It seems hardly a short while passes in today’s world without the occurrence of sudden events affecting both nations and communities alike, as disturbances and crises unfold at an unprecedented pace. In a brief period, the globe has witnessed a succession of events, such as the outbreak of regional military conflicts, internal turmoil, and the spread of widespread pandemics. Furthermore, sharp economic fluctuations and escalating environmental crises have become an integral part of the global landscape. It has become clear that these events are no longer merely exceptional occurrences but rather the driving forces reshaping the contours of the world around us. This new reality necessitates that decision-makers transcend the traditional view of crises as temporary obstacles and instead approach them as opportunities for radical and tangible transformations.
Crises as a Driving Force
Crises have long been pivotal turning points in history, where their impacts extend beyond creating complex challenges to opening new horizons for change and establishing new foundations for the international system. In fact, crises have played a crucial role in reshaping balances, finding innovative solutions, and developing public policies. Over time, crises have prompted nations and societies to take corrective actions that have resulted in radical changes in the course of history.
One of the most prominent examples is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which demonstrated how acute crises can compel great powers toward cooperation and the development of new mechanisms to avoid direct confrontations. During this crisis, the United States and the Soviet Union were on the brink of entering a nuclear confrontation; the crisis underscored the peril of military escalation for global security. In response, both sides agreed to establish a “hotline” system between Moscow and Washington, a direct communication channel intended to provide a means for rapid communication during crises, thereby reducing the likelihood of misjudgment and unintended escalation.
For instance, the world saw radical changes in the international system after the two World Wars, as the disasters suffered by humanity necessitated the establishment of institutions aimed at promoting peace and global cooperation. World War I, with its devastating effects, highlighted the need for an international mechanism for preventing future conflicts. Thus, the League of Nations was established as the first international organization striving to maintain peace and resolve disputes. Although the League did not succeed in its mission to prevent World War II, it paved the way for the creation of the United Nations after the war.
The UN has played a central role over time in coordinating international efforts to maintain international peace and security, establishing new standards for diplomatic work and human rights protection. World wars also helped develop international law and established rules governing the behavior of states in times of conflict, such as the Geneva Conventions. Consequently, it can be said that the world wars laid the groundwork for developing the modern global system and led to the establishment of new controls over international relations.
The Cuban Missile Crisis also heightened the awareness among great powers of the necessity to establish controls and mutual understandings to avoid collision scenarios. Subsequently, this experience led to the signing of nuclear arms reduction treaties, including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which contributed to reducing nuclear risks and established crises as opportunities for setting new standards for international security, affirming that escalation is not the only solution to confrontation; rather, crises can present opportunities to establish new balances.
Economic crises represent another notable example of how crises can be transformed into opportunities for restructuring the international system. After the Great Depression of 1929, which caused widespread economic collapse and exacerbated unemployment and poverty around the world, nations recognized their need for a global economic system capable of achieving long-term financial stability. Thus, in 1944, the Bretton Woods System was established, leading to the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
This system helped stabilize the global economy after World War II by providing financial support to needy nations and establishing a framework for global economic cooperation. Moreover, these institutions established new rules for trade and investment while maintaining currency stability. It can be argued that the “Great Depression” was not just an economic crisis but a catalyst for restructuring the global economy and creating international tools to ensure financial stability and protect nations from similar crises.
The global financial crisis of 2008 is another example of how crises were leveraged to develop financial and banking systems. This crisis affected global financial markets and threatened to collapse major financial institutions, prompting governments and central banks to intervene through massive bailout packages and radical financial policy reforms. This resulted in increased financial oversight and the imposition of stricter regulations on financial derivatives, reducing risks associated with financial transactions. Furthermore, there was a growing need to reassess financial systems to enhance sustainability and lessen vulnerability to future crises, making the 2008 crisis a pivotal lesson in how to utilize crises to reshape financial policies.
Major health crises also provide striking examples of leveraging crises to develop policies and systems. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, revealed the need for international collaboration to address cross-border health challenges. This crisis had a direct impact on healthcare system development, compelling nations to invest more in medical research, health infrastructure, and enhancing hospitals’ capacity.
The crisis also spurred technological innovation, as countries and companies adopted new technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data to improve virus tracking. On another front, the pandemic gave rise to a wave of innovations in remote work and education, leading to a structural change in many sectors. Thus, it can be said that the COVID-19 pandemic is not merely a health crisis but a catalyst for developing nations’ capabilities to address future health emergencies and build more integrated and resilient health systems.
Environmental crises, such as climate change, illustrate how crises can be a call for long-term change. Increasing environmental disasters have pushed nations and peoples to adopt more sustainable environmental policies, such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy. Among the most significant agreements born out of environmental crises is the Paris Agreement, which set a global goal to limit global temperature rise and reduce harmful emissions.
However, another side to this strategy is what Naomi Klein discusses in her book “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” where she examines how economic and political interests exploit crises to push unpopular policies under the guise of reform or emergency. This perspective is based on the idea that certain entities benefit from a state of public shock to impose structural changes that enhance their dominance.
Disaster capitalism represents a contrary model to the traditional concept of crisis opportunities, where crises are exploited for purposes that do not benefit society as a whole but serve specific factions. Nonetheless, this concept reveals how crises can be transformed into tools for economic and political change, albeit in a controversial manner.
In summary, crises are not just threats; they represent windows for changing the global system. Reassessing decision-making amid interconnected crisis pressures opens the door to developing new mechanisms that equip nations and societies to adapt to this shifting reality and leverage crises to achieve strategic gains that contribute to building a more stable and resilient future.
The New Normal
Crisis management and risk management are traditional approaches aimed at dealing with crises and mitigating their negative effects. These fields have evolved to incorporate tools and strategies based on predicting and preparing for crises rather than merely addressing them as they occur. Crisis management science is based on three main stages: Preparation, Response, and Recovery.
Today’s world requires more than simply managing crises from this traditional perspective; hence, the idea of transforming crises into opportunities appears—not just as a slogan but as a practical strategy for individuals, institutions, and even nations to rebuild their systems on new, more resilient, and robust foundations. Interconnected crises have become an environment for interaction among nations, societies, and businesses, necessitating a new approach in dealing with complex situations. In other words, crises are no longer seen as mere emergencies or temporary obstacles; they have evolved into a primary engine of change and development.
From this standpoint, the perspective of “the obstacle is the way” can be adopted by considering challenges and obstacles not just as barriers to be removed but as part of the life experience and growth path. This concept was inspired by writer Ryan Holiday in his famous book “The Obstacle is the Way,” which embodies the philosophy of transforming obstacles into opportunities for learning and growth. This view is based on the fundamental idea that crises and difficulties push individuals or societies toward creative thinking and the search for unconventional solutions, leading to progress.
This perspective has various applications in management and decision-making; rather than avoiding or fleeing from crises, this approach embraces dealing with them as tools for change. Research has shown that companies and individuals who adopt this mindset tend to have a greater ability to adapt to changes and challenges, resulting in more sustainable outcomes.
This connects with the concept previously discussed multiple times, which is the “black swan,” a term introduced by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book “The Black Swan,” referring to unpredictable events that have immense impacts but, over time, seem as if they were anticipated or inevitable. This concept tackles the important point that the global system is filled with elements that can lead to unexpected events, such as financial crises or pandemics.
This concept has evolved into what is referred to as the “new normal,” which everyone must adapt to; crises have become a natural part of people’s and nations’ lives, and the assumption of permanent stability is no longer feasible. This concept necessitates a reconsideration of crisis response strategies to encompass flexibility and the capacity to adapt to any new variables. The “new normal” is an opportunity to reconsider organizational structures and decision-making methods, representing a good model for understanding “opportunities within crises” as a fundamental element of the modern global system.
Viewing crises as windows of opportunity involves perceiving them as a time frame in which possibilities arise for achieving significant changes in systems or policies, where crises create these windows by breaking the traditional inertia of existing systems, allowing for the introduction of radical reforms and changes.
This, in turn, relates to the concept of “resilience,” which refers to the ability to adapt and endure challenges and withstand adverse circumstances. For organizations, resilience means the capacity to absorb changes, redirect resources, and adapt to sudden shifts. Research shows that resilient institutions recover faster from crises, regaining their functionality with minimal losses. On the other hand, “psychological resilience” refers to the ability to absorb shocks and psychological stress and adapt without collapsing. This resilience contributes to enhancing managerial capabilities, as individuals become better equipped to make sound decisions in pressure-filled and challenging environments.
Strategic adaptation is one of the most important concepts that enhance the ability to invest in crises. This concept signifies the capacity of countries and institutions to adjust their strategies and policies according to the new realities imposed by crises. Strategic adaptation relies on monitoring rapid changes and the ability to make decisions based on a comprehensive assessment of the current and future situations.
The optimal utilization of crises as opportunities for development is completed by developing “crisis memory,” as institutions and nations that undergo past crisis experiences become better equipped to handle new crises. This is reinforced by leveraging previous experiences and storing them as lessons learned to guide institutional responses in the future. Crisis memory aids in enhancing preventive and precautionary capacities, reducing confusion that may arise when sudden crises occur.
Toward an Alternative Strategy
The new vision of crises, emerging transformations, and pressures is based on considering them as inevitabilities to which one must adapt, even seizing and leveraging opportunities that arise within them. The crisis context itself—according to this perspective—is largely a cognitive outlook and emotional state that dominates decision-makers, characterized by feelings of losing control, helplessness, and confusion in the face of rapid developments. If this state is transcended and the situation is approached with a calm mentality, many situations termed as crises may not be perceived as such. In this regard, the alternative strategy for dealing with crises encompasses several key principles:
Redefining Crises as Opportunities for Transformation: The strategy begins by viewing crises as catalysts that reveal new potentials rather than as rigid barriers, seeing them as necessary stages for learning and growth. For instance, a health or economic crisis might lead to the adoption of new technologies or change traditional work models. In crisis environments, mistakes are inevitable and part of the experience. Therefore, every challenge or misstep can form a valuable lesson for future decision-making, and institutional memory of past crises is built to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.
Focusing on Controllable Factors: It is important to concentrate on controllable factors and elements, as attempting to control everything is an exhausting drain on energy and resources. This principle helps decision-makers handle crises effectively, particularly when unexpected elements are part of the equation. When facing a crisis, leaders focus on how best to utilize available resources rather than getting distracted by what they cannot change. For example, instead of trying to influence external forces shaping the crisis, attention can shift to strengthening the internal resilience of the institution or state, while establishing priorities based on what can be immediately implemented and directing efforts toward the most realistic solutions.
Enhancing Resilience and Adaptability: During crises, resilience and adaptability are firm constants supporting decision-makers’ ability to engage with high-pressure situations, as policies that are flexible and adjustable according to circumstances are adopted. For instance, decision-makers may need to redesign supply chains or alter work models if challenges impose unexpected constraints. By applying the principle of continuous adaptation, leaders can develop new mechanisms for crisis response and adaptability. This adaptation isn’t momentary but sustainable, continuing even after the crisis to prepare systems to handle future crises.
Adopting Long-term Strategic Thinking: It is vital to consider the long-term impacts of crises and develop strategies that embrace future changes. Crises that highlight health or environmental challenges, for example, may drive the adoption of broader sustainability policies or shift production practices to be more environmentally friendly. As interconnected crises increase, it must be accepted that the new normal will continue to evolve, and thus developing long-term strategies compatible with this changing reality is the pathway to ensuring continuity.
Investing in Creativity and Innovation: Part of the preventive preparedness priority for handling crises is creating environments that foster innovation by encouraging unconventional ideas and solutions to address crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, many institutions sought to develop new methods of remote work or redesign their products to meet changing market demands. Similarly, technology serves as one of the strongest tools for confronting crises. By leveraging techniques such as artificial intelligence and predictive analytics, leaders can make informed decisions and anticipate potential crisis trajectories.
Building a Culture of Learning from Crises: The sequence of pressing and exceptional situations necessitates the development of an institutional culture aimed at extracting lessons from each crisis and establishing crisis memory through documenting the crises faced by institutions and recording the lessons learned for future reference. This institutional memory enhances the capacity to meet forthcoming crises and ensures that mistakes are not repeated. This connects with the development of training programs based on past experiences that help leaders and employees enhance their capabilities and prepare for similar challenges in the future.
Considering Crises as Catalysts for Structural Change: Sometimes, crises are the only opportunity to change outdated systems and reshape existing structures. Crises provide opportunities for institutions to reassess their organizational frameworks and can accelerate restructuring processes that may have been postponed during normal working conditions. For governments, crises can act as a catalyst for radical economic reforms. Some countries have exploited economic crises to stimulate transitions within government support systems or bolster new sectors such as advanced technology.
In conclusion, in a world characterized by increasing complexity and rapid interconnections between crises, challenges have ceased to be mere obstacles to overcome; rather, they have become vital instruments for enhancing institutional capacities and eliciting new, more flexible, and efficient strategies. Major crises that the world has faced have proven that every obstacle harbors latent potentials for learning and transformation if met with deep understanding and thoughtful responses. By adopting the perspective that “the obstacle is the way,” dealing with crises becomes an opportunity for reevaluating organizational structures, developing decision-making systems, and fostering innovation in the face of exceptional conditions.
Building institutional resilience and enhancing adaptability to changes is not an option but a strategic necessity dictated by the nature of the current global environment. Addressing interconnected crises necessitates adopting flexible strategies based on a deep understanding of the interrelated influencing factors and developing proactive policies that ensure states and institutions are prepared to tackle any new challenges. It is evident that the integration of local and international efforts, along with the utilization of technology and innovation, is foundational to transforming crises into developmental opportunities. Thus, the perspective on crises shifts from being a limited challenge to being a central axis for developing comprehensive response models that enhance the sustainability, resilience, and stability of institutions in the long run.
