The real test of credibility arises when an expert and/or communicator must align and collaborate with others who DISAGREE. Managing dissenting views is a CRITICAL skill in short supply during this crisis, and virtually all crises. If experts can't quickly and efficiently handle questions from non-experts in a public forum, are they really experts?
The answer is yes, but it does mean that their communications credibility is called into question. The echo chamber amplification phenomenon of the internet does exist in academia and peer review models across all verticals. GREAT and CREDIBLE leaders seek out dissenting views, listen to minority reports, and then decide accordingly.
Sometimes the majority wins, and sometimes the dissenters hold the day.
Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong.
The more we are right... the more credibility we have. Period.
“Each of us has the right and the responsibility to assess the roads which lie ahead, and those over which we have traveled, and if the future road looms ominous or unpromising, and the roads back uninviting, then we need to gather our resolve and, carrying only the necessary baggage, step off that road into another direction. If the new choice is also unpalatable, without embarrassment, we must be ready to change that as well.” ― Maya Angelou, Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now
Intersection of principles and practices...