Raphaël de Vittoris: Deciphering Crises to Better Anticipate and Transform Them

Managing in a World of Constant Uncertainty

Pandemics, economic crises, cyberattacks, social tensions, environmental upheavals… Organizations now operate in an environment characterized by perpetual uncertainty. How can risks be anticipated? How can an effective response be structured when everything collapses? And, most importantly, how can these breaking points be transformed into opportunities for collective learning?

At Clermont School of Business, Raphaël de Vittoris devotes his research and teaching to these strategic questions. At the crossroads of management, risk management, and organizational governance, he analyses the invisible mechanisms that structure crises and the responses they trigger. His contributions to media outlets such as The Conversation and VeilleMag help make these issues accessible to a wider audience.

In this interview, he answers five essential questions to better understand his vision of crises, his research, and their practical impact on organizations and the training of future managers.

1. There is a lot of talk about “crisis,” but do we really know what it means? How do you define a crisis in your research?

Defining the phenomenon of crisis is crucial because it can shape our interpretation of events and, consequently, the entire scientific approach associated with them. Simply put, three major approaches have succeeded one another:

• The “event-based” approach, where a crisis is considered only through its outward manifestations (deaths, injuries, costs, legal consequences, loss of reputation, etc.).
• The “processual” approach, where a crisis is seen as a cascade of predictable and anticipatable failures within a system that can be broken down to its smallest component. By studying the probability of failures and their propensity to generate others, one could identify areas to work on within systems and thus prevent crises.
• The “complex” approach, where a crisis results from the impact of a nonlinear (random) dynamic on complex systems (nations, industries, companies, etc.). This last conception, which I align with, rejects probabilistic (cf. processual approach) and consequential (cf. event-based approach) thinking. It forces organisations to prepare for anything.

2. Why is it so difficult for organisations to anticipate crises, even when early warning signals often exist?

The concept of weak signals, proposed by Ansoff in the 1970s, does not entirely convince me. As explained in the previous question, my “complex” view of crises leads me to consider systems whose multiple levers of influence and the dynamics in which they evolve can render elements unstable and unpredictable. Therefore, situations never repeat themselves. No one can fully grasp reality at all scales simultaneously to know which parameters will influence which others.

For example, the rise in fuel prices (reaching €1.60) was considered a trigger for the Yellow Vest movement. Many academic experts, consulting firms, and TV panels saw this price as a (if not the) “weak signal” of impending social crises. Today, fuel prices have repeatedly exceeded €2/L, and nothing happened. Yet this parameter is still considered indicative of public tension. Weak signals are primarily a biased focus on the last striking element preceding a past crisis; this is why they are usually identified only retrospectively. There will always be weak signals that seem to predict any event.

In my view, the goal is not to anticipate crises in times of peace but to prepare the organisation to face anything, survive everything, and never fall victim to shock or panic. Anticipation becomes necessary during a crisis, but not through weak signals—rather, through imagination and suspicion, following a “Murphy’s Law” mindset: anything that can get worse, will. This is the anticipatory approach I’ve cultivated while leading crisis management teams.

3. How does your research move beyond academia to become actionable tools for organisations? How does it serve as a strategic toolkit for decision-makers facing uncertainty?

My work has been based on a “research-intervention” approach, meaning I conducted research directly within organisations and crisis cells, collecting and analysing data on the ground, and even participating in the situations themselves. I was fortunate to serve as a crisis manager for nearly 15 years, allowing me to study the realities of my field directly in my later years of practice.

One motivation was to supplement or update methodologies I considered too limited, simplistic, or even caricatured. My research originally began to answer the practical questions I faced as a practitioner.

Initially focusing on organisational aspects of crisis management, I gradually incorporated technical and psychological dimensions to develop a holistic approach to this emerging discipline. I am now extending my work to geopolitical aspects to continue moving toward a more comprehensive framework that addresses the pressing concerns of organisations worried about medium-term survival.

4. How do you integrate risk management and crisis transformation into your teaching at Clermont School of Business?

I prioritise sharing experiences, feelings, and emotions transparently with students, providing authentic insights. While authenticity is essential to demystify the subject, I rely heavily on practical exercises. Crisis simulation is indispensable to experience the uncertain, ambiguous, and anxiety-inducing nature of crises.

Although scheduling constraints prevented full simulations in the second semester of this academic year, I ensured short exercises for student groups to illustrate crisis negotiation and communication approaches. I know of no more relevant, faithful, and engaging pedagogical approach. I generally place little emphasis on case studies, which are often static, overly simplistic, and ill-suited to multi-scale analysis. Simulations offer not only theoretical and practical insights but also psychological and relational understanding that document-based analysis alone cannot provide.

5. Ultimately, can a crisis also be an opportunity? What skills should future managers develop to navigate a structurally unstable world?

Based on my earlier complex approach, if a crisis remains the manifestation of a complex system hit by a nonlinear dynamic (combining unpredictability of both dynamic direction and system response), the turbulence generated offers exploitable upheavals. One must first position oneself advantageously within the disruption (which can be partly provoked) and then have the creativity and courage to seize opportunities while the context remains volatile, ambiguous, and uncertain.

We would not ask earthquake victims or the financially ruined to profit from tragedy; however, at the organisational level (public or private), major disruptions can trigger frustration, fatigue, or resignation. Depending on mindset, they can also inspire resilience, creativity, and opportunism.

Life is full of seemingly random tragedies. One can view our journey as fate or as opportunities for change and adjustment. Unfortunately, entrepreneurship seen as positive opportunism is rarely taught in educational systems… fortunately, it is at Clermont School of Business!