Four Faces of Adversity

Leadership Style Flexibility is one of the most useful tools for good decisions and results. The goal is to help leaders understand the different perspectives on truth so that we can come to the best decision and outcome. There are many style perspectives. Each one has strengths. This article leans on C. Robert Cloninger’s model summarised (and not acknowledged) in the Harvard Business Review of April 2017 as The New Science of Teamwork.

An effective leader or team values each of the four styles and recognises that good decisions require the input of different perspectives. Great leaders are able to adjust their style to explore different perspectives to define the truth and make good decisions. Poor leaders adopt a rigid and extreme position where truth is absent and impulse leads to polarisation and disastrous decision-making.

In adversity or crisis, our comfortable styles can easily harden into extreme views of reality. As the pressure of adversity increases, our reptilian brains – often simplified to the amygdala – engage with fear (flight), anger (fight) or sadness (freeze). What is crystal clear is that our quality of thinking rapidly deteriorates.

Physiology is disturbed, emotions become heated, and neural signalling is disrupted. We lose perspective on the truth. More importantly we fail to see the value of others. The empathy portal closes. We are impelled toward poor decisions.

In a severe adversity, such as the Covid-19 virus outbreak, style extremes can dominate. Decisions are driven by where the power lies. Inevitably, the consequences can be harmful and long-lasting.

While I use specific examples to help shape learning, this is not a diagnosis of leaders. Rather, by examining behaviours, we can enrich our perspectives on these styles. Each one has strengths and valuable perspectives to contribute. However, when extreme styles are not balanced, we can lose the power of democracy and wisdom. This leads to suffering.

Let’s respectfully examine examples.

Shapers

First, in the US we have seen impulsive chaos. Leadership has been impulsive, unstable and frequently obscures the truth. There is a total failure to hold a sensible, balanced leadership team through the crisis. We watch in agony as the most advanced democracy and leading scientific institutions have allowed the virus to win. Social disorder followed and one can only imagine the economic consequences in the fullness of time.

Guardians

Second, in the opposite corner is South African leadership which defaulted to fearful control. Strict and sustained military lockdown with total ban on alcohol and tobacco. A tourism-driven economy is shattered. The economic consequences on an already distressed population with 30% unemployment will be far more consequential than the relatively low death rate at ~10,000. With estimates of unemployment now reaching 50%, the fearful lockdown has almost certainly unleashed far more suffering than the virus ever could.

Drivers

Third, in Russia and China, we have seen ruthless dominance by the leader or party. Execution of orders is immediate. No resistance is allowed. We might conclude that in such a crisis a more totalitarian response is effective. It is possible that the short-term pain leads to long term success. This is the case in China (with 1.4 billion people) that is no longer in the top 30 countries for number of infections. In the process opposing views are crushed. Freedom and liberty are compromised.

Integrators

Fourth, New Zealand, which has recently been acknowledged as a world leader in Covid-19 response has taken a more compassionate stance. Politicians teamed with strong medical advisors and executed an effective lockdown and elimination strategy. The purpose has been to protect all New Zealanders at any cost. It has been effective and celebrated. Some believe that economists and business leaders (“not kind people”) have been sidelined.

It may be instructive to take some time to see which style appeals most to you. Where would you most prefer to live? Are you comfortable exploring different styles and approaches?

Finally, is there a lesson for leadership in adversity. Good governance for long term wellbeing and prosperity needs balanced truth-seeking perspectives. There may well be times when we need ruthless dominance to overcome crisis. Ideally, it must be short term.

Here is the team I would pick for the next virus:

1.     Evolutionary biologists and entrepreneurs (Shapers)

Life is a creative advance into novelty. No population would be where it is without periodic plagues to build immunity. Viruses do not respect borders. The role of this team is to see the long view and support innovative solutions. We might consider working on obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome – all preventable risks for severe covid consequences.

2.     Proven project managers (Drivers)

Covid-19 responses are littered with failure. Decision-making must be balanced by practical people who can drive complex projects to successful conclusion.

3.     Compassionate champions of diversity (Integrators)

Crises by definition lead to suffering. Some will suffer more than others. The team needs strong advocates for the elderly, minority groups, poor, vulnerable and isolated members of society. Their job is also to keep a coherent and balanced team functioning through conflicts.

4.     Excellent auditors and controllers (Guardians)

We have incredible tools to manage such crises and they need checks and balances. There is little value in banning alcohol and tobacco if a black market fills both demand and political pockets. There is little point in quarantine if you let people escape.

The Resilience Institute specialises in helping you recognise and apply advanced skills of leadership. Discover how to build wisdom and skill in leaders and teams. Watch your people bounce, grow, connect and discover flow.