Leadership under Severe Stress: A Grounded Theory Study

Leadership under stress appears to be a constantly central issue in applied psychology. In his latest review (1990), B. M. Bass lists approximately 200 articles, books, and chapters in books in the chapter titled “Stress and Leadership.”1 However, leadership under severe stress appears to have attracted less attention. In a recent (January 2000) survey of the literature (PsyLit, from 1887), leadership plus severe stress yielded two references, both dealing with war neurosis. Combining leadership and performance with severe stress, or acute stress, or extreme stress all resulted in null references. Narrowing the focus to leadership under severe stress from a performance perspective has a strong impact on the amount of existing research. There also appear to be inconsistencies in the available writings. The importance of the leader’s personality characteristics illustrates this. The critical reviews of Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959) led to a longer period where leader actions, rather than personality traits, came to the fore.2 However, in recent years, personality appears to have recaptured its legitimacy as an approach to leadership research.3 Following from this lack of consistent findings, we concluded that more generative approaches are needed to enhance the understanding of the issue. The aim of the current study was to develop a theoretical understanding of leadership under severe stress from a performance-oriented perspective, using a grounded theory approach. We will conclude this introduction with a couple of clarifications. When we refer to severe stress, we end up close to what Elliot and Eisdorfer call “acute, time-limited stressors.”4 Accordingly, it is primarily a question of extremely strenuous situations that are defined in time and space; for example, to come under shellfire. The second specification refers to our limiting our interest towards leadership in organizations that are more or less permanent, that have a formal structure, and are designed to master extreme situations. Leadership within the armed forces falls within this framework whereas, for instance, leadership within a family in crisis does not.