Humanitarian leadership and managing teams in crisis

1Manager, leader, head of mission: what is really expected of you

In a humanitarian organisation, management means obtaining predictable results with limited resources: planning, organising, controlling, reporting. Leadership means giving direction when plans are no longer enough: giving meaning, mobilising people, arbitrating between values in tension. A project manager or head of mission needs both, but not in the same proportions at every phase of a crisis.

ALNAP studies on operational leadership (Buchanan-Smith and Scriven, 2011) showed that the managers their teams consider effective are not those with the best technical mastery, but those who combine four qualities: a clear vision of priorities, the ability to decide without complete information, attention to people and the ability to work with other organisations. Humanitarian leadership is therefore relational and collective first.

High standard: a good humanitarian manager knows how to say what they will not do. Refusing an activity outside the mandate, funding that contradicts the principles, or an expansion into a new area without the means to keep staff safe is an act of leadership, not a lack of ambition.

2Choosing your style: situational leadership and emergency context

The situational leadership model (Hersey and Blanchard) suggests adapting your style to each team member's level of competence and commitment on a given task, not to the person in general:

• Directing (S1): precise instructions and close control, for a motivated person who is new to the task.
• Coaching (S2): instructions and explanations, for a person who is progressing but losing heart.
• Supporting (S3): listening and shared decisions, for a competent but hesitant person.
• Delegating (S4): objectives and trust, for a competent and autonomous person.

The humanitarian context adds a second variable: the level of urgency. In the first 72 hours of a sudden-onset crisis, a directive style is often necessary and expected (who does what, where, before tonight). But staying directive after the acute phase exhausts the team and blocks initiative. Goleman's model (2000) helps name these shifts: the coercive style is useful in immediate danger, the visionary style during a change of strategy, the coaching style to develop the national staff who will take over, and the democratic style when the team holds information you do not have.

Common mistake: confusing urgency with haste. Even in an acute phase, take ten minutes to share your analysis: a team that understands why it is acting makes fewer mistakes and makes better decisions when you are not there.

3Building a high-performing team under pressure

Tuckman's model (forming, storming, norming, performing) describes the stages of a team. In humanitarian work, high staff turnover, especially among international staff in difficult contexts, means a team regularly returns to the storming phase. The manager's job is to shorten these phases through rituals: structured induction, written handover, a short weekly meeting, after-action review.

Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety (and Google's Project Aristotle, 2015) shows that the first driver of team performance is the belief that one can report a mistake, ask a question or challenge a decision without being punished. In an NGO, it is also a condition for security and protection: a team that does not dare to pass on a rumour, an incident or a suspicion of abuse puts lives at risk.

• Clarify roles with a RACI matrix (who is Responsible, who is Accountable, who is Consulted, who is Informed) for each critical process: procurement, security, recruitment, donor reporting.
• Delegate for real: delegate a result, not a task; set the level of authority ("you decide and inform me" or "you propose and I decide").
• Balance national and international staff: national staff make up more than 90% of the humanitarian workforce; decision-making posts should progressively go to them, with an explicit development plan.

4Conflict, diversity and intercultural communication

Humanitarian teams bring together very different nationalities, statuses (national, international, local contract, consultant), generations and attitudes to hierarchy. Erin Meyer's dimensions (The Culture Map) are useful for decoding misunderstandings: explicit or implicit communication, direct or indirect criticism, decision by consensus or by the boss, trust based on the task or on the relationship.

When facing a conflict, the Thomas-Kilmann model distinguishes five attitudes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, accommodating. None is good in itself. Collaboration takes time and suits important, lasting issues; compromise suits the sharing of resources; avoidance can be wise when the stakes are minor or emotions are running too high.

A five-step mediation method, applicable between two colleagues:

1. Separate interviews: listen to the facts, the feelings, the needs.
2. Check that the situation does not fall under a formal procedure (harassment, abuse, fraud): if it does, no mediation; refer it to the reporting mechanism.
3. Joint meeting with rules: each person speaks without interruption; describe behaviours, not people.
4. Look for options and write a simple agreement: who does what, from when.
5. Follow-up meeting after two or three weeks.

5Deciding under uncertainty and taking care of the team

The Cynefin framework (Snowden and Boone, 2007) helps choose how to decide. In a simple (clear) domain (a standard distribution), you apply the procedure. In a complicated domain (sizing a water network), you consult experts. In a complex domain (how a conflict evolves, acceptance by a community), you test on a small scale, observe and adjust. In chaos (an attack, an explosive epidemic), you act first to stabilise, then analyse.

For important decisions, a one-page decision note protects both the organisation and the decision-maker: context, options (at least three, including "do nothing"), criteria, risks, decision, conditions for review. It then allows an honest after-action review: the quality of the decision is judged against the information available at the time, not only against its outcome.

Finally, a humanitarian leader is responsible for the team's health. The Antares Foundation and CDC study (Lopes Cardozo et al., 2012) found that about one humanitarian worker in five showed symptoms of depression after their mission, and that team and organisational support clearly reduced that risk. The measures that really protect are well known: rest and leave actually taken (R&R), a realistic workload, peer support, access to confidential psychological support, recognition, and a manager who sets the example by respecting their own limits.

Benchmark: if your team works more than 60 hours a week for more than four weeks, it is no longer an emergency phase; it is a staffing problem to raise with senior management and donors.