How to respond in a crisis | Guest Opinion

Forecasting future events is always uncertain. Experts use the best available data to make projections with a range of outcomes, some good, some not.

Unfortunately, “bad news” is often unwelcome, and even well-founded warnings can be dismissed. How decision-makers, and all of us, respond to these warnings makes the difference between a tragedy unfolding and a tragedy averted.

There are four typical responses, but we do not always reward the most effective.

The first, and worst, is denial and inaction. The leader ignores the warnings and, when the disaster unfolds, they respond by “shooting the messenger” and doing nothing to address the problem. Failed states tend to fall into this category. This response is uncommon in the United States since we usually act, but not always in a timely fashion.

The second is the “heroic response”. The leader ignores the warnings but acts after the disaster unfolds. This can look like true leadership even though the disaster was predictable and preventable.

The decision-maker is not blamed, and even rewarded, because so much must be done to address the tragedy. To remain “heroic”, they often claim that the disaster couldn’t have been foreseen, blame others for early inaction, and take credit for any response, no matter how ill-timed, “My actions prevented it from being worse”.

The experts are often scapegoated since, like with old testament prophets, leaders seldom want to be held accountable. Unfortunately, our culture often rewards heroic responses, because “heroes” take risks, regardless of the consequences.

A third response is that leadership takes the warnings seriously and prevents or significantly mitigates the disaster, but disunity prevents a long-term solution. Sadly, it is easy to criticize what occurs rather than appreciate what does not. Competing factions can downplay the seriousness of the initial threat, especially if the threat is mitigated.

If a disaster doesn’t unfold, then rivals can claim that the problem was not as serious as predicted, that too many resources were spent to prepare, and that the response was overblown. Reducing risk is somehow seen as weakness. This attitude leads us to be vulnerable to the next threat.

The final possible response is that leadership takes the warnings seriously, responds appropriately, and we, collectively, implement a long-term solution to mitigate future disasters. This requires foresight, collaboration, and long-term commitment that few politicians, or individuals, can muster.

Regrettably, the future reward for the near-term sacrifice is only clear through the lens of history, but we have succeeded in the past. I am old enough to remember DDT fogging trucks and am grateful to have lived to see the return of eagles.

Will we learn our lesson this time? Or will our risk-taking, hero-loving, short-term thinking attitudes cause us to be ill-prepared once again? For pandemics, of course, but surely there are other future disasters — say the effect of climate change, or income inequality — that require long-term thinking and sustained action.

Can we as a country muster the foresight to act for our future — our “posterity”?

As one wise forefather said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” The government, with our support, must act to avert future disasters for the good of us all. We must agree this is necessary, listen to the experts, hold our leaders accountable, and, as individuals, act like our nation’s future depends on it — because it does.

This story was originally published May 26, 2020 at 11:16 AM with the headline "How to respond in a crisis | Guest Opinion."