensible decision required him to assess the available alternatives against the firm’s contractual obligations, financial position and commercial priorities. His colleagues had supplied their professional assessments, including the consequences of proceeding with the existing cover and the uncertainty surrounding further negotiations with the bank.
His repeated attempts to secure agreement were consistent with a leadership style that placed considerable value on maintaining relationships among senior partners. A managing partner depends on colleagues whose cooperation remains important after individual decisions have been made. Overruling an equity partner on a substantial expenditure could affect those relationships, especially if the disagreement later resurfaced in discussions about profitability or future client contracts.
There was also a commercial consequence to continued consultation. The insurer’s quotation would expire, the bank’s expectations remained unchanged, and the consultants were due to begin work on Monday. If the insurer withdrew or revised the offer after expiry, the partnership would have fewer options than it had possessed on Thursday.
The managing partner could reasonably decide to investigate a remaining concern, even if that meant allowing the quotation to expire. Such a decision would require an assessment of what further investigation might establish and the consequences of losing the current terms. At the Friday meeting, however, the partners were still discussing objections that had already been examined. The managing partner continued to seek agreement while the opportunity to act on the available quotation was approaching its end.
Friday afternoon
The broker called shortly before the quotation expired. The risk management partner answered and confirmed that the partners were still discussing the proposal. She could not authorise acceptance herself.
Across the table, the equity partner was explaining why the consultancy should resist accepting unusually broad liability provisions in future client contracts. The commercial partner agreed that future contracts needed closer scrutiny. He had already made that point on Thursday.
The broker asked whether the consultancy intended to accept the current offer. The risk partner looked towards the managing partner, who asked the equity partner whether his concerns had now been adequately addressed.
The equity partner answered that he understood the proposal. He still disagreed with the additional expenditure.
The managing partner had heard his objection, understood its basis and given him several opportunities to explain it. The partners could continue examining future contractual policy after Friday, and their disagreement about the premium did not have to disappear before the firm could act.
The risk partner was still holding the telephone. The insurer was waiting for an answer that only the managing partner could authorise.
References
Hoven, M., Segers, M., Gevers, J., & Van den Bossche, P. (2023). Leader airtime management and team effectiveness in emergency management command and control (EMCC) teams. Ergonomics, 66(10), 1565–1581.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2157493
Post, C., De Smet, H., Uitdewilligen, S., Schreurs, B., & Leysen, J. (2022). Participative or directive leadership behaviors for decision-making in crisis management teams? Small Group Research, 53(5), 692–724.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221087952
Case note: The consultancy and the meeting are fictional. The scenario illustrates a possible organisational decision-making problem. The research cited examines leadership behaviour in emergency-management teams.