Leadership Theory

Literature on leadership and management in crisis for nonprofit organizations centers on the question of how people and organizations lead (or simply move) through crises

the evolution of leadership theory

Earlier scholarship focuses on personal characteristics of leaders (i.e., Trait Theories) where leaders possess some underlying personality traits that allow them to stand out.

Scholarship then shifts focus to the interaction between leaders with followers with situational context (Contingent/Situational Leadership) and then more specifically to the interaction between leaders with followers given a situational context (Authentic Leadership).

  • Core tenant: leaders possess specific underlying personality traits that allow them to stand out and take on leadership roles. For example:

    • intelligence

    • motivation

    • charisma

    • communication skills

    • self confidence

    • physical appearance

    This scholarship has been highly criticized as inconsistent (Barling et al ___)

  • Shifts the focus to the interaction of leaders and followers with situational context.

    In this method, the success of a leader depends on 3 situation contingencies:

    1. Leader-member relations: leaders who get along with subordinates are more successful

    2. Task structure: when tasks are structured, leaders benefit because they don’t have to spend time clarifying

    3. Position power/formal authority: people are more likely to follow leaders with real power/authority

  • Proposed Paul Hersey in 1969, Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) builds on contingent leadership theory and further shifts the focus from historical context to relationship context (i.e., what’s happening between leaders and followers).

    Hersey proposes the idea that people can lead better when there’s structure (so they aren’t reinventing the wheel all the time) in addition to when theres a positive support network to help make decisions (no man is an island idea).

    For this method, different leadership styles are employed in different situations.

    • Telling: the leader gives commands and sets hierarchies

    • Selling: the leader serves as a coach to get a group up to speed

    • Participating: the leader serves as a motivator for a group that’s competent but stuck somehow

    • Delegating: the leader serves in a monitoring role

  • Proposed by Avolio and his colleagues in 2004:

    Authentic leaders are simultaneously aware of their thoughts and the thoughts of others. This theory acknowledges that there are qualities and traits a leader can possess to be more successful, but posits that leadership is about the dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, taking into account the prior, current, and emerging context.

Bass’s (1985) full range of leadership model

Bass categorized leaders into three types: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire.

These three types form a continuum, with transformational leaders being the most active and effective and laissez-faire being the least.

  • These leaders inspire followers with a common vision, which then gives a conceptual map of where the organization is headed. They act as change drivers, actively building a culture of continuous change and growth.

    It’s all about rallying behind a common purpose: for this type, leaders are invested in the transformation of both the organization and the people within it so they influence their followers to transcend their own self interests for the good of the group by raising their commitment to the importance of the organization’s vision.

  • According to Bass, transactional leaders work within the existing system instead of trying to change it.

    In this type, the exchange between the leader and follower serves as the means of enacting change. There are clear expectations and goals and leaders incentivize followers with rewards when their expectations are met.

  • Also referred to as passive-avoidant leaders, these leaders essentially avoid leadership any traditional leadership responsibility; nothing is transacted or made clear between the leader and follower. They delay decisions, give no feedback, and make little effort to help their followers grow.

Transformative leaders soon become one of the most discussed types in relation to nonprofits and crisis management.

    • Avolio, Bruce J., et al. “Unlocking the Mask: a Look at the Process by Which Authentic Leaders Impact Follower Attitudes and Behaviors.” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 6, 2004, pp. 801–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003.

    • Lutz Allen, Stephanie, et al. “Leadership Style in Relation to Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: Perceptions from Nonprofit Organizational Members: Leadership Style in Relation to Organizational Change.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, vol. 24, no. 1, 2013, pp. 23–42,

    • Northouse, Peter G. Leadership : Theory and Practice. Ninth edition., SAGE Publications, Inc., 2022.

    • OKE, ADEGOKE, et al. “The Influence of Leadership on Innovation Processes and Activities.” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 38, no. 1, 2009, pp. 64–72,

okay, we got through the basics. Now to the real question:

how do leadership styles affect nonprofit crisis management?

Nonprofit leaders must consider their organization’s unique stakeholders during crisis (Gilstrap et al., 2015).

most scholars agree that:

Nonprofits are different from for profits because they are owned by a community and beholden to a social value (Osula & Ng, 2014).

Nonprofits are under pressure to be transparent and accountable, therefore considering public perception is paramount (Heide & Simonsson, 2019).

An organization’s readiness for change affects how it will respond to crisis (Lutz et al., 2013).

These scholars look at transformative models for nonprofit leadership that promote extending the construct of nonprofit leadership to accomodate collaborative and transformational themes and build resiliency.

Crisis leadership research thus boils down to two primary fields: crisis management and crisis communication.

Gilstrap et al., (2015) argue there’s a sweet spot if leaders work between the two fields via sensegiving.

the Crisis Sensemaking Framework

The sensemaking framework explains how organizational members come to understand their enacted realities as impacted by crises and subsequent organizational narratives.

Sensegiving describes the process leaders use to help the entire organization interpret a situation. In this process, leaders ‘make sense’ of the situation and share that with followers.

Gilstrap et al’s 2015 study examined how 43 nonprofit leaders make sense of organizational crisis.

They find that successful leaders deploy knowledge of logistics, organizational data, and previous plans to diagnose and understand crisis.

Gilstrap et al. (2015), find 6 characteristics of effective crisis leadership:

  1. Being a team player (i.e., they don’t put themselves first)

  2. Being strategic (especially in communication)

  3. Being transparent with all stakeholders and address stakeholder needs

  4. Being quick to respond (both when communicating and in making decisions)

  5. Being self-composed (i.e., patient and level-headed)

  6. Being prepared for crisis (if possible)

  • Weick conducted a number of studies in the 1980s and 1990a on how we make sense and understanding in crisis situations and the significance that this sensemaking holds for our behavior.

    Weick also distinguishes crisis anticipation (preparations before a crisis breaks) from resilience (an organization’s learning and recovering capabilities after crisis).

  • Crisis leaders should be able to:

    • Detect normal, abnormal, or disaster contexts

    • Recognize the crisis cycle

    • Help an organization manage risks

    • Respond to difficulty with the right set of tools

  • Situation Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)

    Stresses the importance of understanding how stakeholders will respond to crisis and how media effects organizations through stakeholders.

    It’s agreed that crisis affects reputation; that’s unavoidable. It’s also important to note that crises inherently stop organizations from meeting expectations in some way (causing problems for stakeholders). Therefore, crises effect both reputation and stakeholders directly.

  • Their study finds that acts of leader sensegiving include diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frameworks to promote crisis awareness and prioritize organizational needs.

  • Found that when the right people with the right skills align with crisis situations, organizations are better positioned for success (looking back to situational leadership theories).

    • Abdalla, M.; Alarabi, L.; Hendawie, A. Crisis Management Art from the Risks to the Control: A Review of Methods and Directions. Information 2021,12,18. https:// doi.org/10.3390/info12010018

    • Coombs, W. Timothy. Ongoing Crisis Communication : Planning, Managing, and Responding. Fifth Edition., SAGE Publications, Inc., 2019.

    • Chikoto, Grace L., et al. “Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness: Comparison of Nonprofit, Public, and Private Organizations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 2013, pp. 391–410, https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012452042.

    • Foldy, Erica Gabrielle, et al. “Sensegiving and the Role of Cognitive Shifts in the Work of Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 5, 2008, pp. 514–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.004.

    • Gilstrap, Curt A., et al. “Sensegiving, Leadership, and Nonprofit Crises: How Nonprofit Leaders Make and Give Sense to Organizational Crisis.” Voluntas (Manchester, England), vol. 27, no. 6, 2016, pp. 2787–806, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9648-1.

    • Heide, Mats, and Charlotte Simonsson. Internal Crisis Communication : Crisis Awareness, Leadership and Coworkership. Routledge, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429425042.

    • Lutz Allen, Stephanie, et al. “Leadership Style in Relation to Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: Perceptions from Nonprofit Organizational Members: Leadership Style in Relation to Organizational Change.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, vol. 24, no. 1, 2013, pp. 23–42, https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21078.

    • Smits, Stanley J., and Niveen Ezzat Ally. “‘THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE’ - LEADERSHIP’S ROLE IN CREATING BEHAVIORAL READINESS FOR CRISIS MANAGEMENT.” Competitiveness Review, vol. 13, no. 1, 2003, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1108/eb046448.

    • Osula, Bramwell, and Eddie C. W. Ng. “Toward a Collaborative, Transformative Model of Non-Profit Leadership: Some Conceptual Building Blocks.” Administrative Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, 2014, pp. 87–104, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci4020087.

    • Seeger, Matthew W. “Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process.” JOURNAL OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, vol. 34, no. 3, 2006, pp. 232–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880600769944.

    • 15. Thach, Elizabeth, and Karen J. Thompson. “Trading Places Examining Leadership Competencies Between for-Profit Vs. Public and Non-Profit Leaders.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, 2007, pp. 356–75, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710752229.

    • Weick, Karl E. “ENACTED SENSEMAKING IN CRISIS SITUATIONS.” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 25, no. 4, 1988, pp. 305–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x.

This framework builds on the following literature:

moreover, they find that effective nonprofit leaders:

  1. Recognize the potential size and timing issues that crises have on their organizations

  2. Seek to frame crisis events as normal or solvable episodes

  3. Link organizational concepts of consistency and calmness with technical knowledge, relationships, and culture

  4. Highlight organizational learning and implement prevention training once they’re through the initial crisis

but what about boards?

In 2020, McMullin and Raggo posited that organizations with governance configurations that are more suited to predictable environments (i.e., more rigid) will experience greater shifts when faced with crisis (in this study, the pandemic).

Their study ultimately argues that boards and their governance practices need to be agile and active so they can respond when crisis can’t be predicted. They then suggest that boards need to take an approach that considers fundamental contingencies (such as ideology, strategy, organization age, leadership, etc.) to make sense of a situation and determine action in crisis.

When considered in terms of all the scholarship that points to public perception as paramount (thus highlighting community as a key stakeholder), this study shows how nonprofit crisis leadership is actually enacted through a complex network of staff, board, and community stakeholders.

which brings us to

coworkership & collaborative leadership theories

Framing note: coworkership acknowledges that crisis is not necessarily a sudden & completely unplanned situation; it’s often the result of one or many small deviations from the norm and thus an indication of a collapsing system (Roux-Dufort, 2007).

Heide and Simonsson (2019) highlight coworkership as a key to navigating crises. In this model, staff (coworkers) are the key to successfully navigating crisis because they:

  • Constantly receive real time feedback from constituents (serving as organizational detectives)

  • Are often the first to notice weak spots in organizational preparedness

  • Deliver messages directly to the public just as much (if not more) than leadership via programs, thus affecting external perception of any crisis.

  • Are often the ones most affected by a crisis (with threats of job loss, salary cuts, and as frontline customer service workers)

  • Can provide valuable feedback to learn from after the crisis

Collaborative Leadership: a group of people working together toward a shared goal.

Using this frameworks, Caulfield and Brenner (2020) identify 4 streams to enact change:

  1. A shared leadership team that focuses on the collaboration of a diverse group across system boundaries to resolve complex public problems for the common good

  2. Pooling leadership in “executive constellations” to assume responsibilities for teams across various community networks

  3. Spreading leadership across all organizational levels over time

  4. Producing leadership through social interaction and participation (instead of absolute control/authority)

Proponents of collaborative leadership argue that the most resilient organizations use an approach that pulls in multiple points of view to ensure the best outcomes, not only for the organization, but for their team and community members.

    • Christianson, Marlys K., et al. “Becoming a High Reliability Organization.” Critical Care (London, England), vol. 15, no. 6, 2011, pp. 314–314, https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10360.

    • Heide, Mats, and Charlotte Simonsson. Internal Crisis Communication : Crisis Awareness, Leadership and Coworkership. Routledge, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429425042.

    • 8McMullin, Caitlin, and Paloma Raggo. “Leadership and Governance in Times of Crisis: A Balancing Act for Nonprofit Boards.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1182–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020964582.

    • Osula, Bramwell, and Eddie C. W. Ng. “Toward a Collaborative, Transformative Model of Non-Profit Leadership: Some Conceptual Building Blocks.” Administrative Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, 2014, pp. 87–104, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci4020087.

    • Roux-Dufort, Christophe. “Is Crisis Management (Only) a Management of Exceptions?” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 15, no. 2, 2007, pp. 105–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00507.x.

    • Weick, Karl E. “ENACTED SENSEMAKING IN CRISIS SITUATIONS.” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 25, no. 4, 1988, pp. 305–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x.

tenants of collaborative leadership:

curiosity

Questioning ideas and methods helps encourage and provide innovative solutions for any new challenges.

open-mindedness

This will help ensure that solutions, which may have previously never been considered, are not overlooked.

respect

Respecting all levels of the community helps encourage both curiosity and open-mindedness.

empower others

Encourage everyone to take initiative; one person can’t be and see all things.

know when to step back

Ego is not your friend when in a crisis and it’s imperative to understand when someone else is better suited for a particular task.