Might there soon be a medical breakthrough that eradicates COVID-19 from the face of the earth? In that case humankind will declare victory and move on. Or the pandemic might unleash new waves across the world, forcing stricter lockdowns and cratering economies beyond repair. More likely perhaps is that contagion will continue, and the world’s societies resolve to live with the risk in ways they have not considered so far. What will that compromise look like? How can we—as nations, as enterprise leaders, and as individuals—adapt to the new conditions and continue to thrive? Setting aside magical thinking and apocalyptic rhetoric alike, we need collectively to agree on some sturdy principles for living with the virus.

For example, what is the failure we are most likely to commit and must avoid as we work to diminish the human ravages of the virus?  Imagine that, looking back a decade hence, the inescapable conclusion is that our response fell short. How will that failure be manifested? Who will turn out to have done, or not done, what?

#provocations

What do you think? Use the reply function to post comments of up to 300 words in length. In the interests of lively but respectful debate, we accept strongly-held views and robust comment, but not personal attacks or political statements.

Consider what was first identified as the failure to avoid at all costs: overwhelming intensive care facilities and other scarce healthcare resources. This turned into the clear directive to “flatten the curve” of infection and death. Where that failure was avoided, the new failure to avoid—and therefore the criteria for easing lockdown restrictions—is far less clear and agreed-on.

Or, if effective management depends on tracking progress against objectives, what are the goals we should set ourselves and how will we tell if we are meeting them?

Useful “metrics” must relate to purpose (ie “what matters most”, or perhaps “the failure to avoid at all costs”) as well as accurately, objectively, and comparably representing reality. Absent a clear overall goal, in some countries early in the pandemic massive testing became the de facto purpose, irrespective of reliability or who was being tested, squeezing out arguably greater priorities.

If, as likely, no single figure can measure adequate cohabitation with the virus, a better goal may be to establish an index of qualities that all contribute to human thriving.

Many people have the power to act and effectively influence others. What obstacles might keep them from reaching consensus on a path forward?

The fights around COVID-19 are often characterized as scientific rather than political. In fact, they are both—and in neither realm is much “settled.” Obstacles range from lack of essential knowledge (even misinformation) to conflicting beliefs about what best serves societal needs. Some argue that failure to defeat the virus is down to the refusal of leaders to “follow the science”; others the reverse, that the technocratic bias of decision-makers has kept them from taking commonsense actions based on wise judgment in the face of competing priorities.

How is living with the virus different than living with other risk factors that force people to make tradeoffs in their daily lives? What could be done to make the risks of contagion more manageable?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs suggests that risks are experienced differently: an immediate threat to life is sui generis, separate from threats to health, prosperity, or social capital. But given the outcomes to date, can we take a more fine-grained view of the risks that different demographic groups face from COVID-19? How can a conflicted media industry be enlisted to help the public weigh the risks better?

What should we be demanding of political and business leaders now? What can they do to increase the chances of coming out of 2020 in better shape overall? What must they stop doing?

the Drucker Forum Editors 

#provocations
What do you think? Use the reply function to post comments of up to 300 words in length. In the interests of lively but respectful debate, we accept strongly-held views and robust comment, but not personal attacks or political statements.

The Covid-19 crisis gives us an opportunity to think about a key aspect of leadership: how much can and should leaders rely on the input of experts to make decisions, and how much latitude should they retain for themselves to decide from a generalist perspective? 

To a striking degree, this crisis has featured calls for political, business, and other institutional leaders to “follow the science” by deferring to experts in relevant domains, prominently including virologists, epidemiologists, and medical councils. Many decisions, too, have been predicated on modeling by data scientists extrapolating from data to forecast levels of contagion, resource use, and mortality under different scenarios. In the face of a global threat to lives and livelihoods, no one is interested in arbitrary or ideology-driven decision-making. 

#provocations

What do you think? Use the reply function to post comments of up to 300 words in length. In the interests of lively but respectful debate, we accept strongly-held views and robust comment, but not personal attacks or political statements.

Yet, opposing perspectives have emerged within this broad consensus – along with a growing appreciation that the relevant science is still rapidly evolving. With different camps touting incompatible solutions, some experts have seemed too ready to cast those with competing ideas as politically motivated. Citizens around the world, having been told that the science shows one thing only to be told subsequently that the opposite is irrefutably proven, grow confused, cynical, and noncompliant. Some worry that most experts have earned their sterling reputations by doing narrowly focused work within sub disciplines of their fields, and their voices are not being sufficiently balanced by other valuable perspectives. Some, too, suspect that scientists and models are being used to shut down discussion of matters they view as still open to debate.

All this makes the crises precipitated by a novel coronavirus an ideal case study for considering the role of the leader in a complex situation. Many leaders are genuinely committed to analytical, data-driven approaches, but acutely aware that decisions must be made in conditions of high uncertainty, where the science is not settled. Perhaps some are not above selectively choosing the “science” that lends an authoritative and objective aspect to decisions their gut prefers. Even then, however, perhaps a prominent display of at least claiming the value of evidence-based management might still have a positive effect, if it encourages people to find facts for themselves–and in the future expect and demand less decision-making by whim. Even when experts disagree on fundamental questions and individually fail to see the bigger picture of a complex phenomenon, their established “way of knowing” can influence others to believe more in rigorous truth-seeking through experimentation, careful analysis, and the broad dissemination of findings.  

How should leaders change based on what is being revealed by this case study? Does it yield any general guidance for how to arrive at timely decisions that are sound and will be embraced? Does it suggest a way for leaders to know when experts of different kinds should come to the fore, and what weights should be placed on their advice? What risks should be accepted in the face of immediate and longer term costs of measures (example lives versus the economy)?  Is it possible to self-diagnose when one has succumbed to “analysis paralysis” or otherwise abdicated responsibility for making a tough call in the face of competing values or tradeoffs? How do we prepare leaders better to step up to this responsibility?

the Drucker Forum Editors 

#provocations
What do you think? Use the reply function to post comments of up to 300 words in length. In the interests of lively but respectful debate, we accept strongly-held views and robust comment, but not personal attacks or political statements.