250 word minimum

 

 1.  Describe Crisis Leadership as discussed in the article. In your own words, what are the major factors in crisis leadership?

 2.  Describe some key models of training. Which do you think is most effective?

***view attachment***

Stacy L. Muffett-Willett is an associate profes-
sor of emergency management at the University
of Akron. Her background is in environmental
health and safety, technical education and
public administration. She is currently complet-
ing her doctoral work on educational leadership.
Willett has published research in several areas
including the response to Flight 93, and the
Alrosa nightclub shooting. She is a certified
hazardous materials technician for weapons of
mass destruction, and was an environmental
health and safety (EHS) as well as an Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (ISO)
manager prior to joining academia.

Sharon D. Kruse is a professor in the
Department of Educational Foundations and
Leadership at the University of Akron. A national
expert on organisational change, Kruse primarily
works with school district reform efforts. Her
recent publications include ‘Decision Making for
Educational Leaders: Under-Examined Dimen-
sions and Issues’ (with Bob Johnson Jr., SUNY
Press) and ‘Building Strong School Cultures:
A Leader’s Guide to Change’ (with Karen
Seashore Louis; Corwin Publishing).

ABSTRACT
It is one thing to be a good leader, it is entirely
another to be a good crisis leader. Crisis leaders
face challenges distinctly different from normal
operations. Crisis management requires leaders
to employ knowledge and skills beyond those

required for day-to-day work. As crisis is not
a regular part of most work environments,
facing crisis situations requires leaders to be well
prepared for the unknown. This paper suggests
that high-quality crisis leadership relies on the
application of core leadership skills, targeted
training for the unfamiliar and responsiveness
when a crisis occurs.

Keywords: crisis, leadership, training
transfer, disaster exercise, emergency
management

INTRODUCTION
Through most of the 20th century,
analyses of leadership suggested that
leaders were responsible for ensuring
that the business of an organisation
was protected from disruption. Even
now, most examinations of organisational
leadership focus on what happens inside
any business or governmental agency.
Measures of successful leadership include
turning a profit, increasing awareness or
assuring for smooth operations in times of
uncertainty and strife.

Yet, when faced with preparing for
crisis situations, most organisational
leaders look outside the organisation for
guidance and training. The practice of
looking externally for education and
training is assumed to provide leaders
access to best practices, ensuring that

Crisis leadership: Past research and
future directions

Stacy L. Muffet-Willett and Sharon D. Kruse
Received (in revised form): 29th December, 2008
The University of Akron Department of Public Service Technology, Polsky Building
161 Akron, OH 44325-4304, USA
Tel: �1 330 972 8317; E-mail: smuffet@uakron.edu

Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning Volume 3 Number 3

Page 248

Journal of Business Continuity &
Emergency Planning
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 248–258
� Henry Stewart Publications,
1749-9216

focused on developing an understanding
of how tasks were assigned to workers and
the ways in which rewards were presented
or sanctions were applied. The idea
behind these studies was to identify how
effective leaders were able to motivate
followers to do their jobs well and, in
turn, to produce results valued by the
organisation.2

A parallel avenue of research suggested
that transactions had little to do with
long-term organisational success and in-
stead focused on the tasks in which leaders
engaged workers. By focusing on the task,
rather than the leader’s behaviour, it was
thought that insight into workplace suc-
cess could be explained through develop-
ing an understanding of the kinds of tasks
that engaged and motivated workers. Re-
search suggested that tasks that engaged
workers in decision making instead of
repetitive or mundane efforts would be
more motivating in the long run.3

Such efforts became known as trans-
formational leadership. Transformational
leadership emphasised the emotions and
values held by workers. Leaders were
thought to transform organisations by
reforming existing practices from those
that provided direction and reward to
those that encouraged workers to be
engaged with more substantive aspects of
the organisation.

While these theories illustrate the dif-
ferentiating tasks of leaders, they focus
heavily on the actions of the leader them-
selves and, at least in part, rely on the
goodwill of the leader in the work set-
ting. Furthermore, these ideas did not
prove sufficiently robust to describe a
wide variety of work settings. In par-
ticular, they proved inadequate when ap-
plied to settings in which workers hold
considerable power and are relied upon to
carry out decisions such as when a crisis
occurs.

As a result, researchers turned to

when crisis strikes they will be prepared
and the business or agency will emerge
relatively unscathed. However, little is
known about the efficacy of external
training on leadership in crisis situations.
This paper seeks to explore some of these
ideas and offer crisis leaders and trainers in
crisis response practical insights for
creating better crisis leaders.

LEADERSHIP UNCOVERED
The 1940s witnessed the birth of research
into leadership, as it is currently defined.
At that time, researchers were seeking to
identify the physical traits leaders shared.1

Not surprisingly, these studies provided
little in the way of tangible results. As has
been well observed, traits such as height
offer little insight about whether a leader
will be successful. Disheartened that
high-quality leadership could not be
determined by easily identified factors,
researchers then turned to considering
what leaders did in the course of their
workday that inspired and motivated
others.

Specifically, in the new studies of
leadership, researchers wanted to uncover
how leaders worked with others and in
what ways they addressed and completed
their work tasks. By taking into account
the ways in which leaders worked within
an organisation it was hoped that more
might be learned about what leaders did
to attain success. By dividing research
into two areas, the first addressing the
behaviours of leaders and the second
focusing on the specific work tasks in
which leaders engaged, it was hoped to
better understand the complexities of
leadership.

When considering the behaviours
leaders employed in their work, research-
ers focused on the ways in which
transactions were made between leaders
and their subordinates. Attention was

Muffet-Willett and Kruse

Page 249

describing how leadership functions in
situations where individual organisational
members are called upon to act as part of
a team. Known as collaborative leadership,
these theories suggested that, when or-
ganisational members hold commonly
agreed beliefs about how situations might
be approached, they are more likely to
respond in ways that support an or-
ganisation’s values, even in the absence
of direction.4 In short, collaborative
leadership suggests that, as workers are
increasingly engaged in developing or-
ganisational direction and understand the
ways in which their own work supports
those beliefs and values, they are more
likely to respond appropriately in times of
stress or crisis. When collaborative leader-
ship is present, workers understand how
their job function fits into the organisa-
tional system and are more likely to work
towards shared goals.

Collaborative organisations are built
upon several foundational ideas including
trust, shared expertise and clear com-
munication structures.5–7 Trust enables
participants to act together more ef-
fectively and pursue shared objectives.
Shared expertise suggests that all members
of an organisation are equally able to
support each other by providing needed
skills and knowledge as situations arise.
True collaboration emphasises sharing
information and knowledge to establish
cross-functional synergy and create a
culture of contextually rich, trusting
dialogue.8 These deep discussions al-
low the team to develop integrated
joint solutions that lead to mutual ac-
countability for shared decisions and
outcomes.9,10

As the case below illustrates, when crisis
leaders collaborate with others by delegat-
ing tasks and by trusting the expertise of
others, the results can be impressive.

The day before an annual county fair

opened, local residents of a farming
community were busy setting up
displays and getting their animals ready
to show. A main attraction at the fair
had always been the antique steam
engine display. Tradition held that
several community members bring in
their antique farm equipment to the
fairgrounds to show visitors the kinds
of equipment used in the old com-
munity farming days.

As a point of pride, one steam tractor
operator decided to drive his newly
refurbished tractor to the fairgrounds,
rather than bringing it in on a flat bed
truck. The tractor was thought to be
in good working order. Yet, as the
operator backed the tractor in line at
the fairgrounds, it exploded. The ex-
plosion killed five people and injured
47 others. Clearly, the explosion caught
the community by surprise. However,
the event was handled smoothly and
expertly. The reason why is examined
below.

Two months prior to the event,
the county emergency manager had
held a meeting to practise a large
organisational response to a similar dis-
aster. He delegated response activities
to specific people and agencies depend-
ing on their expertise. For example, the
head of the area’s emergency medical
system (EMS) was delegated as the
patient transport officer for the dis-
aster event. Based on these understood
and delegated roles, fairground mem-
bers quickly began to divide into their
crisis management roles after the ex-
plosion. Each identified member took
responsibility for a specific task and
worked under the umbrella of the
emergency management agency. Chaos
quickly became order. In a little over
one hour, every casualty had been
treated and transported to a hospital.
The outcome of the event and suc-

Crisis leadership: Past research and future directions

Page 250

purpose of training is not to develop a
better individual (while that may be a
side-effect), but to increase organisational
efficiency.13 After all, if an organisation is
investing funds in employee train-
ing, organisational benefit is expected.
Moreover, it is expected that training will
be transferred to organisational perfor-
mance in predictable and uniform ways.

Given that the overarching purpose of
training is to improve the organisation, it
is surprising that few organisations track
the effectiveness of the training after it has
been conducted.14 Nor do they explore
the organisational factors that can aug-
ment the transfer of training back into the
organisation.15 Too often, organisations
blindly accept that people emerge ‘better’
from training without testing or inquiring
into the new skill set. Furthermore, it is
assumed that employees and leaders alike
will use the training upon their return to
the workplace.

As the following case illustrates, even
major corporations can find themselves
conducting training that is inconsistent
with overarching organisational goals,
thus wasting time and money.

A major communications corporation
decided to have a crisis-training event
in preparation for a possible global
communications failure on the eve of
the year 2000. The company was
fearful that computers would be unable
to recognise the ‘00’ in the year 2000.
Such a failure could have resulted in a
massive communications system shut-
down endangering security, phone and
internet services. The potential for
crisis weighed heavily. Based on the
possible threat to the communications
system, the company instituted disaster
training in preparation for the event.

After consulting the roster of leaders
in the organisation, key employees
were selected for the training event.

cess of the incident were directly re-
lated to the collaboration demonstrated
by those at the fairgrounds. Decisions
were made, key experts were em-
powered to take appropriate action,
and the community benefited.

Leadership theory continues to evolve. At
this juncture in the research, researchers
are still seeking to understand differences
in how leaders work with others and how
they complete their work. While theories
that posit a ‘great man’ have been largely
discredited, little is understood about how
some people are able to create organisa-
tional success and others fail. Transactional
leadership helps researchers to see that
some leadership behaviours include the
provision of rewards or sanctions.

Transformational leadership helps re-
searchers to understand how leaders can
capitalise on workers’ sense of connection
to the task and the organisation. Transfor-
mational leadership suggests that, by
focusing on organisational goals, leaders
can harness the energies of others in
pursuit of shared goals. By employing
collaborative models of leadership, or-
ganisations can further involve others in
leadership roles. As leadership theory
evolves, one theme is clear — leadership
rests on the expertise and knowledge of
members of the organisation.

TRAINING AND LEADERSHIP
As organisations work to develop
knowledge and expertise among their
members, many invest in employee
training programmes. The expectation is
that employees will emerge from the
training with improved leadership skills
that will, in turn, increase organisational
performance.11 Training is a planned
intervention designed to develop and
enhance the determinants of individual
job performance.12 However, the overall

Muffet-Willett and Kruse

Page 251

The training scenario began and tech-
nical questions were asked of the
participants. Halfway through the train-
ing event, the manager stopped the
training to take a break and introduce
those retiring prior to 2000. Surpris-
ingly, half of the employees involved in
the training were retiring or taking
early retirement to avoid the expected
crisis situation. Even more troubling
was the fact that replacement or
alternate employees were absent from
the training. Given the number of
retirements prior to the expected time
of the crisis, many were relieved that
the crisis never came to fruition.
However, had the team been called
upon to address a Y2K meltdown, the
training would not have been adequate
to address the crisis despite the time
and money invested.

As the above case illustrates, simply provid-
ing training is not enough. Instead, savvy
leaders must both select training that is
appropriate to the organisation and include
workers who are most likely to be affected
by emergency situations in training oppor-
tunities. While this may seem like a daunt-
ing task, there are many ways in which this
charge might be carried out.

KEY MODELS OF TRAINING
Training within any organisation must
include training that imparts current
organisational knowledge and skills for
senior and line managers. However,
training must also allow for new
knowledge and skills to be brought into
the organisation. Effective training,
whether it focuses on developing internal
knowledge or introduces new knowledge
from external sources, must be attentive
to the existing organisation as well as
potential crisis situations that threaten
organisational viability.

In an effort to address their internal
training needs, many organisations have
turned to executive coaching. Executive
coaching typically involves a paid external
consultant to formally ‘coach’ an execu-
tive through decision-making processes.
Executive coaching emphasises ongo-
ing executive development and creates
a safe place to foster and encourage
executives to take risk, develop and
ultimately change their organisational
behaviours.16,17

Executive coaching is done almost en-
tirely in real business time and focuses on
specific, real issues. This means that the
transition from training to the authen-
tic environment is minimised, and there
is a higher likelihood of timely train-
ing application.18 This feature is thought
to assist with the transfer of training
back into the organisation for organisa-
tional benefit. The development of flexi-
bility is yet another positive outcome of
coaching. Coaching can help managers
change and adapt more rapidly and ex-
plore a wide variety of approaches to a
problem when confronted with changing
circumstances.19

Executive coaching differs from formal
mentoring programmes. Mentoring pro-
grammes rely on the organisational
knowledge and skills of seasoned
employees to help less experienced
employees become more proficient at
their job. The mentor usually teaches the
protégé the organisational ropes.20 The
mentor is usually at a higher organisa-
tional level than the protégé. In the best
situations, mentoring happens organically,
where a veteran leader befriends a new
leader and shares the organisation’s ‘ways
of doing things’ as well as offering support
for new learning.

When a mentoring relationship is suc-
cessful, both people benefit from the
relationship. Mentoring, like coaching, is
reliant on organisational context. Men-

Crisis leadership: Past research and future directions

Page 252

cost-effectiveness, convenience and prac-
tice; one of the most useful features is
feedback. Trainees usually receive im-
mediate feedback on the consequences
of their decisions. With constant and
timely feedback, trainees can assess the
immediate consequences of their decisions
and adapt immediately to change the
impact of their decisions.

Training exercises represent another
tool that utilises simulations or scenarios.
Useful at all levels of the organisation,
these exercises combine the use of
scenarios with interpersonal communica-
tion, cognitive and decision-making skills.
For example, an exercise-training scenario
at the Ford Corporation might involve a
plant fire in the castings building, a train
derailment on their supply line or another
event with the potential to affect produc-
tion. Participants can be assigned to
different tasks and responsibilities based on
their roles within the company. Personnel
can then coordinate and execute tasks as
the situation unfolds.25 A well-written
scenario should push the decision-making
abilities of those involved and also assist in
exposing deficiencies in capability, policy
or procedure.

Despite the usefulness of these train-
ing methods, there are some drawbacks
as well. When training to a scenario or
with a computerised simulation model,
damage statistics, costs and other simu-
lated information can be severely underes-
timated. It is also important to remember
these scenarios and simulations are deci-
sion-making tools and cannot provide the
same experiences that will happen during
authentic events.26 As the following case
illustrates, when crisis trainings are con-
ducted with a sense of realism and stress, the
individuals involved can develop a sense of
what a real crisis environment entails.

Bellaville, a small midwestern city, was
just beginning its disaster preparedness

tors and coaches can only work with
new employees on organisational issues
as they arise. In this way, they may
learn the day-to-day job requirements
but be poorly prepared for less frequent
events.

Executive coaching and mentoring are
the kinds of training that focus on
developing the skills of individuals and
usually focus on the transfer of existing
organisational knowledge. At times, how-
ever, every organisation needs to in-
troduce new ways of thinking and
functioning. Computer-based training and
simulations have been designed to support
learning in an economically-friendly en-
vironment while introducing complex
problems for analysis.21 Crichton and
Flin22 suggest computer-based and simula-
tion training may be used to improve
teamwork skills such as decision making,
situation awareness, leadership and coor-
dination. This method of training allows
participants to fine-tune these skills and
make decisions in a non-threatening
learning environment.

Computer-based training and simula-
tions can be used to assess training needs,
success of prior training, or the usefulness
of a manager’s model for decision making
in a particular situation. These methods
can act as a substitute for actual ex-
perience by using a set of scenarios
ranging in complexity and technicalities.23

They are also a useful resource as
a job performance predictor in terms
of benchmarking the trainee against
predetermined decisions and critical job
tasks.24 For example, if an organisation
was hiring for a certain position, it could
have the interviewee complete a com-
petency-based computer simulation to
evaluate how his or her organisational
decisions align with company goals and
strategies.

While the benefits of computer-based
training and simulation are evident in

Muffet-Willett and Kruse

Page 253

efforts. As part of this process, an
incident was developed for training.
The incident called for crisis response
teams to respond to a severe weather
system that had moved into the
Bellaville area. The scenario described
destruction to the downtown corridor.
Included were potential injuries to
students from a local elementary school
as well as tornado damage to the city’s
only hospital.

The scenario called for the fire chief
to become the incident commander.
Although the chief had previous crisis
experience, he had not yet participated
in the disaster training process. As the
incident unfolded, pertinent informa-
tion was relayed to the fire chief. The
data included a reported 23 students
injured in the school, three dead,
and an undetermined number who
remained trapped under debris. Fur-
thermore, the scenario suggested that
the hospital’s entire emergency room
was damaged so victims had to be
transported elsewhere for care.

As the training exercise unfolded, the
fire chief became visibly frustrated and
stressed. Although vital decisions were
needed from him, he began losing his
calm and making decisions without
taking into account the advice being
given to him by the team. The team
eventually became weary of operating
under the leadership of a commander
who was obviously ignoring them, and
decided to stop communicating infor-
mation to him.

At this juncture, the drill was paused
and the chief was reminded that he was
engaged in a training situation and that
the goal of the exercise was to prac-
tise necessary skills in the event a
real disaster might occur. When the
scenario was begun anew, the pace of
the incident was slowed and the chief
was mentored through the rest of the

situation. The chief learned a vital
lesson that day.

Prior to his involvement with the
training scenario, he thought he was
adequately prepared to handle a large
disaster event. As he became over-
whelmed by the stress and pressure,
however, he realised that he had ig-
nored vital information and defaulted
to autocratic decision making. In the
debriefing, he reflected upon his in-
ability to focus and listen to others
when making important crisis deci-
sions. As a result of the incident, he
reported feeling more confident that
should a real disaster occur he would
be better prepared. Furthermore, the
value of training became clear to the
new chief and he was quick to engage
in other scenarios as they were of-
fered.

As the above case highlights, it is
better to determine the skill level of
those involved in critical decision-making
processes before an actual event happens.
When disaster training is complex and
involves real stress and pressure, true
decision-making and leadership abilities
can come to light. While the fire chief
was capable of managing small emergency
events, he was not prepared to handle the
complexity of a large-scale incident.
When organisations take the time to
identify weaknesses through training, the
individual’s skills can be improved. It is
better to discover weaknesses during
training and simulation than in reality.

CRISIS LEADERSHIP
Given the disruption that crisis situations
cause to an organisation, concern for
capable leadership is well justified. In times
of crisis, leadership becomes an integral
cog of a successful organisational crisis
outcome. Strong effective leadership is

Crisis leadership: Past research and future directions

Page 254

As the following case study exemplifies,
decisions made under complex and stress-
ful contexts can have far-reaching or-
ganisational repercussions if detail and care
are not taken.

At 2.30am, a corporate emergency
manager was abruptly awakened by an
emergency call. An employee had been
involved in an accident, struck by a
drunk driver. The drunk driver had
rammed the back of the worker’s
vehicle, knocking it into a manhole pit
where two other employees were
working. Fortunately, the employees
had operated to safety code and
followed the standard procedures for
work area protection. Their manhole
ladder had held the vehicle up out of
the manhole so they could escape.

The emergency manager arrived at
the scene with two major concerns:
the safety of the employees and
whether they had followed proper
safety protocol. Once the emergency
manager substantiated the employees
were uninjured, he concentrated on
protecting his employees and or-
ganisation from a possible lawsuit.
He immediately began to ask ques-
tions about the incident. While he

imperative to organisational survival.27,28

However, organisational leaders adept at
handling day-to-day issues may not neces-
sarily prove to be as qualified and prepared
to manage crisis situations.

As depicted in Figure 1, crisis situa-
tions differ from normal organisational
operations in several ways. Unlike normal
conditions of organisational leadership, al-
though rare, crisis events can threaten the
viability of the organisation.29–32 The non-
routine nature of decision making within
crisis events can stress even the most
seasoned leader.

Furthermore, traditional leadership
theories have ignored environmental and
situational conditions. The assumption
was that good leadership transcended
context. The ability of a leader to adapt
to a changing and complex environment
is a key foundation of crisis leadership. All
too common are crisis leaders that
foreclose on options, cutting off or
ignoring points of information when
making vital decisions.33 This is
undesirable, especially as crisis decision
making requires an ability to think
quickly and rationally, and to act.34 The
consequence of muddled thinking or
ignoring key situational factors can result
in disaster.

Figure 1 Crisis
leadership
continuum

Muffet-Willett and Kruse

Page 255

Crisis situationsNormal
situations

Flexibility in
decision making

Decisions made
under close scrutiny

Increased levels of
stress

Protocols not
established

Understood
consequence and
action (follow
established
protocols)

Severe threat to
organisational viability

Complex decision
environment

Non-routine decisions

Routine decision
making

Familiar (non-
threatening)
environment

documented all necessary information,
he took pictures of the scene. The
manager was well aware of the impor-
tance of a thorough investigation and
the possible consequences of perform-
ing an inadequate job. If he missed
something, the company could have
faced costly lawsuits and the employees
could have lost their jobs.

Crisis leaders need to be flexible, adaptive
and prepared for tough decision-making
challenges whatever the cause or situa-
tional context. In turn, training models
must include features to ensure that crisis
leaders are well prepared for whatever
situations they encounter. Crisis leaders
should, by the time a real crisis arises, be
ready to meet the challenge and respond
with the same efficiency and care as
the corporate emergency manager in this
scenario did.

TRAINING EFFECTIVE CRISIS
LEADERS
When seeking to create effective crisis
leaders, organisations are best served by
remembering the following key ideas:

• Effective crisis leaders are not made in a
workshop: Leaders cannot expect to send
someone (or to attend) a crisis leader-
ship training or workshop and come out
a fully-prepared crisis leader. Trainees
must be willing and enthusiastic about
selected trainings. Supervisors need to
collaborate with the employee, support
the training and expect training to be
implemented into the organisation. If
the organisation holds no expectation
for the trainee to improve and apply
skills, they are not making the most of
the opportunity and the organisational
status will not change.

• Effective crisis leaders are used to being
pushed: Crisis training and scenarios

need to be realistic. While some may be
resistant to putting decision makers ‘on
the spot’, this is a far better alternative
than watching them fail in a real crisis
situation when the stakes are even
higher. While the individuals involved
in crisis management may need to be
mentored through the decision-making
process early in their careers, they need
to experience and become familiar with
operating under demanding conditions.

• Effective crisis leaders must be immersed in
a wide variety of issues within the com-
pany from an early stage: Those that
experience failure and adversity early in
their careers are more likely to advance
to a higher level of success compared
with those that experience only success.
Crisis leaders need to be challenged
early on to build the stamina to over-
come difficult situations. They need
to be able to push through adversity,
and make decisions under duress while
keeping an eye on organisational goals.
Diversifying the challenges early in a
leader’s career will better prepare the
individual to lead in the shifting en-
vironment of actual crisis.

• Effective crisis leaders listen: They listen
to those involved in the organisation
and in the crisis situation. They value
and take in information from others
involved in the organisation. Careful
listening can help leaders process infor-
mation under stress.

• Effective crisis leaders learn from others: One
does not need to wait for a crisis
situation to amend plans and proce-
dures. Effective crisis leaders are always
thinking and always proactive. While
crisis events are rare in individual or-
ganisations, they happen on a national
and global scale almost daily. Effec-
tive leaders read, study and constantly
amend and improve the workings of
their crisis management system.

• Effective crisis leaders make decisions: When

Crisis leadership: Past research and future directions

Page 256

leadership teams’, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 52,
No. 1, pp. 36–48.

(7) Schrage, ref. 4, above.
(8) Rawlings, ref. 6, above.
(9) Schrage, ref. 4, above.

(10) Rawlings, ref. 6, above.
(11) Saks, A. and Belcourt, M. (2006) ‘An

investigation of training activities and
transfer of training in organizations’,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 45,
No. 4, pp. 629–648.

(12) Goldstein, I. (1980) ‘Training in work
organizations’, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 229–272.

(13) Bedingham, K. (1997) ‘Proving the
effectiveness of training’, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 81–91.

(14) Ibid.
(15) Hughey, A. and Mussnug, K. (1997)

‘Designing effective employee training
programs’, Training for Quality, Vol. 5,
No. 2, pp. 52–57.

(16) Bluckert, P. (2005) ‘Critical factors in
executive coaching — The coaching
relationship’, Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 336–340.

(17) Jones, R., Rafferty, A. and Griffin, M.
(2006) ‘The executive coaching trend:
Towards more flexible executives’,
Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 583–595.

(18) Ibid.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Gibson, J. W., Tesone, D. V. and

Buchalski, R. M. (2000) ‘The leader as
mentor’, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3,
pp. 56–67.

(21) Hasebrook, J. (1999) ‘Web-based
training, performance and controlling’,
Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 51–64.

(22) Crichton, M. and Flin, R. (2001)
‘Training for emergency management:
Tactical decision games’, Journal of
Hazardous Materials, Vol. 88, Nos. 2–3,
pp. 255–266.

(23) Ibid.

everyone else is stepping back and un-
sure of the next move as the crisis is
escalating, effective crisis leaders step
forward. Crisis leaders have the ability
to make a decision on limited infor-
mation and carry it through to the
best of their ability. Competent decision
making in a time of uncertainty is
paramount.

Finally, training leaders to be prepared for
times of crisis is simply good business.
When capable leaders effectively manage
a crisis, the organisation suffers fewer
losses and is better able to bounce back
from difficulty. In the end, organisations
that handle crisis well are healthier than
those that do not. All it takes is a bit of
attention to doing it well.

REFERENCES
(1) Judge, T., Piccolo, R. and Ilies, R.

(2004) ‘The forgotten ones? The
validity of consideration and initiating
structure in leadership research’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 1,
pp. 36–51.

(2) Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D. and
Berson, Y. (2003) ‘Predicting unit
performance by assessing
transformational and transactional
leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 207–218.

(3) Bass, B. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999)
‘Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership behaviour’,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2,
pp. 181–217.

(4) Schrage, M. (1990) ‘Shared Minds: The
New Technologies of Collaboration’,
Random House, New York.

(5) Rosenthal, C. (1998) ‘Determinants of
collaborative leadership: Civic
engagement, gender or organizational
norms?’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol.
51, No. 4, pp. 847–868.

(6) Rawlings, D. (2000) ‘Collaborative

Muffet-Willett and Kruse

Page 257

(24) Yusko, K. P. and Goldstein, H. W.
(1997) ‘Selecting and developing crisis
leaders using competency based
simulations’, Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 216–223.

(25) Haddow, J., Bullock, G. and Coppola,
D. (2008) ‘Introduction to Emergency
Management’, Elsevier Science,
Burlington, MA.

(26) French, S. and Niculae, C. (2005)
‘Believe in the model: Mishandle the
emergency’, Journal of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, Vol. 2, No.
1, pp. 1–18.

(27) Boin, A. and t’ Hart, P. (2003) ‘Public
leadership in times of crisis: Mission
impossible?’, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 544–553.

(28) ‘t Hart, P., Rosenthal, U. and Kouzmin,
A. (1993) ‘Crisis decision making: The
centralization thesis revisited’,
Administration and Society, Vol. 25,
No. 1, pp. 12–45.

(29) Cornell, D. and Sheras, P. (1998)

‘Common errors in school crisis
response: Learning from our mistakes’,
Psychology in Schools, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp. 297–307.

(30) Fink, S. (1986) ‘Crisis Management:
Planning for the Inevitable’, Amacom,
New York.

(31) King, G. (2002) ‘Crisis management
and team effectiveness: A closer
examination’, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 235–249.

(32) Pearson, C. and Clair, J. (1998)
‘Reframing crisis management’, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23,
No. 1, pp. 59–76.

(33) Rosenthal, U. and ‘t Hart, P. (1991)
‘Experts and decision makers in crisis
situations’, Knowledge, Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp. 350–372.

(34) Weisaeth, L., Knudsen Jr., O. and
Tonnessen, A. (2002) ‘Technological
disasters, crisis management and
leadership stress’, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 33–45.

Crisis leadership: Past research and future directions

Page 258