Choosing and Empowering the Right Team for Crisis Management Success in Estate Management
- Jennifer Laurence
- Sep 15
- 12 min read
Preface
This white paper was presented as an attendee resource at the Estate Management Network Conference 2025: The Resilient Estate—Building a Playbook for Emergency Response and Recovery.
The conference brought together estate management professionals and other segments of the industry for a hands-on educational program centered on crisis preparedness. Through expert talks, facilitated labs, and planning materials, participants explored how to develop customized emergency response strategies tailored to the unique environments of private estates.
Jennifer Laurence was a featured mentor in The Learning Lab, a hands-on consulting and peer-to-peer mentorship space where estate managers could ask questions, exchange perspectives, and receive direct guidance from experienced subject matter experts. She was pleased to support this important offering, recognizing its value as a collaborative forum to advance resilience and professionalization across the estate management field.
As part of the Learning Lab mentoring sessions, this paper was offered to provide both practical frameworks and research-based insights on choosing and empowering the right team for crisis management success. It is designed to serve as a reference beyond the event, equipping estate leaders, family offices, and service professionals with strategies to strengthen resilience, align authority with accountability, and foster cultures of trust and preparedness.
I. Introduction: Crisis Management Success in Estate Environments
Private estates encounter crises that are as complex as those faced by commercial facilities, yet they unfold in environments that are intimate, high-trust, and privacy-sensitive. Fire, flood, medical emergencies, and security breaches can escalate within minutes, placing families, guests, and staff at risk while simultaneously threatening continuity of operations, property integrity, and reputation (FEMA, 2020). In these moments, outcomes hinge on more than a binder of procedures. They depend on leaders who have selected the right people, shaped clear roles, and cultivated a culture where trained professionals act decisively within defined authority (Meagher & Wait, 2020; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009). Effective crisis leadership begins long before an alarm sounds, with deliberate choices about team composition, readiness, and empowerment that translate written plans into coordinated action under pressure (Burnes, 2020; Endrejat & Burnes, 2022).
The estate context differs from commercial or hospitality settings. There is less redundancy in staffing, fewer formal command layers on site, and a premium on discretion (Brennan, 2013; Chen, 2014). Guests may be present, principals may be at home, and confidentiality expectations are nonnegotiable. This combination requires immediacy and clarity in decision rights, echoing principles of “mission command” in the military, where decentralized authority enables rapid decision-making in dynamic conditions (U.S. Department of the Army, 2019). Leaders must model standards, communicate purpose and parameters, and remove friction that would otherwise delay life safety or asset protection (Weiner, 2020; Pološki Vokić et al., 2020). Empowerment is not a slogan; it is a measurable leadership practice that equips capable people to exercise judgment when seconds matter. Research on exemplary leadership underscores that crisis readiness improves when leaders cultivate shared values, enable others to act, and align authority with responsibility so frontline experts can make the call when it counts (Kouzes & Posner, 2023; Covey, 2006).
In short, crisis management in estates is not simply protocol compliance. It is the disciplined integration of three pillars: choosing the right team, empowering that team to act within clear lanes, and leading with multi-level awareness that anticipates human, technical, and environmental variables (Goleman, 1995; Stoyanova-Bozhkova et al., 2020). The sections that follow translate these pillars into practical architecture for hiring, training, and real-time execution, grounded in established emergency management guidance and high-trust leadership practices (FEMA, 2020; Kouzes & Posner, 2023).
II. Team Architecture: Building Crisis-Ready Estates
The foundation of effective crisis management in private estates is team architecture—the deliberate design of who is hired, how they are trained, and how authority is distributed. Recruitment must prioritize resilience, adaptability, technical competence, and emotional intelligence, since these qualities determine how staff perform under pressure (Avdimiotis, 2019; Kamassi et al., 2020). Unlike in large organizations with redundant roles, estates require individuals who can pivot across functions when crises escalate, blending technical skill with interpersonal awareness (Artini et al., 2021). Selecting employees who demonstrate not only competence but also the capacity for judgment ensures that the team will be able to respond decisively when protocols alone are insufficient (Meagher & Wait, 2020).
Training transforms a well-chosen team into a cohesive crisis-ready unit. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) provide clarity on technical steps, but they are only effective if rehearsed and embedded into daily culture (Saputro & Bangun, 2022; Windarko et al., 2023). In this regard, the military principle of “train as you fight” is instructive: practice must mirror the reality of emergencies, from fire suppression to flood mitigation, so that decisions in the field feel instinctive (U.S. Department of the Army, 2019). Estates that conduct scenario drills, tabletop exercises, and walk-throughs not only sharpen technical readiness but also establish muscle memory that builds confidence across roles (FEMA, 2020). Consistent reinforcement of these practices strengthens trust that each staff member will act within their defined lane when crisis strikes (Pološki Vokić et al., 2020).
Equally important is cultivating an error-tolerant environment, since crises unfold in unpredictable ways and rigid adherence to a script can stall effective action. Research shows that organizations that tolerate and learn from errors improve reporting, coordination, and recovery performance (Wang et al., 2020; Guchait, 2023). Estate managers who acknowledge that mistakes will occur in the fog of crisis, and who build a culture where staff can admit, adapt, and recover quickly, establish a team architecture that is both resilient and adaptive (Weiner, 2020; Hastings & Schwarz, 2021). This flexibility allows protocols to serve as a foundation rather than a limitation, empowering staff to improvise intelligently within the bounds of their training and the estate owner’s parameters (Burnes, 2020; Endrejat & Burnes, 2022).
In essence, building a crisis-ready estate team means hiring for judgment and adaptability, training rigorously under realistic conditions, and creating a culture that balances accountability with psychological safety. This architecture provides the backbone of estate crisis response, ensuring that when the unexpected occurs, the right people are ready, rehearsed, and trusted to act in the best interest of the principals, guests, and property (Edmondson, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 2023).
III. Empowerment in Action: Trust, Clarity, and Decentralized Decision-Making
In the midst of crisis, leaders cannot afford to micromanage every move; they must empower those closest to the situation to act decisively. Military doctrine frames this as “mission command,” a leadership philosophy that relies on decentralized execution within clear commander’s intent (U.S. Department of the Army, 2019). Estate environments, though smaller in scale, require the same principle: empowering butlers, house managers, and security staff to make informed game-day decisions when seconds matter (FEMA, 2020; Kouzes & Posner, 2023). Trusting staff with defined authority transforms them from passive implementers into active guardians of safety and continuity (Meagher & Wait, 2020).
This empowerment depends on establishing clarity before the crisis. Research in organizational trust demonstrates that when expectations, communication channels, and authority levels are explicit, employees are far more likely to act quickly and correctly under pressure (Pološki Vokić et al., 2020). Integrity in leadership—communicating honestly, modeling standards, and holding to agreed values—creates alignment between estate owners and their teams that prevents hesitation in moments of uncertainty (Palanski & Yammarino, 2009). Leaders who neglect to define roles inadvertently sow confusion, while those who instill trust and clarity ensure that frontline staff feel both responsible and capable (Covey, 2006; Edmondson, 1999).
Emotional intelligence further strengthens empowered action. Studies in hospitality and caregiving environments show that high emotional intelligence allows workers to regulate their own stress responses and respond empathetically to those in their care (Stoyanova-Bozhkova et al., 2020; Kamassi et al., 2020). In a crisis, these skills are vital: a housekeeper who remains calm with frightened guests, or a security officer who anticipates emotional cues while directing evacuations, directly influences outcomes (Avdimiotis, 2019). Empowering staff to exercise emotional judgment, not just technical procedure, enables more humane and effective responses that align with the estate owner’s parameters for success (Goleman, 1995; Hastings & Schwarz, 2021).
Finally, empowerment is sustained through a culture of reflection and learning. Teams that debrief after crises and near misses develop stronger collective awareness, sharpening decision-making for future events (Wang et al., 2020; Guchait, 2023). Leaders who validate the contributions of their teams, even when outcomes are imperfect, foster resilience and loyalty that compound across crises (Kouzes & Posner, 2023). In this sense, empowerment is not a one-time directive but a continuing investment in people, where trust, clarity, and emotional intelligence intersect to create an estate culture ready for the unexpected (Burnes, 2020; Weiner, 2020).
IV. Synesthetic Systems Thinking in Crisis Leadership
Effective crisis leadership in estates requires more than linear problem-solving; it demands what I describe as synesthetic systems thinking—the ability to perceive and process multiple streams of sensory, emotional, and organizational data simultaneously. Leaders who possess heightened perceptual acuity and neurodivergent brilliance can recognize subtle environmental, emotional, and social cues that others may overlook, enabling them to act before crises escalate (Laurence, 2025). Research on tacit knowledge highlights how expertise often operates below conscious articulation, drawing on intuitive pattern recognition developed over years of lived practice (Avdimiotis, 2019; Börjesson et al., 2014). In estates, this means a manager may “feel” when staff cohesion is fraying during an emergency or sense when a principal’s emotional state requires recalibrating the response plan (Gottfried, 2022).
Synesthetic systems thinking also integrates emotional intelligence with environmental perception. Studies in hospitality show that emotional intelligence enables staff to regulate stress and respond to others empathetically, while multi-domain environmental research demonstrates how perception across auditory, visual, and tactile signals influences decision-making (Stoyanova-Bozhkova et al., 2020; Schweiker et al., 2020). Leaders who synthesize these layers can coordinate responses that are not only technically correct but also emotionally stabilizing for principals and guests (Goleman, 1995; Kamassi et al., 2020). For example, in a fire evacuation, this approach means securing exits while simultaneously calming household members with empathetic communication—two distinct domains fused into one coherent act.
Crucially, estate owners must set the parameters for what success looks like in a crisis, but it is the empowered team that applies synesthetic systems thinking to execute effectively. Organizational trust research shows that when employees are equipped with autonomy and guided by shared intent, they mobilize creatively within their lane without waiting for permission (Meagher & Wait, 2020; Pološki Vokić et al., 2020). Military leadership echoes this principle: commanders provide intent, while troops on the ground adapt in real time based on lived cues (U.S. Department of the Army, 2019). In estate management, empowering staff to interpret both technical indicators (e.g., water pressure in a flood) and human signals (e.g., principal anxiety) ensures that crisis response is not only efficient but also deeply aligned with the owner’s expectations (Weiner, 2020; Hastings & Schwarz, 2021).
Synesthetic systems thinking ultimately reframes crisis management as a multi-level orchestration of human, technical, and environmental awareness. Leaders who can process across these levels bring a competitive advantage to estates, transforming fragmented reactions into integrated strategies that safeguard life, property, and trust (Burnes, 2020; Endrejat & Burnes, 2022). In this way, neurodivergent cognition and emotional labor—often undervalued in leadership discourse—become critical assets in private service crisis environments, distinguishing extraordinary leaders from those limited to single-track processing (Laurence, in progress).
V. Conclusion and Practical Implications
Crisis management in private estates cannot be reduced to a checklist. Success depends on aligning three interdependent pillars: building the right team, empowering them to act, and leading with synesthetic systems thinking. Choosing staff for judgment, adaptability, and emotional intelligence ensures that the estate has a foundation of capable responders (Avdimiotis, 2019; Kamassi et al., 2020). Training those individuals through realistic simulations embeds protocols into daily practice, reinforcing confidence and cohesion when real emergencies arise (FEMA, 2020; Saputro & Bangun, 2022). And cultivating an error-tolerant culture further strengthens resilience, allowing staff to learn and improve with each iteration (Wang et al., 2020; Guchait, 2023).
Empowerment then translates structure into action. Like military units operating under mission command, estate teams must be trusted to make real-time decisions within the parameters established by leadership (U.S. Department of the Army, 2019). Empowerment depends on clarity of roles and integrity in leadership, ensuring that trust is not merely assumed but earned through consistent modeling and communication (Palanski & Yammarino, 2009; Covey, 2006). Research shows that when staff believe in their authority, they move from passive compliance to proactive guardianship—precisely what estate crises demand (Pološki Vokić et al., 2020; Kouzes & Posner, 2023).
The final differentiator is synesthetic systems thinking. Estate leaders who can integrate technical data, emotional signals, and environmental awareness gain an edge in anticipating crises and directing teams effectively (Schweiker et al., 2020; Stoyanova-Bozhkova et al., 2020). Neurodivergent cognition and tacit knowledge, often undervalued, become crucial in translating fragmented cues into decisive, empathetic action (Börjesson et al., 2014; Gottfried, 2022). Importantly, estate owners themselves must define what successful outcomes look like—whether preserving safety, reputation, or continuity—and then empower their managers to execute those outcomes using multi-level awareness (Laurence, 2025; Hastings & Schwarz, 2021).
For estate managers and private service professionals, the practical implications are clear for crisis management success in estate management. Hiring must prioritize both competence and character. Training must move beyond compliance toward lived rehearsal. Empowerment must be intentional, aligning authority with accountability. And leadership must embrace multi-level, synesthetic awareness to orchestrate human, technical, and emotional variables under pressure. When these practices converge, estates achieve not only operational resilience but also a culture of trust that endures long after the crisis has passed (Burnes, 2020; Edmondson, 1999).
About the Author
Jennifer Laurence is the founder and president of Luxury Lifestyle Logistics, a premier estate management consulting firm dedicated to elevating service standards in ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) residences. With more than 25 years of experience in hospitality and private service, she advises estate owners, family offices, and service professionals on how to build resilient teams, design practical training, and create service cultures that thrive through the precise alignment of service expectations with the bespoke lifestyle of the families they serve. A Doctoral Candidate in Organizational Leadership, writing the first-ever academic work in the field, Jennifer integrates academic research with real-world expertise, introducing innovative frameworks such as synesthetic systems thinking to help leaders anticipate challenges, empower staff, and safeguard estate environments. Since 2010, she has been active in industry associations and a frequent conference speaker, recognized as a trusted source of advocacy, thought leadership, and best practices. Her work equips estates with the strategies and principles needed to operate at the highest precision, discretion, and resilience levels.
References
Abraham, M., Nisic, N., Trübner, M., Walch, H., & Wunder, A. (2023). The role of generalized
trust and control in the employment of domestic help: An experimental case study for
Germany and the UK. Rationality and Society, 36(2), 230–253.
Artini, N. M., Suarja, I. K., Sadguna, I. G., & Sudarmini, N. M. (2021). Implementing SOP to
improve butler performance. International Journal of Global Tourism, 1(1), 44–50.
Avdimiotis, S. (2019). Emotional intelligence and tacit knowledge management in
hospitality. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing, 5(2), 3–10.
Börjesson, U., Bengtsson, S., & Cedersund, E. (2014). “You have to have a certain feeling for
this work”: Exploring tacit knowledge in elder care. SAGE Open, 4(2), 215824401453482.
Burnes, B. (2020). The origins of Lewin’s three-step model of change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 56(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319892685
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Free Press.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Endrejat, P. C., & Burnes, B. (2022). Draw it, check it, change it: Reviving Lewin’s topology to
facilitate organizational change theory and practice. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 60(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863221122875
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2020). Emergency management guide for
business and industry. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.fema.gov
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam.
Gottfried, H. (2022). Tacit knowledge in low-status eldercare work. AMA Journal of Ethics,
24(9), 883–888. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2022.883
Guchait, P. (2023). Error management orientation: Impact on service recovery performance,
and the mediating role of self-efficacy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(10), 3518–3541. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-07-2022-0849
Hastings, B. J., & Schwarz, G. M. (2021). Leading change processes for success: A dynamic
application of diagnostic and dialogic organization development. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 58(1), 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211019561
Kamassi, A., Boulahlib, L., Abd Manaf, N., & Omar, A. (2020). Emotional labour strategies and
employee performance: The role of emotional intelligence. Management Research
Review, 43(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-03-2019-0097
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2023). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary
things happen in organizations (7th ed.). Wiley.
Laurence, J. (2025). The perceptions of change management through organizational
professionalization initiatives in estate management domestic workplace
environments (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia International University).
Meagher, K. J., & Wait, A. (2020). Worker trust in management and delegation in
organizations. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 36(3), 495–536.
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual
confusion. European Management Journal, 27(6), 463–470.
Pološki Vokić, N., Rimac Bilušić, M., & Najjar, D. (2020). Building organizational trust through
internal communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 26(1),
Saputro, A. H. D., & Bangun, M. Y. R. (2022). Factors affecting the implementation of standard
operating procedure (SOP) according to knowledge management. International
Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship, Social Science and Humanities, 5(1), 1–12.
Schweiker, M., Ampatzi, E., Andargie, M. S., Andersen, R. K., Azar, E., Barthelmes, V. M., Berger,
C., … Zhang, S. (2020). Review of multi‐domain approaches to indoor environmental
perception and behaviour. Building and Environment, 176, 106804.
Stoyanova-Bozhkova, S., Paskova, T., & Buhalis, D. (2020). Emotional intelligence: A
competitive advantage for tourism and hospitality managers. Tourism Recreation
Research, 47(4), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1841377
U.S. Department of the Army. (2019). Mission command: Command and control of Army
forces (ADP 6-0). Headquarters, Department of the Army.
Wang, X., Guchait, P., & Paşamehmetoğlu, A. (2020). Tolerating errors in hospitality
organizations: Relationships with learning behavior, error reporting and service
recovery performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 32(8), 2635–2655. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-01-2020-0001
Weiner, B. J. (2020). A theory of organizational readiness for change. In N. M. Albers, J. H.
Choi, & D. W. Young (Eds.), Handbook on implementation science (pp. 215–232). Edward