Introduction
Most crisis leadership research focuses on extreme, highly visible events. This project extends the scope to low-intensity and latent crises, building on Hannah et al.'s distinction between crises and extreme contexts. Crisis perception is conceptualized as two dimensions—gravity and ambiguity—linked to distinct cognitive and socio-emotional mechanisms shaping leadership expectations.
Purpose
We examine how these dimensions influence preferences for leadership traits and behaviors, and develop a validated measure of crisis perception for use in an integrative model. The model hypothesizes two pathways: ambiguity → need for structure → task-oriented expectations, and gravity → trust in the leader → people-oriented expectations.
Method
Study 1 was a controlled experiment manipulating organizational context (relational crisis, operational crisis, stable situation) to assess leadership preferences. Study 2 employed scenario‑based vignettes reflecting similar contexts to validate a bidimensional measure of crisis perception (gravity and ambiguity) and to enable indirect comparison with the leadership patterns observed in Study 1, thereby adding conceptual and empirical insights through the scale's validation process. Study 3, a field survey during the COVID‑19 pandemic, tested the hypothesized pathways and examined alternative links suggested by Study 1.
Results
In Study 1, relational crises elicited preferences for communal traits and consideration‑oriented behaviors, consistent with socio‑emotional support needs. In the operational crisis, agentic traits were preferred as expected; however, participants favored consideration‑oriented over task‑oriented behaviors. This divergence indicates that crisis perceptions can activate socio‑emotional needs shaping behavioral expectations, even when agentic traits are prioritized. Study 2 confirmed that gravity and ambiguity are separable dimensions, providing a robust tool for research and applied diagnostics. Data from Study 3 are complete; analyses will be finalized prior to the Congress.
Conclusions
This research advances crisis leadership theory beyond extreme events, showing how different crisis perceptions trigger distinct psychological needs. Practically, it offers diagnostic tools to guide leaders in adapting their style to varying crisis intensities.