Leadership Theories and Styles

Learning Objectives

By the end of this topic, you will be able to:

• Explain how leadership theory evolved from trait-based to behavioral, contingency, and transformational models.
• Distinguish task-oriented from people-oriented behaviors using the Ohio State, Michigan, and Managerial Grid frameworks.
• Apply Fiedler's contingency model and Hersey-Blanchard's situational leadership model to match a leadership style to a specific situation.
• Differentiate transactional, transformational, servant, and charismatic leadership and identify which fits a given organizational scenario.
• Compare autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire styles and evaluate their trade-offs.
• Identify common misconceptions about leadership styles, such as the idea that they are fixed traits or that one style is universally superior.

Quick Answer

Leadership theories and styles explain how and why some people lead effectively while others don't, and what leaders actually do differently. The field moved through four broad waves: trait theory (leaders are born with certain qualities), behavioral theory (leadership is about what you do, not who you are), contingency/situational theory (the best style depends on the context), and transformational/relational theories (leadership is about vision, inspiration, and follower development). This matters because no single style works everywhere — a manager who only knows one mode of leading will fail when the situation changes, while one who understands the full toolkit can flex between directing, coaching, delegating, and inspiring as circumstances demand.

Overview

Leadership is the process of influencing a group of people to achieve a common goal. It sits at the heart of organizational behavior because strategy, culture, and execution all depend on someone being able to align people's effort with organizational purpose. If you've never studied this topic before, the key thing to understand upfront is that "leadership theory" isn't one theory — it's a century-long argument about what actually makes leadership effective, and each new theory was largely a reaction to the limitations of the one before it.

Early 20th-century thinkers assumed leaders were simply born different — hence "trait theory." When research couldn't reliably find a consistent set of traits that predicted success, attention shifted in the 1950s to behavior: what do effective leaders actually do, regardless of their personality? That produced the behavioral theories (Ohio State and Michigan studies, the Managerial Grid). But behavioral theory had its own gap — a behavior that worked brilliantly in one team failed in another. This gave rise to contingency and situational theories in the 1960s-70s, which argued that effectiveness depends on matching style to context (Fiedler, Hersey-Blanchard, Path-Goal). From the 1980s onward, the field expanded again to ask not just "what style works" but "what kind of relationship does the leader build with followers" — giving us transactional vs. transformational leadership, servant leadership, and charismatic leadership.

Understanding this arc matters practically: as a manager, you will face team members and situations that call for different approaches, and mistaking leadership for a single fixed "style" is one of the most common — and costly — errors new managers make.

Core Concepts

Trait Theory

Definition: Trait theory holds that effective leaders possess an inherent set of personal qualities or characteristics — such as intelligence, confidence, and integrity — that distinguish them from non-leaders.

Explanation: Trait theory was the earliest systematic approach to leadership (early-to-mid 1900s), sometimes called the "great man" theory because it assumed leadership was an innate quality some people are simply born with. Researchers tried to build a definitive list of traits: intelligence, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, self-confidence, and integrity are the ones that show up most consistently across studies. The Big Five personality traits are still used today in leadership research and selection, but as predictors rather than guarantees — having the traits raises the odds of effective leadership, it doesn't determine it.

Example: A leader with high conscientiousness reliably follows through on commitments and holds the team to deadlines, which builds trust over time.

Real-World Example: Steve Jobs is often cited in trait discussions — his extreme conviction, vision, and intensity (traits) were central to Apple's product philosophy. Yet those same traits (perfectionism, low patience) also caused friction with employees, illustrating why traits alone don't guarantee effectiveness — they interact with context and behavior.

Why It Matters: Trait theory underlies a lot of modern leadership selection and assessment tools (personality tests used in hiring, 360-degree reviews). Knowing which traits correlate with leadership helps organizations design better selection criteria — but only if paired with behavior and situation.

Common Misunderstanding: Students often think trait theory has been "disproven" and is irrelevant. It hasn't — modern research (e.g., meta-analyses on the Big Five and leadership emergence) shows traits do have real, measurable correlations with leadership emergence and effectiveness. The correction historically wasn't "traits don't matter," it was "traits alone aren't sufficient" — behavior and context matter too.

Behavioral Theories

Definition: Behavioral theories argue that leadership effectiveness comes from what a leader does — observable behaviors — rather than who they inherently are.

Explanation: Two major research programs anchor this era. The Ohio State Studies identified two independent behavioral dimensions: initiating structure (defining roles, setting deadlines, organizing work) and consideration (building trust, respect, and rapport with followers). Because the dimensions are independent, a leader can be high or low on each — the ideal, according to this research, is high on both. The University of Michigan Studies ran in parallel and produced a similar two-factor split: employee-oriented leaders (focused on relationships and follower needs) versus production-oriented leaders (focused on the technical/task aspects of the job). Building on this line of research, Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid (1964) plots leadership style on two axes — concern for people and concern for production, each scored 1-9 — yielding archetypes like "impoverished management" (1,1), "country club management" (1,9), "authority-compliance" (9,1), and the ideal "team management" (9,9), which balances high concern for both people and results.

Example: A manager who sets clear weekly targets (initiating structure) while also checking in on team members' workload and wellbeing (consideration) is exhibiting the "high-high" behavior pattern these studies favored.

Real-World Example: A production floor supervisor at a manufacturing plant who enforces safety checklists rigorously (structure) but also makes a point of learning each operator's name and personal circumstances (consideration) tends to see both fewer accidents and lower turnover — exactly the "9,9 team management" pattern the Managerial Grid predicts.

Why It Matters: Behavioral theory was a breakthrough because it implied leadership could be taught — if it's about behavior, not innate traits, then training and coaching can develop leaders. This is the theoretical basis for most leadership development programs today.

Common Misunderstanding: Students often assume the Managerial Grid says "9,9 team management is always correct in every situation." In reality, the grid describes a general ideal but doesn't account for situational variables (deadline pressure, team skill level, crisis conditions) — which is exactly the gap contingency theory was built to fill.

Contingency Theories

Definition: Contingency theories propose that there is no single best leadership style — effectiveness depends on the fit between the leader's style and situational variables.

Explanation: Three influential models fall under this umbrella:

• Fiedler's Contingency Model argues that a leader's style (measured via the "Least Preferred Co-worker," or LPC, scale) is relatively fixed, so the situation should be matched to the leader, not the other way around. Situational favorableness depends on leader-member relations, task structure, and positional power. Task-oriented leaders (low LPC) perform best in very favorable or very unfavorable situations; relationship-oriented leaders (high LPC) perform best in moderately favorable situations.
• Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) takes the opposite view — the leader's style should flex based on the follower's readiness/maturity (their competence and commitment for a specific task). It defines four styles: telling (S1, high task/low relationship — for low-readiness followers), selling (S2, high task/high relationship), participating (S3, high relationship/low task — for moderate-to-high readiness), and delegating (S4, low task/low relationship — for high-readiness followers).
• Path-Goal Theory (House) says the leader's job is to clarify the "path" to goals by removing obstacles and providing support, adapting between directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors depending on follower characteristics and environmental factors.

Example: A new hire who doesn't yet know the job (low readiness) needs a "telling" style with explicit instructions; an experienced veteran on the same task needs "delegating" — clear goals and autonomy, minimal supervision.

Real-World Example: A restaurant general manager training a brand-new server uses a highly directive "telling" approach for the first two weeks (exact steps for taking orders, running food). Six months later, that same server is trusted to open the restaurant solo, run of the training wheels — the manager has shifted to "delegating" as the server's readiness increased. Using the same style throughout would either frustrate the veteran (micromanagement) or overwhelm the new hire (too little support).

Why It Matters: Contingency theory is the conceptual bridge between "leadership is a fixed trait/style" and modern flexible leadership practice. It's the theoretical foundation for coaching-based management, onboarding design, and adaptive leadership training.

Common Misunderstanding: Students frequently conflate Fiedler's model (change the situation to fit the fixed leader) with Hersey-Blanchard's model (change the leader's style to fit the follower). They make opposite recommendations, and exam questions often test whether you can tell them apart.

Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership

Definition: Transactional leadership is an exchange-based approach — leaders motivate followers through rewards and discipline tied to performance. Transformational leadership motivates followers by appealing to shared vision, values, and higher-order needs, inspiring them to exceed expected performance.

Explanation: Transactional leadership relies on contingent reward (clear expectations, rewards for meeting them) and management-by-exception (intervening only when standards aren't met). It's essentially "if you do X, you get Y" — effective for routine, well-defined work. Transformational leadership, developed by Burns and later refined by Bass, rests on four components (the "Four I's"): idealized influence (being a role model followers trust and admire), inspirational motivation (articulating a compelling vision), intellectual stimulation (challenging followers to think creatively and question assumptions), and individualized consideration (mentoring and attending to each follower's individual growth needs).

Example: A transactional sales manager offers a bonus for hitting quota (exchange). A transformational manager instead paints a picture of how the team's work changes customers' lives, and coaches each rep individually toward their career goals.

Real-World Example: Indra Nooyi, as PepsiCo's CEO, is frequently cited as transformational — she reframed the company's mission around "Performance with Purpose," pushing sustainability and health initiatives that went beyond quarterly sales targets, and invested heavily in personally mentoring executives. Contrast that with a call-center supervisor running a straightforward incentive-per-call program — a textbook transactional setup that works fine for that context.

Why It Matters: Most real leaders use both, and effective leadership research (Bass, 1985) shows transformational leadership augments transactional leadership rather than replacing it — you still need clear expectations and consequences even while inspiring a bigger vision. Understanding both prevents you from thinking transformational leadership is a wholesale substitute for basic management discipline.

Common Misunderstanding: A very common mistake is assuming transformational leadership is simply "better" and transactional is outdated or inferior. In reality, transactional leadership is essential for routine operations, safety-critical environments, and situations needing clear accountability — transformational leadership without any transactional structure often produces charisma without execution.

Leadership Styles: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire

Definition: This classic typology (from Lewin's 1930s studies) describes leadership by how decisions get made: autocratic leaders decide unilaterally, democratic leaders involve the group, and laissez-faire leaders hand off decision-making almost entirely.

Explanation: Autocratic leaders retain control and expect compliance — useful for speed and clarity but risks disengagement if overused. Democratic (participative) leaders solicit input and build consensus, which tends to increase buy-in and creativity but takes longer. Laissez-faire leaders provide minimal direction, giving followers wide latitude — this works well with highly skilled, self-motivated teams (e.g., research scientists) but can produce drift and confusion with inexperienced or unmotivated ones.

Example: An autocratic leader sets the project deadline and task assignments without discussion. A democratic leader calls a team meeting to decide the plan together. A laissez-faire leader tells the team the goal and leaves the "how" entirely up to them.

Real-World Example: During an emergency product recall, a company's crisis lead adopts an autocratic style — issuing direct instructions to legal, PR, and operations teams because speed and clarity are critical and there's no time for debate. Contrast that with a design agency's creative director, who runs brainstorming sessions democratically to draw out the best ideas from a talented team, and lets senior designers work laissez-faire on final execution because they don't need hand-holding.

Why It Matters: These three styles are the simplest lens for choosing an approach fast, and they're what most non-specialists mean when they say "leadership style." Recognizing situational fit prevents you from over- or under-directing your team.

Common Misunderstanding: People treat these as personality labels ("I am a democratic leader") rather than situational choices. The same effective leader should shift between all three depending on urgency, team competence, and stakes — being locked into one is a weakness, not a strength.

Servant Leadership

Definition: Servant leadership, coined by Robert Greenleaf (1970), is a philosophy in which the leader's primary goal is to serve their followers' growth and wellbeing first, with organizational results following as a consequence.

Explanation: Servant leaders prioritize empathy, active listening, stewardship, and building community, and they measure their own success partly by whether the people they lead become "healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous" (Greenleaf's phrase). This inverts the traditional power pyramid — instead of followers existing to serve the leader's goals, the leader exists to support followers in doing their best work.

Example: A servant-leader manager spends one-on-one time each week asking a direct report what obstacles are in their way and personally works to remove them, rather than just checking whether targets were hit.

Real-World Example: Southwest Airlines' leadership culture, especially under co-founder Herb Kelleher, is frequently cited as servant leadership in practice — the company's internal motto put employees first, on the logic that well-cared-for employees deliver better customer service, which drives business results as a byproduct rather than the direct goal.

Why It Matters: Servant leadership correlates strongly with employee trust, retention, and organizational citizenship behavior in research literature — it's especially relevant in service industries and nonprofit/mission-driven organizations where follower buy-in to purpose drives performance.

Common Misunderstanding: Students often think servant leadership means being passive, permissive, or avoiding hard decisions. It doesn't — servant leaders still set direction and hold people accountable; the distinguishing feature is why and how (in service of follower growth), not an absence of authority.

Charismatic Leadership

Definition: Charismatic leadership is a style in which the leader's personal magnetism, communication skill, and force of personality generate strong emotional commitment and enthusiasm from followers.

Explanation: Conger and Kanungo's model identifies key behaviors: charismatic leaders articulate a compelling vision, are willing to take personal risks for that vision, use unconventional strategies, and are sensitive to follower needs and the environment. Charisma often overlaps with transformational leadership (a charismatic leader is frequently also transformational) but the two aren't identical — charisma is about the personal, emotional pull of the leader, while transformational leadership is a broader behavioral framework that includes coaching and intellectual stimulation.

Example: A charismatic founder can rally an entire startup around a mission statement through sheer conviction and storytelling, even before the company has significant results to point to.

Real-World Example: Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership of the civil rights movement is a textbook case of charismatic leadership — his rhetorical power and moral conviction mobilized mass collective action well beyond his formal organizational authority.

Why It Matters: Charisma can be an enormous asset for rallying people around change or a new vision, particularly in crises or startups where formal authority is weak, but it's a resource that must be paired with substance — pure charisma without competence or values eventually erodes trust.

Common Misunderstanding: People often assume charisma is purely an innate, unteachable personality trait. Research shows charismatic behaviors (storytelling, vision framing, symbolic language, expressing confidence) can be learned and trained, even if some people have a natural head start.

Visual Learning

Evolution of Leadership Theory

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model

Key Terms

Term	Definition	Context/Related Concepts
Trait theory	Leadership effectiveness stems from innate personal characteristics	Precursor to behavioral theory; Big Five traits
Initiating structure	Behavior focused on defining roles, tasks, and deadlines	Ohio State Studies; task orientation
Consideration	Behavior focused on trust, rapport, and follower wellbeing	Ohio State Studies; people orientation
Managerial Grid	Two-axis model (concern for people vs. production) plotting leadership styles	Blake & Mouton; "9,9 team management" is the ideal
LPC scale	"Least Preferred Co-worker" score used to classify a leader's style as task- or relationship-oriented	Fiedler's Contingency Model
Situational favorableness	Combination of leader-member relations, task structure, and positional power	Fiedler's Contingency Model
Readiness/maturity	A follower's competence and commitment level for a specific task	Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership
Telling/Selling/Participating/Delegating	The four Hersey-Blanchard leadership styles, S1-S4	Matched to follower readiness levels
Path-Goal theory	Leader's role is to clarify the path to goals and remove obstacles	House; directive, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented styles
Contingent reward	Rewarding followers for meeting agreed performance standards	Transactional leadership
Management-by-exception	Leader intervenes only when performance deviates from standard	Transactional leadership
Four I's	Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration	Transformational leadership (Bass)
Servant leadership	Leadership philosophy prioritizing followers' growth and wellbeing	Greenleaf; stewardship, empathy
Charismatic leadership	Leadership driven by the leader's personal magnetism and vision articulation	Conger & Kanungo model
Autocratic style	Leader makes decisions unilaterally with little follower input	Lewin's leadership styles
Democratic style	Leader involves followers in decision-making	Lewin's leadership styles
Laissez-faire style	Leader provides minimal direction, high follower autonomy	Lewin's leadership styles

Common Mistakes

1. Misconception: "Leadership style is a fixed personality trait — you're either a democratic leader or an autocratic one." Why it's wrong: This confuses a person's default tendency with the situational demand. Effective leaders deliberately shift styles (directive in a crisis, participative when building buy-in, hands-off with expert teams). Correct explanation: Contingency and situational theories (Fiedler, Hersey-Blanchard) explicitly model leadership as a fit between style and situation, not a permanent trait. The best leaders are situationally flexible, not stylistically consistent.

2. Misconception: "Transformational leadership is always better than transactional leadership." Why it's wrong: This ignores that transactional mechanisms (clear expectations, consequences, contingent rewards) are what make organizations reliable and accountable day to day. Transformational leadership without any transactional foundation often produces inspiring talk with poor execution. Correct explanation: Research (Bass) shows transformational leadership augments transactional leadership — the most effective leaders use both, applying transactional structure for routine performance and transformational appeal for change and growth.

3. Misconception: "Trait theory has been disproven and traits don't actually matter for leadership." Why it's wrong: Early trait research failed to find a universal, guaranteed list of traits, which is often misread as "traits are irrelevant." But meta-analyses consistently show measurable correlations between traits (e.g., extraversion, conscientiousness, self-confidence) and leadership emergence/effectiveness. Correct explanation: The accurate conclusion is that traits matter but aren't sufficient on their own — they interact with behavior, situation, and follower characteristics to determine actual effectiveness.

Comparison and Connections

Concept A	Concept B	Key Difference	How They Relate
Leadership	Management	Leadership is about influencing and inspiring people toward a vision; management is about planning, organizing, and controlling resources to meet objectives	Effective executives usually need both; a team can have a manager who isn't a leader and vice versa
Transactional leadership	Transformational leadership	Transactional relies on exchanges (reward/discipline); transformational relies on vision and inspiration	Bass argued transformational leadership builds on top of, rather than replaces, transactional leadership
Autocratic style	Democratic style	Autocratic centralizes decision-making; democratic distributes it to the group	Both are situational tools within Lewin's typology, not fixed personalities
Fiedler's model	Hersey-Blanchard's model	Fiedler says match the situation to a fixed leader style; Hersey-Blanchard says the leader should flex style to match follower readiness	Both are contingency theories but disagree on what should adapt — the situation or the leader
Servant leadership	Charismatic leadership	Servant leadership centers on follower growth and humility; charismatic leadership centers on the leader's personal magnetism and vision	Both can motivate strong follower commitment, but through different mechanisms (service vs. inspiration)
Ohio State Studies	Michigan Studies	Ohio State names dimensions "initiating structure" and "consideration"; Michigan names them "production-oriented" and "employee-oriented"	Both independently arrived at a similar two-factor (task vs. people) structure in the 1950s

Practice Questions

Recall

1. What are the two independent behavioral dimensions identified by the Ohio State Leadership Studies? Answer guidance: Initiating structure (task/role-defining behavior) and consideration (relationship/trust-building behavior). They are independent, so a leader can score high or low on each separately.

2. Name the four leadership styles in Hersey-Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory. Answer guidance: Telling (S1), Selling (S2), Participating (S3), Delegating (S4) — matched respectively to increasing follower readiness/maturity.

Understanding

3. Explain why Fiedler's Contingency Model recommends changing the situation rather than the leader's style. Answer guidance: Fiedler viewed a leader's style (measured by the LPC scale) as relatively fixed/stable. Since the leader can't easily change, the practical lever is to change situational favorableness (leader-member relations, task structure, position power) or reassign the leader to a better-fitting situation.

4. Why does Bass argue that transformational leadership "augments" rather than replaces transactional leadership? Answer guidance: Because organizations still need clear expectations, accountability, and consequences (transactional elements) for routine performance; transformational behaviors add inspiration and vision on top of that foundation, producing performance beyond expectations rather than substituting for basic management discipline.

Application

5. A new employee has strong motivation but limited skill for a specific task. According to Hersey-Blanchard, which style should the manager use, and why? Answer guidance: Likely "Selling" (S2) — high task guidance since skill is limited, combined with high relationship behavior to sustain their motivation and build confidence, rather than "Telling" (too directive, ignores their motivation) or "Delegating" (too much autonomy for their skill level).

6. A crisis-response team leader must make a life-safety decision in the next five minutes with incomplete information. Which classic style (autocratic/democratic/laissez-faire) fits best, and why? Answer guidance: Autocratic — time pressure and the need for a single fast, clear decision outweigh the benefits of participative discussion; democratic or laissez-faire styles would cost time the situation doesn't allow.

Analysis

7. A company's CEO is charismatic and inspiring but the organization suffers from missed deadlines and unclear accountability. Diagnose the gap using transactional/transformational theory. Answer guidance: The CEO is likely strong on transformational elements (inspirational motivation, idealized influence) but weak on transactional elements (contingent reward, management-by-exception). The fix isn't less vision — it's adding clear performance expectations and consequences alongside the inspiration.

8. Compare how Fiedler's model and the Managerial Grid would each evaluate the same "9,9" (high task, high relationship) leader placed into a highly unfavorable situation (poor leader-member relations, unstructured task, weak position power). Answer guidance: The Managerial Grid would rate this leader positively regardless of situation, since 9,9 is its universal ideal. Fiedler's model would predict this relationship-oriented leader actually performs worse in a highly unfavorable situation, where his research found task-oriented (low LPC) leaders perform better — illustrating the core disagreement between behavioral "one best style" thinking and contingency thinking.

FAQ

Q1: Is there one "best" leadership theory I should just learn and use? No — that's the central lesson of this whole topic. Trait and behavioral theories tried to find a universal answer and failed; contingency and situational theories exist precisely because effectiveness depends on context. Learn all the frameworks as tools for a toolbox, not competing final answers.

Q2: How is transformational leadership different from charismatic leadership if they overlap so much? Charisma is about the leader's personal magnetism and ability to inspire strong emotional attachment. Transformational leadership is broader — it includes charisma-like elements (idealized influence, inspirational motivation) but also intellectual stimulation and individualized coaching, which charisma alone doesn't guarantee. A charismatic leader isn't automatically transformational if they don't also develop and challenge their followers.

Q3: Can someone be a good manager but a poor leader, or vice versa? Yes. Management is about planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling to meet objectives reliably; leadership is about inspiring and influencing people toward a vision. Someone can run efficient processes (good manager) without inspiring anyone, or inspire people (good leader) while being disorganized administratively. The best executives are strong at both.

Q4: Why do exam questions so often confuse Fiedler's model with Hersey-Blanchard's model? Because both are called "contingency" or "situational" theories and both say "it depends," but they disagree on what should change. Fiedler says the leader's style is fixed, so match the situation to the leader. Hersey-Blanchard says the follower's readiness should determine which style the leader adopts. Keep straight which variable is treated as fixed and which is flexible in each model.

Q5: Is servant leadership just a "soft" or weak version of leadership? No. Servant leaders still set direction, make hard calls, and hold people accountable — the difference is the underlying motivation and measure of success (follower growth and wellbeing rather than personal power or pure output). Organizations known for strong service cultures (e.g., Southwest Airlines) show servant leadership can coexist with high performance and accountability.

Quick Revision

• Leadership theory evolved in four waves: trait → behavioral → contingency/situational → transformational/relational.
• Trait theory: innate qualities (intelligence, conscientiousness, extraversion) correlate with, but don't guarantee, leadership success.
• Ohio State/Michigan Studies: two independent dimensions — task-focused (initiating structure/production-oriented) and people-focused (consideration/employee-oriented).
• Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton): plots concern for people vs. production; "9,9 team management" is the ideal in this model.
• Fiedler's Contingency Model: leader style (LPC) is fixed — match the situation to the leader, not vice versa.
• Hersey-Blanchard SLT: leader style should flex (telling, selling, participating, delegating) based on follower readiness.
• Path-Goal theory: leader's job is to clear obstacles and clarify the route to goals.
• Transactional leadership = exchanges (contingent reward, management-by-exception); transformational = vision and inspiration (the "Four I's").
• Transformational leadership augments, not replaces, transactional leadership — both are usually needed.
• Autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Lewin) are situational choices, not fixed personality types.
• Servant leadership (Greenleaf) puts follower growth and wellbeing first; charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo) relies on the leader's personal magnetism and vision.
• No leadership style is universally best — exam and real-world reasoning both hinge on matching the theory/style to the specific context.

Related Topics

Prerequisites

• Introduction to Leadership

Related Topics

• Ethical Leadership and Corporate Responsibility
• Conflict Management and Negotiation

Next Topics

• Leading Organizational Change
• Leadership in Crisis Management