, and three anonymous reviewers at The Leadership Quarterly for helpful input and comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.Citation: Hadley, C.N., Pittinsky, T. L., Sommer, S. A., & Zhu, W. (2009). Measuring the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a crisis: The C-LEAD Scale.Unpublished manuscript. C-LEAD Scale 1Measuring the Efficacy of Leaders to Assess Information and Make Decisions in a Crisis:The C-LEAD Scale AbstractBased on literature and expert interviews, we developed the Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding scale (C-LEAD) to capture the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a public health and safety crisis. In Studies 1 and 2, we find that C-LEAD predicts decision-making difficulty and confidence in a crisis better than a measure of general leadership efficacy. In Study 3, C-LEAD predicts greater motivation to lead in a crisis, more crisis leader role-taking, and more accurate performance while in a crisis leader role. These findings support the scale's construct validity and broaden our theoretical understanding of the nature of crisis leader efficacy.

During an organizational crisis in health care, we collected multilevel data from 426 team members and 52 leaders. The results of hierarchical linear modeling describe the influence of leader behavior on team members' resilience, which is primarily through affective mechanisms. Specifically, transformational leadership was associated with greater levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect, which in turn predicted higher resilience among team members. Inverse effects were found for the passive form of management-by-exception (MBE) leadership. Contrary to expectation, no relationship was found between active MBE leadership and affect. The implications for leaders and team members to foster positive affect and resilience during a crisis are discussed.

, and three anonymous reviewers at The Leadership Quarterly for helpful input and comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.Citation: Hadley, C.N., Pittinsky, T. L., Sommer, S. A., & Zhu, W. (2009). Measuring the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a crisis: The C-LEAD Scale.Unpublished manuscript. C-LEAD Scale 1Measuring the Efficacy of Leaders to Assess Information and Make Decisions in a Crisis:The C-LEAD Scale AbstractBased on literature and expert interviews, we developed the Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding scale (C-LEAD) to capture the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a public health and safety crisis. In Studies 1 and 2, we find that C-LEAD predicts decision-making difficulty and confidence in a crisis better than a measure of general leadership efficacy. In Study 3, C-LEAD predicts greater motivation to lead in a crisis, more crisis leader role-taking, and more accurate performance while in a crisis leader role. These findings support the scale's construct validity and broaden our theoretical understanding of the nature of crisis leader efficacy.

Prior research suggests that, in general, the disclosure of positive emotions at work results in positive consequences for individuals while the disclosure of negative emotions results in negative ones. The current study examines the possibility of asymmetrical emotional outcomes to such disclosures, including those associated with the sharing of positive emotions. Interviews with human service workers elicited 71 detailed descriptions of emotional work events, the majority of which (77%) had been discussed in some manner with coworkers. Qualitative analysis of the incident data shows that both symmetrical and asymmetrical emotion regulation outcomes resulted from these coworker interactions. In regard to the disclosure of negative emotions, an asymmetrical outcome (mitigation) was welcomed, whereas for positive emotions, a symmetrical outcome (capitalization) was desired. Group norms, leader behaviors and coworker responsiveness influenced whether and which emotional events were shared, as well as the net impact on the participant’s emotional state. Overall, participants conveyed less motivation to share their positive emotional experiences with colleagues than their negative ones, largely owing to concerns that an asymmetrical outcome (dampening) would occur. Implications for organizational theories of emotional labor and social support, as well as the practice of effective emotion regulation in the workplace, are presented.