A study with 32 executives shows that successful crisis management requires leaders to hold six paradoxes at once — and calls for a new kind of leadership.
A senior executive at a consumer goods company describes the 2008 financial crisis as follows: Under no circumstances should you run through the workday like a startled rabbit, even if sweat is beading on your forehead. You have to manage the crisis with a smile and a certain degree of composure. At the same time, the same person reports that they had to remain rational and show resolve: act consistently, build pressure, and avoid showing weakness in front of employees.
This simultaneity of composure and firmness, of empathy and emotional distance, is not a contradiction that can simply be resolved. It is a paradox that leaders must learn to shape productively in existential crises. This is shown in a qualitative study by Charlotte Förster, Stephanie Duchek and Wolfgang H. Güttel, published in Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research.
32 Interviews from Crisis-Affected Industries: What the Study Examines
The research team interviewed 32 executives from a wide range of industries, including construction, energy, banking, medical technology and aviation. They all had one thing in common: they were responsible for managing a crisis that threatened the continued existence of their organization. The types of crises ranged from the 2008 financial crisis to corruption cases, product recalls, nationalizations and dramatic market downturns.
The analysis paints a nuanced picture that challenges common assumptions about crisis management. The interviews show that successful leadership in times of crisis depends largely on the ability to embody contradictory behaviors at the same time. The authors identify six pairs of such paradoxical behaviors, distributed across two levels: the leader’s mindset — the conscious perception of these contradictions — and concrete action under extreme time pressure, which the authors refer to as “Compressed Situational Leadership.”
Mindset Level: Strategic and Operational at the Same Time
One example at the mindset level shows how tangible these paradoxes become: leaders report that, in the midst of operational crisis management — responding immediately to declining revenues, monitoring key figures on a daily basis, communicating with stakeholders — they also had to think strategically. One manager describes how he deliberately used his commute to work as time for reflection, detached from operational pressure, to think through scenarios and develop fundamentally new approaches to solutions. Strategic and operational thinking took place in parallel, not one after the other.
Action Level: Compressed Situational Leadership
A similar pattern emerges at the action level. Leaders gave their teams clear direction and set strict priorities — while also creating space for participation and delegation. One CEO describes how he deliberately involved people he trusted completely and transferred decision-making authority to them, rather than steering everything centrally. The ability to switch between tight and loose leadership in short intervals proved essential — and forms the core of what the authors call “Compressed Situational Leadership.”
What This Means for Organizational Resilience
Wolfgang H. Güttel will speak about the other paradoxes identified in the study, how they are connected, and what this means for building organizational resilience in companies at the Future Leadership Forum 2026.
