Have fun publicly humiliating them, and then let them fix it…
Why experience joy when others fail?
The German’s coined the phrase “schadenfreude”. When Homer Simpson basks in his neighbor Ned Flanders business failure to operate a store for lefties (left handed, not politically leaning people), Lisa Simpson defines Homer’s perverse joy: “It’s a German term for ‘shameful joy,’ taking pleasure in the suffering of others.” Not only do we take pleasure in missteps during a crisis, but we frequently expect heads to roll a la the infamous Queen of Hearts in Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, who is quick to decree a death sentence at the slightest offense, “Off with their heads!”
Some explain our impulse for this unpleasant sensation as human nature and reliance on social relationships. A theory is that schadenfreude is an offshoot of envy. We have a tendency to measure our worth compared to others. When someone else is doing poorly, we feel better about ourselves. As we become more in tune with individuals not in our immediate social circle via the news media, whether they are celebrities of public officials, we measure ourselves against them risking schadenfreude when they trip up. Which they do, of course, because don’t we all?
What Happened to One Team, One Fight?
I’m still preoccupied by the immediate responses to the Mayor of Baltimore’s decision-making last month. In the aftermath of Freddie Gray’s death, a Maryland Delegate called for the Baltimore mayor’s resignation. He cited a lack of leadership specifically related to one comment she made that many would argue was taken out of context. The recently elected Maryland Governor did his part to pile on by immediately criticizing the Mayor’s initial decisions after Mr. Gray’s death. What happened to one team, one fight, particularly in a crisis situation?
After watching the Ferguson, Missouri events unfold, and the resulting calls for the de-militarization of police, who can blame a Mayor for attempting to apply lessons learned and not unnecessarily inflame a situation by being too heavy handed at the get go?
So perhaps there isn’t much we can do about experiencing schadenfreude but perhaps we can control how we act upon it. Is forcing a resignation at the first sign of a crisis misstep the right approach to make lasting change? Or is a crisis a rallying point for leaders to harness the public’s attention to implement change around long-standing problems?
Some would offer that society was more sympathetic in the past and willing to forgive public officials for miscalculations in response to complex and unfolding events. Sometimes bad things happen and sometimes no one can predict or control them. By his position, another public official continually under scrutiny for managing a crisis is the President
The New Republic argues President Obama may deserve a bit more credit than he’s been given for managing crises. Criticism of the President’s approach traises two interesting points. The first is how policy decisions are made. The author defends the perceived slowness of some of the administration’s decisions: “These are fair criticisms, but Obama’s slow responses were not just a result of indecision. They were part of a careful strategy to get the policy response right.”
The second point is pulled from a Bloomberg article, “Six years in, it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor — regardless of the public’s emotional needs,” writes. The author elaborates that Obama’s overly calm demeanor doesn’t seem to fit with the theatrical elements expected of a president during a crisis. These two points highlight an official’s struggle to make the right policy decision while addressing the immediate emotional needs of a population. The emotional aspect may explain our immediate need to start kicking when our needs aren’t being met. I would argue that overly focusing on the emotional needs may win a lot of initial points and positive media coverage, however it’s the solid policy decisions that may prevent a crisis from happening the next time.
Is there a cure for schadenfreude? Not really but…
The next time I suffer from a case of schadenfreude (probably before noon today) and I’m caught up in the typical hero or villain-making immediately following a crisis, I’m going to keep the following in mind:
- Many of the factors contributing to a crisis have likely been brewing for years, decades, or longer and vilifying one person probably isn’t going to resolve anything. Because…
- Getting a new person transitioned and in place to make significant change can take a long time. And…
- Our culture of jumping on leaders the minute we sense failure may scare future leaders from taking necessary risks to make solid policy decisions (or prevent the right types of leaders from pursuing high visibility positions at all). Additionally…
- Officials may become so worried about misspeaking and appearances detracting from a focus on the crisis that support staff may spend more time on spin and political posturing then they do on the crisis. And finally…
- If the issue isn’t flat out illegal activity and is an honest mistake based on the information the person had at the time, let the next election cycle work it out.
It’s easy to place blame and think that removing one person is a fix for an issue. It is much more difficult to discuss, formulate, and execute policies during the window of opportunity often presented after a crisis to address root causes of long-standing issues.
If we are going to make progress, do we need to provide our public leaders a little slack?
