Category Archives: Trust

America’s Wuhan: New York

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Health System, Honesty, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Integrity, Leadership, Leadership Commitment, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Trust, Truth • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/new-york-battle-coronavirus-58626845-3b0f-4afb-89e7-12be2346396b.html

Image result for axios America's Wuhan: New York

New York’s fight against the novel coronavirus is also the nation’s fight, as the state — and the city in particular — emerges with “astronomical numbers” of cases, to quote Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Why it matters: The Empire State has 5% of the world’s COVID-19 cases and about 50% of the nation’s. Its success — or failure — in fighting the virus, safeguarding citizens and treating the afflicted will tell us a lot about what can succeed in the rest of the U.S.

It’s a national travel hub, so it could be the catalyst for outbreaks elsewhere.

Cuomo is trying to shut the state down and stop the spread.

  • He is using his public mic as a blunt instrument to crush happy talk about quick ends or easy fixes.

A pivotal moment: Cuomo spoke passionately at a press conference Tuesday about the importance of devoting all resources to New York’s rapidly escalating caseload.

  • “We are the canary in the coal mine,” he said. “New York is going first. We have the highest and the fastest rate of infection.”

Later in the day, at a media briefing by the White House coronavirus task force, the White House advised people who had recently left New York City to self-quarantine for 14 days.

  • Asked if he had given Cuomo a “heads up” about this advice, Trump said, “We’re talking to them about it.”

By the numbers: New York has 25,000 cases of the novel coronavirus, vs. 2,800 in California, 2,200 in Washington state and 1,200 in Florida, Cuomo said.

  • The apex of the epidemic in New York isn’t expected for 14 to 21 days.
  • The state had 53,000 hospital beds pre-crisis and now expects to need 140,000.
  • New York City accounts for more than half the state’s cases: Nearly 16,000 people have been diagnosed and at least 125 people have died.
  • The first COVID-19 death in the state happened just under two weeks ago, in Brooklyn.

New York is throwing everything against the wall. Not only have residents been told to stay home whenever possible — and schools and most retail stores are closed — but the state is also trying experimental treatments and testing far more people for the virus than other places in the U.S.

  • Ventilator tubes are being split in half to accommodate two patients at once.
  • “We’re also trying all the new drug therapies — the hydroxychloroquine … we’re actually starting that today,” Cuomo said Tuesday.
  • In terms of protective gear and other relevant equipment, “We have acquired everything on the market that there is to acquire.”
  • The National Guard has been called in, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is turning empty hotels and dormitories — and other huge facilities — into hospital rooms.

“What happens in New York, we can expect to see in other cities around the world, but maybe not at the same scale,” Denis Nash, an epidemiologist at City University of New York’s school of public health, told Axios.

Be smart: Population density, which a New York Times headline called a “trait defining New York life,” is the reason the Big Apple has become the U.S. focal point.

  • On the NYC subway — where 23 employees have tested positive — reduced service (due to budget constraints and workers calling in sick) has straphangers riding cheek-by-jowl.
  • Of the 5 boroughs, Queens — a magnet for immigrants, with lots of packed apartment buildings — has the highest number of cases.

As the densest city in the country, “New York is really a testing ground” for ways to fight the coronavirus, Tomas Hoyos, co-founder of Voro, an online social network where people share recommendations for doctors, told Axios.

  • “To the extent that you can apply elsewhere the lessons you learn from the most difficult place to contain COVID-19, you’re going to be in a good spot,” he said.
  • The flip side? New York also has more resources and commands more attention than other places that haven’t (yet) been hit as hard.

My thought bubble: As a born-and-bred New Yorker who watched from my office window as the second plane hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, I find eerie similarities between the empty streets I see this week — and the constant wail of emergency sirens — and the days after the terror attacks.

  • A key difference: Social distancing has us pulling away from one another, not coming together for comfort.

 

 

 

 

Pandemic Provides Defining Moment for Government Leaders

Posted on by • Posted in Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Leadership, Pandemic, Partisanship, Polarization, Political Differences, Trust, Truth • Leave a comment

https://www.governing.com/now/Pandemic-Provides-Defining-Moment-for-Government-Leaders.html?utm_term=READ%20MORE&utm_campaign=Pandemic%20Provides%20Defining%20Moment%20for%20Government%20Leaders&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

Image result for crisis leadership

Governors and mayors don’t run for office with the intention of managing emergencies. But when a crisis strikes, they become the public face of government response and need to be ready to communicate accurately and calmly.

Mike DeWine didn’t pull any punches.

At a news conference on Thursday, the Ohio governor announced he was ordering that K-12 schools shut down until April 3 and banning most gatherings of 100 people or more. Ohio had only five confirmed coronavirus cases at that point, but DeWine’s health director Amy Acton, standing by the governor’s side, said they suspected that well over 100,000 state residents were already infected — a number expected to double every five days.

DeWine made it clear that his state, like others, faces massive challenges. In response, he offered resolve but not sugar-coated optimism. “This is temporary. We will get back to normal in Ohio. It won’t happen overnight,” DeWine said. “We must treat this like what it is, and that is a crisis.”

Around the country, other governors and mayors have been offering similar messages. Many are out in front, holding news conferences on a daily basis. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced Thursday that he was putting his lieutenant governor in charge of most state operations so he could devote his full attention to the coronavirus crisis. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer held a news conference just before midnight on Thursday to announce a statewide school closure.

“Crises and disasters are what separates legislators from executives,” says Jared Leopold, a former communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. “For those executives who face a major disaster, crisis management becomes their defining legacy, whether they like it or not. Nothing else matters.”

Executives become the public face of the government’s response. Whether it’s natural disasters, mass shootings or a pandemic, their role is not only to share information, but to convey the sense that someone is in charge and has a plan that will see the city, state or nation through the worst of times. “That’s what the governor has to do in this situation,” says Bob Taft, a former Ohio governor.

“He’s been very visible, very prompt and as much ahead of the curve as possible in terms of taking decisive action,” Taft says of DeWine. “He’s also putting out good information and he’s obviously listening to the public health experts and the knowledgeable staff on his team.”

There are plenty of examples of politicians winning either acclaim or scorn for their handling of emergency situations. Sen. Joe Manchin’s enduring popularity in West Virginia — he’s the only Democrat still capable of winning statewide election in that increasingly red state — is rooted in his handling of the Sago Mine explosion as governor back in 2006. A year earlier, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour won applause for his handling of Hurricane Katrina, while Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco was widely criticized and decided not to run for re-election.

“Do it right, and you’ll be remembered as a leader for decades,” Leopold says. “Do it wrong, and you’ll be voted out of office.”

No One Signs Up for This

Politicians campaign on issues such as taxes and education. No one pledges to provide stalwart leadership if and when there’s a crisis. It doesn’t seem relevant until it happens. But, once elected, they end up being judged by how they respond to the worst challenges.

“People watch very carefully what leaders do during these situations,” says Jay Nixon, who coped with a deadly tornado in Joplin and the Ferguson shooting, along with other challenges, during his tenure as Missouri governor.

Leaders need a plan, Nixon says. It may change daily or even hourly, but having a plan gives them, their teams and the public some sense of where they’re going. They also need to convey information in a reassuring and convincing way. “You have to have a clear source of information that’s not only accurate, but one that people trust,” Nixon says. “Leaders need to remain calm and normal.”

When new governors are elected, they’re often warned by sitting governors they’ll likely need to respond to disaster in some form or other. Taft, who was in office during the 2001 terrorist attacks, said that event opened up governors’ eyes to all manner of contingencies.

“Of course, all governors expect to have to weather emergencies,” he says. “That was something new and different — like today, a whole new set of threats.”

Governors are well-equipped to respond. There’s a whole structured apparatus, whether it’s called an emergency operations center or something else, that offers them plans, a command structure and communications tools to deal with unexpected tragedies.

If you’re a governor, you’re likely to be faced with a flood or a tornado or some other event with devastating consequences you must respond to. No matter their other priorities, they’re always ready to go on an emergency footing.

“To me, governors and states are always well-prepared, because in effect they’re always training for it,” says Scott Pattison, former executive director of the National Governors Association. “Whatever one says about a particular governor, they know that’s the expected role and they step right into it and rise to the occasion.”

The All-Dominant Issue

When executives aren’t seen as responding swiftly and competently, it can imperil both their re-election chances and their broader agendas. It’s a well-established part of political folklore that mayors lose their jobs when cities don’t dig out promptly following snowstorms. “We’ve probably spent as much time on snow as we have on the budget,” Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said not long after taking office in 2015.

Andy Beshear was sworn in as Kentucky’s governor four months ago. Lately, he has been holding daily news conferences to provide updates on caseloads and policy changes. In recent days, he has called for schools to close for two weeks, for church services to be held virtually and for the state’s 200 senior centers to shut down in-person activities. “Let me say once again: We’re going to get through this,” he said on Friday.

People are not looking for uplift, but rather find confidence in knowing that there’s someone in charge offering a serious, smart response, says George C. Edwards III, a political scientist at Texas A&M University. “You get credibility from two things — one, from recognizing the problem as it is, and two, from acting,” he says.

One of Winston Churchill’s most famous wartime speeches begins, “The news from France is very bad.” When asked about the death toll on Sept. 11, 2001, Rudy Giuliani, then New York City’s mayor, said, “The number of casualties will be more than any of us can bear, ultimately.”

“People want reassurance and so (politicians) give it,” Edwards says. “They want to know it’s going to work out. At the same time, what’s critical is credibility, showing you have a firm handle on the crisis.”

No More Rallying Around the Leader

“During crises, people turn to the government for leadership, including what actions to take and how to return to stability,” according to a 2018 communication study. “Leaders are responsible for and expected to minimize the impact of crises, enhance crisis management capacity and coordinate crisis management efforts.”

In Kentucky, Beshear has won praise, so far, for sharing information personally and presenting the advice and counsel offered by public health and safety experts. “Party’s aside (he’s not mine) Beshear has done an excellent job with all this,” Samuel Keathley, a resident of Martin, Ky., tweeted on Thursday. “He’s never seemed panicked; he’s also never made it seem like nothing. He sounds and acts like a leader.”

The 2001 terrorist attacks offer one of the most dramatic examples of a politician winning acclaim for response to a crisis. Within 10 days, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings had jumped from 51 percent to 90 percent, according to Gallup.

“Presidents must take charge of crises right away,” says Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha, who chairs the political science department at the University of North Texas. “If presidents do well, the American people will respond with support.”

That hasn’t happened for President Trump. For weeks, Trump has sought to downplay the crisis, offering optimistic assessments that contradict warnings from federal public health officials. His speech from the Oval Office on Wednesday was hastily written and included a number of factual errors regarding policy positions that had to be quickly walked back by the administration.

“He’s not telling the truth and he is not trusted in that sense,” says Nixon, the former Missouri governor. “He doesn’t have a plan and he seems to be in a completely reactive mode.”

In general, Trump’s style is combative. His presidency has been disruptive, not designed to offer calming reassurance. His supporters have loved him for it, but there are more Americans, as measured by polls, that went into the coronavirus period already distrusting him.

“Trump has a very dedicated base who are absolutely steadfast, but he’s got an even larger opposition coalition that is equally steadfast,” says Edwards, the Texas A&M presidential scholar. “If you already hate him, you’re much less likely to be reassured.”

At the same time, the news media also has a problem when it comes to trust. That’s something predating Trump, but which he has encouraged with his frequent complaints about “fake news.” On Thursday, Megyn Kelly, a former news anchor and correspondent for NBC and Fox News, tweeted that while she didn’t believe Trump was a credible source, “we can’t trust the media to tell us the truth without inflaming it to hurt Trump.”

On Thursday, the city of Murfreesboro, Tenn., posted a statement on its website advising residents not to turn to media outlets for coronavirus information: “Unfortunately, today’s media know that negative or overtly controversial stories receive more attention and thereby generate traffic to their publications, broadcasts and websites.”

That assertion has since been deleted, but it spoke to the polarization that continues even in a country beset by crisis.

According to an ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday, 47 percent of Democrats are “very concerned” about catching coronavirus, while only 15 percent of Republicans share that level of concern. Just 17 percent of Democrats say they are not concerned about being infected, compared with 44 percent of Republicans.

As the virus spreads and more businesses and activities shut down, public opinion will necessarily shift. No one can say how this will play out. No one can predict the ultimate costs in terms of health and mortality.

“It may take an event of this magnitude to shake people on both sides of the political equation,” Nixon says. “This may be that moment where, as a country, both Democrats and Republicans realized that there are some things that should be analyzed separately from political partisanship.”

 

 

 

 

The pandemic shaping the future

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Economic Impact, Economy, Emergency Preparedness, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Integrity, Leadership, Leadership Trust, National Emergency, Pandemic, Trust • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-future-trends-0eb404e7-34a3-40ac-af56-8fefba59535c.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosfuturetrends&stream=top

Illustration of a woman in a medical mask surrounded by a falling trend line, a house, a person in a hazmat suit with caution tape, and two hands shaking

The world that emerges from the coronavirus pandemic will be fundamentally different, Axios Future correspondent Bryan Walsh writes.

  • Why it matters: This crisis may prove to be as significant as the 2008 financial meltdown or even 9/11.
  • So the choices that businesses and governments are making now will have enormous social and economic ramifications.

The intrigue: U.S. health and government officials are facing the epidemiological equivalent of the “fog of war,” worsened by a massive American failure to act on weeks of warnings as the virus spread in China.

  • The Trump administration declared a national emergency yesterday, seven weeks after the first U.S. case was announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • By failing to rapidly scale up testing, U.S. officials have added an additional — and partly unnecessary — layer of uncertainty about how to respond.
  • Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina calls it “the most daunting virus that we’ve contended with in half a century or more.”

Flashback: As recently as the 1918 influenza pandemic, scientists lacked the ability to rapidly respond to an infectious disease outbreak.

  • Today, scientists can sequence a virus in days, develop rapid tests that can determine infection before obvious symptoms, and use complex mathematical models to predict future spread.

What we’ll find out in coming days:

  • The actual fatality rate of the virus.
  • How contagious it is, and the precise role that children — who seem outwardly unaffected by the disease — may play in transmission.
  • If the outbreak will naturally slow down when the weather warms, as tends to happen with influenza.

What’s next: For now, distance becomes the first line of defense. Schools and companies are shifting online — with potential consequences.

  • If companies are able to function relatively well with a largely remote workforce, expect lower levels of business travel.
  • After decades of emphasizing the efficiency of supply chains — which often meant complex international linkages and just-in-time inventories — businesses will look to build resilient supply chains.

The bottom line: The mobility — of people, capital and products — that we’ve taken for granted may not outlast the virus.

 

 

 

 

Great Leaders Are Thoughtful and Deliberate, Not Impulsive and Reactive

Posted on by • Posted in Anxiety, Blame, Courage, Humility, Inner Lawyer, Integrity, Leadership, Responsibility, Trust • Leave a comment

https://hbr.org/2019/04/great-leaders-are-thoughtful-and-deliberate-not-impulsive-and-reactive?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hbr&fbclid=IwAR15xBzRuRJsKxkITe-z0wa1AwDMc_gwJmhM5r6ONnL7bw3s9zP8qRxYiEE

You set aside the first hour of your day to work on a strategy document that you’ve been putting off for a week. You haven’t been disciplined about getting to it, but you’ve had one crisis after another to deal with in the past week. Now, finally, you’ve carved out 90 early morning minutes to work on it.

First, however, you take a quick peek at the email that has piled up in your inbox overnight. Before you know it, you’ve used up the whole 90 minutes responding to emails, even though none of them were truly urgent.

By the time you walk into your next meeting, you’re feeling frustrated that you failed to stick by your plan. This meeting is a discussion with a direct report about the approach he’ll be taking in a negotiation with an important client. You have strong views about how best to deal with the situation, but you’ve promised yourself that you will be open and curious rather than directive and judgmental. You’re committed, after all, to becoming a more empowering manager.

Instead, you find yourself growing even more irritable as he describes an approach that doesn’t feel right to you. Impulsively, you jump in with a sharp comment. He reacts defensively. You worry for a moment — and rightly so — that you cut him off too quickly, but you tell yourself that you’ve worked with this client for years, the outcome is critical, and you don’t have time to hear your direct report’s whole explanation. He leaves your office looking hurt and defeated.

Welcome to the invisible drama that operates inside us all day long at work, mostly outside our consciousness. Most of us believe we have one self. In reality, we have two different selves, run by two separate operating systems, in different parts of our brain.

The self that we’re most aware of — the one that planned to work diligently on the strategy document and listen patiently to your direct report — is run by our pre-frontal cortex and mediated through our parasympathetic nervous system. This is the self we prefer to present to the world. It’s calm, measured, rational, and capable of making deliberate choices.

The second self is run by our amygdala, a small almond-shaped cluster of nuclei in our mid-brain and it is mediated by our sympathetic nervous system. Our second self seizes control any time we begin to perceive threat or danger. It’s reactive, impulsive, and operates largely outside our conscious control.

This second self serves us well if a lion is coming at us, but the threats we experience today are mostly to our sense of worth and value. They can feel nearly as terrifying as those to our survival, but the danger we experience isn’t truly life-threatening. Responding to them as if they are only make things worse.

It’s in these moments that we often use our highest cognitive capacities to justify our worst behaviors. When we feel we’ve fallen short, we instinctively summon up our “inner lawyer” — a term coined by author Jonathan Haidt — to defend us.

Our inner lawyer is expert at rationalizing, avoiding, deflecting, dissembling, denying, disparaging, attacking, and blaming others for our missteps and shortcomings. The inner lawyer works overtime to silence our own inner critic, and to counter criticism from others. All this inner turmoil narrows and consumes our attention and drains our energy.

The problem is that most organizations spend far more time focused on generating external value than they do attending to people’s internal sense of value. Doing so requires navigational skills that most leaders have never been taught, much less mastered. The irony is that ignoring people’s internal experience leads them to spend more energy defending their value, leaving them less energy to create value.

In our work with leaders, we’ve discovered that the antidote to reacting from the second self is to develop the capacity to observe our two selves in real time. You can’t change what you don’t notice, but noticing can be a powerful tool for shifting from defending our value to creating value.

A well-cultivated self-observer allows us to watch our dueling selves without reacting impulsively. It also makes it possible to ask our inner lawyer to stand down whenever it rises up to argue our case to our inner and outer critics. Finally, the self-observer can acknowledge, without judgment, that we are both our best and our worst selves, and then make deliberate rather than reactive choices about how to respond in challenging situations.

To improve your capacity to self-observe, begin with negative emotions such as impatience, frustration, and anger. When you feel them arising, it’s a strong signal that you’re sliding into the second self. Simply naming these emotions as they arise is a way to gain some distance from them.

Also, watch out for times when you feel you’re digging in your heels. The absolute conviction that you’re right and the compulsion to take action are both strong indicators that you‘re feeling a sense of threat and danger.

In our work, we provide leaders with small daily doses of support — reminders to pay attention to what they’re feeling and thinking.  We’ve also found it helpful to build small groups that meet at regular intervals so leaders can share their experiences. A blend of support, community, connection and accountability helps offset our shared impulse to stop noticing, push away discomfort, and revert to survival behaviors in the face of perceived threats to our value. A good starting place is to find a colleague you trust to be your accountability partner, and to seek regular feedback from one another.

Finally, it’s important to ask yourself two key questions in challenging moments: “What else could be true here?” and “What is my responsibility in this?” By regularly questioning your conclusions, you’re offsetting your confirmation bias — the instinct to look for evidence that supports what you already believe. By always looking for your own responsibility, you’re resisting the instinct to blame others and play victim and focusing instead on what you have the greatest ability to influence — your own behavior.

A deceptively simple premise lies at the heart of this deliberate set of practices: see more to be more. Rather than simply getting better at what they already do, transformational leaders balance courage and humility in order to grow and develop every day.