Even in a global pandemic, there’s no such thing as a crisis

Abstract

In my 2019 publication, Constructing Crisis: Leaders, Crisis, and Claims of Urgency, I argued that “crisis” is a label, a claim of urgency employed, typically by leaders, to characterize a set of contingencies that are, together, taken to pose a serious and immediate threat. I then proposed a typology for sorting through any such claim in order to reach a judgment concerning the legitimacy of the claim. Classification systems such as typologies are foundational to knowledge creation in that they enable pattern recognition.. How we classify phenomenon has a real impact on how we consider and behave in response to that phenomenon. In the context of a global pandemic, the importance of critical judgment is especially salient. Labeling the global pandemic as a crisis may be non-controversial (to most). But there are enumerable claims being made under the general rubric of that pandemic that are not nearly so widely and easily accepted. Furthermore, claims of urgency will continue long after this particular contingency passes. It is never advisable to relax a critical perspective, especially when assertions of power and interests are involved and the stakes are so high.

The Language of Pandemic Leaderships: Mapping Political Rhetoric During the COVID‐19 Outbreak

“…During global crises like the COVID‐19 pandemic, national leaders are responsible for communicating effectively with citizens (Chiriboga, Garay, Buss, Madrigal, & Rispel, 2020). How leaders address their followers sets the stage for how major problems are understood, strengthens the public's confidence in government competence, and elicits behavioral change aligned with key policy measures (Spector, 2020; Van Bavel et al, 2020). Burgeoning research from the early months of the pandemic shows that differences in leaders' talk are associated with divergences in outbreak control (Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020; Wilson, 2020).…”

“…A framing lens shifts analytical focus from actors (e.g., leaders and followers) back to the utterances themselves. Spector (2020), for instance, characterizes how leaders' talk may strategically deploy meanings of crisis to advance political interests. By combining objective descriptions of extant problems with subjective ascriptions of urgency, certain objectives are legitimized over others.…”

What’s Going On?

“…Even when they have a good hunch about the nature of the developing threat, they may still be careful to announce their opinion too soon. They know that "calling a crisis" is an inherently political act (Spector, 2020), with serious organizational, psychological, economic and social implications. They may want to avoid being branded a Cassandra, and therefore factor in reputational and tactical considerations in choosing when and how to appraise the policymakers of the critical signals that they have begun to detect.…”

What lies beneath resilience: Analyzing the affective-relational basis of shared leadership in the Chilean miners’ catastrophe

“…Crises are significant unusual events or processes that create a progressive disturbance of the organization’s security and well-being, affecting both its stakeholders and the broader environment, due to the unpredictable negative consequences they bring forth (James et al, 2011; Williams et al, 2017). A crisis is a “claim of urgency” based on events that represent a serious threat, but which always asserts the interests of those who have the power to portray and ascribe meaning to it on verifiable or unverifiable grounds (Spector, 2020). Traditional approaches to crisis management are established on classic engineering models that minimize relational aspects (Kahn et al, 2013).…”