During crises, academic institutions must adapt to the situation to survive, develop resilience, and restore operations. Middle-level academic managers—such as heads of programs and departments—play a pivotal role in addressing institutional challenges, often under significant pressure from both internal and external stakeholders. These managers face personal costs, including increased workloads and work-life imbalances (Tamir, 2024), as well as professional costs, such as reduced research productivity (Tamir, 2025). Their ability to adapt rapidly to changes and manage effectively, as demonstrated during the prolonged COVID-19 crisis (Machovcova et al., 2023; Maddok, 2023), is essential for institutional continuity.

The global pandemic posed significant challenges for academic institutions, requiring heads of programs and departments to make critical decisions amidst uncertainty and competing priorities. This aligns with the Garbage Can model, which portrays decision-making as inherently chaotic. Despite these challenges, institutions—particularly public ones—demonstrated resilience. Retrospective analysis reveals also that heads of programs adhered to principles of institutional theory, emphasizing legitimacy, norm conformity, and organizational alignment.

This study explores crisis management in academic institutions, focusing on the critical role of middle-level managers. It examines their coping strategies during the COVID-19 crisis through two theoretical frameworks: the Garbage Can model and institutional theory.

Research questions: How did program and department heads in academia perceive their coping mechanisms during the COVID-19 crisis, using the two theories? How can the resilience of academic institutions be understood through the perspectives of heads, integrating the Garbage Can theory and the institutional approach?

The study examines the role of heads of programs through the lens of the Garbage Can model (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; 2012), which describes decision-making in “organized anarchies” characterized by unclear priorities, disorganized processes, and participant turnover. In such environments, four streams—problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities—interact randomly, often resulting in suboptimal outcomes: “oversight” (mismatched problem-solution pairs), “flight” (unresolved problems), or, less commonly, “resolution” (successful problem-solution matches) (Cohen et al., 1972). This randomness and disorder underscore the challenges of achieving effective decisions in complex organizational settings.

The Garbage Can model has been expanded to public policy through Kingdon’s "multiple-streams approach" (1984, 1994), a widely cited framework in policy analysis (McLendon & Cohen-Vogel, 2008). Kingdon identifies three policy streams: the problem stream, highlighting urgent societal issues (Maor, 2024); the political stream, driven by power dynamics, governance, and public opinion; and the policy stream, where experts and lobbyists propose solutions within "policy communities" (Herweg et al., 2023). These streams evolve independently but converge at critical moments, creating "policy windows" for action (Kingdon, 2014).

Institutional theory explains how organizations conform to normative pressures and rules to gain legitimacy rather than focusing purely on efficiency (Scott, 2005​). Neo-institutionalism builds on this by emphasizing isomorphism and legitimation as central processes of institutionalization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983​). The theory provides insights into governance mechanisms across various phases, shaped by mimetic, coercive, and normative isomorphism (Forster et al., 2025​).

 Higher education institutions are often analyzed through institutional logics, focusing on their responses to external pressures from governments, accreditation bodies, and global rankings, which shape policies on diversity, sustainability, and technology (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The theory illuminates how competing societal norms—such as professional autonomy, ethical research practices, peer review processes, and market-driven imperatives—coexist and shape organizational behavior (Cai & Mountford, 2022; Scott, 2013).

Globalization and marketization in higher education amplify isomorphic pressures, driving institutions to adopt practices that ensure legitimacy over innovation (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2010​). The adoption of blended learning in higher education highlights the role of coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures in influencing faculty behavior, as institutional initiatives support transitions to innovative teaching methods (Anthony, 2021​).

The research is based on qualitative methods, using semi-structured interviews. A sample group was identified based on two criteria: (1) department heads who were appointed before the COVID-19 crisis and continued serving in their roles afterward, and (2) heads representing a variety of academic disciplines. A personal appeal was made to department heads from different disciplines, and all invited participants agreed to be interviewed. The sample included 27 department heads from 21 colleges and universities across Israel. Participants were informed they could terminate the interview at any time and were assured anonymity in the publication of research findings. The interviews were conducted via Zoom. Each session lasted between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours. Data analysis adhered to the stages included: organizing the data, generating categories, identifying themes and patterns, examining hypotheses, and comparing categories. The interviews explored how department heads managed the crisis, the specific characteristics of their departments, and their responses to challenges posed by the pandemic. Sample questions included: "How did you interact with students during the pandemic?", "How did your role change during COVID-19?", "How do your responsibilities now compare to before the crisis?", and "What innovations or initiatives were required of you?" The interviewees were nearly evenly divided by gender, with 15 women and 12 men, and their ages ranged from 35 to 80 years (M = 53.2, SD = 8.55). The inclusion of department heads from diverse disciplines aimed to capture a broad perspective on the challenges faced by academia during the COVID-19 crisis. However, it is reasonable to assume that heads of high-demand disciplines, such as medicine, were less concerned about student attrition or competition from other institutions. Additionally, medical professionals received heightened public attention due to their essential role during the pandemic.

The study found that program heads managed the organizational crisis that affected their academic institution despite the significant personal burden it imposed, including challenges to their personal and family time. At the outset of the crisis, their operational options were unclear. The institutional and national policies lacked clear direction and were characterized by a Garbage Can model of decision-making. This was exacerbated by frequent turnovers among decision-makers in Israel, particularly at the ministerial level, and by ambiguous state and institutional priorities. Program heads faced the challenge of keeping their departments and programs operational without clear guidance. Although a few were familiar with distance learning systems as a potential organizational solution, most heads and lecturers lacked experience with these systems. Furthermore, institutional technological support was insufficient to facilitate their implementation. Despite these challenges, program heads recognized their responsibility to ensure the system's survival—financially, morally, and in service to students—while also safeguarding the livelihoods of employees and faculty. This sense of duty was reinforced by directives from institutional leadership, media coverage, and exchanges with colleagues both domestically and internationally, where the pandemic was also taking its toll. It became apparent that goodwill and servant leadership were insufficient. Program heads needed to act promptly, attentively, and consistently to sustain their institutions, secure research funding, and maintain staff livelihoods. This dynamic reflects institutional theory, which posits that organizations seek legitimacy to secure resources. While the Garbage Can model initially dominated decision-making at national, institutional, and departmental levels, the institutional approach soon emerged as a stabilizing force. It provided program heads with a framework to adapt their solutions in ways that aligned with national expectations. Despite the inadequacies of initial responses, the institutional approach served as a balancing and regulating mechanism, guiding program heads toward more coherent and sustainable solutions.

Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1627-1651. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2012). A Garbage Can Model” at forty: a solution that still attracts problems‏. (A. Lomi, & J. R. Harrison, Eds.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 36, pp. 19-30. Forster, R., Lyons, A., Caldwell, N., Davies, J., & Sharifi, H. (2025). A lifecycle analysis of complex public procurement: an agency-institutional theory perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 45(1), 62-87. Hemsley‐Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2010). Market orientation in universities: A comparative study of two national higher education systems. International journal of educational management, 24(3), 204-220. Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2023). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 29-64). Routledge. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins. Kingdon, J. W. (1994). New perspectives on American politics. In L. Dodd & C. Jillson (Eds.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. Maddock, L. C. (2023). Academic middle leaders, middle leading and middle leadership of university learning and teaching: A systematic review of the higher-education literature. Journal of Higher-Education Policy and Management, 1-36. Machovcova, K., Kovats, G., Mudrak, J., Cidlinska, K., & Zabrodska, K. (2023). (Dis)continuities in academic middle management career trajectories: a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Higher-Education Policy and Management. 1-18. Maor, M. (2024). An emotional perspective on the Multiple Streams framework. Policy Studies Journal. McLendon, M. K. (2003). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher-education. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(5), 479-515.‏ Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. SAGE Publications. Tamir, E, (2024). Dealing with the COVID-19 crisis overload in Institutions of Higher Education: The Roles of Program and Department Heads in Israel. Higher education policy. Tamir, E, (2025). The Impact of a National Crisis on Academic Research Productivity: Experiences of Program and Department Heads in Academia. Higher Learning Research Communications.