The self-deception, cognitive biases, arrogance and stubbornness of those who make decisions based on their power position can turn a crisis into a hecatomb of unthinkable consequences. 

At that key and defining moment, a 65-year-old man, alcoholic, heavy smoker, elitist and highly discredited in the political class for his extreme cynicism, changed the course of history. And how he did it!…

That man was Winston Churchill, an indisputable reference in politics and business when we talk about decision-making. The concept of War Room, used by political and business strategists, was instituted by him during World War II, and was a decisive factor in the Allies´ victory.

The history of humanity is marked by the decisions of governments, CEOs and social leaders who at a critical moment, defined the course of events and marked an era.

Decision-making is the essential variable during a crisis, where failure or success germinates. A decision can change history, but whose responsibility is it to make decisions during a crisis?

These days, US President Joe Biden, is in the eye of the hurricane … It was a decision that indeed took him months to make. It is undoubtedly controversial and will mark his administration. After focusing his attention on the pandemic and boosting the economy, President Joe Biden announced the US troops´ withdrawal from Afghanistan, creating the first major foreign policy crisis.

What happens in Afghanistan, derived from the decision made by President Biden, is and will be one of the world’s most covered news this year. On September 11, the same day that marks the 20th anniversary of the destructive attack of the Twin Towers in New York, the army withdraws from Afghanistan. It is paradoxical and disturbing that this date was chosen as the reference, cause and origin of the most prolonged war confrontation in the history of the United States that officially began on October 7, 2001.

Joe Biden, perhaps, chose that date loaded with symbolism because he hoped that his decision would be received with approval and a sign that his administration would favor peace and not war. Headlines such as “The war in Afghanistan is over” never came. On the contrary, the decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan has been a severe blow to confidence for his government. Pro-human rights social organizations, as well as political and social leaders, have openly criticized this decision.

The evaluation and criticism of the leaders´ behavior is almost always done in the shadow of history, from an extemporaneous perspective and they are prosecuted for their results, that is, actions that at first seem prudent, then can be classified as irresponsible or negligent and vice versa.

It is evident that decisions of this type, such as the troops´ withdrawal from Afghanistan, are not taken lightly, but are the result of months of deliberations and the consensus of several actors and institutions, in addition to influencing variables determined by the historical moment and not only those aspects closely related to the crisis. Social factors, political and economic interests, among others, will define the decisions, the type of response and the implementation of action plans. However, decision-making is often attributed to a single man, be he a ruler, CEO or high-level official. Therefore, public opinion will also blame him for the consequences of those decisions; successes and errors will be his responsibility.

Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and making it easier for the Taliban to seize power could be Joe Biden’s most momentous historic decision, and perhaps it will condition his administration on future decisions primarily on foreign and security policy.

Today, international public opinion has made many judgments, almost all negative, about Joe Biden’s decision, perhaps because there is an information gap since his administration has not been able to convincingly justify the causes of the troops´ withdrawal from Afghanistan to the light of a new international context. Thus, qualifying this decision as good or bad is still hasty, the course that events will take even today is uncertain, and perhaps therein lies the main concern, the fear of uncertainty, of risk.

Today, when the results of decisions taken during a crisis are analyzed, two aspects are considered: who made the decision and / or the assessment of the result. From a historical perspective, analysts generally rate the excellent or bad handling of a crisis by its noticeable results, that is, if the decisions led to success or failure. But, still in a second approach, this supposedly objective analysis based on qualitative and quantitative results can also be carried out with a political and mediated approach where the results are nuanced or altered considering the origin of who made the decisions and carried out the actions. Here, decisions are given moral, ideological, contextual, empathic connotations, based on the people who are writing the story: The vision of the dominant group or the vision of the defeated.

Although the crisis in Afghanistan is one of the most complexes in recent history, and there are not many sides to doubt that the decision was carefully analyzed before being carried out, it is always important to remember that, during a crisis, decision-making must arise from experience, common sense, available information, analysis of social and political context. Decisions made during a crisis reveal the type of organization (country, government, regime), values, concern and social responsibility, material and human resources available, level of preparation of the crisis management team, experience, professional training, psychological and group interaction traits; and external aspects such as reputation, institutional relations (foreign relations), interaction of social forces and interests, without forgetting good fortune as well.

Although it is true, history teaches us that foolish decisions made in the opinion of a person are more frequent than they should be, the correct thing is that they arise from the consensus of a group of experts based on experience, common sense, the information available and a careful analysis of the situation. However, this is not always the case, often the rulers, CEOs or social leaders act in an authoritarian manner and make personal decisions that subordinates are forced to respect for political or economic convenience, for fear of retaliation or for not assuming responsibility in the event.

Outbursts and foolishness of decision-makers are undesirable but frequent behaviors, because the dynamism of events during a crisis forces decisions to be made under pressure in limited periods, with little information available and environments of high uncertainty.

When the principles by which decisions are made are rigid, every opportunity to consider the discrepancies and see the flaws is denied, making it difficult to carry out sensible analyzes and obstructing any route change. The self-deception, cognitive biases, arrogance and stubbornness of those who make decisions based on his power position can turn a crisis into a hecatomb of unthinkable consequences. The insistence on continuing with clumsy measures multiplies the damage, turning into a self-destructive practice. Mental stagnation sets the principles and limits of a problem.

Finally, it is crucial to ponder the variables: image and reputation of an organization and, in the case of a government, the legitimacy as a consequence of decision-making. These variables are decisive in the perception of crisis management and will influence how people perceive the results. The dynamic environment of a crisis causes the image and reputation to be constantly changing, hence the importance of a communication strategy and attention to the currents of public opinion around the event, if the resolution is not perceived favorably and the positive image of the organization or a government is strengthened, the confrontation of visions and the controversy will be variables that will always be on the lookout and will influence negatively.

A crisis is an opportunity to exercise leadership with legitimacy. But it is also an occasion to show blindness, incompetence, authoritarianism or weakness, frequent attitudes that foresee the mismanagement of the crisis.

The decisions of Winston Churchill have already been judged and will continue to be talked about … Those of Joe Biden are still a riddle that analysts and critics will try to judge from their results.