Evidence Hub

Leadership in public administration amid crisis: a meta-analysis of leadership styles and crisis management related outcomes

Aung CN, Zhang X

Frontiers in psychology, 2026

21,815 participants

Abstract

Strong leadership is essential for efficient crisis management within public administration throughout global poly crises to alleviate the crisis's effect on individuals and bolster organizational resilience. This meta-analysis examined the correlations between leadership styles and crisis management outcomes in the context of public administration. Following the PRISMA guidelines, the study conducted a systematic search of the eight databases for studies published till December 2025. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. The final analysis included 50 studies, resulting in 72 effect sizes, 26 leadership styles, and representing 21815 participants. A random-effects model was employed to conduct the main meta-analysis, moderator analyses, and publication bias tests. The findings discovered that transformational leadership is the prevalent style in public administration amid crisis management. The meta-analysis revealed that leadership styles exhibited a significant positive correlation with crisis management outcomes, including crisis phases, sense-making, meaning-making, and learning-related outcomes. The moderating effects of the administrative subfields, administrative continent, types of crises, and hierarchy level significantly influence the nexus between leadership styles and crisis management outcomes. No substantial publication bias was detected (Egger's test, p = 0.29). This meta-analysis highlights the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 21,815 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free