A Little Bit of Knowledge Can Be Dangerous
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Adam Kuczynski
April 5, 2020
Public administrators should forever be used to the familiar position firmly between a rock and a hard place. The COVID-19 coronavirus is another large-scale incident that propels public administrators to the forefront with nearly every set of eyes looking to them for guidance, facts and assistance. If they say too little, they are hiding information or are ignorant (rock). If they say too much, they are fear-mongering (hard place).
This is all the more reason for practical public administrators to adopt a cautious strategy when speaking about figures, statistics, and percentages to the public at-large. This is certainly an area where the more academic public administrators have an upper hand, simply because skepticism is bred into the nature of academics
From the earliest rumblings of a new respiratory infection coming out of Wuhan, China, the American public became fixated on one main question: “What is the risk to me?” The problem with that question? Well, according to a great deal of research in the fields of public administration, behavior and psychology (amongst others), individuals do a horrible job gauging actual risk versus absolute risk versus relative risk. Do yourself a favor and look up some of the very interesting research in risk aversion and bureaucratic risk.
Don’t believe me? Say you had a one-in-a-million chance of winning a car if you purchased a $1 lottery ticket. Your brain immediately starts calculating and ruminating. Do you need a car? What kind of car? Of course you have $1, so if you waste that, what’s the big deal anyway? There are an endless number of other questions you may ask yourself in that particular situation…leading to the ultimate question: Do you think you will even win? It all depends on your particular outlook.
Flip the scenario. Instead of a car, say you cast a negative question based in fear. Now, the perception of risk changes. Say, for example, there is a one in a million chance to lose everything. The odds are the same, but for some reason, you feel the negative outcome is more likely than the positive one.
But, how can you tell which person has which outlook?
This is where public administrators find themselves right now. COVID-19 is affecting the psyche of many Americans and individuals across the globe in many different ways. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has done a remarkable job of realistically explaining the risks and the measures to contain those risks. He is not the only one. United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson also dedicated a large portion of time discussing the impacts on mental health. Now, this does not mean they are actually doing anything about it—but one of the very first best steps is to at least acknowledge the potential of an issue. As each day moves on, it is becoming more and more common to hear about the effects of self-isolation on the individual.
Public administrators across the country should take note. Transparency is important. However, transparency without context can be dangerous. Most citizens are not virologists, nor are they statisticians. Many will not understand the statistical reasoning behind a bell curve or peak. Yet, many public administrators deliver this information, seemingly with the assumption that citizens understand these relative complex modelling concepts.
The utter lack of toiler paper on the shelves in grocery stores across the country is enough anecdotal evidence to show there is something outside the real concerns of COVID-19 causing this stress. There is some sort of miscommunication and/or misunderstanding.
I would recommend that public administrators, especially on a local front, take a very realistic approach without enticing panic. One small town New Jersey mayor attempted to instill rationing at grocery stores based upon last name, despite an overabundance of food stories in the surrounding areas. The N.J. Attorney General had to step in and stop it. This is probably not the best way to keep individuals calm, despite the best intentions of the public servants.
This moment in history will be judged by how government responds to this crisis. It is no longer a question of overreaction or underreaction. It is the time for action—because there is no other choice. As a result, public administrators must actively and fully embrace their roles as public servants. It is the moment that many public servants have prepared their lives for —a moment to actually serve the public. It is paramount to always realize that not only is the public looking to you for instruction, but also for hope, guidance and reassurance.
Author: Adam Kuczynski, MPA, is currently completing his Ph.D. in Public Administration at Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Public Affairs and Administration. Adam has served in local government, and worked as a journalist and director of communications at a nonprofit. He focuses primarily on volunteerism and philanthropy, but also on transparency, administration, and law. He may be reached at [email protected].
(3 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...
A Little Bit of Knowledge Can Be Dangerous
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Adam Kuczynski
April 5, 2020
Public administrators should forever be used to the familiar position firmly between a rock and a hard place. The COVID-19 coronavirus is another large-scale incident that propels public administrators to the forefront with nearly every set of eyes looking to them for guidance, facts and assistance. If they say too little, they are hiding information or are ignorant (rock). If they say too much, they are fear-mongering (hard place).
This is all the more reason for practical public administrators to adopt a cautious strategy when speaking about figures, statistics, and percentages to the public at-large. This is certainly an area where the more academic public administrators have an upper hand, simply because skepticism is bred into the nature of academics
From the earliest rumblings of a new respiratory infection coming out of Wuhan, China, the American public became fixated on one main question: “What is the risk to me?” The problem with that question? Well, according to a great deal of research in the fields of public administration, behavior and psychology (amongst others), individuals do a horrible job gauging actual risk versus absolute risk versus relative risk. Do yourself a favor and look up some of the very interesting research in risk aversion and bureaucratic risk.
Don’t believe me? Say you had a one-in-a-million chance of winning a car if you purchased a $1 lottery ticket. Your brain immediately starts calculating and ruminating. Do you need a car? What kind of car? Of course you have $1, so if you waste that, what’s the big deal anyway? There are an endless number of other questions you may ask yourself in that particular situation…leading to the ultimate question: Do you think you will even win? It all depends on your particular outlook.
Flip the scenario. Instead of a car, say you cast a negative question based in fear. Now, the perception of risk changes. Say, for example, there is a one in a million chance to lose everything. The odds are the same, but for some reason, you feel the negative outcome is more likely than the positive one.
But, how can you tell which person has which outlook?
This is where public administrators find themselves right now. COVID-19 is affecting the psyche of many Americans and individuals across the globe in many different ways. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has done a remarkable job of realistically explaining the risks and the measures to contain those risks. He is not the only one. United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson also dedicated a large portion of time discussing the impacts on mental health. Now, this does not mean they are actually doing anything about it—but one of the very first best steps is to at least acknowledge the potential of an issue. As each day moves on, it is becoming more and more common to hear about the effects of self-isolation on the individual.
Public administrators across the country should take note. Transparency is important. However, transparency without context can be dangerous. Most citizens are not virologists, nor are they statisticians. Many will not understand the statistical reasoning behind a bell curve or peak. Yet, many public administrators deliver this information, seemingly with the assumption that citizens understand these relative complex modelling concepts.
The utter lack of toiler paper on the shelves in grocery stores across the country is enough anecdotal evidence to show there is something outside the real concerns of COVID-19 causing this stress. There is some sort of miscommunication and/or misunderstanding.
I would recommend that public administrators, especially on a local front, take a very realistic approach without enticing panic. One small town New Jersey mayor attempted to instill rationing at grocery stores based upon last name, despite an overabundance of food stories in the surrounding areas. The N.J. Attorney General had to step in and stop it. This is probably not the best way to keep individuals calm, despite the best intentions of the public servants.
This moment in history will be judged by how government responds to this crisis. It is no longer a question of overreaction or underreaction. It is the time for action—because there is no other choice. As a result, public administrators must actively and fully embrace their roles as public servants. It is the moment that many public servants have prepared their lives for —a moment to actually serve the public. It is paramount to always realize that not only is the public looking to you for instruction, but also for hope, guidance and reassurance.
Author: Adam Kuczynski, MPA, is currently completing his Ph.D. in Public Administration at Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Public Affairs and Administration. Adam has served in local government, and worked as a journalist and director of communications at a nonprofit. He focuses primarily on volunteerism and philanthropy, but also on transparency, administration, and law. He may be reached at [email protected].
Follow Us!