Jon B. Becker
A veteran SWAT leader shares proven tactics for assessing risk, managing stress and making the right call under pressure.
In law enforcement, the difference between a good outcome and a disaster can come down to making the right decision under extreme pressure. Inspector Kevin Cyr is the Commander of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Emergency Response Team (ERT) for British Columbia. This is one of North America’s largest tactical units and Cyr lives this reality every day. His approach to decision-making offers practical lessons for every law enforcement professional who has to think clearly when the stakes are high.
Despite what folks see on TV, real SWAT operations aren’t about dramatic heroics. They’re about careful preparation, reducing risk and making smart decisions. As Cyr puts it, “My job is to make my job boring, painfully boring. I want to mitigate as much risk as possible.” This focus on avoiding problems rather than just responding to them is something every professional in our field can learn from.
Cyr leads a full-time team of more than 60 elite officers who respond to scores of high-risk situations every year. Through years of experience and training, he’s developed a practical framework for making tough decisions when lives are on the line. His approach can benefit any law enforcement manager, supervisor or administrator who needs to make clear judgments when time is short and the pressure is on.
This article explores three essential questions designed to help you recognize when a decision truly needs to be made and how to make it effectively.
Recognizing When You Actually Need to Make a Decision
Here’s something which might surprise you: Figuring out when you need to make a decision is often harder than making the decision itself. We’ve all been in situations where we act too quickly before we have enough information, or we wait too long and miss our opportunity to control the situation.
According to Cyr, a real decision point has three things happening at the same time. You need multiple clear options to choose from. You need some way to decide between them. And, there needs to be someone who has the authority to make the call and act on it. This simple framework turns a confusing problem into something you can actually work with.
This leads to three fundamental questions Cyr uses in every critical situation. These questions work whether you’re handling a tactical operation or making any call where the outcome really matters.
Question 1: What Are Your Real Options?
The first step is identifying options which are actually different from each other in a meaningful way. “Decision-making becomes much harder when your alternatives are too similar,” Cyr points out. Sometimes, what looks like different choices is really just small variations of the same basic approach.
Think about the difference between these two scenarios. Deciding whether to negotiate with a barricaded subject versus going in with a tactical entry is a clear choice with very different risk profiles. You can weigh the options and make a real decision. But, if you’re debating whether to deliver food to that same barricaded subject in ten minutes versus 20 minutes, you’re looking at such similar options that the decision becomes unnecessarily complicated.
Here’s an interesting point: Cyr actually advises against getting too detailed when planning your options. While detailed plans might make you feel more in control, they don’t account for the reality that situations change. In both tactical operations and security work, things you can’t control will always affect how your plan actually plays out.
“Acknowledging that you’ll need to be flexible during execution allows you to make faster decisions,” Cyr explains. This is smart thinking. Decisions are rarely “fire and forget.” You make the call, then you keep adjusting as the situation develops.
This shows up clearly in Cyr’s operational philosophy: “If I try to reduce risk by making my action less aggressive, it’s the worst of both worlds. You’re taking all the risk of taking action, but you’re not taking action which you know is going to work.” In other words, if you’re going to commit to a course of action, commit to one which is actually effective.
Question 2: What Will Make You Say Yes?
Even with all his training and experience, Cyr admits that his first instinct when someone proposes action is often to say no. If you’re a thoughtful person who takes your responsibilities seriously, you probably have the same tendency. But, in critical situations, the most dangerous mistake isn’t choosing the wrong option. It’s not making any decision at all.
To counter this natural hesitation, Cyr uses a powerful technique: Whenever he rejects a proposed action, he immediately asks himself what would need to happen for him to approve it. If he can’t identify those conditions, he realizes his “no” isn’t really a decision. He’s just putting off making one.
“If you don’t know what would make you say ‘yes,’ then you can’t make that decision,” Cyr says plainly. “You’re not making a decision; you’re just procrastinating and hoping the problem goes away on its own.”
Here’s how this works in practice. In armed standoffs, Cyr always prefers negotiated surrender because it’s much safer for everyone. When team members suggest escalating to chemical agents like tear gas, his gut reaction is to resist: “Can’t we just keep trying to talk him out?” But he’s learned to recognize when this impulse is conflict avoidance rather than smart tactics.
By explicitly defining what conditions would justify escalation, he creates a clear decision threshold. This turns vague worry into structured thinking. This doesn’t mean you need precise measurements for every decision. Many important calls in our work can’t be reduced to numbers. What matters is having defined criteria, even when those criteria involve your professional judgment.
Question 3: Who Should Make This Call?
The final element in Cyr’s framework addresses a question which causes more problems than you might think. Who should actually make each specific decision? This is often overlooked, but it matters a lot when you’re in a situation where things are moving fast.
“A common mistake in tactical operations is holding on to too much decision-making power,” Cyr observes. Keeping tight control might feel safer, but it often results in slower decisions made with less relevant information, especially when the situation is changing rapidly.
Cyr experiences this tension directly in his command role. From a tactical operations center, he has access to video feeds, intelligence reports and multiple communication channels. This gives him a comprehensive view, but it’s detached. Meanwhile, officers at the actual scene have direct sensory information he can’t access remotely. So, the key question becomes: For this particular decision, who has the advantage?
“When choosing who should make a decision, ask who has the best awareness of what’s actually happening and who has the time to make and implement the decision,” Cyr advises. The answer varies by situation. Tactical entry decisions benefit from the awareness of officers on the ground. Strategic approach decisions need the broader perspective which command has.
This insight has changed how Cyr leads. “One of the most powerful decisions you can make is delegating your authority,” he explains. His team now pre-briefs on what decisions are delegated. “If you encounter a surveillance camera during warrant execution, just neutralize it. Don’t ask me questions I can’t answer effectively from where I’m sitting.”
This applies to supervisors and shift commanders, too. Some decisions need to stay with you because of your experience or perspective. Others should go to the person closest to the situation with the knowledge to handle it.
Putting It All Together
By working through these three questions, you create a solid framework for making decisions under pressure. What real options exist? What criteria will drive your selection? Who should make the call? This structured approach helps you avoid both overthinking things and acting too quickly, while making sure decisions happen at the right level.
What makes Cyr’s approach especially valuable is his recognition that uncertainty and discomfort are normal parts of important decisions. As he puts it, “If you’re looking for 100% confidence in your decisions, there are no worthwhile decisions which require that level of certainty. If you’re 100% sure, then you’re basically a calculator. You haven’t made a real choice.”
This should be reassuring for anyone in law enforcement who feels the weight of difficult decisions. The discomfort you feel when making a tough call isn’t a sign that you’re not up to the job. It’s confirmation that the decision matters and that something real is at stake.
“It’s like a boxer in the ring,” Cyr reflects. “You can only dance around with your back to the ropes for so long. Eventually, you have to be willing to throw a punch and take a punch. That’s the only way you’re going to win the fight. But, that’s hard. It’s scary.”
The real wisdom in Cyr’s approach is understanding that leadership in our profession isn’t about eliminating risk. It’s about creating the mental frameworks and procedures which let you handle risk intelligently. His experience reminds us that effective decision-making under pressure isn’t about having perfect information or nerves of steel. It’s about building thoughtful decision-making processes which acknowledge our human limitations while maximizing what we can accomplish together.
Jon Becker is the Founder/CEO of AARDVARK Tactical and the creator of Project7 Armor. He is also the host of the podcast, The Debrief with Jon Becker, now in its sixth season. Mr. Becker has almost 40 years of experience equipping and training tactical units ranging from small municipal and county law enforcement agencies to federal, military and international counterterrorism units. He can be reached at jbecker@thedebrief.live or by visiting thedebrief.live.
Challenge Your Decision-making Ability
Ready to put your leadership and judgment to the test? These Decision-Making Exercise (DME) videos present real-world tactical scenarios designed to challenge you under pressure.
Created in partnership with CATO Training, these YouTube DMEs let you step into the shoes of various SWAT commanders, confronting the same information and decisions they faced during a critical incident – before each video reveals how the incident actually unfolded.
Three new videos, DME 07 – Bakersfield PD Hostage Rescue, DME 08 – South Davis UT Family Hostage Rescue & HRT, and DME 09 – Barricade Erupts into Urgent HRT, can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/2vmu8e4e along with previous DME installments.