The unbearable challenges of leadership and decision-making

Pekka Koistinen & Miina Kaarkoski
22.11.2021

There are a lot of concepts, theories and definitions on decision-making and leadership. The list of attributes a good leader ought to possess is almost endless. According to the traditional definition, leadership means guiding people to accomplish a mission or vision. Undoubtedly, leadership is an important element in any functioning work community, as well as a vital element for accomplishing things in a goal-oriented fashion. In the Finnish Security Strategy for Society, leadership is defined as a vital function in securing Finnish society.

A classic example of a mythical leadership figure is the character Vilho Koskela from Väinö Linnas novel Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon sotilas) - a Finnish literary classic. Koskela is seen as the role model of Finnish leadership: humane, flexible and considerate towards his subordinates. A “steady as a rock”-style of leadership, such as Koskela’s, might however not be well suited for today’s world, where the field of work has become increasingly demanding, and strategic and where large and unprecedented entities have to be managed. Such work requires a more determined style of leadership, not forgetting the role of humanity, of course. The decision maker is sometimes forced to choose the least bad of only bad available alternatives. Leadership is thus the comparison and evaluation of available alternatives.

Security authorities often see a determined and knowledgeable operational manager as an ideal example of a good leader. Many supervisors have gained their merits by leading a demanding operational situation, for example by successfully policing a situation that poses a significant threat to the safety of citizens, in an exemplary way. The seriousness of such situations cannot be denied, but their complexity can be evaluated through the theoretical lens of leadership. In general, such operational situations are short-lived and there are practiced models of operation for managing them. Furthermore, the success of leadership during the operation itself is seldom put into question. In such operational leadership instances, the situational information is often held solely by the actors involved, and the decision-making is thus not influenced by possibly misconstrued information, nor by the public debate.

In case of failure, a decision maker may claim to have based their decisions on the best available information at the time, although an ex-post review might reveal the decision taken to have been erroneous. Both the incomplete situational knowledge base at the beginning of an event as well as the growing and expanding knowledge base as the event progresses, contribute to leadership challenges. It is easy to agree with Harri Jalonen, Professor of Social and Health Administration, on the decision-making moment being the culmination point, where the uncertainty of the future is ever present. This is something that is often forgotten, when reviewing such events ex post.

If the culmination point of decision-making is time sensitive in nature, official communications often seems reactive, partially constricted and at times as though lacking a clear goal. As events progress, the authorities have to fight over media space with other producers of information in a situation where a part of the information going around is false or outright disinformation. The style of leadership suited for managing authorities, which are based on hierarchies and legislation, is ill-suited for the fast-faced social media era of communication. In more long-lasting and complex situations leaders have a wider knowledge base, and potentially even results from scientific studies, at their disposal. Simultaneously citizens receive plenty of information regarding the events and based on said information start to form their views on how to best manage the situation, despite the fact that the information they base their views on might be outright disinformation that aims to deceive its recipient.

The ongoing corona-crisis in many ways makes concrete the challenges of how hard it is to lead, or even to somewhat manage, multidimensional crisis situations. Ready-made plans and practiced measures may not be useful in rhizome crises like a pandemic. Successfully managing such a crisis may also require greater public involvement in dealing with the situation. Docent Valdemar Kallunki has highlighted the importance of the sense of agency in the production and distribution of information, in order for citizens to change their behaviour in accordance with said information. From the decision makers’ point of view, this requires a drastically different way of involving the citizenry in the decision-making process than just occasionally considering public opinion. For leadership to be viewed as a vital element of society, authorities have to open up the basis for decision-making in an active and open manner, and to be prepared to cooperate more closely with all societal actors.

Pekka Koistinen, Master of Public Administration, Doctoral Researcher, National Defence Universit
Miina Kaarkoski, Doctor of Philosophy, National Defence University