Crisis leadership is often cast in terms of people displaying extraordinary power, influence, charisma, and superhuman qualities.1 It is thus not surprising that we often assume that strong leaders have complete agency and control over making and executing decisions, especially during crises. Consider this definition of the term leaderism by Insead’s Gianpiero Petriglieri:

Leaderism is the belief that great leaders are the cure for every ill. It feeds on our desire for clarity and comfort, for a world of heroes and villains in which someone strong will keep us safe. The more anxious we are, the more leaderist we become. At the core of leaderism is an image of leadership that is popular in business and in business schools. Leaders influence and inspire. They portray confidence, tell a simple story, and promise to disrupt institutions.2

During crises, when anxieties and uncertainties dominate, the pull toward this brand of superheroic leadership intensifies. Yet today’s continuous trickle of crises tests our collective mettle and calls for an update to this outdated script on crisis leadership.

It’s time to stop idealizing the confident and charismatic superhero (or the AI-driven, quick-fix, action-oriented superhero) and start developing more humanized leaders — people who have emotional complexity and doubts but can forge an imperfect path forward through the storm.3 Unfortunately, the academic literature on crisis leadership has contributed to the idealization of leaderism in business and society by empirically overclaiming the value and influence of the superhero leader.4

True leadership during crises calls for engagement with often messy, chaotic thoughts, intense emotions, and precarious relationships, both inside and outside the organization.