Leading in Time of Crisis Without a Rulebook
In the middle of a tumultuous period, look around and see who is
really leading. Clarity comes to most of us when we are amidst significant
chaos. For those of you in leadership positions, I’d offer the following,
recognize where you’re at, thinking about where you want to go, and find a way
to get there. Rather simple but amidst a current environment of change each
leader must understand the problems you faced yesterday no longer exist. It’s
time to reframe as a leader.
Second, remain calm but zealous in your approach to
enthusiastically facing this crisis, and see opportunities when others see only
difficulties. Bold actions are required by leaders and those who shrink from a threat during
a crisis are obvious to those they lead in their absence or inability to
respond. Leave no one behind.
People are hungry for good leadership and guidance. Your work in a crisis will
drive them to grow and face the crisis with direction. Stay calm and remember
that you’re in a crisis because people want guidance, security, and order from
their leaders. During a crisis there is no time for catastrophizing. The world
has changed but not everything cherished about the way things were done has
vanished. The team is still there and ready for your leadership.[1]
Clarifying a Vision Amidst the Fog.
People must understand the vision of where you are going.
Whether good or bad, share information. Do this through a statement that
explores and analyzes the positive, neutral, and negative implications of
tensions amidst the crisis.[2] Do not forget to think
about the second and third order effects. Leadership during a crisis requires
you think beyond just the problem in front of you. Clarifying the vision may
require some creativity on the methods used to attack the crisis.[3] That’s completely normal
in a crisis because weak data or a lack of available information leads to poor
or misinformed decisions. Wallowing in those decisions does no one any good.
Stand up and move forward, time for reflection will exist and as a leader you
can recognize this for self-improvement later. Start with the now and allow for
an open discussion questioning the way things are done. You can use this to
find a suitable solution to current problems you face. By redrawing the mental
boundaries surrounding the problem there are ways to find success and encourage
growth from crisis or even recent failures.[4]
It’s far more important that you rapidly get it right through an
iterative process of exploration and adjustments to both your problem
statements and solution approaches than it is to try and come up with the
perfect problem/solution combos up front. Great crisis leaders possess the
courage to recognize mistakes, own them and adjust to a better solution. For
instance, in a crisis if administratively, bureaucratically, and the
by-the-book “right” thing to do conflicts with the ethically “right” thing to
do, given the unique context that the rulebook couldn’t have anticipated, chose
ethics every time. Morality always wins in the end. British Petroleum learned
this the hard way. On April 20, 2010, a BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig
exploded, causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history and taking
the lives of 11 rig workers.[5] For 87 straight days, oil
and methane gas spewed from an uncapped wellhead, one mile below the surface of
the ocean. The federal government estimated 4.2 million barrels of oil spilled
into the Gulf of Mexico. Executives at BP legally blamed contractors and
attempted to bureaucratically declare it was not their accident. Amidst the
crisis the company looked arrogant and callous.[6] Even Tony Hayward, the
Chief Executive Officer, repeated insensitive comments in public, like this
one: “There’s no one who wants this thing over more than I do. You know, I'd
like my life back.” He also suggested that the environmental impact of the
spill would be “very, very modest.” 61.6 billion dollars later the BP case is a
classic example of doing the morally responsible thing from the start.[7] The failure by BP’s
leadership to respond to the disaster rapidly solving the problem they were
facing, not the one they wished they could solve, highlights why leaders in
crisis should remain prepared to face adjustments and bake in a culture of
ethics throughout the crisis.
History provides bountiful evidence that innovation, nimbleness,
and creativity matter allowing the audacious to flourish amidst times of crisis
and change. Failure to see a problem for what it really is creates lagged
responses. When a crisis occurs, those who can see it for what it us will
develop an ability to scale. Here good leaders look further down the line than
just the immediate and sees a larger solution. One way to put this is to think outside
of the box. A leader who rapidly opens their aperture and looks downstream
quickly scales decisions to effect decisions in the immediate future. When a
fundamental surprise occurs, as often is the case with crisis, the person who
understands the structure and implications of the new system first can excel in
this different environment. For example, during much of the Cold War, only a
handful of aid organizations would descent on a conflict zone during a crisis,
this limited the scope of who provided aid and allowed for a unified front
against abuse. Then aid organizations began to compete with one another and,
for example, if the United States declined funding a project in the midst of a
crisis due to corruption, a more self-interested financier quickly stepped up
and provided the funds. [8]
Within the COVID-19 crisis as the European Union fails to respond quick enough,
China steps forward and offers its services. Leaders who open their aperture
tend to see this downstream effect and recognize potential exploitation amidst
the fog of the crisis.
Bold Leadership.
Well directed speed is of the essence in a crisis, hence why the
predicament encountered needs bold leadership. Rapidity of information is like
an avalanche when it comes in, finding the ability to answer and communicate
clearly takes effort. This must be done to ensure everyone understands what
direction you’re rowing in, and what aim point separate groups should all be
converging upon. A crisis tests decision making abilities. One must respond or
get left behind because digital and social media may latch onto your crisis.
“In today’s fast-moving, electronic world, your reputation could be enhanced or
denigrated in a moment,” says Dr. Ed Powers, lead for Northeastern’s Master of
Science in Corporate and Organizational Communication program.[9] Leverage your supporters
to help speed your ability to message and get the word out. People only care
how much you know if they know how much you care. Make your communication
personal and impactful to those you are leading.
A leader in crisis must make time to ask what the problem is,
where are we at, what does the end look like, and how do we get there.[10] Accept the crisis and
frame the new problem. Leaders must take a non-linear, creative, and divergent
approach to leading forward. This reinterpretation of thinking, when confronted
with a novel problem, allows for a resilient response. This reframing occurred
after September 11, 2001 when the United States was the target of a major
terrorist attack. Reframing on this new dynamic required many organizations to
drastically shift their focus on an issue previously not considered critical by
most agencies in the government. If your new vision does not correctly solve
the framed problem, it’s necessary to begin the iterative process of problem
reframing.
Recommended Leadership Approach: Problem Reframing.
Leaders must reframe when current concepts do not fit new
development or phenomenon because what you’ve been taught as status quo no
longer fits and is impossible to implement. This occurs through the development
of a new way to think about gathering as a group and where experimentation is
key.[11] Best described by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Donald Schön’s
design concept of reflection-in-action. Questioning
what is known allows leaders to think about what started this crisis.[12] During this time leaders
can restructure strategy of action, understand the phenomena or ways to frame
the problem allowing for a staff to think about the different approaches to
issues.[13] Accounting for the
ambiguity, vague goals, and situations that keep changing, the Army has advice
for this situation in the statement like, “no plans survives first contact with
the enemy.”[14]
A leader must adapt plans as the situation unfolds.
Problem reframing
shifts attention from trying to address the initial question, to asking whether
the right problem is even being addressed. This causes participants to reflect
on events and occurrences. Think of this as moving vertically to get to a
solution and laterally with an understanding that change occurred, and
interpretation of events shifts the entire group to get to a new solution to
the crisis. Transformational change may carry some of the original solutions
but also expands to different solutions.[15] For instance, this type
of reframing occurred with the crisis of industrial espionage and theft by
nation states, a problem that was recently tackled by the National Intelligence
Council in the United States. Initially, the goal was to find thieves who stole
intellectual property. The crisis accumulated after patterns that emerged
demonstrated these were not individual accounts but instead part of a systemic
issue. The “Thousand Talents” program of the Chinese where targeting
corporations and academic institutions to provide the Chinese Communist Party
with information and data. Bypassing research and development through theft of
ideas, research, and innovation the Chinese gained insights without the upfront
cost. Indeed, in 2017 the Chinese heralded their success at creating 73
companies in China and enticing 11,000 overseas “high-level talent” to China.
According to the National Intelligence Council, the Chinese initiative made
possible for “the legal and illicit transfer of U.S. technology, intellectual
property and know-how to China.”[16] Addressing the right
problem here pulled law enforcement away from individual property theft to a
whole-of-government approach focusing national security on a nation state’s
malfeasant activities.
Reactions to change must remain active and adaptive. Do not be fearful
of wrong decisions, but be fearful of not correcting decisions which were
wrong. If one searches only for an efficient and effective quick solution, amid
a crisis, the potentiality for spiraling into chaos increases. Continuously
frame the crisis through constant analysis of the crisis. Good leaders in
crisis work to identify the difference between the short and the long game.
Therefore, if it’s a natural disaster that impacts an area leader require
framing the urgent work and trusting those employees to develop timelines down
to the minutes, hours, and weeks involved in this new normal. Then shift to
looking beyond the new now, all the while understanding in a crisis without
precedence a leader cannot be beholden to the initially gathered gather initial
information. Remain flexible to new information as it comes along and challenge
previously held assumptions. All the while, decisively and clearly
communicating your message as accurately as possible with the best information
you’ve got.
While problem reframing, in a crisis leader must prevent
themselves from getting sucked into focusing on every detail, as this prevents
them from seeing the larger picture. Place a new process into effect and
analyze multiple events on a continuous basis to anticipate potential outcomes
of the crisis. This is akin to writing a branch plan or sequel to an event that
is occurring. If the original plan requires revision, do it. Examples of this
are numerous when either federal or local leaders quickly attempt to claim
mission success without adapting to a new normal. Acknowledgement of those
impacted immediately in a hurricane, earthquake, or sudden financial downturn
must focus on more than simply those at the epicenter of the event but also
those working on the periphery to enact change.[17] The ease of letting
incidents distract a leader during a crisis occurs far too often. Remaining
focused, and not distracted, is key to leading in a crisis.
Recovery and Results.
Crisis eventually morph, slow down, and transition. Leading
through a recovery may be even harder than during a crisis because as things
slow down and the recognition of this strange new world adapts. Here it remains
critical to refocus and remain relevant for a changed future. Adaptive work
requires adjustments, learning, and compromise on the part of those who
experienced crisis.[18] Following distress
leaders must contend with those they are leading because people walk away with
a mixed mindset. First, they understand change occurred, and while people
typically respect leaders who take bold action, most people still want to
minimize loss to themselves, and look to leaders for protection even more than
change. Recovery after a crisis may result in genuine change and it requires
frustrating people’s expectation of what can be delivered.[19] Additionally, real
hardship may result as an after effect of the crisis. Boldness and protection
do not always go hand in hand, letting go of old ideas and the ways things were
previously done may result in pain and dislocation during this recovery.
After the smoke clears and leaders reset their organization, a
recognition that the post-crisis organizational structure and environment may
cause pain to some people who were previously in charge. This requires a reset,
all while dealing with the joy, anxiety, grief following a crisis, to reflect
on the purpose of the activities your organization conducts. Even military
theorist Carl von Clausewitz opined that a critical inquiry requires
questioning whether the result of an action conformed to the intention of its
aim.[20] The opportunities to lead
post-crisis requires a leader to know how hard to push those who’ve weathered
the storm. Tolerance for the transition requires steadfast leadership to see
your organization through to a stable environment. The reset after a crisis
take a leader’s wisdom to shed what is no longer necessary, even though it was
previously thought critical, a crisis determined its real necessity. One great example of this type of reset in an
organization is how the intelligence community reset after September 11th,
2001. More than a dozen of previously disconnected organizations, within the
United States government, quickly aligned under a unified purpose and moved
forward in the same direction after one large crisis.
Amidst the stress of the present, a great leader in crisis thinks strategically and understands the lasting impacts of the crisis instead of the current everyday confrontations. Courageous leadership in a time of crisis starts with the irrational acknowledgement to commit to take care of those you lead through the entirety of the crisis. When the world you understood as stable and consistent is hit by a crisis, grab the reigns and move forward. Focus on where you’re at and where you want to go. In conditions of rapid change, build teams with trust that can help you understand new contexts, and flexibly move forward with bold actions. In the end, a crisis can serve as a great point to prioritize and reorganize with a new direction and focus. Our country faced this after September 11th and we changed a lot; 20 years later it is time for us to evolve to meet the leadership needs of our world today.
About the Author
Candice E. Frost is an active duty Colonel in the United States Army and the Director of Foreign Intelligence for the United States Army G-2. She is also the owner of Colonel Candid LLC, a business consulting company on leadership and mentorship. All viewpoints are her own and do not reflect those of the United States government.
[1] Playing the violin on the deck of the
Titanic, while it is sinking, does no one any good. Be forthright.
[2] Major Candice E. O’Brien, “Problem
Reframing: Intelligence Professionals’ Role in Design, “Monograph, School of
Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff
College, 2010, 20.
[3] An example of this quandary occurs
during a network intrusion. When an organization faces a crisis, after multiple
cyber intrusions, leaders and followers know a problem exists but the
organization may not know the complexity of the attack or interference. An
immediate capacity to solve it doesn’t exist within the construct of an
organization, department, or business. Input from law enforcement or cyber
agencies is required and as a leader you must lead to move your organization to
understand this for the crisis that it is.
[4] Klaus Krippendorff, The Semantic
Turn: A New Foundation for Design, (Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis,
2006), 37.
[5] Ethics in Crisis Management, Penn
State, The Arthur W. Page Center Public Relations Ethics, https://pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethics-in-crisis-management/lesson-1-prominent-ethical-issues-in-crisis-situations/case-study-tbd/ (accessed on 31 March 2020).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Linda Polman, The Crisis Caravan,
(New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010), 103.
[9] Lauren Landry, “7 Crisis Communication
Tips Every Organization Should Master” (9 January 2018). https://www.northeastern.edu/graduate/blog/crisis-communication-tips/, accessed 29 March 2020.
[10] Major Candice E. O’Brien, “Problem
Reframing: Intelligence Professionals’ Role in Design, “Monograph, School of
Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff
College, 2010, 3.
[11] A rather
apt analogy here as many people are home cooking, one must understand the
relationship of the current environment to that of creating soup. The basic
tools haven’t changed. You need a heat source, pot, ladle and bowl as your
resources. Creating a complex dish, as those who cook attempt to do, requires
the understanding of the environment. What goes into that pot is what you’ve
got and creations that were thought to work may not work out. Therefore, you’ve
got to go back and look at what to add through experimentation. Once an
ingredient is added, the soup, or problem has changed or reframed. Using the
tools at hand, like a ladel, you can spoon out the necessary amount to those who
need it. Thus, the operation of feeding a person is complete. The recipient
remains unaware of the reframing that was conducted during your cooking of the
soup, they just appreciate the end result.
[12] Donald A. Schön, Educating the
Reflective Practitioner, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987), 28.
[13] Schon, 28.
[14] Gary Klein, Streetlights and Shadows,
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011), 7.
[15] Bryan Lawson, How Designers Think, (Boston:
Architectural Press, 2006), 296.
[16] Christopher Burgess, “China’s Thousand
Talents Program Harvests U.S. Technology,” (6 March 2020), https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/03/06/chinas-thousand-talents-program-harvests-u-s-technology/ accessed on 29 March 2020.
[17] As a leader, remember when in charge, be in charge. The
adept saying, “never let them see you sweat,” remains true but allow yourself
the ability to laugh, scream, and cry at the situation in your own way.
[18] The most impacted are often the
dominant, complacent, and beleaguered. Ronald A. Heifitz, Leadership Without
Easy Answers, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 238.
[19] Heifitz, 239.
[20] Carl von Clausewitz, On War,
Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1983), 182.
Comments
Post a Comment