This study’s purpose was to glean a comprehensive list of the leadership
challenges faced and strategies utilized during campus crisis and tragedy. It also sought
to examine the goals of leadership at different phases of a crisis, aspects of leadership
focused on, and recommended leadership practices to follow. A typology was created to
identify appropriate crises. The typology classified crises as (a) institution as victim, (b)
natural disaster, or (c) institution having legal liability. Fourteen interviews were
conducted at eight schools. Interview transcripts were segmented into units for analysis.
These data units were coded, grouped into categories, and named as themes. Once all
themes were identified, overarching themes established the findings.
Eight major challenges were identified for campus leaders during crisis: (a)
leading in spite of a loss of control, (b) coping with deficient, inadequate, or non-existent
technical and human crisis response measures or systems, (c) evaluation of leadership
decisions occurring almost simultaneously to leadership actions, (d) altering operations
and relationships, (e) managing transitions within the life of the crisis, (f) communicating about the crisis, (g) dealing with multiple constituency groups, and (h) dealing with longterm
effects. Ten categories of strategies were identified: (a) making safety the priority,
(b) leading planning and policy development, (c) garnering resources, (d) leading
intentional communications efforts, (e) clarifying the leadership infrastructure, (f)
accepting responsibility for crisis leadership, (g) modifying the leadership approach, (h)
framing the crisis for others, (i) leading the healing process, and (j) leading efforts to
learn from the crisis.
Study findings suggested that it is not the type of crisis but the amount of
devastation that determines leadership challenges and approaches. Leadership
challenges evolve through predictable stages, invoking a broad range of leadership
skills and concepts. During crisis, campus leaders focus on collaborative, symbolic, and
logistical leadership. Sharing a common orientation during crisis is facilitative in the
decision-making process. Policy development is a powerful means of bringing structure
to a chaotic situation and of demonstrating an ethic of care.
Findings from this study provided not only an overview of leadership challenges
and strategies during campus crisis, but insight into a variety of crisis types, and
practical application strategies for university administrators.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:tamu.edu/oai:repository.tamu.edu:1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2010-08-8541 |
| Date | 2010 August 1900 |
| Creators | Jacobsen, Merna J. |
| Contributors | Egan, Toby, Cummins, Richard |
| Source Sets | Texas A and M University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | thesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds