Crises and disasters can seriously affect the health, well-being and functioning of the people involved. From a governance perspective, it is important that public leaders and crisis managers are aware of what the psychosocial dimension of crisis management entails. The objective of the current contribution is to analyse dilemmas and challenges described in evaluations of crises that occurred in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016. Thirty-six evaluations were analysed against the background of a theoretical framework combining crisis leadership tasks and psychosocial support principles along the crisis life cycle. Public leaders and crisis managers had to deal with classical crisis problems concerning coordination, collaboration and communication. Other recurring themes were linked to social media, and the tension between tasks such as meaning making (social recognition), account giving and learning. Moreover, the analysis illustrates how difficult it is to gain insight into the needs, problems and vulnerabilities of the individuals and groups affected.

Several authors fear that the expansion of Dutch mayors’ executive powers in the field of safety and security will harm their position as non-partisan and consensus-oriented leaders. Empirical research into how mayors use their powers, however, is still rare. From a leadership perspective, the current article analyzes how mayors in the region of South East Brabant in Netherlands use their administrative power to close homes involved in drug-related crime. Drawing on Fischer’s framework of discursive practices, we analyze mayors’ considerations in terms of the argumentation they provide for closing homes. Our analysis, which draws on interviews and document analysis, covers 27 cases from the police region of South-East Brabant and includes 120 considerations. Our findings indicate that mayors vindicate home closures mostly through policy-derived technical and situational argumentations. Vindications that aspire a particular societal effect, such as the reduction of criminal activity, or ideological motivations are rarer, which is indicative of a non-decisive leadership style. In addition, mayors mostly respect the local closure policies. As such, they show very little decisive and individualistic leadership. And, to the extent that they deviate from agreed-upon regional policies, their motivation is to be able to take into account unique local circumstances. In the use of their administrative powers mayors, thus, show mostly situational and adaptive leadership, which, rather than as visionaries, positions them as caretakers. The leadership style of Dutch mayor in the use of this administrative power is, thus, much more in accordance with their traditional bridging-and-bonding leadership style than some authors suspect. Some of the limitations of our study are that we have analyzed closure decisions from one region only and that real-life decisions are susceptible to contextual influences. At the same time, our study provides a rare insight into real-world mayoral leadership in the Netherlands in the field of safety and security.