Navigating Crisis Paradoxes
Crisis decisions are never completely correct, only defensible
My research is about an uncomfortable question: how do you make decisions in a crisis when speed is needed, information is incomplete and rules do not always fit? In such situations, interests are also under pressure. What is needed now can cause damage later. What seems administratively logical may be impracticable locally.
The concrete reason was the Dutch crisis response during COVID-19, in which these tensions became visible on a large scale in public health. This is scientifically relevant, because research into crisis management, administrative management and ethics often takes place separately from each other, while in practice they come together in one decision. My central question was therefore: how do decision-makers in a crisis arrive at choices that are not perfect, but are workable and defensible?
I have shown that crisis decisions can never do justice to all interests at the same time. In practice, what is immediately visible and controllable almost always takes precedence. Other consequences, such as social damage, distribution questions or loss of trust, often only become visible later. I also show that crisis management does not get stuck on one wrong choice, but on the lack of structure to deal with that tension. Decisions are more upheld if it is clear who decided, why the rules were deviated from and how such a choice can be explained later. The most important conclusion is therefore: in a crisis, good governance is not about the perfect decision, but about choices that remain traceable, explainable and defensible under pressure.
This research is important for everyone who has to act in a crisis: administrators, crisis teams, public health organisations, security regions, ministries and implementing organisations. The yield is practical. My research shows what is needed to be able to manage better under pressure: traceable decisions, clear room for exceptions and explicit accountability. This helps during the crisis, but also afterwards, when choices are assessed.
More information on the thesis