Crisis Leadership

I try hard to keep my weekly leadership musings apolitical and for good reason. In today’s supercharged and overheated discourse even a hint at staking out a position offers one’s opponent (however defined) a chance to slice and dice with the fervor of a culinary expert on Iron Chef America. Thus my abstention from wading into the political muck. However, I’m not adverse to a comment or two about leading in a crisis, especially since our nation’s current debt ceiling negotiations seem largely absent of this vital skill set.

What do you admire most in a leader when the “chips are down” and the organization is on the brink or already sliding over the precipice? I posed this question to my Twitter followers and have incorporated some of their responses in what follows. Modesty and humility are at the top of my list. A leader who acknowledges reality—however painful and uncertain—without making the situation about himself, invites others to become engaged. Instead of assessing blame or arrogantly dismissing any responsibility, an humble leader, through words and actions, shows how much she genuinely cares.

Another key crisis leadership quality is resolute seriousness. No one appreciates a leader whose only response is rhetoric; whose best plan for moving forward is based on scaring employees or intimidating vendors and customers. Some leaders view a crisis as their opportunity to criticize opponents and belittle any ideas emerging from the frontline employees. This behavior comes across as childish at best with no chance for building any lasting respect. Instead leaders should gather information from all sources, make quick decisions based on what is learned, and communicate clearly (even over-communicate) with all stakeholders, including the media.

Leading in a crisis also requires more than a willingness to compromise. While finding middle ground may offer short-term solutions it rarely results in lasting innovation or true change. That’s because compromise assumes that each party leaves some of what they desire off the table. Collaboration is a better approach because it is based on everyone seeking the best solution, not the only one you are willing to accept at the moment. A collaborative process means leaders, employees, customers, and vendors might all have a say in how the crisis is addressed and what is needed to prevent a future one. Sadly, this tactic is rarely employed because it requires moving beyond one’s stated position and finding creative alternatives that enable real transformation. A crisis is often precipitated by not wanting to change the status quo.

However you view the current political posturing one thing seems obvious, some of our nation’s leaders lack these essential qualities and attributes. Lest you eagerly point a finger at their inadequacies, consider how you might handle some future crisis in your organization or reflect on your performance in a previous crisis situation. I doubt if any of us can say with certainty that we have behaved admirably under similar circumstances.

A crisis calls for more than speeches and platitudes from its leaders. It should summon better behavior than cleverly diverting attention or scornfully lecturing an opponent. The modest, humble, resolute, and collaborative leaders don’t need public accolades or media spotlights to inspire action. In fact they are probably working quietly behind the scenes to solve the problems. But they are leaders nonetheless and in a crisis all the rest seem losers at best.