Uses and abuses of crisis management
THE rapidly developing differences between the UK Government’s and the devolved Assemblies’ approaches towards handling the return to normality from the UK nationwide lockdown period are classic examples of the use, misuse and abuse of risk management techniques within a crisis management framework typically employed in world-class private sector organisations.
Crisis or disaster management, as part of a business continuity strategy, is typically invoked in organisations to handle significant unforeseen incidents or activities that challenge the normal modus operandi of their operations, which could and often do include threats to people’s lives and livelihoods.
Risk management processes ideally focus on both elements of the risk equation, namely risk and opportunity. Both areas need to be managed effectively to optimise the rapid and positive return to business or operational normalcy.
Risks and hazards need to be identified and assessed for action plans to be developed to mitigate them to either eliminate them or reduce their impact, while opportunities can be identified and alternative plans developed to exploit and capitalise on them to the organisation’s advantage.
An organisation’s attitude towards risk, called its risk appetite, is established over time and determines how successfully it works its way through crises and how effectively and quickly it gets back to operational normalcy.
At either end of the risk attitude scales there are extreme behaviours potentially exhibited whether one is risk-aware or risk-oblivious, and whether one’s approach is absolutely risk-averse or totally reckless.
In worst-case scenarios where one is risk-averse this drives behaviour that is either too frightened and cowardly to do anything because of potentially hazardous risk outcomes, and ignores any opportunities, whereas the other extreme of recklessness causes its own problems of a “gungho” careless approach putting people and organisations at further risk.
The ideal is somewhere in between called “intelligent risk” management.
The Covid-19 crisis is being managed by the devolved nations in Wales and Scotland in a highly risk-averse nature potentially, causing significant extended damage to their economies, without necessarily lessening the health risk of their citizens.
They believe the UK Government is acting too quickly to reduce lockdown, and therefore exposing their citizens to heightened health risk.
They are all claiming to be informed by the science, but which “science” are we talking about here when the same science is supposed to be informing all UK government bodies?
Unless all our diverse UK-based governments get their act together quickly, co-operate, behave honestly and manage this joint UK-wide crisis effectively, we are in for a potentially massively drawnout, painful and disastrous return to “normalcy”.
The initial phases of this crisis have supposedly being guided by the science, this recovery from lockdown phase needs to be guided by the best business practices available and not guided by point-scoring politics. Where is this Business Advisory Group that must replace or at least supplement SAGE?
Other developing “crises” such as Brexit implementation, according to some, and the current UK racial tension situation would benefit from a similar professional risk management approach to ensure successful conclusions. The UK population deserves nothing less.
Gareth Halliwell Marcross, Vale of Glamorgan