Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

What Kind of Crisis Leader are You?

Karen Linkletter Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

Sep 24, 2022


Thirteen years ago in September, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was a complete shock, as I had no family history of it and was, I thought, perfectly healthy. I was told I would probably not need chemo after my surgery, which took place one month later. After the oncologist obtained more information from the tumor samples, it turned out the cancer was much more aggressive than he originally believed. Chemo was next up. The journey to remission was one such surprise after another; every time I thought we were out of the woods a new complication arose. My strategy for coping was to imagine myself every morning donning a pair of boxing gloves and duking it out with whatever villain cancer threw my way.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, there are countless articles on crisis leadership. Studies point to the importance of resilience in individuals and organizations, the role of communication and information, empathy or compassion as a component – the body of work in this area is enormous. We will likely be thinking and learning about crisis leadership for quite a while in the wake of this once-in-a-generation event. 

I got thinking about this topic of crisis management not because of the pandemic, but because of the realization that there are many different kinds of crises, and also many different possible ways to respond (more than one of which can be effective). The passing of Queen Elizabeth also made me think about the phrase “stiff upper lip,” the stoicism and determination in the face of adversity often attributed to the British. I suppose my psychological boxing match with cancer reflects a similar kind of response; I can also see why such a response seems aloof, callous, and heartless to some. 


What is your personal style of response to a crisis? What is your most natural inclination? Does it transfer from your individual personal life to your style of leadership with others? Is it helpful to have a range of ways to respond to crisis, particularly in the face of different kinds of crises? 

 

Peter Drucker called leadership a “foul-weather job”: 


The most important task of an organization’s leader is to anticipate crisis. Perhaps not to avert it, but to anticipate it. To wait until the crisis hits is already abdication. One has to make the organization capable of anticipating the storm, weathering it, and in fact, being ahead of it. That is called innovation, constant renewal. You cannot prevent a major catastrophe, but you can build an organization that is battle-ready, that has high morale and also has been through a crisis, knows how to behave, trusts itself, and where people trust one another. In military training, the first rule is to instill soldiers with trust in their officers, because without trust they won’t fight” (Drucker, 1990, p. 9). 

 

Drucker uses battle imagery to describe crisis leadership. How do you get people in your organization to be “battle ready”? Make sure that the organization is ahead of the curve to the best of its ability (isn’t blindsided, if possible). The timing and nature of the COVID-19 pandemic could not have been foreseen; however, SARS, MERS, and other virus outbreaks taught us (to some degree) that public health events were possible. But perhaps the most important message Drucker conveys is the importance of trust; people must not only trust leadership, but must also trust one another (and, I would add, themselves). Even in the face of limited information and rapidly changing data and events, a battle-ready organization is willing to fight together because there is trust at all levels. They trust leadership’s integrity, honesty, and capability. They trust each other’s ability, dedication, and perseverance. And, importantly, they trust in their own individual capabilities to execute the work that needs to be done and to be willing to take risks. In other words, we all put on the gloves because we know we did our training and are able to perform to the best of our ability – even in the face of a relatively unknown opponent. 


This sort of military language related to crisis management and leadership can lead to somewhat gendered views of effective reactions to crises. The phrase “Keep calm and carry on” was originally used on a poster to motivate the British at the beginning of the Second World War, but it became associated with Queen Elizabeth as the reigning monarch and symbol of British resiliency. Angela Merkel’s leadership of Germany during the pandemic was widely praised for her clear communication of information and her cautious, unemotional, and analytic tone; one scholarly work notes that Merkel refrained from using war metaphors in her framing of the pandemic. During and after the 2016 presidential campaign, media coverage dissected Hillary Clinton’s lack of emotion or warmth, or any expression of feeling. This focus on women’s emotionality – or lack thereof – may result in the “stiff upper lip” style of crisis management that may appear cold. 


A similar sentiment to this gendered, military style view of crisis management was attributed to President John F. Kennedy’s father, Joseph Kennedy. “When the going gets tough, the tough get going” was a Kennedy family saying used to rally the team in the face of adversity. “Toughness” can be viewed in a number of ways, from physical strength and endurance to emotional resilience. In cultures with a strong Protestant history (Germany, the United States, Great Britain), this association between hard work and morality, virtue, and success is deeply ingrained. Sociologist Max Weber famously wrote on the role of the Protestant work ethic and its impact on the drive for capitalism and economic success. The willingness to subordinate immediate gratification for future rewards in large part fuels “toughness,” particularly in the face of adversity. 


But different kinds of crises warrant different kinds of responses, particularly when they involve leading people.  We have so much new research to digest. The importance of resilience is clear in most research on crisis management. How to implement that in organizations is a challenge, given that some people are more resilient than others. Research in the area of public health is showing us how this might work in organizations, not just during a pandemic. How can we, for example, actually use periods of disruption to encourage new relationships and provide a period of adjustment to extreme change? This would involve breathing room. If the building is on fire, we can’t do this. But if we are trying to grapple with big uncertainty, this might be a wonderful insight.  We are also learning that, while vision is important, the harder, in-the-trenches work of making sense of what is happening in the moment is equally important (“holding” in psychological terms). This does not involve “toughness” or “a stiff upper lip.” It involves explaining and making sense in a way that taps into emotion and uncertainty. Angela Merkel embodied this during the pandemic. 

Psychologist Angela Duckworth’s 2013 book, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, sparked a discussion about the qualities that lead to success. Her experience as a management consultant, educator, and psychology researcher resulted in her conclusion that persistence in the face of adversity, fueled by passion and clear, high-level goals, are the drivers of success. Her primary point is that talent alone does not dictate achievement. The concept of “grit” has taken on social meaning, particularly in America, where the story of achievement through “hard work” and “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” has deep roots. This keys into the cultural ground of “toughness.” Those who have trouble adapting to change, particularly during the pandemic, are sometimes accused of lacking “grit.” 


Finally, there is the literature on empathetic vs. compassionate leadership. In a crisis, it may be a mistake to be empathetic; there is no time to truly feel everyone’s situation and connect. But one can be compassionate. Compassion moves empathy (feeling) to a position of action (helping). 

Each crisis demands an assessment of the leadership style needed. My cancer battle was my own; I just had to lead myself (although many of my friends responded very emotionally, as cancer forces others to think about their own mortality). When I had to deal with a very sick horse in the heat last month, it was a boxing glove moment; the tough get going and get that horse back on its feet, hose it down, get it walking, give it electrolytes, monitor its activity, and stay up long enough to make sure it’s stable. Emotional sensitivity won’t help the horse. But the owner was understandably worried and emotional, and I probably could have done a better job of being compassionate in the moment. After the horse was in the clear, I let myself be empathetic. I apologized to the owner for my “stiff upper lip” boxing glove approach to the situation. She understood, speaking of her mother-in-law talking about “putting on her boxing gloves” when dealing with a difficult situation. 


In a team situation, when the going gets tough, we may need to make room for adjustment and take time. The horse isn’t in distress. The building isn’t on fire. But we need to move smartly and quickly – often with limited information. We may need to exhibit empathy at times, listening closely. Sometimes we need to go to battle, putting on those gloves, or mobilizing for the fight as a team. At other times, we need to regroup, allow emotions to connect us. As Drucker reminds us, the most important component of crisis leadership is trust: in leadership, in each other, and in ourselves. 

 

 

Drucker, Peter F. (1990). Managing the NonProfit Organization. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 

Duckworth, Angela (2016). Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 

Gavin, Matt (2019). “How to Become a more Resilient Leader.” Harvard Business School Online, December 17 https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/resilient-leadership#:~:text=Building%20resilience%20is%20vital%20to,%2C%20peers%2C%20and%20direct%20reports 

Hougaard, Rasmus, Carter, Jacqueline, Afton, Melissa (2021). “Connect with Empathy, but Lead with Compassion.” Harvard Business Review, December 23 https://hbr.org/2021/12/connect-with-empathy-but-lead-with-compassion 

Kneuer, Marianne and Wallaschek, Stefan (2022). “Framing COVID-19: Public Leadership and Crisis Communication By Chancellor Angela Merkel During the Pandemic in 2020.” German Politics, March 10 2022 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644008.2022.2028140 

Petriglieri, Gianpiero (2020). “The Psychology Behind Effective Crisis Leadership.” Harvard Business Review, April 22 https://hbr.org/2020/04/the-psychology-behind-effective-crisis-leadership 

Teo, Winnie L., Lee, Mary, Lim, Wee-Shiong (2017). “The relational activation of resilience model: How leadership activates resilience in an organizational crisis.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Sep. 25 (3), 136-147 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7166971/ 

Weber, Max (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. English Edition (1930), Talcott Parsons and R.H. Tawney, Trans. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 

 

The Specifics of Management of the Knowledge Worker

By Ryan Lee • 07 Nov, 2024
Nowhere is management theory demanded more than in managing the knowledge worker, and yet nowhere is management theory more inadequate in addressing a field’s issues than in knowledge work. This is the point Peter Drucker posited in his work Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1991), and to resolve it he came up with six factors that determine the productivity of the management worker. Among these, his final point that management workers “must be treated as an ‘asset’ rather than a ‘cost’” by any given organization is an important concept1. While it only gradually emerged within management theory over the century, it is crucial for any employer and any government to understand and apply if they are to retain a competitive advantage going into the future. Historically, management theory has been about improving the output of the worker through banal efficiency: how to increase the production of steel per head, how to increase the production of cars per hour, how to minimize deficient products, etc. In all these considerations, the worker is a disposable resource. When he is hired, he is set to a particular task that is typically repetitive and thus easily taught, and when he is not needed because of shortcomings in his work, company difficulties, or automation, he is laid off. Referred to as “dumb oxen”, workers were seen in management theory as machines to have productivity squeezed out of. The shift from a majority manufacturing to service-based economy during the first half of the twentieth century changed this dynamic to some extent. The American postwar economic boom introduced the office worker as a common source of employment. This trend continued throughout the conglomerate era of the 1960s and was helped by the decline of the American manufacturing industry in the 1970s. Now in a stage dominated by service and knowledge work, the American economy must approach management differently. The aforementioned cost-asset shift is a demonstration of why this is so, as Drucker’s emphasis on the knowledge worker’s autonomy means that they wield control, not only within their job but over who they should work for as well. This in addition to the high-capital nature of knowledge workers means that the old management theory approach to labor as disposable will backfire catastrophically for any company that tries it with their knowledge workers. It is also important to remember the demographic trends of the United States, and more so the world, in considering why the cost-asset shift is vital. For all of human history until some fifty years ago, population was considered to be in tandem with economic power, given larger populations yielded larger labor forces and consumer markets. Economic growth was thus also correlated with population growth, demonstrated by the historic development of Europe and the United States and the more recent examples of the developing world. Consequently, the worldwide decline in fertility rates, and the decline in population numbers in some developed countries, signals economic decline for the future. In the labor market, smaller populations mean fewer jobs that produce for and service fewer people. Although the knowledge worker has grown in proportion to the total labor market, these demographic declines will affect knowledge workers as well, meaning employers will have a vested interest in retaining their high-capital labor. To enforce this, the cost-asset shift will have to come into play. The wants and needs of the knowledge worker pose a unique challenge in the field of management. Autonomy, for the first time, can be regarded as a significant factor affecting all other aspects of this labor base. What good does a large salary provide a knowledge worker if they don’t feel that they are welcome at an institution? How would they perceive that their work is not being directed towards productive pursuits at their corporation, especially given the brain work and dedication given to it? Of course, the fruits of one’s labor has been a contentious issue in management ever since compensation and workers’ rights became a universal constant with the Industrial Revolution, but this is augmented by the knowledge worker’s particular method of generating value. Given that Drucker poses their largest asset and source of value as their own mind, they will intrinsically have a special attachment to their work almost as their brainchild. Incentivizing the knowledge worker is also only one part of this picture. Per Drucker, the knowledge worker’s labor does not follow the linear relationship between quantity invested and returned. The elaborate nature of knowledge work makes it heavily dependent upon synergy: the right combination of talent can grow an organization by leaps and bounds, while virtually incompatible teams or partnerships can render all potential talent useless. And the human capital cost of the knowledge worker, both in their parents and the state educating them and in cost to their employers, is astronomical compared to all previous kinds of labor. In conclusion, the needs and wants of the knowledge worker must be met adequately, especially in the field of management. Management must almost undergo a revolution to adapt to this novel challenge, for the knowledge worker is the future of economic productivity in the developed world. Those employers that successfully accommodate the demands of this class of talent will eventually reign over those that do not accept that this is the direction economic productivity is headed.  References Drucker, P. F. (1991) Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Harper Business.

The Wisdom and Continuing Relevance of Peter Drucker

By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. • 07 Nov, 2024
What is wisdom? The dictionary says it is knowledge of what is true and right coupled with just judgment as to action. Jennifer Rowley reports that it is the “ability to act critically or practically in a given situation. It is based on ethical judgment related to an individual's belief system.” (Rowley 2006 p. 255). So, wisdom seems to be about deciding on or doing an action based on moral or ethical belief in helping other people. This clearly describes Peter Drucker and his often prescient ideas For the 100 th anniversary of Peter Drucker’s birth, Harvard Business Review dedicated its November 2009 magazine to Drucker. In one of the articles about Drucker by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2009 p. 1), What Would Peter Say? Kanter posits that, Heeding Peter Drucker's wisdom might have helped us avoid—and will help us solve numerous challenges, from restoring trust in business to tackling climate change. He issued early warnings about excessive executive pay, the auto industry’s failure to adapt and innovate, competitive threats from emerging markets, and the perils of neglecting nonprofit organizations and other agents of societal reform. Meynhardt (2010) calls Drucker a towering figure in Twentieth Century management. He says no other writer has had such an impact. He is well-known to practitioners and scholars for his practical wisdom and common sense approach to management as a liberal art. Drucker believed that there is no how-to solution for management practice and education. Doing more of “this” and less of “that” and vice versa is not how Drucker suggests managers do their work. Rather, Drucker relies more on morality and the virtue of practical wisdom to solve problems related to organizations. The virtue that Drucker talks about cannot be taught. It must be experienced and self-developed over time. A good example of this is Drucker’s Management by Objectives (MBO). Drucker does not give technical advice on how to initiate MBO. Rather he wisdomizes his moral convictions that integrating personal needs for autonomy with the quest of submitting one’s efforts to a higher principle (helping people) ensures performance by converting objective needs into personal goals. (Meynhardt, 2010). Peter Drucker published thirty-eight articles in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) and seven times won the McKinsey Award presented annually to the author of the best article published during the previous year in HBR. No other person has won as many McKinsey awards as Drucker The former editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review, Thomas A. Stewart, quotes Peter Drucker; “The few of us who talked of management forty years ago were considered more or less deranged.” Stewart says that this was essentially correct. Harvard Business Review's very mission is to improve management practice. Stewart says this mission is inconceivable without Drucker’s work. Drucker’s work in management planted ideas that are as fruitful today as they ever were. Stewart posits that each year, managers discover extraordinary and immediate relevance in articles and books that were written before they were born or even before their parents were born. Stewart (2016) tries to answer the questions: Why does Drucker’s work endure? and Why is Drucker still relevant? First, was Drucker’s talent for asking the right questions. He had an instinct for being able to not let the urgent drive out the important, for seeing the trees, not just the forest. This allowed him to calmly ask pertinent questions that encouraged clients to find the proper course to take. Secondly, Drucker was able to see whole organizations. Instead of focusing on small particular problems. Ducker had the ability to find the overarching problem as well. Stewart uses Drucker’s 1994 HBR article, The Theory of the Business to make this point. Many people were trying to analyze the problems of IBM and General Motors by looking for root causes and trying to fix the blame. Drucker, on the other hand, argued correctly that the theories and assumptions on which they had managed successfully for many years were outdated. This article is as relevant today as it was in 1994 because Drucker took the “big picture view.” And no one else has ever been so skillful at describing it. Thirdly, starting in 1934, Drucker spent two years at General Motors with the legendary Alfred P. Sloan, immersed in the workings of the automaker and learning the business from within. This allowed him to talk with authority, but he has always stayed “street smart and wise.” This mentoring helped give Drucker the gift of being able to reason inductively and deductively. He could infer a new principle or a theory from a set of data or being confronted with a particular problem; he could find the right principle to apply to solve it. Drucker’s first article published in HBR, Management Must Manage, challenged managers to learn their profession not in terms of prerogatives but in terms of their responsibilities, to assume the burden of leadership rather than the mantle of privilege. Many in the management/leadership field probably found Drucker to be “deranged,” but in 2024, this is important advice for leader (Stewart 2006). Just a few more of Drucker’s ideas that seemed well outside the mainstream when he proposed them but are standard practice today include: Managing Oneself, Privatization, Decentralization, Knowledge Workers, Management by Objectives, Charismatic Leadership Being Overrated, CEO Outsize Pay Packages, and Enthusiasm of the Work of the Salvation Army (Rees, 2014). Clearly, Drucker remains relevant! References: Kanter, R. 2009. What would Peter say? Harvard Business Review. November, 2009. Meynhardt, T. 2010. The practical wisdom of Peter Drucker: Roots in the Christian tradition. Journal of Management Development Vol. 29. No. 7/8. Rees, M. 2014 The wisdom of Peter Drucker. Wall Street Journal. Dec. 12, 2014. Rowley, J. 2006. Where is the knowledge that we have lost in knowledge? Journal of Documentation. Vol. 62, Iss. 2. 251-270. Stewart, T. 2006. Classic Drucker. Editor Thomas A. Stewart. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Revolutions in Labor Hierarchies

By Ryan Lee • 24 Oct, 2024
A specter is haunting the world – though this time, the dynamics of labor have shifted to the point where this specter cannot resemble a communist force. If Drucker’s works have been any indication, the rise of the knowledge worker is a first in the history of human productivity. This first has, among many other things, overturned the traditional labor hierarchies that have existed since the rise of agriculture. For much of history, societal hierarchies and their subsequent conflicts have been demarcated by the fine line between ruler and ruled – master and slave, lord and serf, bourgeois and proletariat, and so on. The commonality between each of these relationships has been that authority and autonomy has been largely allocated to one side – the ruling – and that the literal toil of labor has been the leverage of the other – the ruled. The rulers instructed the ruled on where to direct their labor, while the ruled prevented their rulers from siphoning too much of their earnings. Such a delicate balance, established in the first agrarian civilizations, was often upset, as shown by history’s account of countless peasant revolts and eradicated kingdoms. In his 1966 essay “The First Technological Revolution and its Consequences”, Drucker established that currently recognizable human lifestyles trace much of their origins back to this first agrarian revolution in affairs. This includes the aforementioned labor hierarchy, which has dictated government policy even into the industrial age. Even through the various industrial revolutions, the evolution of labor only affected the organization of workers, with unions and labor groups giving mass labor a platform to negotiate less violently against their employers. The base demands of labor – better wages, better working conditions – as well as the demands of their employers – more output per head, more efficiency – still belonged to the old ruler-ruled hierarchy, despite the emergence of supposedly modern fixtures of economy like the union. The rise of the knowledge worker threatens to upend this paradigm. Drucker laid out some basic facts about the knowledge worker that are relevant to dealing with this revolution. First, the knowledge worker is far more autonomous than any other kind of worker in history. Management of labor has depended on power resting largely with authority. Autonomy of the worker significantly shrinks the need for this hierarchy. Second, the knowledge worker’s output is augmented by information technology. Drucker identified this as the computer in his time, but artificial intelligence fits this role as well. In previous times, any labor-altering advancements in technology only created more jobs through economic expansion. The Luddites’ archnemesis, the textile machines dominating Britain and the United States in the early nineteenth century, created a plethora of employment through an explosion of demand for consumer goods. The assembly line that threatened the monopoly of high-cost artisans generated jobs for countless factory workers. All these phenomena were driven by the mechanization of work – repetitive work, that is. Even the replacement of the artisan was the simplification of each step of their work into a repetitive task that any unskilled laborer could replicate. However, all these technologies simply made existing manual labor more efficient by subdividing it - an early application of management theory, but one that still required mass labor regardless. The development of the computer and AI poses a distinct form of technological automation, in tandem with the rise of the knowledge worker. For the first time, true automation has become a reality. Drucker noted that the computer, and now AI, can dictate and execute decisions that before would have required a human to do. Pairing this with the autonomy of the knowledge worker, we witness the creation of a system that foregoes the historic one-way direction of command for a more reciprocative structure where workers contribute as much feedback to their institutions as their bosses and the only defining difference in authority between either is the extended foresight required to direct the entire company forward. The United States is in a mixed position to deal with this shift in hierarchy. Historically, it has prescribed all its citizens to be equal and free, however different reality may have been. Individual liberty has been baked into the country’s persona beginning with the Founding Fathers and spanning the defining moments of American history, from the Civil War to the Frontier Thesis of 1890 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Thus, the American psyche is better adjusted to welcome the knowledge worker; the view that an American peasant never existed doesn’t exist for nothing. However, other contradictions, such as the centuries-long establishment of slavery and the historic disenfranchisement of particular groups within the United States, will contribute to friction in the transition. If not for being at direct odds with the loosening of hierarchy, these facts will at the very least create tension for the many facets of American society left behind in the deepening dependency on knowledge workers, as has recently been observed with the rise of populism on both wings of the American political spectrum. Drucker was receptive to such potential reverberations, evidenced by his concerns expressed in his work “The New Productivity Challenge” (1991). He acknowledged that however much of a role knowledge and higher service work would contribute to the American economy, the majority of the population would inevitably be outside this ecosystem, especially given the lack of concentrated education and training available to them. In that particular work he proposed that increases in productivity were crucial in maintaining the economic prosperity to generate the social stability that had prevented the oft-violent revolutions of the past. In consideration of the aforementioned hierarchical shift brought to light, the relationships between employer and employee within management theory are also important in defusing any grievances the denied populace has towards their exclusion from high-concentration work. Although service work has progressed in “employee feedback” since the mid 20th century, dissent among lower-paid service workers has risen, leading to unionization conflicts like those at Amazon and Starbucks as well as large waves of “quiet quitting” that came right after the Covid-19 pandemic. Given the prevalence of phenomena like these, management theory should heed Drucker’s warnings in advance and evaluate existing practices in employer-employee hierarchies, not only in the knowledge-worker field but in the wider service worker field as well. For if neglected, this issue shall likely boil over and erupt just as the Revolutions of 1848 manifested the specter of the labor crises sweeping Europe. As the modern maxim goes, institutions must truly adapt to having their employees “be their own boss” more than before, for the benefit of employer, employee, society, and the economy.  References Drucker, P. F. (1966) The First Technological Revolution and its Consequences. Johns Hopkins University Press. Drucker, P.F. (1991) The New Productivity Challenge. Harvard Business Review.
Show More
Share by: