Covid 19: Who should tell us when it's right to go back to normal?

How long? That’s the question we all seem to be asking at the moment. How long will it be until we can get back to normal? The pragmatists are leaning towards the 4-6 months mark; the optimists, sadly, not much less. 

Fundamentally, we don’t know, but what appears to be consensual is that a vaccine is some way off. So, what are we to do as PRs? We are in the middle of a public information program, which reiterates the need for the right collective and individual behaviours, which usually comes in the shape of stopping us from doing the stuff we used to do.

However, people and markets can only take so much in the way of inertia. We can only ‘not do’ for so long, which brings me back to the role played by public relations as this sobering situation continues. A crisis, as we know, tends to drag out – there isn’t a finishing line. It typically goes from the ‘big bang’, to a prolonged process of introspection, lower productivity and distrust. People and markets won’t wait until we’ve got to a point of zero activity with coronavirus; there will be an overwhelming urge to get back to normal when that curve has started to move in the right direction. Governments and businesses will, undoubtedly, be led by science and economics – the first tends to have far more patience than the second in these situations – but who’s to say when the time is right to do normal again? This is when PR should jump at the opportunity to play ‘corporate conscience’. It’s a thankless role, but one we are as suitably qualified as anyone else within the organisation, if not better, to carry out. To be clear, this is not about showing bravado and yelling it’s ‘business as usual’ before we’re ready; no, this is about recognizing that the actions compelled by having a conscience could also mean that we are confident enough to say, ‘we’re still not ready’.

The time spent in enforced exile away from the office is good for us as PRs; it’s at this time that we’ll get the opportunity to immerse ourselves in the ‘public’ of public relations (albeit at a distance). Former US General and CIA Head, David Petraeus once said that decision making during times of uncertainty, needs to be far less top-down, and “pushed outwards and downwards” towards where new information is originating.  This immersion is critical if we’re to get a sense if this information and how people are feeling. It’s only then can we make those right conscience calls.

A Soldier's Guide to Managing Uncertain Times

Firstly, let me apologise for not being strong enough to withstand the pull of the Brexit black hole. It was out there and reams have been written and will continue to be written, but not by me I said. Well, that was my position, but I have succumbed.

However, if any respite can be offered, this is no place for the micro, or macro-economic, or further speculation about Scottish independence. No, in what sounds like an Absurdist argument, I’ll try to flesh out the challenges of organisational uncertainty.

What with the disruptive nature of technology, the lingering legacy of the GFC and the widespread rejection of mainstream party politics, It’s been said (by far too many) that we live in uncertain times, and now the UK’s decision to leave the European Union has exacerbated the sense of limbo being felt by corporates and consumers.

So, how best for corporate leaders to manage this ‘fog of war’? Fittingly, I believe military thinking to be an invaluable starting point. To expand, former CIA Director and General, David Petraeus once spoke of his frustrations of live fire arms exercises within the US Army, which were too “carefully scripted” and resultantly lost any spontaneity – you can read more here. I hasten to add that I don’t endorse executive team shoot-outs, but I believe there’s much to be learnt from an unannounced simulation exercise for team members. Clearly, such sessions are carefully choreographed and planned behind-the-scenes, but participants should very much feel ‘down in the deep end’. In extending another of Petraeus’ thoughts, it’s also vital that these exercises are now far more inclusive of more middling and junior ranked employees. To Petraeus’ words, the “decision making needs to be pushed outwards and downwards, towards where new information is originating.” Those more junior members of the team have, for instance, for more affinity with the subversive nature of technology; they know what it can do and have less in the way of reverence for those institutions that stand to lose, or gain from its application.

The military factor should also be explored by way of the war game - a cornerstone of combat strategy for the past 200 years. In contrast to the conventional simulation, the exercise is far more adversarial in nature, with your executive decision makers lining up against a team of competitive adversaries in terms of a given scenario, where every action is met by a reaction. Again, this is about leaders having to take the initiative and manage uncertainty actively.

By our very nature, we as rational animals, look to make decisions based on information; we put off difficult choices by requesting more information, and in an age of big data, there’s no shortage of content to turn to. However, there lies the potential for even greater paralysis and the overriding paradox of the Information Age. The statistics are useful, but let’s not lose sight of the need for strong instinctive leadership.