Clarity, Confort and Complexity
So… Have you heard the one about the Government that spent 10 years trying to address a crisis and accomplished nothing?
A full decade has passed since BC’s health officer Dr. Perry Kendall declared a state of emergency with respect to drug overdoses and deaths. To add to an already complicated situation, the ensuing time period included a global pandemic and a steady stream of turbulence-inducing conflict of different proportions all over the world.
In a Globe and Mail article this week, Andre Picard shares that Government declarations can kickstart such useful activities as better data collection and media interest. He questions whether the ten years of focus produced any greater insight, and goes on to share that a research paper in 2001 provided an evergreen roadmap to the then-emerging drug problem. The four pillars of action were/are: Prevention, Harm reduction, Treatment and Enforcement.
Spending any time on the comments section of Dr. Picard’s article provides evidence that many readers knew the answer all along. (How many of those thoughts are also unchanged since the turn of this millennium?) This is understandable because, if we choose to think about complex situations (like what to do in face of high levels of homeless and addiction) we will start to make sense of it in a way that conforms with our existing beliefs and values. We may also find ourselves revisiting some of those beliefs as we have our own experiences, take in various forms of evidence, and listen to the analysis of those who we recognize as credible.
Newspaper comment sections are only one of the places where people are discussing such issues, and I think that the large majority of people would agree that there is a great deal going on and there is no simple solution… even though they may follow that up with, “That said, here is what I think they should have done.”
Here is what I think is interesting: When/if asked to explain our reasoning on complex issues, our answer depends on two things: (1) how deeply we have considered the issue, and (2) who is asking.
Our “theories” are clear to us. We make logical connections that support beliefs that we hold. We can often find quotable sources for these, and we will note research and evidence that supports our position.
Although clear to us, we may find some “theories” less comfortable to share. Here are some reasons:
Concern for others: We assume the other party holds a different “theory” and we do not want to create tension. We can put this down to politeness or simply conforming to political correctness.
Concern for our standing with others: We think that revealing such beliefs will cause others to make ungenerous assumptions about us. This seems more self-serving as we try to protect both our reputation and our identity.
Concern for our own wellbeing: We do not want to put the intellectual and emotional energy into revisiting something that we strongly believe. It can be very difficult to maintain confidence and self-esteem if we start to question everything.
As many of these situations are ripe with political views, when politicians or others make statements “concern for our standing with others” will strongly impact the messaging. Before the public pronouncements are delivered, there are collaborative conversations as people who are involved, influential and knowledgeable discuss what to do in the face of complexity. Here are some things to help those discussions:
Share what is clear: We often here criticism of something “saying the quiet part out loud.” A skeptical person can adopt a curiosity as to whether the “theory” holds up. (Note: If it is too controversial to share a connection in this setting, maybe it is worth the effort to revisit the belief or at least question its relevance.)
Accept the uncertainty: Rather than trying to make the case of one side or the other, we can simply acknowledge that, for example, a “harm reduction” approach is different from a “disrupt the supply” approach to dealing with a drug crisis. Because it is so complex, there is no expectation or need for one answer.
Test your theories: By making a clear connection, we then bet on a set of outcomes. Ask your skeptics: “What would you need to see to believe this?” Rather than predicting the future, we are running an experiment that may or may not work as we envision. (Note: Manage expectations accordingly, especially with any stakeholder who indexes highly on “concern for their standing with others.”)
Often we are picking off a smaller part of a bigger problem. As with scientific experimentation, we learn from our findings and can go back and rework our thinking by trying new approaches or continuing existing ones. Unlike scientific experimentation, we have no lab or control groups, so get used to the continued uncertainty. As some connections seem to firm up, others may loosen. In collaboration, different perspectives help the conversation move forward with confidence and humility.