2.

5 Leader as a Crisis Manager

Leadership is a social influence technique that maximizes the efforts of other people in
order to accomplish a goal (Bolden, 2004). All too frequently, when people talk about a
company's management, they mean the top leaders. Simply put, they are the most powerful
executives. Leadership doesn't merely occur once you reach a certain pay grade (Kruse, 2013).
When we collaborate with or witness effective leaders, we can tell. Although there are many
different views of leadership and leadership performance, leadership is a complex process (Hong
et al., 2016).

Crisis leaders benefit from understanding how social assets may be safeguarded through
crisis communication. SCCT offers a framework for understanding this dynamic. According to
the threat to the reputation the crisis creates, SCCT provides a mechanism to anticipate how
participants will react (Kronewald and Rademacher, 2022). Additionally, SCCT makes
predictions about how the general public will react to the crisis management strategies used. Its
empirical study produces a collection of data-backed recommended practices for crisis
communication. The process of creating SCCT's crisis standards for communication is also
discussed (Liu et al., 2011).

It has recently been popular to distinguish between management and leadership, although
mounting evidence suggests that this division may be false. The pattern of contrasting leadership
with management by portraying the leader as a creator who utilizes intuition as well as creativity
to navigate through chaos while the manager is regarded as a problem solver who is reliant on
reason and control (Carroll and Levy, 2008). Since then, there has been a slew of forceful
pronouncements comparing both in the leadership literature. According to (Lumby and Azaola,
2014), managers "do things right," whereas leaders 'do the right thing,' and Bryman contends that
a leader is a catalyst who is focused on strategy, whereas a manager is an operator or technician
who is more concerned with the 'here-and-now of operating goal attainment (Stoll and
Temperley, 2009).' Definition, or even better, distinction, is the initial area of concern. I started
out by saying that, roughly twenty years ago, concepts like 'administration' and 'management'
were just as popular in educational circles as, if not more popular than, 'leadership.' This
allegation may be supported by a historical study of course names, departmental designations,
journal titles, and the like from this time period if I had the space and time. As should be
obvious, all of that has lately altered (Gronn and management, 2003). The concept of 'leadership'
has now become pervasive due to the enormous and absolutely amazing size of the leading
business (in which governments, companies, universities, schools, and educational systems have
a major material vested interest) (Daniels, 2002). The rising number of leadership centers is
proof of this. It is becoming more prevalent in the language used in job postings. It is also
evident in a sizable corpus of theoretical and scientific literature. These examples might be easily
expanded upon. What do these changes indicate? I'll try to demonstrate how, as a result of
leadership uniqueness in the middle of the 1980s, pundits started to elevate management and
demonize leadership. However, for the time being, a crucial question is what, if anything,
changes as soon as commentators start to prioritize terms like 'leader,' 'leading,' and 'leadership'
as discursive modalities of describing reality (Gronn and management, 2003).