Turning Lessons into Preparedness: Beyond Training
Why readiness fails without alignment of people, environment, and policy
Contributed by Jim Brigham, LCG VP of Risk Management, Former Operations Chief, State of Vermont, Office of Safety and Security
Series context. This final installment in the Mindset Shift series moves the discussion from individual response and awareness to system-level readiness. It integrates lessons from time, distance, Run–Hide–Fight, threat anatomy, and safety culture into a unified preparedness model. [1]
Training Is Necessary but Not Sufficient
Across industries, organizations invest heavily in safety and security training. Employees attend active threat briefings, review emergency procedures, and occasionally participate in drills. On paper, these efforts suggest preparedness. In practice, after-action reviews following real incidents frequently tell a different story: hesitation, confusion, communication failures, and unsafe movement decisions. [2]
The problem is not a lack of effort. It is a misunderstanding of what preparedness actually is.
Federal doctrine defines preparedness as a continuous, integrated cycle rather than a discrete activity. The Federal Emergency Management Agency describes preparedness as encompassing planning, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action. When training is treated as a stand-alone solution, the system fails under stress. [3]
LCG perspective. We routinely encounter organizations that can explain the Run–Hide–Fight conceptually but cannot execute it inside their own facilities. Training that is disconnected from physical space and policy creates confidence without capability.
Preparedness is not measured by what people know. It is measured by what they can do, under stress, in real environments.
Integrating Run–Hide–Fight with the Built Environment
Run–Hide–Fight is often presented as a simple sequence. In reality, it is a decision framework that must be adapted to the context. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security emphasizes that individual action should be based on accessible options, environmental conditions, and immediacy of threat. [4]
Common gaps emerge when training is not integrated with physical assessments:
- Employees are instructed to run but have not identified primary, secondary, and tertiary exit routes.
- Guidance to hide does not account for which doors lock, which walls provide ballistic protection, or how to barricade effectively.
- Fight is described abstractly, without defining disruption, escape windows, or coordination with others. [5]
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency stresses that preparedness must be site-specific and informed by layout, access control, sightlines, and occupant flow. Applying generic training to unique spaces creates dangerous assumptions. [6]
Physical security and facility assessments translate theory into reality. They identify where time and distance can actually be created, how movement occurs under stress, and which environmental features help or hinder survivability.
Writing Emergency Operations Plans That Work Under Stress
Most Emergency Operations Plans fail when they are needed most. Not because they are incomplete, but because they are unusable under stress.
Plans written primarily for compliance often prioritize thoroughness over clarity. During a crisis, individuals do not reference binders or shared drives. Research and federal guidance consistently show that people rely on memory, habit, and practiced behavior. [7]
FEMA’s Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 emphasizes that effective plans must be simple, flexible, and widely understood. Plans should support decision-making, not overwhelm it. [8]
Functional EOPs share key characteristics:
- Role-based guidance rather than long procedural narratives
- Clear authority for action when leadership is unavailable
- Alignment with actual facility layouts and operational realities
- Reinforcement through drills, tabletop exercises, and leadership participation [9]
LCG perspective. A plan that exists only in documentation is not a plan. A plan that is practiced, reinforced, and trusted becomes instinct under pressure.
Continuity Between People, Environment, and Policy
Durable preparedness emerges when three domains are intentionally aligned.
People
Employees must be trained not only to respond, but to recognize threats early, report concerns without fear, and act decisively when seconds matter. Trauma-informed response and recovery are essential to sustaining long-term resilience. [10]
Environment
Facilities must be assessed and maintained so that security features function as intended. Occupants must understand how space, lighting, sound, and access controls affect movement and safety during an incident. [11]
Policy
Policies must be concise, practiced, and reinforced by leadership behavior. They should evolve based on exercises, incidents, and lessons learned rather than remaining static. [12]
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration identifies leadership engagement and shared responsibility as central components of effective safety cultures. Rules alone do not reduce risk. Culture does. [13]
When these elements are developed independently, organizations rely on improvisation. When they are aligned, organizations build resilience.
Why Integration Matters Now
The risk environment has shifted. Law enforcement response times are strained, threats are increasingly unpredictable, and in many incidents, employees are the only responders for the first critical minutes. [14]
FBI data confirms that a significant portion of active shooter incidents end before law enforcement arrives. Occupants, not responders, make initial survival decisions. [15]
In this reality, preparedness cannot be symbolic or compliance-driven. Organizations that rely solely on training transfer risk to their employees without providing the tools, environment, or authority to succeed.
That is not preparedness. It is exposure.
How LCG Discovery Moves Organizations Beyond Training
LCG Discovery approaches preparedness as a risk management system, not a single service. Our work integrates behavioral awareness, physical security, and operational planning into cohesive, defensible programs.
Our services include:
- Active threat and Run–Hide–Fight training grounded in real environments
- Physical security and facility vulnerability assessments
- Behavioral threat awareness and reporting frameworks
- Emergency Operations Plan development, testing, and revision
- Scenario-based exercises that identify gaps before incidents do
By aligning people, environment, and policy, we help organizations replace assumptions with capability.
Quick Checklist
- Validate that training aligns with actual facility layouts and access controls.
- Test Emergency Operations Plans through realistic exercises and after-action reviews.
- Ensure leadership visibly models and reinforces preparedness behaviors. [16]
Final Thought
Preparedness is not defined by intent, policy language, or completed training sessions. It is defined by what people can execute under stress, in real spaces, guided by clear authority and practiced decisions.
When lessons learned are integrated across people, environment, and policy, preparedness becomes durable.
That is readiness beyond training.
References (Endnotes)
[1] LCG Discovery. The Mindset Shift Series Outline and Framework. Internal reference.
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation. A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, 2014.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/reports-and-publications/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Preparedness Goal (Second Edition). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2021.
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_gpd_national-preparedness-goal-2nd-edition_051525.pdf
[4] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Active Shooter: How to Respond. 2008.
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf
[5] Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Active Shooter Preparedness Action Guide. Updated 2025.
https://www.cisa.gov/active-shooter-preparedness-action-guide
[6] Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Security Awareness for Soft Targets and Crowded Places. 2023.
Direct PDF:
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Mass%20Gatherings%20-%20Security%20Awareness%20for%20ST-CP.PDF
[7] Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Active Shooter Recovery Guide. 2017.
Direct PDF:
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/active-shooter-recovery-guide-08-08-2017-508.pdf
[8] Federal Emergency Management Agency
Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101: Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, Version 3.0. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2021.
https://preptoolkit.fema.gov/documents/4461741/40222908/FEMA+Comprehensive+Preparedness+Guide+(CPG)+101,+Developing+and+Maintaining+Emergency+Operations+Plans,+Version+3.0,+September+2021.pdf
[9] Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Incident Management System. 2023.
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims
[10] U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Foundations of Targeted Violence Prevention. 2023.
https://www.dhs.gov/foundations-targeted-violence-prevention
[11] Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Physical Security Considerations for Healthcare and Public Health Facilities. 2022.
https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/physical-security-considerations-healthcare-and-public-health-facilities
[12] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Building Cultures of Preparedness.
Direct PDF:
https://www.waterisac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Building-Cultures-of-Preparedness_FEMA-edc.pdf
[13] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs. U.S. Department of Labor, 2023.
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3885.pdf
[14] Police Chief Magazine (IACP)
Linking the Workforce Crisis, Crime, and Response Time.
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/linking-the-workforce-crisis-crime-and-response-time/
[15] Federal Bureau of Investigation. Active Shooter Incidents in the United States 2000–2019: A 20-Year Review. 2021.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-20-year-review-2000-2019-060121.pdf
[16] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). 2020.
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises
This article is for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
