Jabs Amid a Storm: the COVID Campaign and Governance Models

What happens when traditional governance models no longer apply? When crisis becomes chronic, as in the case of the Covid-19 pandemic, we can no longer rely solely on bureaucracy or horizontal networks, and a new approach is needed. This is the heart of the concept of “robust governance” the focus of a study recently published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory and authored by Maria Cucciniello, Alex Turrini, Greta Nasi, Giovanni Valotti, Marta Micacchi, and Daniela Cristofoli of Bocconi University, among others.

Robustness, the authors explain, is the ability of public organizations to keep generating value even in conditions of severe instability, combining two key elements: flexible adaptation and proactive innovation.

Six regions, one common challenge

To understand how robustness is built in practice, the researchers studied six Italian regions during one of the most delicate moments of the pandemic: the 2021 vaccination campaign. They studied documents and press articles and conducted 43 interviews with operators, technicians, and public managers.

All regions used temporary coordination structures—so-called control rooms—to manage the emergency. But the models adopted were very different: from more vertical and centralized approaches to more distributed, informal networks.

WhatsApp and control rooms

A common feature across all cases was the use of hybrid forms of coordination: official meetings, plans, and regulations on one side; WhatsApp groups, impromptu videoconferences, and informal chats on the other.

“Responsiveness was fueled by weekly meetings and our constant communication via WhatsApp,” said a member of a control room.

This is not just a colorful tale. The coexistence of formal and informal communication was decisive in dealing with an ever-changing crisis, where immediate responses and unconventional solutions were needed.

The human factor: “energizing” leaders

Another recurring ingredient: “energizing” leadership. It’s not just about commanding, but about mobilizing people, giving meaning to collective action, even in extreme conditions. Sometimes with strong and charismatic leadership, on other occasions with diffuse leadership, involving many actors who share responsibilities and decisions.

“Beyond the emergency, there was the ability to unite people, to make them feel part of something important. To transform fatigue into enthusiasm,” explained another interviewee.

The paradox of creative rigidity

The study also highlighted some anomalies, in which highly centralized and formalized structures still managed to generate flexible responses. The secret? An organizational mindset geared toward flexible adaptation, which made it possible to reinvent even the most rigid plans in the field.

“We had a plan A, a plan B... and if they didn’t work, we invented plan C on the spot,” said one operator.

In other cases, solutions born out of emergency situations became replicable models, standardized but born out of improvisation.

A new governance grammar

A comparison of the six regional cases reveals six key propositions, which the authors propose as the basis for a new theory of robust governance. Some confirm already common insights—such as the effectiveness of temporary structures, the crucial role of hybrid coordination, and the power of motivational leadership. Others, however, open up more unpredictable scenarios: for example, that even seemingly rigid organizational models can generate flexibility if driven by a mindset oriented towards adaptation and innovation.

In short, robustness is not depend on the result of a single formula, but arises from different combinations of structure, coordination, and leadership. What makes the difference is the ability to balance stability and change, rules and improvisation.

Marta Micacchi, Maria Cucciniello, Benedetta Trivellato, Daniela Cristofoli, Alex Turrini, Giovanni Valotti, Greta Nasi, “How to organize in turbulence: arrangements and pathways for robust governance,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2025, 35, 231–247, DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae027