Make Faster, Smarter Decisions With This SWAT Commander's Strategy This framework stops overthinking and rash moves, ensuring decisions happen at the right level.

Indecision can be fatal in hostage rescue operations. SWAT teams are the final hope in the most dire of situations — and for Inspector Kevin Cyr, Commander of one of North America's largest tactical units, making the right call under extreme pressure is simply part of the job description.

Whether you are in a leadership position or a business owner, there are key lessons to learn from Cyr that can improve your decision-making skills. I recently sat down with him, and he shared the framework he created over the course of 24 years. Here's what I learned:

Skip to Part Two: The 3 Decision-Making Rules You Should Steal from This SWAT Commander

The Decision-maker: Inspector Kevin Cyr's Journey

Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, SWAT teams don't rush headlong into danger hoping for the best. These professionals invest countless hours studying, training and refining their approach precisely because lives — including their own — hang in the balance with each operation.

Inspector Cyr heads a team of 60 highly trained constables who tackle situations that regular patrol officers cannot handle, responding to hundreds of incidents each year along Canada's west coast. From hostage situations and kidnappings to terrorist threats and high-risk warrants, his unit specializes in scenarios where the stakes couldn't be higher. With 24 years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and seven years with the Emergency Response Team — the Canadian equivalent of SWAT — Cyr brings an analytical perspective to tactical leadership.

His systematic approach to decision-making allows him to operate under conditions that would paralyze most leaders: life-or-death choices, incomplete information and extreme time constraints. His decision framework, deceptively simple in its approach, offers valuable insights for business leaders facing their own intense pressure situations, albeit typically with less dire consequences. Here's his three-part decision framework:

1. Clearly define what you're deciding between

One of the most surprising insights from Cyr's experience is that identifying when you're at a genuine decision point is often more challenging than the decision itself.

Leaders frequently fall into one of two traps:

1. Failing to recognize when action is required (missing opportunities)
2. Forcing decisions prematurely (creating resistance to implementation)

"A true decision point requires three elements," Cyr explains. "You need multiple distinguishable alternatives, clear criteria for selection and someone with authority to make the choice."

The first objective that Cyr has when making a decision is identifying the options and ensuring that there are meaningful differences between them. Decisions become much more difficult when options are similar to each other.

Related: If You Struggle With Authority, Science Says Blame Your Brain

For example, negotiating with a hostage taker versus launching a rescue attempt are clearly distinct options. Deciding between those is actually easier than determining if you should give the hostage taker the pizza he demanded in 10 minutes or in 20 minutes.

One strategy Cyr uses to ensure decisions aren't too similar is to avoid the temptation of being overly precise when defining options. While being excessively detailed may feel like you will have better control over the outcome, that is an illusion of control. In dynamic circumstances, plans are never perfectly executed, and only a limited amount of detail can be carried over from planning to implementation.

"Acknowledging the inherent flexibility required during implementation allows us to leverage imprecision in planning to make faster decisions," Cyr says. The caveat: decisions aren't "fire and forget" — they require follow-up and iterative adjustments as situations evolve.

2. Know what will make you say yes

Despite his extensive experience, Cyr admits his default response to suggested action is often negative. This reluctance to act represents a common psychological trap — the most dangerous mistake in critical incidents isn't making the "wrong" decision, but making no decision at all.

To avoid this, Cyr follows a simple rule: If he says no to something, he immediately asks himself what it would take to say yes. If he can't answer that question, it means his no wasn't a real decision — it was just a way to delay making one.

"While it may seem obvious, if you don't know what would make you say yes to a decision, then you can't make that decision," Cyr explains. "If you cannot think of what would make you say yes, then you aren't engaged in a decision-making process. You are simply procrastinating, perhaps hoping the problem will go away."

This doesn't mean every affirmative decision requires quantitative metrics. Some of the most consequential choices defy objective measurement and ultimately come down to judgment. The key is understanding your criteria for proceeding, even if those criteria are subjective.

For example, when dealing with an armed and barricaded suspect avoiding arrest, Cyr prefers a negotiated surrender. If that proves unsuccessful, an option is to use tear gas. When his team asks for permission to use tear gas, however, his default response is one of reluctance. He gravitates towards no. It isn't until he asks himself what would make him say yes that he realizes they have exhausted negotiations, and action must be taken to end a siege.

3. Identify the right decision-maker

The final question in Cyr's framework addresses decision authority. Though seemingly straightforward, determining the appropriate decision-maker often proves surprisingly complex.

A common error in both tactical operations and business leadership is centralizing too much decision-making power. While retaining control feels reassuring, it frequently results in slower decisions made with less relevant information.

Related: I Started My Business In My Mom's Basement at the Age of 17. Here are 5 Rules I Wish I Had Known, But Had to Learn the Hard Way

Cyr experiences this tension acutely. His position in a command post — surrounded by video feeds, negotiator communications and intelligence briefings — provides a comprehensive but detached perspective. Meanwhile, officers positioned just outside a crisis location can hear, smell and sense what's happening in real-time. Who should decide what happens next?

"When selecting a decision-maker, we should consider who has the best situational awareness and who has time to make and implement the decision," Cyr says.

For time-sensitive tactical decisions, like deciding whether to chase a suspect, the officer on scene clearly has both superior situational awareness and no time to consult command. Conversely, decisions about negotiations or changing tactics require a wider viewpoint.

Business leaders face similar questions about which decisions to make personally versus which to delegate to team members closer to specific situations. Cyr's framework provides a practical guide for making these allocations based on information access and time constraints rather than hierarchy alone.

Putting it all together

By systematically addressing these three questions — what options exist, what criteria will drive the decision, and who should make the call — leaders establish a solid foundation for decision-making under pressure. This framework helps prevent analysis paralysis and premature action while ensuring decisions are made at the appropriate organizational level.

In part two of this series, we'll explore three specific decision-making maxims that Inspector Cyr has developed through years of high-stakes operations — practical strategies that can help business leaders avoid common decision traps and maintain clarity under pressure.