The coronavirus crisis was not only a health crisis, but also a test of governance. How did administrators reach decisions, and where did things start to strain? Organisational scientist Arno Bakkeren conducted research into this: “The coronavirus crisis shows mercilessly how difficult it was to govern under pressure.”
Arno Bakkeren has followed the parliamentary inquiry committee on the coronavirus pandemic with above-average interest over the past few weeks. Decision-makers such as Mark Rutte, Hugo de Jonge and Ernst Kuipers were called to account there for decisions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bakkeren: “During the hearings, you could hear how they constantly had to navigate between national direction and regional feasibility, between speed and due care, while also having to justify those decisions to society. That is exactly the tension my research exposes.”
The organisational scientist began this research in 2019 and also worked as an interim manager in public health. A year later, the Netherlands was confronted with the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, he saw up close how regional administrators tried to carry out national instructions. “Think of setting up testing sites, vaccination programmes and source and contact tracing. That is where things started to strain, because regional implementation did not automatically align with national instructions: what seemed logical or urgent at national level still had to be made feasible and workable locally,” says Bakkeren, sharing an important conclusion from his research.
Internal documents and interviews
As a researcher, Bakkeren was in a unique position. He had access to internal documents and spoke with administrators, including directors of public health, about the impact of the crisis on their day-to-day work. “You have to imagine that during the COVID-19 pandemic, communication from central government to regional administrators took place on average every 72 minutes,” says Bakkeren, sharing an illustrative finding. While administrators and crisis leaders were trying to get an overview, the situation had already changed again. “That shows how complex crisis decision-making becomes when circumstances change from one moment to the next.”
“You have to imagine that during the COVID-19 pandemic, communication from central government to regional administrators took place on average every 72 minutes.”
What can be learned for the next crisis?
Bakkeren concludes in his research that crisis decision-making rarely comes down to one right choice. That is why, according to him, it is too simplistic to say in hindsight only whether decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic was ‘good’ or ‘bad’. “Decisions were taken quickly, while the ground beneath those decisions was constantly shifting. During COVID, we saw that the rules, procedures and mandates within which administrators operate did not provide a complete answer to the situation. The research clearly shows that.”
According to Bakkeren, crisis management is therefore not about ‘perfect decisions’, but about decisions that remain explainable and accountable under pressure. This requires, for example, an overview of traceable decisions, a route for exceptions and a shared rhythm of consultation, implementation and communication. Bakkeren also argues that administrators in times of crisis should think about creative solutions that often remain outside their field of vision: “Think of deploying hospitality staff in testing sites. That allowed them to keep working while also contributing to public health.”
According to Bakkeren, these lessons extend beyond the coronavirus crisis. In future crises too, such as new pandemics, cyberattacks, climate-related disasters or long-term disruptions, the same question will keep returning: how do you act quickly without losing sight of local implementation, societal consequences and public accountability? “That is why crisis governance calls for a process in which new information, exceptions and consequences are repeatedly brought back to the table. Reality changes constantly during a crisis; decision-making must be able to move with it.”