EN
EN

Blog

/

"Beyond Survival: What the Crisis Taught Us About Leadership, People, and Resilience"

Illustration

5 Jun 2026

Beyond Survival: What the Crisis Taught Us About Leadership, People, and Resilience

Natalia Makedonska

This text is based purely on my own observations of events I have witnessed and lived through while going through the crisis of the last two years — first as HRD of a large company with 1000+ employees, and now as an Executive in a management company responsible for HR across several businesses in different areas of the IT industry. Below, I’ve tried to structure and describe my conclusions, as well as the tools and actions that helped me remain effective throughout this time. Perhaps my experience will prove useful to someone.So,

For almost two years now, we’ve been living in a new reality gifted to us by Covid. Some gift. Life has started to resemble the plot of Jumanji, where the participants find themselves inside a game that becomes more dangerous and unpredictable with every new level. And the hardest condition of all is that you can’t simply stop it and step out. The only way to stay alive is to see the game through to the end.

Our reality is different in that nobody asked us whether we wanted to join this game, whether we understood all the conditions, whether we were ready for these trials, and for how long. In fact, on March 16–17, 2020, the entire country was forced to “get up and walk out” of its usual way of life into a new world of remote work, closed borders, and constantly shifting economic conditions, that, in a single day, could crush some businesses while violently pull others upward — adding a crisis of rapid growth on top of the crisis of change. The world plunged into social, cultural, economic, and political chaos. At times it felt as if someone “up there” got bored and decided to shake up the planet, and is now stocked up with popcorn, watching with interest to see how it all ends. :)
On the one hand, it’s hardly the first time the global economy has lived through global crises; on the other — no crisis has ever been so massive in terms of geography, the number of industries affected, the social spheres of life affected (all of them!), people of every age, profession, and nationality, and its sheer duration without any sense of when or how it will end.
It is worth analyzing whether anything has changed in the very nature of the crises being experienced by employers and employees in this new reality. Have the triggers that set them off changed, along with the forms and criteria through which they manifest in organizations and in individual people?
In terms of how it manifests, the current crisis is distinguished by sharp and repeated shifts between the “freeze,” “fight,” and “flight” states — not only in individuals, but in organizations, at the level of companies, industries, and entire states. Society began to behave like a single biological organism faced with a situation of extreme danger, because the main trigger for that sense of danger and for all possible crises today has become the virus, its mutations, and its spread across the planet.
Previous crises, as a rule, had purely economic causes, affected specific sectors (for example, the real estate crisis or the dot-com crash at the time), and it was clear where things were going to collapse and where they would grow. So, depending on the capabilities of a business and the foresight of its leaders, a strategy of “fight” or “flight” was deliberately chosen. Moreover, it was clear whom exactly to fight and where exactly to run. In the current crisis, all businesses first simply froze — and for quite a long time by economic standards. Some in bewilderment, but all of them definitely out of fear of the oncoming unknown.
For the first time in many decades, nobody understood what to do: regroup and restructure in orderto do what exactly -
a) play dead and wait it out, holding positions and not moving in the hope that “somehow it will pass and sort itself out,”
b) actively attack competitors and capture their market, or
c) just as actively run, urgently identifying new niches for development. And if new niches — then which ones?
And what do you do with the people?
The classic approach to workforce optimization during a crisis — keep the most talented and let go of the low performers and those with little potential — didn’t quite work. Because it wasn’t clear whom to consider the most talented under the new conditions, how many of them to keep and in which directions, when no one knew how long the crisis would last, which way the business would turn in the new reality, or how far the financial cushion could stretch to support the adaptation process. 
The same thing happened with people. At a certain point the candidate market practically froze. No one understood what was going to happen next, so no one wanted to change jobs, and certainly not to change fields, unless they were already actively looking. And those who were in active search suddenly dropped their demands sharply and became incredibly responsive and accommodating in conversations with recruiters. The general numbness was amplified by the fear of physical death from an unknown virus, and it complicated the thought process of searching for a way out of the situation even more. The rules of global and local lockdowns were constantly changing, forcing everyone to freeze again and again in uncertainty, abandoning the behavioral strategy they had only just painfully chosen.
Fear of the unknown, which pushed many people’s survival instinct to the maximum and switched their values-based filters completely off, led to organizations making decisions about cost optimization and headcount cuts with no regard for future reputational risks. Even organizations “with a human face” wavered, and many of them parted ways with employees using methods that, in other times, would have been unthinkable for them from the standpoint of the company’s values.
With the appearance of tests, treatment protocols, vaccines, and the easing of lockdowns, a cautious belief returned in the possibility of defeating the pandemic or, at least, bringing it under control. And then the pendulum swung from stillness toward frantic activity in every sphere — some were urgently rebuilding their business model; others were straining to fulfill the enormous volume of orders that had dropped on them because of delayed demand or sudden relevance under the new conditions. A crisis of active rebirth and/or growth emerged within organizations, aggravated by a general nervousness — at times bordering on hysteria — driven by the urge to do everything at once, because nobody knew when the next wave of lockdowns would come and force everything to freeze again. The principle kicked in: take everything you can from life/business here and now! 
For example, the behavior of IT companies in today’s market looks like a mix of a cockroach race and a no-rules fight, where, in the attempt to win the maximum number of contracts and to pull specialists away from each other to deliver on them, companies resort to incredible maneuvers and expenses that in the long term will most likely prove unsustainable for them.
In people’s behavior, this principle showed up in the fact that specialists at all levels and in all fields began actively scanning the market and moving from company to company for the highest possible salary - one that objectively far exceeds their capabilities and the value they bring to the company. The desire to get the maximum here and now, combined with the newly opened opportunities and the sudden freedom to work remotely, played a cruel joke on many: people first went through a crisis of choice, when they forgot the very concept of “professional reputation” and started jumping from company to company, abandoning projects and letting their teams down, or tried to work at two or even more companies simultaneously. And all of this was and is happening against the background of a constant subconscious (and for many, conscious) fear of getting sick and dying in agony from the terrible virus. As a consequence, a crisis of effectiveness set in, when a person seems to work longer and more, yet their output becomes lower and lower. This combination of nervous tension and extreme effort applied over a long period, together with diminishing results, has led a huge number of people to professional and emotional burnout. And what is characteristic of this crisis - across all professions, fields, ages, social statuses, and nationalities without exception.
Because the main trigger of the current crisis is directly tied to physical death - the deepest human fear - and the lockdowns have forced a slowing of the pace of life, a giving up of many familiar things, and adaptation to imposed restrictions, the deepest layers of personality were stirred. This triggered several crises at once, beyond physical safety: a crisis of relationships (personal and professional), a crisis of meaning (everything that was important one day became unimportant, and vice versa), a crisis of identity (who was I really, how did I show up in the crisis, and how do I find myself in the new reality). 
If, with the crisis of physical safety things are more or less clear - wear a mask, work from home or look for a job if you’ve lost it, get tested/vaccinated, then the search for answers to the questions that arise while living through the other crises can sometimes be an unbearable burden for a person even when trying to overcome just one of them. And we were hit by all of them at once. No wonder many simply “fell apart” on all fronts: aggression, conflicts at home and at work, divorces, drops in productivity, resignations, attempts to withdraw into oneself, to escape reality, depression. The number of people turning to psychologists and psychotherapists has increased several times over and has itself triggered a crisis of demand in that market: we simply don’t have enough professionals with the right level of qualification.
The same things were happening in the context of organizations, because they are organisms in the same sense, manifesting themselves through action based on the personal traits of their founders or top teams. At the same time, organizations have been forced not only to fight the economic consequences of the crisis, but also to handle the responsibility for people’s lives that suddenly landed on their shoulders. And not so much in the context of legislation and lockdown-related restrictions, but rather because employees themselves shifted their demands for social and physical protection in matters of health from the state onto their employers. For some reason everyone suddenly started demanding that employers provide medical support and protection for staff, forgetting that an employer can help, but is not obliged to treat its employees. Naturally, “mature” companies with conscious management did everything they could to help their employees protect their health or recover quickly. And I genuinely felt sorry for many founders who experienced yet another personal crisis: a “mindset template break,” when whatever you do for people in the given situation, within your means, suddenly turns out not to be enough, and instead of understanding and at least minimal gratitude, you are hit with a storm of reproaches and claims. Including from the state, which is primarily responsible for citizens’ health in the first place. And nobody cares that the owner or top manager is also a human being, and is also scared. And unlike the standard stress of going bankrupt in an economic crisis, all of this was amplified by fear for one’s own health and the health of loved ones. And there seemed to be no end in sight.

Still, any crisis is always about a transition to a new level. Among the positives that showed up in this crisis, I would highlight the following:● true values in every person, organization, community, country crystallized quickly and become visible. The crisis has torn the masks off, no exceptions;● it very quickly became clear who your real friend is, who is an ideological and principled like-minded ally, and with whom you should either cut off contact entirely or reduce it to a minimum;● the lockdown made it possible to filter and choose your circle for “live” communication: meetings with friends have become truly homey, warm, and supportive;● the unavoidable interaction with toxic colleagues has been reduced to a minimum: only through a screen, with no chance for them to keep “sucking energy out of you” all day long by being in the same room with you from morning till night;● the need to “keep up appearances” and demonstrate status has decreased: what difference does it make how you look, what you’re wearing, what car and phone you have, if everyone sees only your face in a little square on their monitor — and only if your camera is even on;● the time freed up that used to be spent commuting to and from the office, which can now be spent on interesting activities and on the people dear to you;● the “husk” in work processes, such as unnecessary approvals, meetings, “formal” tasks and fake goals has naturally fallen away;● a huge number of companies, having recovered from the shock, realized that in the new reality, building a business “with a human face” ensures sustainable development for the company and brings high profits in the long term. Many employers have made their employees value number one for themselves.

The last point sounds especially optimistic. But what should companies do if they’ve put their attitude toward and care for employees first, and these employees have stopped being as effective as before and aren’t delivering the required result? How do you decide where to place the comma in the phrase “support cannot fire” in each particular case, without damaging the company’s reputation and without further lowering the already shaky morale of the team?
To analyze the reasons for an employee’s low effectiveness I use the following 4-step algorithm for myself:

Step 1 - Intentions. Step 2 - Opportunities. Step 3 - Abilities. Step 4 - Emotional state.
Step 1. Intentions.
As Warren Buffett put it: “When hiring people, we look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. But if you don’t have the last one, thinking about the first two makes no sense.” First of all, I assess how deliberately the employee has arrived at low effectiveness. If someone is quietly working at 2–3 jobs, giving the bare minimum everywhere, trying to earn the maximum, or has simply decided that right now the quality of his work is hard to evaluate remotely and it’s possible to arrange an “indefinite paid vacation,” I try to part with such people quickly. At the same time, I give honest, direct feedback, that this person and I are not on the same path at the values level, even if they are brilliant.

Step 2. Opportunities.
If I see that a person truly cares about the work, gives it their all, but the result has gotten worse, I ask myself: have I, as an employer, created all the conditions and opportunities for this person to remain as effective as before in the new reality? That is, to what extent have I helped them simplify/implement/adapt processes for their work, have I given them new tools (electronic document workflow, something as basic as a paid Zoom account, new algorithms for managing the team remotely, etc.), have I clarified the goals and agreed on new criteria for achieving results, have I helped them equip a workspace outside the office, and so on. If I realize that the organization has fallen short somewhere, I first try to fix that and only then make claims against the employee. 
If I see that all opportunities and resources were available to the person, but the result isn’t there, then I ask myself the next question:
Step 3.
Does the person have the Abilities to achieve results under the new conditions? Moving to remote work in a single day required many of us to change sharply and level up in such competencies as self-organization, communication, influence (over people and teams), and multitasking. And work is far from the only issue here: at home, in parallel with work, you have to deal with household matters, children, your partner, and sometimes even make a schedule for who uses the only comfortable workspace in the house and in what order (hello, stress tolerance).
If I see that, under the comfortable conditions of office work the person was quite effective, but in the new reality their abilities aren’t enough and it’s unlikely they can develop them quickly (often, unfortunately, that is exactly the case) then a decision has to be made either about a new role for them, where they can be effective under current conditions, or about parting ways. Even so, parting ways should be done with respect and gratitude for the collaboration. The person is not to blame that under new conditions they cannot change quickly - after all, they were hired in a different environment and for different conditions.
Step 4. Emotional state.
I analyze the employee’s emotional state when I see that they have all the abilities and opportunities to deliver results. Most often, an unstable emotional state is signaled by inconsistent results (sometimes tasks are done to a high standard and on time, sometimes at the “what on earth was that?” level), as well as by a growing number of mistakes in the process. In this case, it is important to hold 1-on-1 meetings with the employee as often as they are comfortable with, to understand what is causing this state, and to see whether I, as the manager, have any way of helping them cope.співробітника я аналізую, якщо розумію, що в нього є всі здібності й можливості для досягнення результату. Найчастіше про нестійкий емоційний стан говорять нестабільні результати (то завдання виконуються з високою якістю й у відповідні терміни, то на рівні «що це взагалі було?»), а також зростаюча кількість помилок у процесі їх досягнення. У цьому випадку важливо проводити зі співробітником зустрічі один на один так часто, як йому буде комфортно, розібратися, що є причиною такого стану, і чи є у мене як керівника можливість допомогти з цим упоратися. 
If the poor emotional state is caused by problems at work, I have to figure out how I can temporarily reduce the load, redistribute tasks, or find some other way to support the employee. If it’s connected to something personal, then depending on the situation, I can offer the help of a psychologist, some one-time financial support, or simply act as a “shoulder to cry on” from time to time, if that helps the person release tension and improve their effectiveness.
Unfortunately, there are situations where you realize that the employee is completely “burned out” and there is no chance of “raising them from the ashes”. The reasons vary, including the employer’s mistakes in the process of adapting to the crisis. In such a case, it no longer matters whose fault it is. What matters is that both sides accept the fact that parting ways should happen as soon as possible, before the employee becomes toxic. And the employee needs to be explained that your parting is a good thing, and a form of care for them, and that a new job in a new environment will do them good.

This algorithm for analyzing the causes of low effectiveness is perfectly suitable for assessing the work of employees of any profession and any level of position. The analysis itself is not hard to carry out, and neither is firing a dishonest, toxic, and low-performing employee. The hardest part is determining how, and in what scope, to support those who require support from the employer in order to deliver the desired results. I split that task for myself into two components:
1. Create general principles and a support system for all employees of the company. For example, we provide everyone with a turnkey “home office” kit, a flexible work schedule, access to the information they need, health insurance, a psychologist’s services, nanny services, Covid vaccination, support in obtaining required certifications, the opportunity to take a “sabbatical” or help with relocation to another city, and so on.
2. Create a separate, reinforced support system for managers at every level. And I do not mean special perks that would underline a manager’s status — I mean additional tools that would help them develop professionally and personally while staying effective over a long period. Why? Because managers at every level are the key driving force of the organization in achieving a high and sustainable long-term result. The heaviest burden of responsibility for the result falls on them under conditions that are always more complicated. They have to get the job done through the hands of other people. It is one thing when you yourself are responsible for the quality and result of your own work, and quite another when it depends on others.
In fact, every manager is an employer in miniature, who - to deliver results - has to create the conditions and provide the informational, coordination, and moral support for the team to carry out its tasks. At the same time, the manager ends up squeezed from both sides: from above - by shareholders’ demands for certain goals; from below - by people’s demands to make it so that “they want to have it all - and face no consequences.” I’m exaggerating, of course, to emphasize the fact that the role of a manager is only secondarily about higher income and status, and primarily about high responsibility and a high bar for your professional qualities, plus an additional work, as well as moral and ethical load. Add a crisis to this equation and assess the level of stress managers are placed under compared to individual contributors.
Therefore, especially in times of crisis, I adhere to the principle “support the supporter”: direct the employer’s main focus on providing maximum support for its managers so that they can then, in the same way, support their teams further. In such a case, support and help in developing managers’ personal qualities and level of maturity is far more important to the employer in the long term than the automation/optimization of processes and “hazard pay” salary increases. Or rather, I would put it this way: creating working conditions and providing the work tools to deliver results (processes, resources, etc.) is the mandatory hygiene minimum that the employer must secure. But no ideal processes and tools will bring the company the desired result if they are managed by immature (and in a crisis, also frightened) people, even with the necessary level of professional knowledge. For the IT industry, personal immaturity combined with high intelligence and extreme market demand is a separate cause of managerial decision-making crises and a big topic for discussion. Besides, it’s far simpler and cheaper to develop 100 managers, who will then transmit the knowledge they’ve gained and serve as leading examples for their teams, than to try leveling up 1000+ people at once.

For me, the real tools for supporting and developing a manager’s personality are:
● studying philosophy, history, and the cultures of different peoples, as well as the biographies of respected figures, with the opportunity to focus attention on the reasons behind one or another choice made in its time by society, by a well-known (important specifically to you) personality, or by you yourself;
● creating conditions for restoring one’s energy level and learning new ways of sustaining and strengthening it: seminars and practical sessions on studying the body’s biorhythms, the properties of the brain and the psyche, breathing techniques, yogic practices and ways of applying them depending on the goal. Or creating a culture within the company that will help employees form the habit of, at the very least, doing sports regularly, despite all the “buts”;
● creating conditions for self-reflection with the aim of studying and understanding yourself: coaching, work with a mentor and/or a psychologist chosen by the person rather than assigned by the company; all sorts of assessments to understand your personality type, psychological traits, triggers/derailers, motives, etc. I used to be quite fond of Hogan Assessment Tools, but there are other tools out there as well.

Everything listed above is, to one degree or another, being done by all employers today. The only question is how employers formulate the goals they want to achieve. If the goal is formulated along the lines of “everyone’s doing it, so I will too, just to keep up with the market,” then that is money down the drain. When an employer can clearly formulate what exact problem they want to solve for their specific business and what goal they want to achieve, then with far fewer resources they can get a better result: the right target audience can be selected, the value of the activities can be communicated clearly, appropriate learning programs and sets of activities are formed, and their main value should lie in regularity and in the practical applicability of the knowledge and skills gained, not only for work.
Of course, it’s great to roll all of this out and use it before you fly into a crisis. But what do you do if we’ve all long been inside one, without preparation and clearly for the long haul? What to do if the fatigue from prolonged emotional and physical strain is such that you feel like a “scorched field,” can’t fall asleep at night from anxiety, and in the morning have no strength to get up? When what forces you to work and keep moving isn’t inner desire, interest, and drive, but fear of losing your job during a crisis and the heavy responsibility toward family and loved ones? Since March 2020, the overwhelming majority of us have found ourselves in that state as the period of uncertainty has dragged on too long. And uncertainty is one of the strongest stress triggers for a human being.

My main conclusion from observations of myself, my team, colleagues within the company and on the market is this: it’s not so much what you know and can do from a professional standpoint that matters, but rather how capable you are of maintaining a high energy level and resilience, of demonstrating calm confidence and optimism, and, quite literally, of “sharing it all by Wi-Fi” with your colleagues.
The main criterion by which candidates started to be selected, especially for managerial roles, is how capable they are of remaining energetic and constructive in a constantly changing environment for an indefinite period of time. Moreover, many employers, represented by their top executives, started doing this at first unconsciously, simply trying to find a new source of energy and someone to lean on for themselves.
About six months into the crisis, I started hearing comments from managers after interviews with candidates more and more often: “Yes, the candidate is experienced, I can see that they did what we need, and quite successfully. But look at how tired and dimmed they look. It’s obvious they are running from their previous place in the hope that things will be easier, clearer, and safer with us. But they won’t. I need someone who will come in and light people up around them, help them cope with uncertainty and get organized under the new conditions, not someone I will have to keep “lighting up” myself all the time. I don’t have the energy for that. Let’s look for someone more energetic and optimistic. I’m willing to teach them more about our business and processes, as long as they bring the energy and drive to solve problems and move forward.”
Mid- and senior leadership roles have been increasingly given to high-potential individuals - people not fully “ready” yet, but with the capability and drive to grow into the role. That immediately sharpened the issue of ageism on social media. I understand both sides. In a crisis like this, the employer wants to get fresh energy immediately rather than spending time renewing and building it back up in its own people. I also understand the hurt and disappointment of mature, experienced employees who “gave their best years” to the company, and now, when they have no energy left, they are needed neither by it nor by other employers on the market. Both sides need to change their behavior strategy. 
It’s important for employers to understand that the “level and charge of energy” should be added to the list of key competencies for employees, and included in the plan of activities for assessing, maintaining, and developing it inside the organization. Then there will be no need to desperately search the market for “lighters” with the values you need - that is always difficult and expensive. 
“Mature and experienced” professionals need to realize that their natural energy level declines with age, and its constant renewal must become their number one priority. It’s equally important to understand that continuing to live within the paradigm of “I have been there, I’ve seen it all, you won’t tell me anything new in my profession” is a road to the sidelines of the labor market. And the question isn’t about age. The current crisis has only underlined the intensifying need for all of us to regularly master new professions and acquire new skills. If before you could live off your expertise for 5–10 years or more before, today you need to refresh your expertise and acquire new knowledge and skills every 2–3 years.

In order to feel confident, resilient, and effective in achieving my goals in a constantly changing environment with multiple unknowns, I’ve formulated a few rules for myself:
1. Constant change is now the permanent environment of my interaction with the world.
2. Remember that getting through change is not a sprint, but a marathon. It’s like in Formula 1: you can skip a pit stop and overtake your rivals for a lap or two, but on the next lap all your tires will blow out and you’ll never finish, not even last. Learn to pace your strength so you finish as a winner, not as a victim of circumstance.
3. Build your workload schedule based on who you are at your core — a sprinter or a marathoner (and don’t lie to yourself!). I’m rather a sprinter. That is why I give myself time for a “push,” and arrange processes in a way that they can run by inertia during the period when I need to rest.
4. Understand your natural energy level and your biorhythms (and don’t lie to yourself!), and plan your workload, periods of activity, and periods of rest throughout the day accordingly.
5. Define your own criteria for success in work, career, relationships, health, and beyond, and use them as your reference point when planning your day and your life. There will always be someone “faster, brighter, stronger.” 6. Ask yourself again and again: “Do I want to impress others with success - or feel genuinely happy, full of energy, and alive?” Let the answer in that moment set your definition of success and move toward it.
“Iron” discipline isn’t about being cruel to yourself—it’s about taking care of yourself. A structured day of “routine, rest, sports” is what allows you to deliver maximum results without burning out.
7. Find a way to ask for help.
8. Find people whose shoulder you can cry on, people you can learn from, and people you can celebrate your wins with. These can all be different people.
9. Look for “your people” at work, in friendships, in rest, in learning - everywhere. They will become your source of energy.

The key difference of this crisis from previous ones is that it cannot be “overcome” - it can only be lived through and adapted to. To do that, you first need to become aware of yourself, your strengths and weaknesses, set clear priorities, and move to the next level of personal development. Only then will you be able to effectively adapt your current work environment or identify the niches, knowledge, and tools needed for a new professional path.

Natalia MakedonskaBusiness transformation architect, catalyst and enabler

Privacy Policy

Created by Kateryna Tsvietkova

Natalia MakedonskaBusiness transformation architect, catalyst and enabler

Privacy Policy