Difficult Times, Difficult Decisions: Examining the Impact of Perceived Crisis Response Strategies During COVID-19.

Abstract

Crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, require rapid action to be taken by leaders, despite minimal understanding of the impact of implemented crisis management policies and procedures in organizations. This study's purpose was to establish a greater understanding of which perceived crisis response strategies were the most beneficial or detrimental to relevant perceptions and outcomes during the recent COVID-19 crisis. Using a time-lagged study design and a sample of 454 healthcare employees, latent profile analysis was used to identify strategy profiles used by organizations based on several policy/procedure categories (i.e., human-resource supportive, human-resource disadvantaging, behavioral/interactional human safety and protection-focused, and environmental and structural safety supports-focused policies and procedures). Results indicated that four perceived crisis response strategies were employed: (1) human resource-disadvantaging, (2) maximizing, (3) safety and human resource-supportive, and (4) inactive. Perceived crisis response strategy was linked to several employee well-being (e.g., work stress) and behavioral (e.g., safety behavior) outcomes via proximal perceptions (i.e., perceived organizational support, ethical leadership, and safety climate). Proximal perceptions were the most positive for employees within organizations that enacted safety and human resource-supportive policies and procedures or that utilized a maximizing approach by implementing a wide array of crisis response policies and procedures. This paper contributes to the literature by providing crucial information needed to reduce organizational decision-making time in the event of future crises.