Some crises appear suddenly, they are immediate and personal, the threat is tangible, the desire for action is intense and at every level there is uncertainty about whether the solutions will work. The global economic meltdown was an example of this type of crisis. In Australia, bushfire crisis is another example. The collective response of public and private sector organisations to immediate crisis is administratively, organisationally and socially comprehensive. When faced with an immediate and tangible threat, the response is quick and decisive.

Our organisations are shaped to manage the immediate—to manage crisis. Our leadership and management culture continues to draw heavily on its heroic origins—the ‘Great Man’ theory. Afterwards we collectively bask in the glory of having taken action to avert crisis and we commiserate together when we are overwhelmed by forces greater than us. We revel in a good crisis. And, sometimes, in order to act, we manufacture a crisis.

However, there is another form of crisis that most organisations are not as well-equipped to manage. It moves slowly. It is gradual and remote. The threat is subtle. We feel the need to take action but there is also time to consider the options. The possible futures are open to conjecture and debate. There is profound uncertainty. We feel the problem and its solution becoming mired in detailed debates. We are frustrated, uncertain and helpless. There is nowhere we can display heroic leadership because while there is no sense of an impending crisis, there is no actual crisis. The is nothing definitive to which we can respond. Worst of all there are options--the choices we make can shape the problem.

The ageing population and skills shortages are examples of a slow-moving crisis in our organisations. It is not as if the ‘issues’ of an ageing population have crept up on us—the demographic, social and economic dimensions of the ‘issue’ have been well known for 50 years.

The trouble with a slow-moving crisis is that there is no obvious culmination point. There is no point where it can be conclusively stated that ‘the sky is falling’. There is no immediate or obvious threat. It is more that we know, on the weight of probabilities, the ‘sky will fall in’, and if we act, we can shape the manner in which it falls in order to minimise harm and maximise benefit. It is at this point that action-orientated leaders begin to struggle. Paralysis by analysis becomes a substitute for leadership and management. While the options are considered it is most likely that ‘the sky falls in’.

Current leadership, management and decision-making systems are well-positioned to tackle a fast-moving crisis where the threat is clear, tangible, immediate and personal rather than a slow-moving crisis.

In a slow-moving crisis it is tempting to cling to a partial truth about the problem or situation from which a solution can be developed. Unfortunately, the solution is also partial. For example, in addressing Australia’s changing demographic structure, a partial truth such as the impact of the ageing population on government budgets has been used to create the sense of crisis. In turn, this has mobilised a wider understanding of Australia’s human capital issues. Unfortunately, the partial nature of this fact drives a partial solution that obscures the more devastating characteristics of this crisis.

There is very little practical or dedicated capability in our organisations that is equipped and devoted to monitoring the evolution of a slow-moving crisis and providing clear advice on the direction of change. And, we have trained and educated our leaders as tactical crisis managers, so they are unlikely dedicate time and effort to something that is not immediate. Consequently, leaders at all levels are persistently immersed in the timeless present and cannot clearly see the underlying forces of change that are re-shaping the environment.

Access to more comprehensive information and analysis tools offers the ability to better recognise and communicate the features of a slow-moving crisis. Strangely, this same access has reinforced long-standing, twentieth-century management practice, which continues to perpetuate the illusion that leaders can plan and guide change in a pre-determined, staged and linear sequence.

By definition, in a crisis no action is taken until the ‘tipping point’ has been crossed, the threat is clear, and something valued is at risk. Only then is there an urgency to find a solution. Before this, organisations believe that they can ‘manage’ and ‘shape’ trajectory of emerging crisis through the adept use of the trusted tools and techniques of public sector administration and service delivery.

Unfortunately, a managed response to a slow-moving crisis has the potential to worsen the situation because it does not allow for the possibility that simultaneous change is needed in strategy, organisation, administration and delivery. It requires attention, imagination, patience, risk management and nuanced communication from leaders that are leading toward a future rather than in the moment.

These challenges have their origin in the decisions and events of the preceding century. Consequently, history is important. These are challenges that are constantly evolving with the changing environment. In this environment, all organisations must be more alert to the need to transform—to be more agile in strategy, organisation, administration and delivery.

For most organisations, real crisis is rare and manufactured crisis is all around us. If we are attentive to the possibility of a slow-moving crisis then we also understand that there will be no ‘fix’ that can be applied. There is no place where problems are ‘solved’. But there is a place where problems keep changing shape. This is the environment within which organisational reform, change and adaptation must take place.