Don’t Panic!

This week’s news about political leaders “intentionally downplaying” the pandemic risk to avoid public panic made me think about the wider leadership questions.

Is trying to prevent panic a good idea? Yes.

In About Face, the memoir of retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth, he describes one of his Korean War commanders:

“Michaely was cool as ice. He exhibited little emotion; the worse things were on the battlefield, the calmer his voice sounded on the radio. ...‘I learned in WW II,’ he said, ‘that the slightest bit of excitement in a leader is transmitted to the men. You might be afraid, but the fear gets magnified in the troops.’” 

If the team already has enough urgency to act, adding more tension is unproductive—it just inhibits performance.

But is downplaying risk a good idea? Absolutely not.

First, it almost goes without saying that trust is the foundation of leadership, and downplaying a risk that is observable by one’s followers destroys credibility. 

Second, and more importantly, if people are not yet motivated enough to act and to solve the issue—which was surely the case with the pandemic in February—then a little productive panic is helpful. 

Or, as Edmund Burke put it: “Early and provident fear is the mother of safety.”

But perhaps the biggest argument against downplaying risk is this: On the other side of panic is courage.

I love this quote from U.S. Army Gen. George Patton: 

“All men are frightened…. The courageous man is the man who forces himself, in spite of his fear, to carry on. Discipline, pride, self-respect, self confidence, and love of glory are attributes which will make a man courageous even when he is afraid.”

When an individual can overcome fear to move into action, that shows her courage. When a team can recognize the crisis and rally itself around a solution, it feels empowered. And the warm glow of those feelings lasts well beyond the crisis itself. 

It’s a missed opportunity for a leader not to tap into that emotional reservoir.