Decentralization of Internal Crisis Management and Communication: Implications for Crisis Management Teams and Middle Managers

ABSTRACT Crisis management research has traditionally emphasized centralized authority, often concentrated in a crisis management team (CMT), to enable fast, coordinated internal responses. However, other scholars highlight the benefits of decentralizing internal crisis management and communication authority to middle managers to enhance responsiveness, creativity, and sensemaking during crises. But how can an organization work with a decentralized approach? What challenges do middle managers face, and do they appreciate such an approach? Based on a qualitative case study, including interviews with the CMT and 14 middle managers in a Danish organization ( + 1500 employees) during the Covid‐19 pandemic, the aim of this study is to explore how and why an organization decentralizes the authority of internal crisis management and communication responsibilities during a long‐term crisis, and what challenges and implications this poses for middle management. Key findings reveal new dimensions of decentralization processes, including the important role of timing and of communication by the CMT. While the decentralized authority of certain operational crisis management tasks, such as remote work, was welcomed by some middle managers, it created uncertainty and confusion among others. Communication and guidance from the CMT around the decentralized approach to crisis management were lacking, further challenging sensemaking processes and the ‘sandwiched’ roles of middle managers. Several middle managers expressed a need for feedback from a perceived distant CMT. In response, horizontal coordination among middle managers intensified as a strategy to reduce uncertainty and make sense of evolving responsibilities.