Disaster Recovery Journal Summer 2026

n Recovery time objectives never measured or validated n Repeated surprises during real disruptions Who Gets Promoted?

consistently becomes what teams mea sure, test, and prioritize. NIST CSF 2.0 highlights governance and risk oversight as critical enablers of resilience. ISO 22301 similarly empha sizes leadership engagement as founda tional to effective continuity management. Actionable reflection: Which continuity-related questions appear on standing leadership agendas, and which only surface after incidents? Signals to watch: n Metrics focused solely on plan completion n Limited executive visibility into recovery readiness n Continuity discussions triggered only by failures Turning Awareness into Action Improving business continuity resil ience posture does not require wholesale transformation. It requires intentional behavior change when pressure is low. Organizations that make posture visible can select one or two indicators each quar ter to address deliberately, such as fund ing a long-deferred exercise, formally documenting risk acceptance for a delayed activity, or changing how recovery confi dence is reported to leadership. These incremental actions align with ISO 22301’s emphasis on continual improvement and NIST CSF 2.0’s focus on risk informed decision making. Over time, small, consistent changes reshape posture far more effectively than reactive remediation after a disruption. Many organizations have successfully used these questions as a recurring gover nance tool, selecting one posture indicator per quarter for discussion in continuity, risk, or operational forums. This approach shifts business continuity from a compli ance obligation to a leadership habit. Patterns Reveal Posture Long Before a Disruption Business continuity resilience posture is not revealed during crises. It is revealed in the accumulation of everyday deci sions made when nothing appears urgent.

Investments, delays, testing practices, rec ognition patterns, and leadership questions collectively determine whether continuity will be confident or chaotic. Organizations seeking stronger con tinuity outcomes should begin not by rewriting plans, but by honestly assess ing these patterns. The posture they reveal may explain far more about future perfor mance than any documented strategy ever could. Self-assessment prompt: To start evaluating your organization’s continuity posture, consider this quick self-assessment: n Over the last 12 months, have we made clear, sustained investments in critical continuity capabilities? n Which continuity activities or improvements are consistently delayed or deprioritized, and why? n When was the last time our key continuity assumptions were tested in a realistic scenario? n Are individuals who champion continuity recognized and supported in advancement decisions? n Do leadership teams regularly ask about resilience, recovery readiness, and continuity risks outside of crisis moments? Reflecting on these questions can help illuminate both strengths and gaps in your current posture, creating a fact-based start ing point for improvement. v for Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, where he leverages his extensive background in strategic planning, financial management, and operational efficiency to drive organiza tional success. Balentine has held various leadership roles in Memphis area healthcare organizations, where he was instrumental in implementing transformative initiatives to enhance service quality and operational performance. His expertise spans across multiple facets of healthcare man agement, including disaster recovery, IT management, and business operations. Balentine is known for his strategic vision, collaborative approach, and dedication to fostering a culture of continuous improvement. He is passionate about mentoring emerging leaders and contributing to the advancement of the healthcare industry. Scott Balentine, MBA, MHA, FACHE, PMP, MBCP, CCRP, is a seasoned healthcare executive with more than 20 years of expe rience in healthcare administration and operations. He manages disaster recovery

Promotion and recognition patterns shape business continuity resilience posture more powerfully than policies. When individuals who identify risk early, strengthen continuity capabilities, and coordinate across functions are recog nized, resilience becomes embedded. When advancement is driven solely by speed, cost reduction, or crisis heroics, continuity becomes reactive. Organizations that reward response without rewarding preparedness uninten tionally rehearse fragility. Over time, staff learn continuity work is invisible unless something fails and rarely rewarded unless it coincides with a visible disruption. Both ISO 22301 and NIST CSF 2.0 emphasize accountability and governance. These principles are weakened when rec ognition and advancement do not rein force continuity behaviors. Actionable reflection: Which behaviors are most vis ibly rewarded today, proactive continuity improvement or reactive crisis response? Signals to watch: n Continuity work described as “extra” or “non-core” n Preventative improvements receiving little recognition n Praise focused primarily on response rather than readiness What Do Leaders Ask? Leadership questions are among the strongest drivers of business continuity resilience posture. Leaders who routinely ask about recovery confidence, depen dency exposure, staffing resilience, and third-party continuity signal that prepared ness matters continuously, not only after failures. When continuity questions arise only after disruptions, audits, or regulatory findings, organizations internalize that resilience is episodic. What leaders ask

20 DISASTER RECOVERY JOURNAL | SUMMER 2026