Critical Thinking 2
.docx
School
Nonesuch School**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
SOC 1001
Subject
Management
Date
Dec 21, 2024
Pages
7
Uploaded by SargentCraneMaster1199
1Critical Thinking 2: Adaptive Leadership and Decision-Making in a GlobalPandemicNazila RefahiColorado State University GlobalORG 525: Decision Theory in a Global MarketplaceRob FreebroughFebruary 5, 2022
2Adaptive Leadership and Decision-Making in a Global PandemicThe recent event of the COVID-19 pandemic has taught the world the inherent challengesof an ongoing healthcare crisis scenario. The difference with this recent global event is that the challenge is unprecedented, ongoing, and rapidly developing in response to the decisions and actions conducted by the involved stakeholders namely the government, the healthcare community, and the population. Regardless, the critical aspect of the global pandemic response was the leadership management of the government which decided the collective response of the population towards the crisis. In this regard, events such as the global health crisis presented a significant challenge that warranted the dynamic approach of adaptive leadership towards handling an ongoing challenge and rapidly attempting a theoretical solution or response as a management intervention.A crisis such as a healthcare pandemic presents a unique situation wherein leadership must balance limited information, current ongoing challenges, and a developing circumstance towards achieving the best possible solution (Beilstein et al., 2021, 408). In contrast to traditional challenges which require a solution based after all of the underlying factorshave been thoroughly examined, an ongoing pandemic requires a quick decision based on unknown factors and results relying only on evaluation based on currently available information. Dunn described the problem to be “how to influence the development of complex situations towards favorable outcomes, and away from unfavorable ones, is arguably at the core of most of the important and difficult challenges we currently face” (2020, p. 32). Such a dynamic and complex scenario required the more suited adaptive leadership solution in contrast to the traditional technical leadership approach.
3The adaptive approach to leadership prompts a multi-faceted and presently developing strategy evaluation towards achieving a clearly defined goal at the end of the scenario. In the scenario of a global pandemic, the goal would be to control the spread of the disease and develop a counteractive vaccine against it. The process however towards the goal is not directly linear as ideally intended. With regards to this challenge, “adaptive approaches are capable of dealing with complexity, unpredictability, and change.” (Dunn, 2020, p. 33). Adaptiveleadership prompts action in response to current changes, fluctuations, and outcomes of the previous decision which makes the theoretical solution approach continuously changing in response to the situation. To demonstrate the practicality of adaptive leadership in managing the global pandemic crisis, the Harvard Business School developed a leadership simulation game that replicates the involved management issue. In the game “Patient Zero”, the player takes the role of a leader managing a nation faced with a virus pandemic that is turning infected into zombies. Throughoutthe game, the leader must make five critical decisions in an attempt to contain the infection, cure the infected, and continuously preserve the morale of the population. The game reflects the actual scenario of a global pandemic as it used real-time information to create different outcomesfor each leadership decision made during the course of the simulation.In running conducting a trial run of the game, the author of this paper used the following demographic choices at the beginning of the game: economic with 3 points, health with 2 points, and infrastructure with the remaining point. Such selection created a country scenario that was economically progressive and socially thriving under a democratic governance system. Such particular choices were specifically used to mirror the particular characteristic of the United States of America in the simulation. During the event of the global pandemic, the first decision
4that was made is to ban the pilgrimage outright. This involved making a public announcement to warn the citizen of the ongoing health crisis and the risks while delimiting risking social movement and gatherings. Likewise, the announcement included a public warning for the repercussion of violating the imposed ban. The result reflected social satisfaction from the decision. The second decision was to subsidize the drug and educate the population regarding its effectiveness in the prevention of widespread infection. The decision maintained the satisfaction rating of the population. The next decision was not to proceed with the assault on the infected butrather send more medical teams to support the program to find a cure against the virus. Such a decision was motivated by humanitarian pursuit and ideal ethical evaluation which outweighed the increased risk of infection on the population. However, the decision was not very popular among the population gaining a neutral response. The following decision was to run the softwarethat would implement information dissemination with the population. This would require consultation with the press relation and communication team to determine the best approach to public communication. Considering that democracy was one of the characteristics of the involved demographic, the population was satisfied with the decision. Lastly, the final decision was to go public with the defect and express commitment support from the government towards a new and improved health device. Similarly, the population was satisfied with the decision.Evident from the simulation experience, handling a global pandemic involves a significant decision-making process and critical analysis due to the inherent complexity of the situation. Each of the decisions involved in crisis management has an equal value of advantage and disadvantage in terms of the inherent consequences. Considering the inevitable nature of the consequences, the leader involved needs to decide upon one pursuit to implement and again evaluate the theoretical approach towards the final goal of the
5management scenario usingthe resulting outcome of the development. As such, the use of an adaptive leadership approach is inherently applicable to the situation since it cultivates a mindset of acceptance, critical adjustment through action, and focus on the lean improvement process (Dunn, 2020, p. 35-36). Such an approach was similarly implemented in the actual scenario of mitigating global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.Considerably, much of the decisions that were made in the simulation were adaptive towards the final goal of containing the infection while preserving the ideal democratic principle and social value within the population. As such, each decision was motivated by such principles making them arguably moral and necessary including the risk involved in each developing scenario. In the concern of leadership and crisis management, decisions are mainly evaluated based on the motivation and advocacy behind the involved inherent judgment. In the aspect of decision analysis, Virine and Trumper explained that if “a great deal is at stake, a wrong decisioncould be very costly” (2019, p. 6). However, the decision can be rationalized if the risk was properly evaluated relative to the ideal outcome being pursued in the crisis management concern.In the case of the actual COVID-19 pandemic, policy-makers and national leaders need to establish their respective goals and develop adaptive strategies based on the said concrete goals (Ramalingan, Wild, & Ferrari, 2020, p. 5) By having a concrete goal, the adaptive crisis management will have direction and more effective responses despite the inherent limitations of viable information, involved sacrifices, and the losses incurred during the ensuing development of the situation.Going back at the simulation game, the leader involved levied the information to the public to solicit their support and participation. By disseminating information among the people, in exchange for the involved consequence of the decision, the government leadership has
6empowered the people to make individual decisions of adhering to the protocols implemented bythe government. Realizing that such action was in their best interest, the population responded with much satisfaction towards each decision. However, certain critical judgment must still be implemented similarly in adaptive leadership which may seem to be illogical to the majority. Such in the case of the ethical conundrum on whether to bombard the infected or save them, the decision was accepted with neutrality yet it was still in accordance with the final goal of preserving the humanity of the society amidst the crisis. In the end, the conducted simulation gained a final outcome scenario of having only 7% of the population being infected, 11% likelihood of social structure collapse, and low final morale for the population. Considering the challenge, such a result could be considered successful relative to the difficult nature of the crisisinvolved.
7ReferencesBeilstein, C. M., Lehmann, L. E., Braun, M., Urman, R. D., Luedi, M. M., & Stuber, F. (2021). Leadership in a time of crisis: Lessons learned from a pandemic. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 35, 405-414. Dunn, R. (2020). Adaptive Leadership: Leading through Complexity. ISEA, 48(1).Ramalingam, B., Wild, L., & Ferrari, M. (2020). Adaptive Leadership in the Coronavirus Response. Bridging Science, Policy, and Practice. ODI. Accessed from http://cdn-odi-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/032020_pogo_coronavirus_adaptation.pdf.Virine, L. & Trumper, M. (2019). Project Decisions. Berret-Koehler Publishers. 2nd Edition.