Leaders should prioritize truth and evidence-based information, especially during crises. People at risk need accurate information to make informed decisions.
by Ruwantissa Abeyratne
Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” ― Spencer Johnson
With the Presidential elections in the United States looming ahead and the headlines in the media mainly focused on the performance of the candidates, one need not elaborate on the dilemma faced by the voters who are seemingly divided on the suitability of either candidate to lead and govern the country. This is one election which may have ramifications not only for the US but also for the rest of the world, given the various geo-political upheavals that proliferate regionally and internationally. For those who are at the helm of decision making on this important issue, as well as for the voters involved, if a strictly theoretical and technical approach should be sought, the fall back solution may lie in an exercise of scenario planning and the importance of plausibility.
 |
| This photo taken on April 23, 2024 shows the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., the United States. The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to pass a foreign aid package that included long-stalled aid for Israel and Ukraine. (Xinhua/Liu Jie) |
The Decision Maker
Scenario planning is a strategic approach that decision makers utilize to devise adaptable long-term strategies, considering a variety of conceivable future situations. This method entails recognizing and scrutinizing potential future events or conditions, as well as exploring how these scenarios might influence an organization or project. The primary objective is to assist decision-makers in comprehending uncertainties and crafting strategies that remain effective across different potential futures.
The process of scenario planning involves several key steps. First, it is essential to pinpoint the core issue or decision at hand, which means defining the main question or decision that requires attention. Next, relevant data must be gathered, and the driving forces likely to influence the future need to be identified. This is followed by recognizing the critical uncertainties that are most likely to impact the central issue.
Once the uncertainties are identified, the next step is constructing scenarios. This involves developing a series of distinct and believable scenarios based on various combinations of the identified uncertainties. These scenarios are then analyzed to assess their implications for the organization and its strategies. Following this analysis, strategic options are developed to ensure that the strategies are robust across multiple scenarios.
Continuous monitoring and updating of external conditions are crucial, as it allows for the adjustment of scenarios and strategies as necessary. By employing scenario planning, those involved can better prepare for a spectrum of possible futures, thereby enhancing their capacity to adapt to changes and uncertainties in their environment.
Intrinsic to scenario planning is plausibility as against possibility. “Plausible” and “possible” are terms that are often confused with one another, but they have different meanings, especially when discussing future events or scenario planning.
“Possible” pertains to anything that can occur, no matter how probable or improbable it is. It includes all events that are not prohibited by physical laws or logical constraints. If there’s even a slight chance that something could happen, it is deemed possible. In other words, “possible” refers to any event that can occur, irrespective of its probability.
“Plausible,” however, carries a connotation of likelihood and credibility. It relates to scenarios or events that are not only possible but also reasonable and believable based on current knowledge and evidence. Plausible scenarios are those that can be logically supported by existing trends, facts, or data, making them more probable than mere possibilities. “Plausible” therefore refers to events that are not only possible but also credible and likely based on current evidence and logic
For instance, while it is possible that a tornado could hit a particular city tomorrow, it may not be plausible if there are no known risk factors or warning signs indicating such an event is imminent.
The Voter
Scenario planning holds significant importance for voters during elections, allowing them to make more informed and strategic choices. By contemplating various plausible future scenarios, voters gain a better understanding of the potential results of their votes and the broader implications of their decisions. This approach goes beyond mere predictions, focusing instead on preparing for various possible futures and comprehending how different electoral outcomes might shape those futures.
A crucial aspect of scenario planning for voters involves identifying and analyzing potential future events and conditions. This requires considering diverse factors such as the quality of leadership, policy of each candidate, his integrity, age, and health, economic circumstances, social issues, environmental challenges, and geopolitical dynamics. By assessing how different candidates or policies might address these factors, voters can develop a clearer understanding of the implications of each option. This analysis helps voters look beyond immediate concerns and consider the long-term effects of their decisions.
Another vital component of scenario planning for voters is recognizing critical uncertainties. Elections are inherently unpredictable, with numerous variables influencing the outcome. By determining which uncertainties are most likely to impact their lives and communities, voters can concentrate on the issues that matter most to them. This prioritization enables them to make more informed choices about which candidates or policies align best with their values and interests.
Constructing and analyzing scenarios is also an essential part of this process. Voters can create a set of plausible scenarios based on different combinations of the identified uncertainties. For example, they might envision the future under varying economic conditions or assess how different social policies could affect their communities, given factors affecting the candidates such as age, cognitive ability, moral turpitude and integrity. By examining the implications of each scenario, voters can better understand the potential consequences of their choices and make more strategic decisions.
Additionally, scenario planning involves developing strategic options. For voters, this means considering various ways to influence the election outcome, whether through voting, advocacy, or other forms of civic engagement. By thinking strategically about their contributions to the desired future, voters can take more proactive and effective actions.
My Take
In the context of the upcoming US election, scenario planning should eschew certainty based on current trends and focus on plausibility. This plausibility would be driven by various factors that would remain until the election. As for decision makers and leaders involved in the process, one of the key factors should be to tell the truth to those who rely on them. The lack of transparency could hinder effective response from the voter.
Leaders should prioritize truth and evidence-based information, especially during crises. People at risk need accurate information to make informed decisions. The government should have two main teams: one dealing with the current situation and another focused on future scenarios. This approach helps anticipate challenges and adapt proactively.
Of course, scenario planning does not guarantee accuracy; nor does it ensure a solution. Scenario planning must be accompanied by integrity and a true commitment to the interests of the country. Truth” or “fact” is an evidence-based statement, not just a “subjective” feeling or an impression, and therefore people at risk, be it from incompetence, infirmity or lack of integrity need to hear what they are up against. As President Theodore Roosevelt said: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
Dr. Abeyratne teaches aerospace law at McGill University. Among the numerous books he has published are Air Navigation Law (2012) and Aviation Safety Law and Regulation (to be published in 2023). He is a former Senior Legal Counsel at the International Civil Aviation Organization.
Post a Comment