Archiv der Kategorie: English

An ongoing crisis becomes normality

On the tenth of April 1912, the Titanic started from Southhampton on its long-distance maiden voyage to New York. At that time, it was the largest passenger ship. Fortunately, of the 3,300 passengers allowed on board (in addition to the 900 members of the crew), only 2,400 were on board. Until the collision with the iceberg, the steamer was considered the safest ship of its kind. In other words, further away from a crisis than any other ship. After the sinking, design changes were made, the number of lifeboats was made dependent on the number of people on board, and regular inspections were required. Everyone who travels on a passenger ship knows about the mandatory drills conducted within the first 24 hours at sea. For a quick rescue, radio communications have been reorganized – 24h radio operations, a secondary power supply for radio, rockets only to be used for emergencies. Nowadays, airplanes patrol to detect icebergs at an early stage. However, emergency efforts do not mean that everyone is in constant distress. As long as a system does not fail, it operates regular. Despite this simple truth, those in charge in the corps behave as if they are perpetually in crisis mode.

However, this general crisis mode is counterproductive because it overloads the participants endlessly and leaves them accustomed to this state. To be able to use the momentum of a crisis, people should differentiate various crisis modes.

  • Potential crisis
    This state is part of regular operations. No crisis is taking place yet. However, leaders are developing the understanding that difficulties are conceivable. Although they do not like surprises, meritocratic leaders find it difficult to invest in assumed themes. For them, the best-case scenario only offsets the effort by avoiding damage. It all starts with creating an awareness of the need. First and foremost is the unbiased description of dangers and effects, such as the legal duties, possible economic damage to the company, and drawbacks for oneself.
    Established crisis management is the basis for mitigating incidents. It includes clear roles, processes, different scenarios, regular discovery, observation, and assessment of the imaginable crises.
  • Latent crisis
    We are still in daily biz, but we recognize the first signs of a crisis. The main objective is to avoid the occurrence of an emergency. For this purpose, predefined measures are triggered to prevent damage. The greater the possible harm and the more likely the crisis is, the more elaborate the measures have to be. The profit arises from the fact that NO significant disruptions occur.
    For this purpose, early warning sensors and safeguards are installed at the identified weak points in the biz model, the organization, and the infrastructure. Key figures alert decision-makers to undesirable changes in operations and crisis management. In preparation, susceptible building blocks are additionally maintained, and exercises are carried out just in case.
  • Acute crisis
    The tipping point, and thus a crisis, is reached when a disruption makes normal operations impossible. Now the crisis team should quickly take up its positions. During this process, the prepared emergency plans are executed. Those responsible are focused on remedying the plight. Resources are directed to the essential points. The information flow is ensured. The stress reactions of those involved are alleviated.
    Depending on the scope of the incident, these can be short engagements of a few hours or very long deployments of several weeks and months. These involve troubleshooting, performing emergency care, and executing measures for survival. The duration of the crisis depends mainly on adequate preparations.
  • Survived Crisis
    The crisis ends with the canceling of the acute incident. Thus, the unit is not yet back in stable condition, but the obstacles are eliminated. After that, the clearance starts, restoring the ability to work, and regular operations start. It requires sifting through the damage. Reconstruction is planned. The necessary resources are provided. The previous decision-making paths are reactivated. The personal stress aspects and trauma of those affected are treated. In parallel, the review of what happened starts. In an After Action Review, the incidents are evaluated with representatives from the areas involved – especially the root causes.
    It is the start of preparing for the following incident. The findings are incorporated into the crisis preparation and made available to everyone – e.g., the insurance companies, supervisory authorities, bodies, and the leadership team.

Bottom line: Dealing with crises requires more than spontaneous decision-making in the acute case. Above all, everyone must be prepared for possible crises. Without an acute crisis, it requires a shared understanding of crises and the various crisis modes alongside normal operations. Everyone should know that potential crises go far beyond the imagination of those responsible – as we have seen vividly since the beginning of the Corona crisis. The decisive factor is a skillful assessment of the risks – how probable and how severe. The mandatory training develops then an emergency plan for all conceivable cases and case types (e.g., economic, social, technical, legal). In this context, all threats can never be recognized and correctly assessed. To react appropriately, coherent preparation and follow-ups are indispensable. The defined crisis modes demarcate normal operations from the real crisis. Above all, leadership awareness of possible incidents should be raised and linked to concrete tasks, competencies, and responsibilities. The annual exercise keeps those involved fit for the cases that should be prevented. An endless horror story is devastating for preparation, making crisis the norm. It takes away the urgency and momentum of the organization to resolve the crisis.

Various decision-makers always generate compromises

The pandemic has mainly set the ossified procedures of white-collar workers in motion. For a long time, there have been new approaches for collaboration – e.g., leaner structures; one-stop task, authority, and responsibility (TAR); dissolution of lengthy bureaucracy; mobile working. It gives employees more rights and obligations. Managers lose their raison d’être: decision-making, leadership, and control. A resolution is made on the spot by those involved. Nevertheless, there is still an overarching body that decides in case of doubt.

Nowadays, different areas are involved in a decision, all of which have their intentions and make the following aspects noteworthy.

  • The subsidiarity mindset
    The appropriate place must be found to dissolve cumbersome ways of decision-making. The Catholic Church formulated a blueprint for this in 1931. The principle of subsidiarity in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on the restructuring of the social order describes the division of labor as follows:
    “The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.”
    Today’s VUCA world can use this approach to maintain momentum and employee engagement. The cross-functional, universally recognized authority decides when a decision cannot be made at its level.
  • Clear roles
    Continuous decomposition into smaller parts leads to temporary networks that replace rigid hierarchies and exclusionary silos. Clear roles are needed that describe the tasks, authorities, and responsibilities (TAR) of those involved.
    Due to the fast-paced circumstances, roles are replacing small-scale individual job descriptions. Stakeholders need requirements for their actions as general as possible, with sufficient leeway for unforeseen circumstances.
  • Compromises
    The professional tasks lead to different interests, intentions, and constraints. Only the joint negotiation of a decision by those affected leads to a feasible result accepted by all. Immediate delegation upwards does deliver a decision. However, Top-Down decisions lead to the displeasure of ALL parties involved: a) because they are not part of the decision-making; b) because, for them, the most important aspects are not considered. In the end, all parties have to make concessions and let go of some wishes to achieve a result. Finding a compromise depends on the solution’s longevity – the longer, the more elaborate the negotiation. The parties’ concluding willingness and decisive commitment is the basis for the viability of the consent.
  • Continuous improvement
    A primary enemy of creative solutions is the presupposition that the VUCA world stops turning after a decision. Every solution results in more or less persistent change – the construction of highways changes the landscape for a long time; agreeing on a typical course of action can be adjusted at any time.
    In VUCA times, we incessantly learn what works and what doesn’t. It can lead to the need to undo or change something again. With the Japanese consensual philosophy of Kaizen (改善), approaches are available to do something better without denigrating previous solutions and to avoid face loss.
  • Consequences for decision-makers
    The previous points result in a mindset that enables the participants to compromise. The previous negotiating skills will be expanded by empathizing with other people, recognizing their intentions and readiness, and responding appropriately to achieve Win-Win outcomes.
    In the VUCA world, little lasts. For this reason, parties should be less insistent on their desires. With empathy and a clear prioritization of their wishes, they achieve more viable results.
  • Highlander principle
    If the parties do not find each other, then a decision needs the back door of the higher level. The archaic Highlander Principle then applies: There can be only one. As long as there are several equal negotiators, it boils down to a conflict of interests that can only be resolved with compromise.
    In the VUCA world, such decisions increase the risk of failure. If those affected are not sufficiently involved, top-down resolutions are required.

Bottom line: It is impossible to satisfy all those affected with one resolution. Because of the different intentions, more or less significant compromises are necessary to achieve a result. The people in charge and the scope of action are outlined, using the principle of subsidiarity and clear roles. If the compromises are expected by those involved, it is easier for them to find an agreement. Afterward, it is always possible to improve. It is crucial for the decision-makers to develop an appropriate mindset to not insist on requirements and give in to others. If there is no result, there is always the possibility to use a SINGLE decision-maker according to the Highlander principle. ALL should understand that multiple deciders ALWAYS create compromises.