Crisis Leadership in Combatting COVID-19 at the University of South Carolina

The Story: what actually took place

When our 32,000 students went on spring break early in March of 2020, the COVID-19 virus had emerged overseas, and was just starting to break on the west coast of the United States. The week before spring break, a few nations in Europe were observing significant exponential increases as well. As I sat down early during spring break with my staff, we started to discuss the possibilities of our students, who were all over the world during their spring break, bringing the virus with them back to our campus.

We were very fortunate to have the Arnold School of Public Health as one of the colleges within our university and on our campus, with some of the most talented epidemiologists in the nation. We asked them to model the outbreak, not only as a classical pandemic model, but how it would apply to our campus, with our students returning with whatever virus or disease they would have come in contact with while they were away from campus.

The answer was astonishing. Not only would we have significant cases on our campus, but we would have an infection rate similar to the Princess Diamond cruise ship that had about 700 positive cases with about 2,300 passengers on board. They explained to me that the infection rate, called “R-naught” (or R0) must be less than 1 for the epidemic to begin to decline. A R0 of 1 (meaning one positive person infects one other person), means the epidemic remains the same. And an R0 of 2 means one person will infect 2, and with that model, the number of cases increases exponentially. The Princess Diamond had an R0 of 7, and our college campus was compared to what the Princess Diamond would have experienced.

Complicating the potential of our student population getting infected in large numbers, is that our campus is an urban campus in the middle of the state capital, the city of Columbia, South Carolina. And the potential for this virus spreading into the Columbia community would be significant.

The Task Force and Operations

The first thing we had to do was to put together an emergency task force planning and assessment team. This was led by our Chief of Staff and had representation from almost every function in the university, which included operations, finance, safety and security, epidemiologists, our Health Clinic director, academics, student life, and communications. This team started meeting every day to assess the current situation, predict how doctrinal models applied to our campus and our student population, and developed courses of action to deal with this. It was clear we were heading towards a very risky situation, and the task force’s recommendation was to first extend spring break by a week, and then revert to on-line instruction for the following two weeks.

We also realized we needed principles that would drive our planning, and we concluded that the first principle was to ensure the health, safety, and security of every student, faculty and staff. The second was to be sure to mitigate the spread of any virus throughout the campus and within the greater community we were a part of, especially being an urban campus in the middle of the state capital city. The third was to ensure we continued our mission and that was to deliver education to standard and with the integrity expected of us. And finally to ensure the health and welfare of the university as an institution, knowing that every one of these decisions had significant issues related to student enrollment, tuition and finances, not to mention the quality of our education regardless of how it was delivered.

This was a hugely significant decision as no one in the state of South Carolina was thinking this way. They were dismissing the virus as another flu outbreak and did not want anyone to “panic” and take extraordinary measures to change the status quo. I knew there were issues that were not being considered by our state representatives, so I called the Governor and the Mayor of Columbia and discussed what I was seeing and what we wanted to do. Fortunately, both the Governor and the Mayor agreed and allowed me to proceed. But when I announced the decision, we were highly criticized, and the State House of Representatives met for 45 minutes criticizing my decision as being over reactive and creating panic and a crisis. Little did they know what was in store for the state, and a number of the representatives contacted me afterwards to apologize for their earlier criticism.

The decision was also criticized within some of our campus groups as well, to include our faculty. The criticism made me realize how important it was to make these decisions in a collaborative and transparent way, and to aggressively communicate. I found that communication and transparency build trust, and trust builds teamwork, and that climate created the hope that we were addressing the issues within the crisis the right way.

The Futures Planning Group

As the crisis proceeded we realized we had to redefine the task force into a planning group that would not only assess our change of education delivery and its effectiveness, but we also to start to think about how we were going to bring students back on campus. This planning group, called the “Future Planning Group”, included the key functional areas of “modelers” (i.e. epidemiologists), academic programs, student life on campus, finance issues and cost cutting strategies, health and risk mitigation, communications, and athletics. This group would meet as often as necessary but would brief me at least once a week. The ultimate objective was to come up with a re-opening plan, that would bring 32,000 students back to a safe, healthy, and secure campus, that would also remain safe and healthy once everyone returned.

We found that we had to accelerate making the decision, because there were costs to the institution of higher education we had not anticipated. Because we forced all of our students into an on-line remote program of instruction, the idea of continuing to do that for another semester or year was unnerving. As a result, our entire nation started to see that student renewals and new student deposits were nowhere near our goals and objectives, as well as where historical numbers were. Said another way, interrupting or postponing the education of tomorrow’s leaders for another semester or year was not acceptable, and students were voting with their feet by choosing to either delay their education, or not take higher education at all. This too had a significant financial cost because less enrollment means less tuition, and less tuition means less revenue to run the university.

We also knew that starting the university back up while the virus was still around, presented significant risk. Because we had “flattened the curve”, fewer of the population had contracted the virus and had therefore not built the levels of immunity necessary to drive it out of the population. That coupled with the fact that a vaccine would not be ready until at least the spring semester, meant that we would bring students back while the virus was still active within our communities.

But we felt it was still necessary to proceed. The “defensive” posture of on-line education had significant costs as explained earlier. And the risks of a still active virus still exist. We felt that the risk mitigation procedures we would put in place would make the environment an “acceptable and manageable risk”, and that we would have to balance costs and risks. You can drive on our nation’s highways at 35 miles an hour and save a lot of lives, but our society will not accept driving at such slow speeds. Instead, we drive at 65 miles an hour, and accept the risks as acceptable. Does driving 65 miles per hour save lives? No, it does not. But there is a balance between costs and the risks we are willing to take, and where that balanced occurred, was the focus of our decision.

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and polymath during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, said, “You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor”. So, it takes courage to make those decisions in this crisis. But the decisions are also made with honor. Moving forward with courage and honor is not such a bad formula on how to proceed.

The Plan

The plan we created was to have a transitional ramp up during the summer months to bring students back on campus, to pilot our social distancing and other risk mitigating protocol, and to build confidence that our systems are working and are effective. We then plan to allow all students to return at the beginning of the fall semester in August – if they so choose. If students and/or their parents do not feel comfortable to send their student back, we will deliver education to them as we have been doing this spring semester, and that is on-line. Those that come back will find this campus significantly different as we implement social distancing programs and policies. And if worse case occurs where things go in the wrong direction, we’ll have the agility to disperse everyone as we did before and revert back to on-line programming again.

The key task of the future planning group now that the decision was made, was to operationalize the plan. For example, we would test everyone on return, and have an app that enabled everyone to see who we were in contact with, so that if we test positive, we will also know who to bring into quarantine. We also had to think about how to achieve social distancing in the classroom, with large lectures, in the student residences, in their dining facilities, in all aspects of student life, in Greek life, and in their social lives off campus and at night. Fortunately, student government and leadership are taking on a significant role. They are building a campaign to educate, train and establish rules and procedures to behave responsibly on and off campus, and to hold each other accountable to do that. In areas the university administration is unable to supervise, we have to rely on students acting responsibly, understanding the consequences of their behavior, and to act as responsible adults while engaging with each other both on and off campus, and during their free social time with each other.

Lessons Learned – Keys to Success

We recognized there are a couple of keys to success while leading in a crisis. These keys to success can generally be found in the following list:

• Situation Awareness

• Identify root issues and causes

• Be prepared to innovate in planning and solutions

• Create cross functional planning and operational teams

• Adapt a strong, innovative, and agile planning process

• Identify knowns, unknowns, obstacles, challenges, strengths, problems, opportunities, threats

• Develop a strong communication plan with strategies for each constituent

• The leader is critical to success. He/she requires cool head, clear understanding what is causing the crisis, confidence, creates a strong vision and way ahead, and a positive attitude

• Assess. Understand what getting back to “normal” looks like

Situation Awareness

Situation awareness is simply not only understanding what is going on now, but also an in-depth understanding of the root causes, the natural hierarchy of order, the extent of damages, and intended and unintended consequences of the problem. It is also important to know the strengths and weaknesses of key staff and subordinate leaders, problems, threats, and opportunities.

Understanding the COVID-19 situation required the entire planning force to provide input into the development of each course of action, but this process must start with our scientists -- our epidemiologists -- who were able to model its projected growth not only nationwide, but how it is also applicable to our campus. We also had to understand the root causes, which in this case was the rapid erosion of higher education as an option for one’s development, as evidenced by the significant decrease of enrollment when faced with the possibility of another forced on-line education delivery. And we had to really understand all the players. Our campus is right in the middle of the state legislative buildings, and there is no shortage of political influence and opinions. We also had to deal with daily inquiries from our Board members, not to mention students, faculty and staff, as well as alumni, supporters, and other university colleagues.

Cost Cutting Strategies

It is said that a crisis is too important to let it go to waste, meaning that there are always opportunities that show up during a crisis. Since the institution could possibly lose a significant amount of funds, our Board members would say it would be time to reorganize and cut budgets in order to gain some efficiencies. There is a lot of truth in that, and we had put together a couple committees that would develop a cost cutting strategy. The overall committee was led by our Chief Financial Officer and had representation across the entire university. They first required all units to plan for an across the board reduction of 10% in their annual budget. That would force internal assessments of where to cut both personnel and programs, and to allow unit leadership to make that determination simply because they know where the excess exists, and how much to cut. Our shared governance structure requires our faculty senate to be a part of any decision that will be made within our academic programs, and they therefore had to be organized and brought into the committee. We also had to address our reserves, which unfortunately, were all restricted to existing programs. So, the committee looked at available reserve funding by eliminating the programs they were affiliated with. The committee also addressed more traditional cost cutting measures – like hiring freezes, furloughs, promotion freezes, travel freezes and others.

Two other sub-committees played a significant role. One was a grass roots committee that looked at cost cutting measures at the lowest levels across the entire university. Included in this effort was a web site that any student, faculty, or staff could offer cost cutting suggestions. And the other committee was a strategic reorganization and efficiencies committee, designed to see where greater efficiencies were possible, and where any reorganization was to take place.

Opportunities in COVID-19 and the strategic horizon

As stated earlier, higher education was facing the possibility of up to 15-20% of students who would otherwise have gone to a residence higher education model, but had elected not to return, or not to attend in the first place. They obviously are still interested in higher education, but the risky on-campus model is of concern. Which drives the question that if they are still interested in higher ed, but not with the traditional on-campus model, can we deliver education to them in a different form, principally on-line? We had recently moved every one of our academic programs on-line, so we have the experience to do this. So, we had made a conscious effort to develop an on-line program and to market it focused at these 15-20% students who are backing away from residence higher education. This allows us to serve this population group, and to help generate a revenue source we would otherwise not have had.

COVID is challenging and will have significant consequences on the health and wellbeing of the university. Yet it is important to not only focus on dealing with COVID and our recovery, but we must not lose sight of the strategic horizon, and the opportunities the crisis has created. Focusing only on COVID and its recovery will take as much as 6 months or longer to recover. If we fail to recognize the opportunities and fail to have the agility to quickly flex to take advantage of them, then we lose. There will be others who will recognize and move in that direction and we must remain agile enough to take advantage of them ourselves.

Cross Functional Planning and Operationalization of the Plan

Our planning process was superb. The futures planning group was able to address our issues from many perspectives, but principally from science, led by our excellent epidemiologists. As mentioned earlier, it included the functions of science (epidemiologists), academic programming, student affairs and student life, finances, communication, and athletics. They followed a planning cycle that was based on our best estimate of the virus, its evolution internationally, nationally and on our campus, its continued risk over time, and how it would spread among campus and the neighboring community. Based on our understanding of this threat, each functional staff member was then able to create a staff estimate of each of their functions. This enabled all of us to gain a better understanding of the threat and how it impacts all aspects of the university. In order to develop the proper reaction to the threat, we then had to develop scenarios, or courses of action. These courses of action included remaining on-line throughout the entire fall, have a graduated transitional increase, and to have a full return of all students on time. In order to determine the best option, we identified a set of criteria to weigh each course of action. And once we did that, the staff determined which one they would recommend.

Often, we will not have the luxury of time or of information to make a 100% accurate decision. But that is part of weighing the risk necessary to proceed. General George S. Patton said it best – “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

It is important to acknowledge that planning is a combination of both science and art. The science of decision making can easily help leadership make a decision that is backed up by the facts of science. But the leader must also have situational understanding of numerous factors, including the consequences – both intended and unintended, the natural hierarchy of order and how we will help restore it, how various groups will behave and react to this, whether we can actually reduce the most significant risks with a strong degree of confidence, the guidance and intent of our oversight authority, and the morale of those who will be responsible to execute this plan. Making a decision informed by science but incorporating all these other factors, is the art that leadership needs to master within this decision-making process.

It is often said that wars are too important to be left for the generals. Likewise, in this war against COVID-19, a pandemic is too important to be left for the scientists.

Communication

One of the most important goals the leader of an organization in crisis must accomplish is to regain or retain “hope”. Hope forlorn has critical morale degradation consequences. Hope that remains strong is a tremendous motivator and morale booster. The best way to retain hope is to establish and maintain “trust”. Trust comes from a competent team, but one embracing the character of integrity and honor. It also comes from an authentic leader, who is a genuine caring person who creates an attitude of empathy and understanding, and who is also transparent.

By their nature, a crisis creates uncertainty, and in that environment, we will often find rumors that can spread like wildfire and can often be devastating to morale. And to counter the numerous rumors that would be floating out there, it is so important to communicate and to be transparent. The bottom line of communication in a crisis is simply to communicate and communicate and communicate.

In developing your communication strategy, first find a great spokesperson, and use this person consistently. Once this person develops trust with your constituents, his or her appearance will automatically generate the confidence your constituents will need. The next step is to identify your constituencies and audiences – both internal and external -- and then develop a strategy to engage with each constituent and audience.

There are numerous ways to keep the lines of communication open. First is to create an easy to navigate web site and make it as interactive as possible. Give clients the opportunity to post inquiries and be sure to respond to them. And keep it updated. Then use social media, as this continues to become an increasingly popular platform to send out information, as well as to assess reactions. But one method we used that was hugely effective was the traditional town hall. Since we could not do it in person, we found a way to do so virtually. And members of the panel included not only the president, but the president’s staff and subject matter experts.

But it goes without saying, if you think you have communicated well, then communicate some more. And if you think you have communicated to all the audiences, there will be others still seeking information. Communicate, communicate, and communicate.

Crisis Leadership

Leaders are in the spotlight during a crisis. People want to retain hope, and hope comes from the confidence knowing the direction the institution is moving is sound, and that they believe that the leadership will successfully move it through the maze of challenges and issues.

In order to gain hope, members must trust the leadership, and trust is a function of being competent, having incredible character, and knowing that the people’s interests are paramount to the leader’s. So, how does the leader create trust in the middle of a crisis?

To demonstrate competence, the leader must lead decisively. Effective solutions are often not from incrementalism, but of very bold and decisive acts. The decisions are a result of understanding the situation and the environment, understanding where risk exists and the means to mitigate it, to identify where risk is unacceptable, and to move boldly to make important decisions where risk has to be accepted, but not to a point where it is reckless.

To learn this art of decision making and to balance risk with costs, the leader must confront hard truths and to be honest with himself or herself. Being honest helps leaders get to the root of problems and to properly address these tough issues. The leader must also act carefully but quickly. Using the multi-functional team, he/she must weigh all options and create the way forward. Time is usually critical, so it is important to move with a purpose. Delays can be perceived as incompetence or indifference, and if that occurs, it can exacerbate a crisis.

Without a doubt challenges and setbacks will occur once the action plan has begun. Often critics and competitors take advantage of an organization when it is down. It is natural for a leader to feel doubt and fear as problems pile up. But continually assess your planning assumptions, continually understand where you are with the plan, and recognize when decisions need to be made and make them.

To demonstrate caring the leader must take care of his or her employees and clients. First and foremost, take the steps to ensure the safety and well-being of your organization. Put the necessary risk mitigation factors in place, like social distancing, testing, and tracing. Go out of your way to enhance cleaning procedures, especially in common areas, to make the statement their health is important to you. Promote healthy habits and monitor the employee’s health. There will likely be employee absences either because of illness or other requirements at home, and the leader can demonstrate support and compassion by allowing employees to address their personal needs.

The leader should also provide holistic support for all employees. Not only is their health at risk in a pandemic, but there are doubts created for their salaries, mental and emotional support, benefit packages, and health care. If this is important to them, and it most likely is, then demonstrate caring and support by paying attention to these issues as well.

And finally, your employees will undoubtedly be working horrendous hours, dedicated to not only the institution and its mission, but to you as a leader wanting never to let you down. They need to be recognized for their work and their efforts. Sometimes a simple thank-you will go a long way. Or public acknowledgement in front of their peers will make a huge difference in morale, loyalty, and commitment.

But most important is to keep the lines of communication open. They want to hear you, and they also want to be heard. They want to know your challenges, decisions, why you moved in a certain direction, what is on the horizon, the good news, the bad news, and everything in between. They want you to be transparent. Ironically, transparency risks showing uncertainty, and can expose some of your personal challenges. But from my experience, it does not work that way. The more transparent we are, the more authentic you become as a leader. And the more authentic you are, the greater they trust your leadership.

I saved leadership for last, simply because an effective leader is the most important asset for an institution to successfully navigate a crisis. An effective leader retains hope. Hope is retained by trusting the leadership. Trust is a function of competence, character and caring. It is also critical to creating a command climate that builds an incredible team. The leader is the leader, and by him or herself, the institution will not succeed. It will take the entire organization. It is therefore the leader’s responsibility to build that team for success.

Conclusion

As with any crisis, leadership will make the difference between success and failure. I have also learned over the years, that often we never know if we are indeed “winning”, until the goal line is right in front of us. The lesson is that even though your long-term objectives are obscured by the flames of problems at your feet, it is essential to keep pressing on doing the right things. In order to keep “pressing on”, you have to believe in your plan, believe in your team, trust them to produce, have the grit and determination to persevere, and as Vince Lombardi so eloquently said, “Winners never quit, and quitters never win”.

Robert Caslen