All organizational leadership can be categorized into two distinct approaches: strategic and spiritual/emotional/psychological (Hutson & Johnson, 2016 and Kapucu & Van Wart, 2008, as cited in DeMartino & Weiser, 2021). In order to place the work of participants into the context of their efforts to manage their respective organizations, the following review presents an overview of current scholarship addressing these two approaches to crisis management.
Strategic Leadership
Strategic leadership is central to the work of senior level school leaders, just as it is for leaders in all professional sectors (Chan, 2018; Cheng, 2010; Davies & Davies, 2006; Davies & Davies, 2012; Eacott, 2010a; Eacott, 2011; as cited in Carvalho et al., 2021). Eacott (2006, as cited in Carvalho et al., 2021) posits that strategic leadership is the “strategies and behaviors relating to the initiation, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of strategic actions within an educational institution, taking into consideration the unique context (past, present, and future) and availability of resources, physical, financial and human” (p. 1). The key elements of strategic leadership include (a) acting in a proactive way to address and resolve contextual changes, (b) taking the lead on organizational analysis and responses to contextual changes, (c) assuming the lead role in planning and action-implementation for improvement during change, and (d) leading observation and evaluation processes to inform decision-making going forward (Cheng, 2010, as cited in Carvalho et al., 2021). The demands of strategic leadership illustrate the magnitude of its inherent complexity and must acknowledge “historical, economic, technological, cultural, social, political influences and challenges” (Eacott, 2011, as cited in Carvalho et al., 2021, p. 2). Each of these constructs were influential in the participants’ experiences and are consistently present in their respective testimonies.
A priority of effective strategic leadership before, during, and after a crisis is communication (Urick et al., 2021). Leaders, regardless of industry sector, are tasked with the responsibility of consistently communicating with stakeholders at all stages of a crisis to control the organizational message, mitigate confusion, demonstrate engagement, and create open lines for feedback, especially on sensitive matters (Boin et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2017, Lerbinger, 1997; Lucero et al., 2009, as cited in Urick et al., 2021). However, effective communicators during the routine of their daily operations may not effectively exercise this quality during times of crisis (Muffett-Willett & Kruse, 2009) due to the constantly evolving nature of their role(s) during these events. Organizations, including schools, benefit from flexible and adaptive leadership. A leader’s ability to prioritize personal safety, manage psychological stress, maintain organizational and emotional stability, and work laterally with other community members and organizations is critical (Demiroz & Kapucu, 2012; Dückers et al., 2017; Marcus et al., 2006, as cited in Ulrick et al., 2021). The participants reflected on their capacity to effectively manage these needs to varying degrees. Their stories illuminate various aspects of the role strategic leadership plays in the processes used to guide their respective organizations and is vital to scholarship on leadership and to supporting practice in the field.