The practices of good leadership in a crisis are no different from normal times. The only differences are the stakes and the circumstances of the moment. A good leader under normal circumstances must understand the needs and functionalities of the group, how the leader’s behavior affects the group, and how to help the group achieve its goals, all while being ethical and moral in choice and behavior. Unfortunately, a crisis tends to make gathering information challenging and making the right decision difficult. Often, the leader’s understanding of what the group needs and how to support individuals and teams lacks the clarity that a predictable moment provides. So, while the practices remain the same, the leader and the team face greater risk while having significantly less clarity in the highly adaptive, to reference Ron Heifetz, environment. The leader and team can solve the problems, but the path is less clear and the potential pot holes significantly bigger.
The potholes come in a wide range of varieties and natures. Because of the shape of these potholes, a misstep that finds the group bouncing through one of these hazards can have an amplified impact. For example, the leader misreading the needs of the team around something small in normal circumstances – forgetting to relay a minor but important detail, for example – can have wide ranging impact on the ability of the leader to garner the trust of the team, to reduce the fear in the community, and to help the group successfully navigate the crisis. As the group looks to find the best path, the leader and the team lack all of the information or expertise they would like to have to make decisions that will help lead the team to success. The group is researching in real time, analyzing the data, and learning new skills, all in a high-stakes environment. The leader is ultimately trying to do the right thing at the right moment in the right way with the right people who are knowledgeable in what is happening and their role in it while everyone else is aware enough to continue to trust the system is functioning well.
Given that, let’s consider the elements of leading in a crisis. An organization aptly led in advance of the crisis should have an advantage in making it through the crisis. Effective organizations have a reservoir of trust. Everyone in the organization understands and is committed to the shared mission and trusts that others in the organization are similarly focused. The leader is central to building that reservoir of trust, helping each individual and the group as a whole work together to implement the mission and effectively solve problems that comprise the path to realizing the mission. The group needs to have systems in place for communication, problem solving, sharing meaningful feedback, and collaboration. With trust and sound systems established, the organization is in a position to better deal with the ambiguity and frustration that a crisis offers.
A crisis, by definition being something that could not be foreseen or accurately predicted, arises and the leader and the group find themselves in the midst of this mayhem. The members of the group face the constant tension of wanting leaders to provide security while also pushing back against the course of actions suggested by the leader. Simon Sinek notes, trust and cooperation are central to success in this moment. How does the leader engender the necessary trust that results in the willingness of the group to believe that the leader is doing their best to keep people safe while also trusting the proscribed course of action? Unfortunately, there is not a formulaic answer to this question, but there are a number of behaviors that usually can be helpful at moments like these. First, the leader needs to be continually open to feedback and to treat that feedback with the respect and thoughtfulness it deserves. Second, with the feedback in hand, the leader needs to figure out what to communicate back to the group to help them feel both a level of security and a commitment to the vision and plan for navigating the crisis. Third, the leader needs to be fully present, available at that moment when the team needs whatever it is that the moment requires. Finally, the leader needs to have a careful balance of humility and confidence that ultimately provides a level of security for the group while also helping each group member know that their perspective is critical and that each person will likely make some mistakes in navigating this crisis.
The leader needs to certainly keep the health – mental and physical – of the team in mind as they find their way forward. Lisa D’Amour offers a couple of key concepts that can be helpful for leaders and the group. First, anxiety is a natural response to a crisis. A crisis also lends itself to irrational anxiety, which is overestimating the risk while underestimating abilities to navigate it. A leader can push against this debilitating reality by helping the team members see the capacity they have and know they have the support to navigate the crisis. Helping to modulate the moment – more difficult in a crisis than under normal circumstances – requires that the leader know when anxiety has exceeded the bounds of reason and help the group members find the reasoned level of concern. Similarly, Dr. D’Amour offers a helpful definition of what constitutes mental health. Namely, mental health is having the right feeling at the right time and the ability to weather it. Mental health is not uninterrupted happiness, which is contrary to what many think.
We are all awaiting the day when this crisis will pass. While surviving the crisis is certainly acceptable, we all have an opportunity to navigate this moment so as to create a better world in the wake of this moment. Choosing to see things as challenges as opposed to threats can help us each find the fortitude necessary to see how some of the practices of the past need to be swept away to make way for a better and more functional organization and world. Jim Collins’s Stockdale Paradox describes this as, “an unwavering faith that you will prevail in the end and, at the same time, the discipline to confront the brutal facts.” Leaders, under normal circumstances, try to help a group navigate from their current spot – good enough – to a new one – great. In non-crisis moments, leaders attempt to convince people to be resilient when they don’t necessarily have to be. In a crisis, leaders need people to be resilient and the group members don’t have a choice. A leader who sees this as a challenge, rather than a threat, is well positioned and positions the group well for not only surviving the crisis, but creating a better and more functional community when stability returns.
—
Jeremy LaCasse is currently Assistant Head of School at the Taft School. LaCasse held the Shotwell Chair for Leadership and Character Development at Berkshire School. He also directed the Ritt Kellogg Mountain Program; served as Dean of the sixth and fourth forms; taught European history and Medieval history; and coached the ski and crew programs. Following his time at Berkshire, he served as the Dean of Students at Fountain Valley School of Colorado, and following FVS, he was the Head of senior school at Shady Side Academy in Pittsburgh, PA; the Head of Kents Hill School in Kents Hill, ME; and the Assistant Head of School at Cheshire Academy, in Cheshire, CT. He graduated with a B.A. in History from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine and earned an M.A. in private school leadership from the Klingenstein Center, Teachers College at Columbia University.