Competence Under Pressure – Introduction

Knowledge hub

Competence under pressure

A practical guide to proving capability when it really matters.

21 minutes reading time 5,587 words
Immersive cinematic scene representing decision-making under pressure

Executive summary

Most serious incidents do not happen because people were untrained or careless.
They happen because, under real working conditions, a reasonable shortcut turned out to be the wrong decision.

This guide explores that gap - the space between being trained and being competent when it matters.

In high-consequence work, safety depends less on what people know and more on how they recognise risk and make decisions under pressure. Noise, time pressure, fatigue, familiarity and social cues all change how judgement works. Traditional training, delivered in calm conditions and measured through attendance or tests, struggles to prepare people for this reality.

As a result, many organisations can prove that training happened, but struggle to show how competence holds up when conditions are far from ideal.

This guide makes three core arguments

Competence is behavioural, not procedural

Real competence shows up in decisions made under pressure, not in the completion of courses or the recall of information.

Practice matters more than explanation

People do not rise to the level of their training under stress; they fall to the level of their practice. Safe, realistic exercises that recreate the conditions of work are essential if judgement is to hold up when it counts.

Evidence should support learning as well as assurance

Attendance and pass marks provide reassurance, but they offer little insight into how people actually behave. Stronger evidence focuses on observable decisions, hazard recognition and improvement over time.

The guide outlines what effective practice looks like in high-risk environments: Proportionate realism, safe failure, variation, and a focus on critical decisions rather than procedures. It shows how exercising competence in this way generates more meaningful evidence - evidence that supports both improvement and accountability.
Importantly, this is not a call for wholesale change. The guide sets out a pragmatic approach: start small, focus on the decisions that carry the greatest risk, involve line managers early, and measure only what helps people improve. Over time, this builds confidence quietly and credibly.
Finally, the guide reframes what defensible competence really means. Not perfection, and not guarantees - but the ability to demonstrate that risks were understood, people were prepared realistically, behaviour was observed, and learning continued.
For leaders responsible for safety, operations or risk, the central question is a simple one: If something went wrong tomorrow, could you confidently explain how your organisation prepared people for the decisions they had to make?
This guide is intended to help you answer that question with clarity and confidence.

Why this matters now

In high-consequence work, questions about competence rarely arrive on a schedule.

They surface after a near miss.
During a shutdown, SIMOPS, or operational review.
In preparation for a board discussion, regulator engagement, or assurance conversation.

Many organisations can show that training was delivered and procedures were followed.
Far fewer feel confident explaining how people were prepared for the decisions they had to make when conditions were pressured, ambiguous, or changing.

This guide is written for those moments Before an incident forces that question to be answered under pressure.

Contents

Start: Why this guide exists Back to Resources

Author

Paul Morton FRSA has spent three decades working at that magical intersection of learning, technology, and business performance. Across senior roles in global learning organisations and now as CEO of ARuVR, he has become increasingly sceptical of training that looks impressive but makes little difference once people return to work.

Paul’s approach is shaped by a simple principle: start with the behaviour that needs to change, then work backwards.

He remains a firm believer in learning for its own sake - despite holding a fondly impractical master’s degree in Scandinavian Studies - but in high-consequence environments, his focus is firmly on what actually helps people make better decisions under pressure.