Forget about how to make a decision when facing a crisis. How does one decide in a polycrisis? Do we even know how?
All I’ve been hearing for the past five years is that we are in a state of polycrisis. To cite a few: Covid, wars, inflation, extreme weather, power outages, fintech banks’ failures, and surprising election results. And it does not look like we are good at making decisions on so many issues at once. What’s coming on the horizon is not that great either. The world is facing consequences from climate change, whatever Artificial Intelligence will bring, and the increased risk of collision of all the junk we put around us in space.
We have all seen movies about a malevolent machine wanting to exterminate disruptive humans. We have seen on-screen stalwart heroes face attacks by extraterrestrial aliens, an asteroid hitting us, a life annihilating tornado, and the day after tomorrow. We have seen chaotic decision-making in the largest and most developed economies.
How do we decide what to do if all what could go wrong does so at the same time? What is the right decision-making model?
I have worked with various decision-making bodies over the years. I found that for key strategic decisions, whether at a firm level or at a system or sector level, there is one standard model: the committee/board governance.
But can that really work when there are many problems at once? Let’s review the possibilities and variations that exist:
First, there’s the approach of gathering experts to help decision-makers. This is often done by government bodies convening expert advisory groups. In the financial system, for example, this takes the form of working groups with private and public institutions, tasked with setting agendas and publishing recommendations.
This approach has three flaws as far as dealing with multiple or interconnected issues at the same time. It is generally too dependent on consensus and bilateral discussions, with little fallbacks if no consensus reached. It is also often silo-ed to one issue at a time. And finally, it is often difficult to ensure diversity of perspectives, and relevant representation in such expert groups (for now).
One better variation of this mechanism is the “deep-knowledge decision-enabling cell”, whose job is to design and run various simulation of decisions to assess outcomes.
In 2006, the institute for national strategic studies in the US proposed something similar to reform the Pentagon decision making [1, see all links below]. The document proposed to create a “Decision Support Cell”. This new Pentagon unit would be tasked with enforcing discipline and collaboration across departments in strategic decision making. It would design standards and playbooks. It would also practice difficult decisions in context.
It is a quite fascinating document. I don’t know if it was ever considered or implemented, but it certainly is an interesting read. [1]
Another approach is to integrate problems early under the same strategic framework. That way a “cross-problems” governance is in place when decision-making is needed.
In 2023, Professor Nick Pearce [2] discussed that in considering multiple issues at the same time and how they connect, better policies could be developed. He called for the UK government to revive the “strategic unit” which would integrate issues and devise effective response plans across departments. [3]
In researching this topic, an out of the box model was proposed in a paper from the Mount Royal University Institute for Community Prosperity [4]. The gist of it is simple: Slow down.
Their rationale was mainly that slowing down allows to better listen to different points of view, for better connection between the decision makers and more humanisation of the problems to solve.
This made me think. What if we had automatic triggers to pause whenever a leap in technology is done, to give us time to think about unintended consequences, regulate those, then continue to move forward? I would argue we might have thought of solar panels earlier and we might have had better nuclear treaties.
This idea could be developed in the context of international politics or even within institutions as follows: there would be a binding agreement to convene and pause wherever there is something that we judge materially significant for our collective progress.
Slowing down would not mean taking indefinite time. It would mean signaling formally and strongly that unintended consequences are considered before further progress.
This model exist already in several idiosyncratic places. Many financial exchanges use circuit breakers and speed bumps to slow or interrupt trading during large price moves, allowing time to assess the situation. In fact, some AI algorithms are coded with a slow-down feature embedded into them.
However, one can argue this approach only works if we can identify that a given set of interconnected complicated issues could become bigger problems later on. And history shows we are not good when it comes to that.
So, what do we do if there is an imminent crisis we have not foreseen and for which we need to decide fast?
Warning: some (small) spoilers of sci-fi ahead!
In the three-body problem, Earth and humans are faced with an existential threat that is ~400 years away but needs to be resolved asap.
Cixin Liu proposes a decision model whereby an international committee convenes and by consensus nominates four people with some credentials (and in the case of one of them none).
Each one of these four people can do whatever they think will solve the problem, supported by unlimited financing and security. The only condition is that they don’t inform anyone of what their plan is.
In this case, having individuals in silos with unlimited resources facilitates speed of decision making. However, what quickly emerges is that personal biases and beliefs for at least three of them compromises heavily the actions they take. And the most nihilist of the four ends up favoring his own comfort rather than the common goal of saving humanity. This causes the aforementioned committee to revert their decision to delegate the decision.
In the Netflix movie Don’t Look Up, scientists identify a comet that will hit Earth in six months and will cause a mass extinction event. A media focused US president is influenced by a billionnaire’s incentive in her decision making. The actions taken bypass and ignore the specialists and focus on assurance from the billionaire that his proposed plan will work. Because there was no clear checks on decision making, priority was given to non-assessed technology and well lobbied potential economic gains.
The Anomaly by Herve Le Tellier is a book that deals with decision making in a way more akin to the preventative approach. In the story , two MIT scientists devised a catch-all playbook for the unknown. The plan basically lists what to do if something we are unprepared for happens, and in the book, it was done as a joke but had been adopted by a UN committee. An unexplained event happens and this plan is enacted. These same scientists are then tasked to lead a forum of experts, who in turn advises a committee. The latter takes a hasty decision.
So in summary, none of these books have a good model but if others do, please comment on the post.
To conclude, we may be entering a poly-perma-crisis world, but many people have long lived in continuous crises, due to decisions being taken away from them. They aren’t responsible for the hurricanes, droughts, wars or famines they face and have little say in reducing floods or negotiating peace.
So what if the ultimate decision making model was the one that started by reconnecting those of us, who do have some decision making power, with our collective humanity and empathy, and start from there?
[1] Reforming Pentagon Strategic Decisionmaking
[2] Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath
[4] 2024 Banff Summit 3 – Decision-making in a (Poly)crisis: The Urgency of Slowing Down | MRU
Other interesting sources
Navigating the Polycrisis – Michael J Albert, MIT press April 2024
copyright awomaninthecity.com, the blog disclaimers apply
A WOMAN IN THE CITY 