The Alamo as... Risk Management?

One hundred and eighty-three years ago men in San Antonio, some inside the walls of the Alamo and some outside, closed their eyes for the last time. The following morning the Mexican Army launched an attack that ended the 13-day siege, wiping out all 200 combatant defenders and nearly 600 of the attackers.

Many stories are told about the Alamo, the people on either side of the wall, and what leadership lessons we might draw from the whole saga. One compelling way to look at the siege and fall of the Alamo is as a failure in risk management.

Collins' Framework for Managing Luck and Risk

My favorite risk management model isn't a risk management model at all. In Great by Choice Jim Collins examines the role luck plays in propelling organizations from good to great. Worded differently, he is essentially examining how great organizations methodically seize opportunities while managing their risk.

Collins says, "The critical question is not 'Are you lucky?' but 'Do you get a high return on luck?'" He poses a few questions that organizations should ask themselves when facing an opportunity, a moment of "luck," or a decision:

Can this kill us?
Is the downside greater than the upside?
Can we make a small test before committing more significant resources?
Will we lose control of this situation?
How much time until the risk profile changes?

Perhaps most critically, Collins cautions, "The only mistakes you can learn from are the ones you survive."

Applying Collins' Framework to the Alamo

This set of questions might have saved the 200 defenders from getting into the Alamo, and the Mexican Army from wasting 13 days trying to take over a 3-acre adobe fort in the middle of a state of 172 million acres. Ultimately, these failures in risk management doomed men on both sides of the conflict.

From the Defenders' Perspective

Can this kill us? Absolutely. They were vastly outnumbered, in an indefensible position, with no clear escape route.

Is the downside greater than the upside? The downside was total annihilation. The upside was... what exactly? Delaying Santa Anna's advance by a few days?

Can we make a small test before committing? They could have conducted reconnaissance, attempted negotiation, or maintained mobility instead of committing to a fixed position.

Will we lose control? Once inside the Alamo, they lost all tactical flexibility and became sitting targets.

How much time until the risk profile changes? With each passing day, Santa Anna's forces grew stronger while theirs grew weaker.

From Santa Anna's Perspective

Can this kill us? The siege wasn't existential, but it was costly and time-consuming.

Is the downside greater than the upside? Spending 13 days and 600 men to take a 3-acre fort in a 172-million-acre territory suggests poor resource allocation.

Can we make a small test? He could have bypassed the Alamo entirely or attempted to starve them out rather than launching costly frontal assaults.

Will we lose control? The longer the siege lasted, the more it became a symbol of resistance and drew attention from other military objectives.

How much time until the risk profile changes? Every day delayed gave Texan forces time to organize elsewhere.

Modern Leadership Applications

The Alamo teaches us several critical lessons about risk management in leadership:

Emotional vs. Rational Decision-Making

Both sides allowed emotion to override rational risk assessment. The defenders were motivated by honor and defiance; Santa Anna by pride and the need to make an example. Neither considered whether the emotional satisfaction justified the strategic risk.

Modern Application: When facing high-stakes decisions, separate emotional motivations from rational analysis. Ask: "Are we making this choice because it feels right or because it is right?"

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Once committed to defending the Alamo, the defenders felt they couldn't retreat. Once Santa Anna began the siege, he felt he had to complete it. Both sides continued investing resources in a failing strategy.

Modern Application: Regularly reassess commitments. The question isn't "How much have we already invested?" but "What's the best path forward from here?"

Exit Strategy Planning

Neither side had a clear exit strategy. The defenders had no escape route; Santa Anna had no timeline for moving on to more important objectives.

Modern Application: Before making major commitments, define success criteria and exit conditions. Know when and how you'll change course if circumstances shift.

Resource Allocation

Santa Anna spent tremendous resources on a symbolic target while larger strategic objectives remained unaddressed. The defenders concentrated all their forces in one location rather than maintaining flexibility.

Modern Application: Ensure your resource allocation matches your strategic priorities. Don't let secondary objectives consume resources needed for primary goals.

Questions for Modern Leaders

How do you evaluate potentially "lucky" opportunities? Consider Collins' framework:

Survivability: What's the worst-case scenario? Can your organization survive if this goes badly?
Risk-Reward Ratio: Does the potential upside justify the downside risk?
Testing Capability: Can you pilot or test this opportunity before full commitment?
Control Maintenance: Will you retain the ability to adjust course as circumstances change?
Time Sensitivity: How long do you have before the risk profile shifts significantly?

The Broader Risk Management Principle

Is there something to be learned from the application of Collins' model to the saga of the Alamo?

The Alamo demonstrates that even brave, well-intentioned leaders can make catastrophic decisions when they fail to systematically evaluate risk. Both the defenders and attackers had alternatives that could have achieved their goals with less risk.

The tragedy wasn't in their courage or commitment—it was in their failure to ask the right questions before committing to an irreversible course of action.

Making Better Decisions Under Pressure

Collins' framework offers a systematic approach to decision-making that can prevent Alamo-like mistakes:

Before Major Commitments:

Conduct a mortality analysis: What could kill this initiative or organization?
Calculate risk-adjusted returns: Weight potential gains against probable losses
Design pilot tests: Start small and scale based on results
Maintain optionality: Preserve the ability to change course
Set review triggers: Define conditions that would prompt reassessment

During Execution:

Regularly reassess the risk profile
Watch for changes in competitive landscape
Monitor resource depletion rates
Maintain communication lines for new information
Be willing to pivot when conditions change

The Ultimate Lesson

The Alamo reminds us that courage without wisdom can be as dangerous as cowardice. Great leaders combine bold vision with rigorous risk assessment. They understand that the greatest victory is often knowing which battles not to fight.

True leadership means making decisions that your organization can survive to learn from.

What "Alamo moments" might you be facing where emotional commitment is overriding rational risk assessment? How could Collins' framework help you make better decisions?