Leading Through Crisis: A Framework for Local Government Response

A 4P Framework Analysis of COVID-19 Response in Huntersville, North Carolina

Introduction 

The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented leadership challenges for local governments, requiring rapid decision-making amid uncertainty, political polarization, and evolving public health guidance. In Huntersville, North Carolina, municipal leaders were tasked with balancing public health protection, economic stability, and community trust. As a member of the Huntersville community during this period, I observed firsthand how town leadership navigated these competing demands. This paper analyzes Huntersville’s COVID-19 response through the 4P framework, perception, process, people, and projection, developed by Wilkinson and Leary (2022), offering a structured lens for evaluating strategic leadership in crisis conditions.

Context and Background Huntersville is a suburban municipality of approximately 61,000 residents in Mecklenburg County. When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, town leadership, including the mayor, town manager, and board of commissioners, had to respond swiftly to public health risks while coordinating with county and state authorities. Decisions regarding facility closures, public health mandates, business operations, and communication strategies unfolded amid scientific uncertainty and ideological division. These conditions have amplified leadership complexity and made the town an instructive case for applying the 4P framework.

Perception 

Huntersville’s leadership confronted divergent stakeholder perceptions regarding pandemic response measures. Business owners feared economic collapse from prolonged closures, parents debated educational disruptions, healthcare workers emphasized risk mitigation, and residents interpreted public health mandates through political and ideological lenses. As Wilkinson and Leary (2022) note, leaders often assume others perceive situations similarly, a tendency that can undermine effective decision-making.

Town leadership made deliberate efforts to surface these varied perspectives through community surveys, virtual town halls, and stakeholder meetings. The town manager regularly engaged business associations, school officials, and healthcare leaders, reflecting an awareness that leadership requires understanding, not resolving conflicting perceptions.

However, notable blind spots remained. Early responses insufficiently accounted for the disproportionate impact of closures on low-income and hourly workers. Additionally, leaders underestimated the symbolic and political dimensions of mask mandates, assuming scientific rationale alone would generate compliance. This reflected what Robinson (1997) terms naïve realism: the belief that one’s interpretation of evidence is objectively shared by all reasonable actors.

Process

Huntersville’s response process evolved from emergency management to longer-term governance. Initially, the town activated its emergency operations center and convened daily cross-departmental meetings. As the crisis persisted, leadership established a COVID-19 Recovery Task Force, developed reopening protocols, and provided regular public updates and data dashboards.

These processes demonstrate strengths in transparency and structure. The Recovery Task Force broadened participation beyond formal powerholders, aligning with the framework’s emphasis on inclusion. Clear protocols reduced arbitrariness and supported organizational consistency.

Yet process weaknesses were evident. Non-English-speaking residents—particularly within Huntersville’s Latino community, faced delayed translations and limited access to virtual engagement. The shift to online meetings also excluded residents lacking digital access or workplace flexibility. Despite intentions of inclusivity, these process choices privileged certain groups while marginalizing others. As Wilkinson and Leary (2022) argue, inclusive leadership requires actively identifying who is excluded, not merely avoiding overt exclusion.

The pandemic imposed significant emotional strain on residents, employees, and leaders alike. Town leadership demonstrated emotional intelligence by acknowledging community fear, loss, and frustration in public communications. Leaders also prioritized employee wellbeing through enhanced safety measures, mental health resources, and expressions of appreciation for frontline staff, recognizing that organizational performance depends on human capacity, not just policy design.

However, emotional intelligence gaps surfaced during contentious decisions, particularly mask mandates. Leaders framed these primarily as technical public health issues, underestimating the emotional intensity they would provoke. As Stone, Patton, and Heen (2000) emphasize, emotions are inseparable from difficult conversations. Additionally, leaders rarely acknowledged their own uncertainty or emotional fatigue, maintaining a posture of calm authority that may have limited authentic connection with residents.

Internal emotional dynamics also posed challenges. Political disagreements among commissioners occasionally surfaced in public meetings, undermining unified messaging. Stronger internal emotional management and conflict resolution could have enhanced external leadership effectiveness.

Projection 

Huntersville’s leadership projected a vision centered on resilience and collective responsibility, encapsulated in the slogan “Huntersville Strong Together.” This framing emphasized solidarity and balanced concern for both public health and economic vitality. Over time, the projected vision evolved, from crisis containment to adaptation and recovery, demonstrating strategic flexibility consistent with Wilkinson and Leary’s (2022) conception of leadership as iterative sensemaking.

The vision resonated with residents who valued institutional trust and community cohesion, motivating compliance and mutual support. However, it failed to inspire segments of the population skeptical of government authority or deeply affected by economic loss and grief. For these residents, optimistic messaging sometimes felt disconnected from lived experience. Moreover, the projection lacked specificity regarding recovery goals, limiting its capacity to mobilize sustained collective action.

Leadership Lessons and Recommendations 

Three leadership lessons emerge from this analysis. First, crisis leadership requires managing irreconcilable perceptions rather than pursuing consensus. Procedural legitimacy—not agreement, becomes the foundation for effective action. Second, inclusive processes must actively address structural barriers to participation, particularly for marginalized populations. Third, emotional intelligence in public administration requires authentic vulnerability alongside professional composure.

To strengthen application of the 4P framework, these three recommendations could be used. First, leaders should conduct structured perception audits before major policy decisions to anticipate resistance and tailor implementation strategies. Second, municipalities should institutionalize equity impact assessments to evaluate how policies affect different populations. Third, leaders should engage in regular reflective and emotional processing forums, such as peer consultation or executive coaching, to sustain resilience and authenticity.

Conclusion 

Huntersville’s COVID-19 response illustrates both the promise and limits of local public leadership under crisis conditions. Applying the 4P framework reveals strengths in stakeholder awareness, evolving processes, empathetic leadership, and adaptive vision; while also exposing blind spots related to equity, emotional dynamics, and legitimacy. The framework offers public administrators a practical, multidimensional tool for navigating complex governance challenges beyond the pandemic. As future crises emerge, from climate change to democratic trust, intentional leadership grounded in perception, process, people, and projection will remain essential.

References 

Robinson, R. J. (1997). Errors in social judgment: Implications for negotiation and conflict resolution, Part 2: Partisan perceptions. Harvard Business Review, 9-897-104.

Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2000). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Penguin Books.

Wilkinson, R., & Leary, K. (2022). Leading with intentionality: The 4P framework for strategic leadership. Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP20-029.