Crisis is a big problem that humanity often faces. It occurs in every country, every sector and even on a global scale. Minimizing the consequences caused by  crisis is the goal of crisis management, in which a decisive factor for its success or failure is the role of leaders who have the mission to  lead an organization, to build trust and motivation and take measures to go through the crisis.

Crisis and crisis management

There are many approaches and explanations about crisis. But in general, there are some common noticeable elements of crisis:

- Crisis is an abnormal situation; it occurs abruptly with unusual manifestations and causes abnormalities; it causes normal structural states to change abnormally or even to be paralyzed or broken down; the abnormality of crisis appears in reality and also in the forecast, or even though it has been predicted, when it occurs, it still leads to a crisis.

- Contagion and contagion effects of crisis. Crisis often begins in a specific field, in a specific space, but it does not stop in that field and space. It also has a spillover effect to other fields and in a much wider space than the original. It can be compared to a detonator and an explosion. Therefore, it is very difficult to separate the crisis from the consequences of crisis because the consequences of an initial crisis may lead to subsequent crises in other areas or the nature of the crisis may remain the same but spread to other areas. Due to contagion effect, an initial crisis can occur in a very small scale, but the subsequent crises derived from that initial crisis are truly terrible. Crisis is compared to “the last straw that breaks the camel’s back” - A seemingly normal phenomenon, a small cause can make channels of contagion that causes the collapse of a large system.

- Crisis is often unexpected and unstable although in most cases, the seeds of the crisis have been “incubated” for a long time before. It is almost impossible to predict the time, place, form of manifestation and especially the consequences of crisis.

- Crisis makes a huge impact, usually multi-sectoral impact and has a rapid and wide-spreading effect. Therefore, when we measure the magnitude of a crisis as well as evaluate whether a phenomenon has reached crisis level, we often rely mainly on its consequences, not on the initial phenomenon that it represents/affects. Generally, an abnormal event (necessary condition) is only considered as a crisis or leads to a crisis if it shakes up, disrupts the old system or institution, or forces the old system or institution to perform non-traditional affairs (sufficient conditions).

- Serious consequences: The severity implies consequences in a negative direction. Crisis affects nature and environment with damages that are difficult or impossible to recover. It affects human life that cannot be compensated. It also exercises influence on society, leading to rifts that are difficult to heal and destabilizes political life. Normally, a crisis is an opportunity for better things to emerge from it, but it is the result of subjective human adjustment rather than the natural and evident outcome of the crisis.

In the current context, some more elements and manifestations of crisis can be identified:

- There are more and more new crises, of which the media crisis is the clearest example, or environmental crises, gender imbalance, and so forth. Many phenomena were not previously considered as crises. But in the current context, they become crises, such as international migration, cross-border migration, etc.

- There is an increasing number of crises that have a large space, go beyond a country to become a global issue or need to be managed globally, such as: Financial crisis, energy crisis, environmental crisis, humanitarian crisis, health, epidemic...

- The speed of crisis contagion is fast from one sector to another, from one region/country to another and becomes a global problem. The contemporary world has witnessed several dual crises which were intertwined with other crises. For example, health crisis leads to humanitarian crisis, social crisis, supply and production chain disruption, economic crisis...; Environmental crisis leads to economic, social, security and political crises...; Water crisis affects different countries…

- Crisis and crisis management are rapidly becoming an international issue, politicized, internationalized, and even exploited by other countries.

“Crisis management” has complicated connotations with many different interpretations. Nevertheless, in general, it is simply a process of arranging, preparing and responding to crisis.

Crisis is unusual. Obviously, a crisis to some extent will returns to normal or become normal, just like an earthquake, an abnormal state of the earth that produces a tsunami, an anomaly of the sea. It rushes to the shore and then comes back as calm as the sea. Natural phenomena will return to their normal state when their impulses are exhausted. The normal will overcome the abnormal. Human society has experienced many of those states. It seems that the crisis itself will pass.

However, it is the natural state of crisis, and in social terms, a crisis is only a crisis when it adversely affects social life. Therefore, the crisis needs to be managed and is manageable. When it is well managed, it only exists as a threat - and consequently, the crisis will not occur and it is only latent, even though the initial impulse is huge. Often bad governance leads to a crisis. So, with the same phenomenon, it may become a crisis in an institution but it is not the case in others. Crisis can be controlled, prevented, and minimized. Take an example of Covid-19 pandemic, it is obvious that this is a global crisis in terms of health, medical care, humanity, economy, society, etc. However, it would be much more unpredictable if it was not minimized and controlled by human being.

Theoretically and somewhat illusory, the highest goal of crisis management is to prevent the threat from becoming a crisis. It is always hoped that with good forecasting and crisis management, there will be no crisis. But in fact, every crisis that has been called a crisis has a strong impact, causing damage in many aspects to social life. And whether being passive or active, people always succeeded in responding to crisis and achieving certain results. Thus, it seems that it is possible to respond to crisis, minimize damage, and overcome it. The primary purpose of crisis management is to keep it from increasing in magnitude and intensity, and at the same time to minimize its harmful effects on organization, community, society and to isolate its specific manifestation and to prevent its spread to new areas.

Due to the anomaly of crisis, crisis management aims to restore the normal, and that will be the new normal. In many cases, this ability is not dependent on the extent of damages caused by crisis, but it depends mainly on the crisis management capability. Japan after World War II and after tsunami disaster has shown this evidence.

The role of leaders in crisis management

Leader is a term used to refer to individuals who have influence, the ability to dominate, lead and manage a group of people, an organization, a social-political institution or a country, an international organization. A leader can be understood as the head of an agency, an organization, a political leader, a leader of a system, etc. His role is expressed in leading and directing his subordinates to work and dedicate. He can be elected, appointed, but there are also leaders who appear when they grasp the general spirit of an organization, they are considered the soul in the whole system.

As a whole, leaders play the role of finding the ways, leading employees, maintaining their activities in the process of reaching the set goals, using their influence and power to adjust and direct their team on the right track. They hold the role of spiritual leaders to arouse emotions, unlock and awaken latent abilities in each person so as to help the team bring into full play their talents to the common goal. Leaders hence play decisive role in organization’s destiny. Good leaders need to have a full set of skills, in addition to their instinct, ability to manage and lead, they also must have  an insight and the sense of listening to grasp everything in the process of running the organization.

Depending on the position, function, duties, characteristics of organizations, the power of leaders also has different levels and manifestations and methods of exercising power. When they assume the highest position in an organization, they are empowered to complete the task. That power comes from the collective, they use power on behalf of the collective to perform common tasks, and this power does not belong to themselves. They determine the success and take responsibility of their organization's performance. Furthermore, they have to take greater responsibility than their subordinates. It is their duty to direct, manage, control employees to make the apparatus work effectively(1).

Leaders have the most important role in the process of preparing, responding and handling crises, or in other words, managing crisis.

The role of leaders in crisis management is to mobilize organization and employees that are in normal state to successfully respond to the abnormal and bring the organization back to the new normal. Their task in crisis management is to handle and make different decisions so that the system can overcome the crisis. Depending on the severity and type of crisis, leaders and their teams have to make different decisions with various choices and effects. In other words, the burden in a crisis is the “burden of choice” that leaders are responsible for. The concept of “the burden of choice” was analyzed by Alvin Toffler (1928 - 2016) in his famous book “The Third Wave” by which, when faced with many complicated options, people have a more difficult time making a decision(2). Today, when crises become global, the complexity and difficulty of managing them have multiplied, so tend leaders feel more pressure about the burden of choice placed on their shoulders.

In order to perform well their role in a crisis, they first need to define their most important position, mission and role. Only then will they be able to manage independently and respond to crises quickly, steadfastly and effectively. Crisis always comes abruptly, its destructive power is difficult to estimate and if decision making is delayed, everything can be over. In many unexpected situations, leaders must make an immediate decision without receiving the direction from their direct superior or consulting their subordinates and they cannot rely on regulations too to solve the problem. If decision making is delayed, the consequences will be dire. Steadiness is a very important criterion of leadership, even more vital in an emergency situation. Thus, defining the mission plays a crucial role.

There are many differences between a leader in a stable situation and the one in a crisis. Many people have talent, knowledge, and experience, so when leading an organization in a stable and secure situation, they often achieve very good results. However, when a crisis occurs, their ways of working to respond quickly to crisis are not really effective. In times of crisis, an organization will often rely on only one person who sometimes does not hold the highest position. There are certain differences between a leader who is appointed by the organization and a personage who becomes leader. Not to mention the fact that in an organization, there are both a head and a leader, in which the leader is the one who makes people listen to him and is able to lead the organization through the crisis. The head is only, legally, a person holding the highest position, his power is attributed by regulations and laws.

Crisis management always involves responsibility of leaders. They have the duty to lead and run the organization and take responsibility for their decisions during a crisis. They must have wisdom and bravery, independent thinking, flexibility, steadiness so as to mobilize man power and resources to overcome the crisis. When extreme situations arise, they must decide what to be eliminated, what to keep in order to preserve the organization's forces and interests, and at the same time, they need to develop an appropriate plan to deal with the crisis. Since ancient times, during the Three Kingdoms period in China, when Liu Bei failed in the battle, he was determined not to abandon his people and let them follow him. Meanwhile, when Cao Cao lost the battle, the first thing he chose was to find a way to escape to preserve his life, and then continued to gather his forces. Liu Bei was willing to sacrifice for others to maintain humanity while Cao Cao was clearly the opposite who thought that in an emergency situation, if he could not even protect himself, what would he do to take care of others? The problem to be analyzed here is that when two leaders are put into a dilemma, they decide to keep and give up different things, so which is correct? In fact, only by defining clearly their mission can leaders decide how to act in a crisis.

Crisis handling requires improvisational and flexible methods that best suit the situation. Numerous examples show that famous leaders who handle difficult and dangerous situations often rely on their instinct, intuitive perception and bright ideas flashing through their mind rather than follow planned scenarios. Sometimes it's a decision totally different from the majority's choice. For example, President Ho Chi Minh chose the least harmful solution (reconciling with France) in a completely unfavorable circumstance (the French and the Government of the Republic of China signed the Chongqing Agreement). People's trust in the leader is crucial. When China was deeply in crisis after wrong policies such as “Great Leap Forward” (1958 - 1962) or “Cultural Revolution” (1966 - 1976), Deng Xiaoping (1904 - 1997) was determined to completely reform the country's economy, laying the foundation for China's transformation to become today's economic power. Or General Vo Nguyen Giap decided to shift his strategy from “quick fight, quick victory” to “steady fight and advance” in the Dien Bien Phu campaign. In summary, a leader capable of leading the organization through the crisis must have qualities such as high intuition, independent thinking, steadiness and courage in action.

The states, manifestations and effects of crises are different in each specific field, for instance: economic crisis is different from political crisis, currency crisis is dissimilar to natural crisis and so forth. Thus, the roadmap and measures to handle crisis in each specific field are not the same and based on context, conditions, functions and tasks of each organization. It is evident that the crisis management process in almost all fields has certain common elements: First and foremost, organizations must take measures to prevent and limit risks from threats of crisis if it occurs as the damage caused by a crisis is always inevitable. Second, when a crisis arises, most of its impacts will go beyond predictions. Consequently, it is hard to respond to it. Third, as mentioned above, during the crisis has occurred, the decisive factor for crisis management is not only the measures that have been planned before, but also the key factor of leadership. In most organizations, no other factor can replace the decisive role of leaders in crisis management, and vice versa, the crisis will also contribute to assessing and demonstrating the bravery and capacity of a leader and showing who is leader or the spiritual leader of that organization.

The relationship between mechanisms, regulations and laws and the crisis handling process - the optimality of the headship regime. The role of leaders in crisis handling is often maximized in a headship regime. It is necessary to handle the relationship between individuals and organizations in a crisis situation. A leader has to make decisions when it is not possible to rely only on the collective resolution. Most agencies and organizations have their own system of laws, mechanisms and regulations to run the apparatus. Any individuals violating regulations must be punished in different forms. In many special cases, when a crisis occurs, a leader must have decisions and acts that can be contrary to pre-existing laws and regulations. This leads to a dilemma after the crisis is over, the question of responsibility during the crisis is brought into consideration. It can be seen that most of those who follow the regulated process and comply with the organization's regulations and legal provisions are not punished. On the contrary, individuals who dare to break regulations and laws and go different ways risk to become criminals and be disciplined. This constitutes a very sensitive issue. Leaders in crisis when restricted by mechanisms and regulations can become heroes and risk also to become criminals if violating the rules even though in crisis situation, they must ensure a rapid response to the crisis.

From the practice of crisis management and the role of leaders in crisis, it is urgent to build a special and independent working regime for leaders in agencies and organizations that should be implemented at least during crisis handling. The headship regime can be seen as a special working mode of leaders, it is understood as a leadership mode by which leaders of organization have full autonomy to decide and take personal responsibility on all matters within the competence of organizations managed by them(3). The headship regime allows the head of organization to make decisions and act contrary to the general regulations on the basis that those decisions bring value to the organization in crisis time. This can be compared to the position of Commander in armed forces. When an incident occurs, he is the one who has the right to make decisions without having to obey anyone or follow any pre-existing rules. This regime maintains certain peace of mind to leaders, and at the same time creates an environment and conditions for them to promote their bravery, intelligence, ability to improvise and handle the crisis. It is like a “knot” that if opened, they can handle the crisis quickly and radically thanks to their responsibility and intelligence. Crisis is a special situation, when it occurs, leaders need a special working regime. The regime of headship meets that requirement and this is completely reasonable based on experience from reality.

---------------

(1) https://tcnn.vn/news/detail/46379/Ban-ve-trach-nhiem-cua-nguoi-dung-dau-co-quan-nha-nuoc-trong-cong-tac-can-bo.html

(2) https://thuvienphapluat.vn/tnpl/19405/Che-do-thu-truong?tab=0

(3) http://luathanhchinh.vn/trach-nhiem-ca-nhan-cua-che-do-thu-truong-duoc-quy-dinh-the-nao/

(4) https://tcnn.vn/news/detail/46379/Ban-ve-trach-nhiem-cua-nguoi-dung-dau-co-quan-nha-nuoc-trong-cong-tac-can-bo.html