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