Leadership in Times of War: How to Lead Amid Uncertainty?

On April 4, 2025, the world saw the release of another – the fourth – episode of the “Leadership Podcast”, an original project by Andrew Rozhdestvensky, created through the joint efforts of the Center for Leadership of UCU and “Radio SKOVORODA”. And, following an established tradition, the episode began with questions from the audience.

“How can a leader motivate their team during a crisis or in times of uncertainty?”, “How do you support your team morally during difficult times or after missile attacks?”, “What lessons can organizations learn from today’s crises?”, and “What should be done with Leadership during wartime?”…

This list – far from complete, and all the more impressive for it – clearly showed one thing: existing in a state of crisis – be it economic, political, or security-related – has become the new “normal” for Ukrainian society. A “normal” that drains, traumatizes, and threatens the very existence of people and organizations. However, this is exactly why it demands special attention. So much so that we’ve dedicated not one, but two podcast episodes to the topic of “crisis” Leadership. And what the first episode revealed – you’ll find out in today’s analysis. Enjoy the read!

“Crisis” Leadership: Why is Ukraine’s Experience Unique?

This may sound somewhat paradoxical, but the very emergence of the Center for Leadership of UCU in 2016 is directly connected to “crisis” Leadership. The academic world, like the business world, trusts only the kind of knowledge gained in the “field.” And in that sense, the Ukrainian reality – filled with constant economic and socio-political, and over the past 12 years, even civilizational challenges – has become the perfect “laboratory” for anyone professionally engaged in this subject.

Tasks of incredible complexity, resistance against one of the world’s most dangerous military powers, and achievements obtained not because of, but in spite of the circumstances – this is the everyday reality in which another generation of our fellow citizens is growing up. Each of them has developed their own (often self-created) set of tools for survival and development in times of crisis. And it is precisely the collection, systematization, and popularization of the most effective approaches that has become the Mission the Center’s team remains devoted to to this day.

Already in 2017, according to Andrew Rozhdestvensky, one of the key areas of the work by the Center for Leadership of UCU was “born” – cooperation with military personnel. Research into the Leadership exhibited within what is now collectively referred to as the Defense Forces of Ukraine became the first example of how conventional approaches do (or don’t) work under real combat conditions.

At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s full-scale invasion offered unique cases of another kind of “crisis” Leadership on the ground – this time in the business sphere.

Ongoing, real-time communication with both military and civilian communities not only led to media projects like the documentary “Ukraine: A Leadership Exam”. It also gave representatives of the Ukrainian Catholic University a unique opportunity to look “behind the scenes” of management processes. To see, through concrete examples, which widely accepted Leadership principles held up to real-life testing – and which require revision. Most importantly, it helped uncover the “formulas” that proved to be especially relevant under the pressure of today’s challenges.
But before we explore these, let’s take a closer look at what classical leadership theory has to say about leading in times of crisis.

The “Golden” Rules of Leadership in Times of Trial

In 2013, one of the most authoritative contemporary books on “crisis” Leadership was published – “Handbook of Research on Crisis Leadership in Organizations”. Its author, Andrew DuBrin, an American Leadership scholar and professor at the Saunders College of Business and Rochester Institute of Technology, succeeded in formulating several universal rules for managerial behavior in times of crisis.

So, what were the recommendations of this outstanding theorist?

• Rapid Decision-Making. In crisis situations, there is often no time for lengthy discussions. Therefore, a leader must be prepared to make decisions quickly, even under uncertainty, by applying strict centralization of processes – also known as the “pointing finger style”.

“The military personnel like to use the phrase: “A wrong decision is [always] better than no decision at all”. [And the reason for this lies in the crucial role] of speed in their implementation”,

confirms the expert, supporting the scholar’s conclusions.

• Communication and Transparency. In times of crisis, it is important to maintain clear, regular, and most importantly – honest communication with all stakeholders: employees, clients, partners, and the public.

• Calmness and Emotional Resilience. A leader’s display of calmness, confidence, and stability is the best way to reduce panic within the team and boost overall trust.

• Adaptability and Flexibility. A key feature of crisis situations is the rapid change of circumstances affecting a person or company. Against this backdrop, a leader’s ability to adjust actions and even strategy in real time becomes critical.

• Empathy and Team Support. In conditions of stress and uncertainty, motivation and team unity come to the forefront. A leader’s ability to show empathy and care for people significantly boosts these qualities.

“Many people mistakenly believe that a leader is someone who cannot be sad, cannot cry, cannot appear confused. [And while this may be true at the moment of decision-making], modern people (especially the younger generation) greatly value genuine, unfeigned emotionality”,

Andrew Rozhdestvensky shares his observations.

• Moral Integrity and Ethics. Trust is the very resource whose value becomes especially apparent during trials. High ethical standards play a crucial role in preserving that trust.

• Crisis Planning and Preparedness. The final – though certainly not the least – point in DuBrin’s list of recommendations. Developing scenarios of potential crises and response plans is not merely part of a culture of organizational preparedness. It is also a hallmark of a truly effective leader – someone ready not only to respond to a crisis but to prevent its destructive consequences.

“[Despite all the skepticism around planning that modern leaders may have, it is crucial to understand the following:] the very existence of such a plan [or strategic vision] already serves as a kind of reassurance for your team. [And this is a valuable asset in any time of trial]”,

concludes our colleague, summarizing the author’s insights.

Which of the approaches proposed by the American scholar have proven effective in the Ukrainian context, and what came as a surprise to his followers? The answers to these questions will follow in the next part of our article.

Leadership in Wartime: Recipes from the Ukrainian “Kitchen”

In 2024, the article “Chaos VS. Normality in Wartime: The Role of Business Leaders in Creating Normality” was published. Written by Sophia Opatska – Vice-Rector for Strategic Development at the UCU, Founding Dean and Chair of the Supervisory Board of the UCU Business School – and based on joint research with representatives from Aarhus University (Denmark), it became a sort of revision of Andrew DuBrin’s approaches and those of his followers in the context of full-scale war. This is the very work to which the Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU refers in the second half of his presentation.

So, what insights did our colleagues uncover?

• The Importance of Leading by Example. The absence of double standards or reasons for distrust on the leader’s part, his or her willingness to be one with the team, and, ultimately, what is known as Integrity of Character – these are critical factors for overcoming common threats. And they fully resonate with the previously mentioned recommendations.

• Transparency in Decisions and Communication. Another point in common with DuBrin’s work, which proved effective during both the pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian war.

“DuBrin mainly talks about the quantity of communication. Our colleagues add that it must also be transparent, and all decisions – understandable to people. [The realities of war have shown that there is always] a great temptation to hide an unpopular decision [or to sugarcoat the truth]. But believe me – sooner or later, the truth will surface. [And the consequences of hiding it will be catastrophic]”,

warns the scholar during his lecture.

• Giving Meaning to Hardship. A somewhat unusual insight, compared to the “classical” understanding of “crisis” Leadership, was the conclusion reached by our colleagues: that it is essential to reinterpret the events happening around us.

However, it should not be considered something entirely new. For example, Viktor Frankl, mentioned in the context of “burnout”, built an entire system of psychotherapy based on the experience of former concentration camp prisoners – one that aligns closely with this recommendation.

“[In this case, we’re talking] not only about creating visions as a leader, but about giving meaning to the (often horrifying) things happening [right now]. Let me speak from personal experience. I feel no inspiration from the war. […] However, I try to explain to myself why [it] is happening now. Why are we paying such a price in today’s struggle? In my highly subjective opinion, we are now gaining real, not nominal, Independence. And the history of great nations shows that this always comes at such a price. [And that understanding helps us endure difficulties more consciously]…”,

shared Andrew Rozhdestvensky.

• (De)centralize Management Processes. A key distinction between the recommendations of Sophia Opatska and her colleagues and those of Andrew DuBrin is the critique of the idea that centralization is always necessary. The experience of the pandemic and the full-scale stage of the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown that sole Leadership was not the only path to successfully overcoming challenges. Many teams demonstrated resilience specifically due to the opposite approach – delegating authority locally.

This paradox, according to the Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU, is rooted in the management traditions of different companies. Structures trained under strict hierarchies, as well as those where initiative within boundaries was long normalized, both managed to handle security challenges effectively. What mattered most was the employees’ readiness for a new level of responsibility.

“[If you want to be ready to overcome a crisis successfully, prepare ahead of time.] Decide how you’ll act. If centralizing – do it properly. If decentralizing – prepare your people for [potential] delegation before the crisis hits. Because if you’ve been managing solely through the “pointing finger” approach, a sudden behavioral shift [might be perceived] as a sign of weakness and chaos. And that can lead to truly tragic consequences”,

the presenter explains.

About the Secrets of Situational Leadership

The topic of “crisis” Leadership would be incomplete without addressing one more component – understanding which “tools” are at the disposal of a modern manager, depending on the context. Particularly illustrative in this regard is the Crisis Leadership Model by Keith Grint, Honorary Professor at the University of Warwick (UK), first described in 2005.

It outlines three types of situations:

• Critical – requiring leaders to use the “pointing finger” style.
• Tame – best handled through classical management practices.
• Wicked – involving a completely new level of challenges, where Leadership focused on teamwork proves most effective.

These “crisis” Leadership styles – and how they correspond with increasing uncertainty and collaboration demands – can be examined more closely in the adapted diagram below:

“[Finally], what should you do when complex situations overlap with critical ones? For example, on the battlefield, where cutting-edge technologies are involved? In such cases, decentralization of management becomes crucial. [You retain control over] the broader picture, while decisions on the ground are made by the [relevant] people”,

our colleague summarizes.

The “Stockdale Paradox” and Its Significance for Ukrainians

Every long-term project eventually gives rise to certain traditions. The “Leadership Podcast” is no exception – especially in the form of audience questions that not only help define entire episode topics but also serve to wrap each episode up.

Episode four followed this tradition. However, a question from Sophia Petrash served more as inspiration for Andrew Rozhdestvensky to raise an extremely important point in the context of  “crisis” Leadership. Its name? The “Stockdale Paradox”.

James Bond Stockdale – a Vice Admiral in the U.S. Navy – became one of the most well-known prisoners of war during the Vietnam War. Between 1965 and 1973, while held in the notorious “Hanoi Hilton” prison camp, he not only survived but also managed to lead resistance efforts among the prisoners.

In conversation with Stockdale, researcher James C. Collins identified what would go on to be known in Leadership terminology as the “Stockdale Paradox”, or “managing optimism” during times of extreme adversity.

The American officer’s experience showed that excessive optimism – like pessimism – almost always led to death among those who held onto it. “Magical thinking” turned out to be just as dangerous as depression. The only way to protect oneself from despair and death was to combine unwavering belief in ultimate victory (which, in the Vice Admiral’s words, “must never” be lost) with the discipline to confront the harshest realities of the current moment.

“[So I’d like to use this example to convey a vital idea to Ukrainians, amid a war for survival:] you must not allow your team to fall into either pessimism or rose-colored optimism. Most people intuitively understand that pessimism kills. But trust me – unjustified optimism is just as dangerous. It literally drains our energy. And when we’re exhausted, it kills in critical situations. [And that’s what we must all keep in mind when faced with constant promises of a quick end to the war]”,

Andrew Rozhdestvensky concluded.

Final Thoughts

So, what are the takeaways from the fourth episode of the “Leadership Podcast”? According to our colleague’s conclusions, there are several “recipes” for “crisis” Leadership that can be applied – to varying degrees of success – amid today’s challenges. However, the most effective ones, such as the recommendations of Andrew DuBrin or those of Sophia Opatska and her colleagues from Aarhus University, share a common approach: thoughtful and frequent communication, leading by example, and a people-centered mindset.

What differs most is the view on management style. The realities of the Russo-Ukrainian war have shown that the “pointing-finger style” is not the only right one. When trust levels and team qualifications are high, decentralization becomes a powerful alternative.This last conclusion aligns well with Keith Grint’s Leadership Model, which emphasizes the importance of collaborative Leadership in “wicked” – or highly complex – situations. Ultimately, any crisis is a true test of our moral resilience. And if you ever find yourself uncertain of how to act in difficult circumstances – let the examples of James Bond Stockdale or Viktor Frankl serve as inspiration for overcoming the challenges of modern life. We wish you strength and success on this traditionally difficult – but incredibly important – path!