The DOI matches its Crossref record; 190 of the 190 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crisis leadership: A review and future research agenda
Abstract
Abstract The past few decades have witnessed numerous crises that have drawn increasing attention to the study of crisis leadership. However, research in this field remains fragmented and existing reviews often adopt a subjective approach to identify and synthesize the findings of relevant articles. These limitations make it difficult for scholars to appreciate the progress made in the literature, to derive comprehensive and objective insights, and to forge a path ahead. This study synthesizes theoretical insights and empirical findings in the crisis leadership literature using bibliometric techniques. We first review the intellectual structure of the crisis leadership literature by conducting co-citation and bibliographic coupling analyses. We then map the major conceptual themes in the crisis leadership literature via a co-word analysis. To supplement the findings of the bibliometric analyses, we review the key methodological approaches adopted by crisis leadership researchers. Based on the integrative insights, we propose a research agenda highlighting opportunities for theoretical and methodological advancements in crisis leadership research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
External Control of Organizations: Resource Dependence Perspective
(2011) · Organizational Behavior 6 · doi:10.4324/9781315701967-54 · Cited by 14,181
Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations
Longshore, J. M., & Bass, B. M. (1987) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258081 · Cited by 12,412
Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 · Cited by 10,220
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Cited by
Klarin, A. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13031 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, Y. L., Shao, B., Newman, A., & Schwarz, G.
- Venue
- The Leadership Quarterly
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 101518
- ISSN
- 1048-9843 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3157855617
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 190
- FWCI
- 38.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Crisis leadership: A review and future research agenda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101518
- The paper
- Wu, Y. L., Shao, B., Newman, A., & Schwarz, G. (2021). Crisis leadership: A review and future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101518
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.