No-one is getting complacent. No-one in the UK at least is about to relax the social distancing rules that have had such a profound impact on our economy and way of life. But gradually, as people come out of lock down in China and we look for a flattening out of the death rate in Europe, we’re starting to talk about getting past the coronavirus peak.
That this conversation is possible at all is thanks to the wisdom of medical experts and the dedication of NHS and other essential workers who are risking their health to safeguard others. For the decision makers who have closed our economy to save lives, and the communicators whose focused messaging has kept us all indoors, it may seem that there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
But there’s even harder work to come.
So far, we’ve been facing an acute crisis. A critical problem with deadly consequences that are widely understood. The solutions to the problem are measured in lives saved. Across social and political divides there’s a shared value system that makes us accept authoritarian solutions. Indeed, the nature of the problem requires a command and control, centralised approach to policy and communication. People are looking for clarity. Simple, repeatable messages cut through. When we’re anxious and uncertain, we want to know that someone has the answers.
But the problem is about to change. The medical experts have quite rightly been the pivot point for our COVID response, and their framing of the problem has led the Treasury to commit ‘whatever it takes’ to support our economy through the crisis. But when we start to conceive and communicate an exit strategy the problem becomes even more challenging.
To borrow the language of Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, we go from a critical problem to a ‘wicked’ problem. Many stakeholders will have different values and priorities, the challenge has no precedent and there’s nothing to indicate the right answer. (For a far better description of a Wicked problem, check out this article by John Camillus in the Harvard Business Review).
Value judgements will become far harder. For example, a recent paper from Warwick University suggests that removing social distancing restrictions on 20 to 30 year olds who do not live with their parents would release 4.2m people at relatively low risk from coronavirus into the economy. The cost of this policy to get the economy moving again is put at 620 premature deaths. At a stroke, the clarity that comes from saving lives at all costs is lost. As a society we’re not used to making value judgements in which human life is anything but sacrosanct.
Communicating through this muddier morality is a complex challenge. Critics of policy will be more prominent. The collective will to tackle COVID will be tested as different threats and rules shape the thinking of different social groups. People who lose faith in the solution may no longer be willing to elevate the needs of the many over their own immediate concerns.
I can’t pretend to have all the answers, but managing wicked problems requires soft power, persuasion and engagement. It requires that people feel a part of the solution. It requires that we present a shared future that everyone can buy into and a series of solutions that move us gradually in that direction. The fight for clarity will continue, but the battle for hearts and minds will be an even tougher challenge.