When crises occur at institutions of higher education, its leaders need to do more than just uphold the reputations of their institutions, according to a new Rutgers study.

To be effective, they must also “prioritize dialogue and express care and concern for those most likely impacted by the crisis,” said Ralph Gigliotti Ph.D.’17, who is a SC&I part-time faculty member, assistant vice president of the Rutgers Office of University Strategy, and director of the Rutgers Center for Organizational Leadership.

“Higher education leaders can help their institutions recover from COVID-19 by taking the time to heal, grieve, and learn from the crises and disruptions that have come before us, all the while being mindful of the disproportionate impact these events might have on members of our community,” Gigliotti said.

Gigliotti’s study, “Crisis Leadership in Higher Education: Historical Overview, Organizational Considerations, and Implications,” was published recently in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Crisis Analysis.

“Crises shatter, disrupt, and derail; they also create windows of opportunity for change, innovation, and the emergence of new ways of being,” Gigliotti said. “Furthermore, these events serve as crucible moments for individuals engaged in leadership. They are often high-stakes moments where attention is hyper-focused on the behaviors, actions, and decisions of those with formal decision-making authority.” 

Understanding what values-based leadership is and accomplishes is of vital importance for leaders in higher education, Gigliotti said. “Values-based organizations (and leaders) know what they stand for and lean upon these principles as an anchor for decision making. Colleges and universities are values-based organizations, but as I write in the article, these values have the potential to be undermined or downplayed when responding to crises. In some cases, leaders and institutions may feel pressured to act in ways incongruent with these espoused values due to the time pressures imposed by the crisis or under conditions of stress and stress-induced ‘tunnel vision.’ For some, a restricted focus on preserving reputation can lead to acts of egregious behavior, such as active attempts to conceal the truth. Any attempt to de-emphasize sincere concern for those most impacted by crises may limit dialogue, stifle learning, and stall the renewal and healing necessary during times of crisis.”

Gigliotti emphasized that the work of crisis leadership is especially complex within the context of higher education, because of the decentralized and loosely coupled organizational structure of colleges and universities, along with the traditions, decision making patterns, and limited opportunities for training and development that constrain institutions in responding to the complexity, urgency, and interdependent pressures characteristic of contemporary crises. 

In addition, he said, the “the diversity of stakeholders who view and experience higher education organizations in fundamentally different ways,” further complicate leaders’ responsibilities and communications during crises.  

The study’s primary findings are twofold, Gigliotti said. “Within colleges and universities, the act of crisis leadership requires a careful understanding of the types of risks that a unit, department, or institution is currently facing, or might one day face, as well as a continual emphasis on learning throughout all phases of the crisis process. I encourage leaders in higher education to systematically monitor the higher education environment, along with broader ecosystems in which colleges and universities are embedded, to consider the types of crises that might impact our institutions, the units/departments that could be most directly impacted by the crises, and various strategies for enhancing organizational learning and building leadership capacity to best respond to these events and situations.” 

“Within colleges and universities, the act of crisis leadership requires a careful understanding of the types of risks that a unit, department, or institution is currently facing, or might one day face, as well as a continual emphasis on learning throughout all phases of the crisis process."

In the study, Gigliotti recalled several horrific events that have occurred at American universities, including thefirst mass campus murder in America ­– the shooting at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966; the deadly bonfire at Texas A&M University in 1999; and shooting on the Blacksburg, Virginia, campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in 2007.

Institutions of higher education grapple with a staggering number of potential crisis situations, Gigliotti’s research shows, including, he wrote, academic; athletic; clinical; financial; human resources; leadership; natural disasters; public health; public safety; racial or identity conflict; student affairs; technological; and infrastructure (facilities).  

His study’s findings are particularly relevant and applicable in 2022, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, a public health crisis on a scale no university has faced since the 1918 influenza pandemic. “Higher education leaders can help their institutions recover from COVID-19 by taking the time to heal, grieve, and learn from the crises and disruptions that have come before us, all the while being mindful of the disproportionate impact these events might have on members of our community,” Gigliotti said.

To continue research exploring values-based crisis leadership in the future, Gigliotti said, “I encourage scholars and practitioners to collaborate in the pursuit of tools, cases, simulations, and research materials that can impact and advance both the study and practice of crisis leadership.”

More information about the Communication Department at the Rutgers School of Communication and Information is on the website.