Although the coronavirus epidemic is still a recent discovery, which makes it difficult to predict how it will evolve, a first analysis of how things have evolved so far uncovers some lessons. The most important is that, in all countries, the scientific approach
to crisis management must find its way into the mainstream. For a fact, the pandemic has proved that it is less a question of how far a country is advanced and developed than of other, as yet uncharted, considerations.
While in several Western countries ranked as developed countries, health systems were weak and crisis management mechanisms were lacking, health system performance and crisis management efficiency in other countries such as South Korea, Germany, Hong Kong, and Japan turned out to be high.
In a good proportion of countries, the concept of crisis management as a science is falling far short. Instead, there are always red-tape meetings in which people talk endlessly without a deliberate scientific framework or scientific key concepts of crisis management.
It is both funny and sad that for some countries, crisis management is a mere nest of pariah, good-for-nothing, or ghost workers, due to the lack of a teamwork culture and the hard task of building competent work teams.
Curiously, crisis and disaster management as a science is not novel. The method dates back to the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, more precisely since the Cuban missile crisis between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Both sides managed to avoid the catastrophe of nuclear war, giving rise to an era not of “strategy; only crisis management” as former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara put it.
For some, it is still too early to speak of a principles, laws and standards-based science. They look at it more as an art or a theoretical system. That said, most researchers already assume that it is a science with well-established rules and principles, like other administrative sciences. This is reflected in the publication of thousands of scientific and research books and documents.
In all cases, the issue is closely linked to that of the national security of states. We are talking about the science of averting or otherwise bringing down the risks and minimizing crisis damage.
Crisis management is taking on more and more prominence as international relations become more complex, issues and situations overlap, and actual and potential sources of crises and disasters of human (health, economic, military) and natural origin (earthquakes, volcanoes, torrents, epidemics) origin grow more and more numerous.
It goes without saying that the science of crisis management cannot operate in settings overrun by inflated egos and excessive subjectivity and in which the room for teamwork is scaled down as opposed to individual work.
As such, the issue is primarily one of a culture of joint action, which in turn rests on cultivating genuine ideas of institutional enterprise. There must be work systems that encourage competition, creativity, innovation, excellence and transparency and that do away with outdated work habits rooted in the backward bureaucracies of the public sphere.
One rule of crisis management is that every crisis is a problem, not the other way round. Some small problems can flare up and spill over to affect countries and populations if they are not addressed forthwith, whereas every crisis is a complex and multidimensional problem.
Taking the case of the coronavirus epidemic, many countries around the world are experiencing a crisis: their lack of interest in crisis management. In this management activity, there are a host of critical factors, the most obvious of which is the competence of the leadership.
Dealing with the crisis often depends on the clarity of vision and awareness of the leadership, as well as the nature of its relationships with the parties involved in the crisis. In the COVID-19 crisis, for example, public confidence in leadership has been a key determinant of the success of response plans.
In times of crisis, people rally around their trusted leaders. In such circumstances, leaders are responsible for coordinating teams and making appropriate decisions. They are also responsible for building trust, raising morale and persuading people to follow regulatory procedures and decisions announced by government authorities. This is called building a voluntary consensus on the crisis.
As they say, experience is the father of wisdom.
The crisis reveals the merits of leaders and builds trust between them and their people, provided that that trust already exists and is being strengthened, as is the case in the United Arab Emirates.
From the very first hours of the crisis, the factor of confidence in wise leadership was felt. HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, enjoys great popularity among the Emirati people. The UAE has welcomed His Highness’ messages with awareness and confidence from the very beginning of the crisis.
His directives have brought an early confidence boost, spreading a sense of comfort and security throughout the country. Brief messages such as “Don’t panic” had a great psychological and social impact on citizens and residents.
The UAE, in a manifestation of the conscious and rational leadership vision, paid great attention to the science of crisis management many years ago by establishing the National Emergency Crisis and Disaster Management Authority.
This successful federal body has proven its usefulness in this and other crises. Its activities are carried out within the framework of a government task force and are closely coordinated with the Emirati scientific community and the Emirates Scientists Council. The organization manages the National Operations Center and implements national contingency plans based on an accurate database of State resources and capabilities.
