Leadership and Preparedness.
We often gauge the performance of leaders in a crisis.
We often gauge the performance of leaders in a crisis. We look to see how fast they react, and the decisions they make, and judge their overall work on the outcomes. We seldom judge them on their ability to avoid crises, on what did not happen. The French minister for health during the H5N1 crisis, Roselyne Bachelot, was widely criticised at the time for having spent massively on masks and vaccines, and was mocked for her overreaction after only 343 died. Who knows what might have happened if she had waited to see how things developed and reacted rather than anticipated? Would she be remembered as the minister who moved heaven and earth to save her people after it was too late? Could it be that the fact that she possibly avoided a crisis actually devalued her leadership capital?
The concept of preparedness is one that we do not talk about much in the field of leadership, yet it could be argued that a good leader should be evaluated by the lack of crises of his or her tenure. We seem to have a romanticised idea of a leader who has the right yet difficult answers and who can fix and save. But a leader should also be the one who ensures that most crises do not happen, by anticipating them, and by preparing for them.
Mathew Syed recently wrote an article in which he compared Boris Johnson to Capt. Sullenberger, who, following a bird strike shortly after take-off, landed his Airbus 320 in the Hudson river, bringing all 155 people on board to safety. Mathew Syed’s point was about the importance of what the Leadership Trust calls the “grip self” moment, i.e. overcoming emotion and taking the time to assess the situation before taking action. Looking at it from the angle of preparedness, the two situations are however very different. Aviation is a world of precaution, constant review and lifelong training. Capt. Sullenberger had been trained for these types of situations, and aviation has contingency plan upon contingency plan. This does not take anything away from the pilot’s outstanding performance, but the level of preparedness greatly contributed to the positive outcome.
A pandemic is a very real risk, which means it can and should be anticipated. South Korea, badly hit during the MERS epidemic in 2015, learnt from the situation and ensured that they knew what to do in case it happened again. They were prepared for a new epidemic. The day China announced their first death from COVID-19, the South Koreans launched their protocols, engaged in massive testing, had all the necessary equipment, and within a month, were on the descending curve of their contagion, without having imposed total confinement, thereby not affecting the national economy. Their preparedness means they were able to react a lot faster and much more effectively than we were able to.
Another possible aviation comparison is the crash of the Boeing 737 max of Ethiopian Airlines, six minutes after take-off, killing all 157 people on board including its 29 year old pilot Capt. Getachew. Further to investigation, it appeared that breach after breach had been committed, from the certification process to the training of the pilots. This was a completely avoidable tragedy, had the protocols and the principles of precaution been followed.
This situation compares better to the situation we are now currently in. Boris Johnson is now saddled with a situation which is not of his making, much like Capt. Getachew, but still has to do what he can with what he has got: a faulty plane and a lack of preparedness.
Let’s hope that, when we come out of this situation, our political classes across the world will act like aviation authorities: review and correct, build contingency plans, but first and foremost, remember that the purpose of their very existence is the safety of all passengers.
Written by Léa Cléret
