This article addresses a gap in crisis research regarding scientifically produced knowledge on performance measurement during crisis for practitioners, by developing eleven crisis performance indicators from a content analysis of 40 interviews with Swedish crisis professionals. Using these as a point of departure, the article offers a critical take on the current mode of crisis inquiry by suggesting the term contingency as an alternative lens to benefit crisis theory and practice. Our empirical analysis shows that crisis performance evaluation leans toward rationalized control rather than contingent thinking. In the discussion, we critically assess the performance indicators from a contingency perspective, highlighting their inherent ambiguities and emphasizing the need to advance ways of thinking about crisis management beyond rules and standard procedures. The study underlines the importance of recognizing limits of human agency and integrating contingency in the mindset of crisis professionals. This would enable crisis professionals to act beyond anticipated and perceived practices and regulations when adapting to unexpected events and provide them with more purposeful indicators to be evaluated against.