How to be an Effective Leader in a Post-COVID Environment
INTRODUCTION
The workplace continues to shift post-COVID with approximately 60% of employees working remotely compared to 23% before the pandemic (Parker, et al., 2022). This creates unprecedented challenges for employees and leadership. Increased numbers of employees working remotely, challenges leaders to create social presence and transparent communication without having the luxury of being face to face. Leaders must carefully maneuver the resulting change occurring in company culture. In the past, some leaders may have been hesitant to acknowledge that part of the role is to seek awareness of and to support employees’ needs that originate outside of work; rather, they maintained focus on accountability, business strategy and organizational outcomes. The amplified overlap of personal and work life cannot be overlooked.
Working from home may be a novel event for some employees. On the family front, they may be home-schooling children while balancing full-time work from the home office. In addition, Americans express fear and insecurity about the current vocational and economic crisis including, but not limited to rising inflation which as of this writing is up 9% the largest 12-month gain since June of 1982. Employee resignations are at an all-time high, the highest levels reported in 2021 since the data has been tracked beginning in the year 2000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). Elevated levels of voluntary resignation result in both tangible and intangible outcomes. For example, tangible outcomes include separation costs (exit interviews), replacement costs (advertising, recruitment, and selection), new-hire training, and other administrative costs (Dess & Shaw, 2001). In addition, intangible outcomes include loss of productivity, decreased morale, and increased voluntary turnover among other employees. Therefore, voluntary resignation can be a vicious cycle (Green & Puetzer, 2002). All the above-mentioned outcomes can directly or indirectly affect the profitability of organizations. A leader’s primary goal is to maximize and sustain long-term organizational performance through the performance of others. With the unprecedented environment, what is the best way to achieve this while also providing an intrinsic meaningful role for the leader?
DISCUSSION OF LEADERSHIP STYLES
There are many different types of leadership styles, for example, transformational leadership, transactional leadership, charismatic leadership, laissez-faire leadership, situational leadership, and servant leadership. According to Saragih et al. (2021), leadership style has a positive effect on both employee motivation and performance. In addition, Saliu et al. (2018) found a relationship between leadership style and motivation, which is a contributing factor to employee performance and organizational performance. Each leadership style has benefits, and some may propose limitations.
To begin with, transformational leadership embodies uniting employees around the organization’s vision and mission (Kuntz, et al., 2019). Through communication and creating passion, transformational leaders can inspire their teams and improve morale (Futcher, 2019). Next, transactional leadership is commonly characterized by rewards for performance or a transaction. Domingues et al. (2017) found a positive relationship between transactional leadership and employee performance. Some political leaders have been described as charismatic leaders (Ansary, 2019). Charismatic leadership is characterized by captivating leaders that create a compelling future vision that employees desire to follow (Shea & Howell, 1999). Situational leadership is keen to the present environment or current goal of the organization. It allows the leader to be adaptable and change their approach based on the current situation (Walls, 2019). Furthermore, servant leadership or leadership with morality is focused on the employee and has been found to improve performance by 15-20% and result in an increase in group productivity by 20-50% (Bande, et al., 2016). Research has found this association between considerate leaders and employee performance through the reduction of stress and ambiguity (Shea & Howell, 1999). By serving their employees and prioritizing those needs, servant leaders develop self-motivated employees who are committed to the organization and their goals (Bande, et al., 2016). Through their actions, communications, and attitude with a high-level understanding of their moral responsibility, servant leaders can create a positive climate of elevated engagement and resulting performance levels. Servant leadership is an extension of ethical behavior, maintaining integrity at the forefront of the leadership style. It may even cause the leader’s employees to exceed their own performance expectations (Peng & Chen, 2020).
Subsequently, with the challenges created from the pandemic, a diverse workforce will be comprised of diverse backgrounds, experience and education levels, personality and thinking styles. We suggest a tailored style of leadership based on the employee’s best interest as it interacts with the context; whether that be transformational, transactional, charismatic, laissez-faire, or situational, each style should include a facet of servant leadership. Specifically, the practice of placing the employees’ best interests above the leader’s self-interest. Servant leadership is genuinely concerned with the employee’s growth and achievements. The servant leader is engaged with the employee and provides an atmosphere of development for them. Servant leaders are humble and transparent and offer a work environment of high moral principles (Bande, et al., 2016). According to Bande et al. (2016), supporting employees with positivity and instilling trust can enhance their ability to deal with change and adapt. Having empathy and understanding of their unique situation is more important post COVID-19. A generous leader who focuses on growth and places their employees’ interests above their own creates an environment filled with loyalty and commitment (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018). This leads to retention and avoids voluntary turnover, which can significantly impact the bottom line. Research supports that servant leaders strengthen the bond employees have with the organization, therefore, increasing commitment levels through an emotional connection with the leaders. In response to the leader’s self-less behavior, employees feel that they have a voice. Feeling heard also increases the level of commitment to the organization. By creating a positive work climate, both affective (emotional) and normative (obligatory) commitment levels are amplified (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018).
Therefore, practicing tailored leadership is more critical than ever before. Enhancing the performance of leadership to impact associates’ and company outcomes is the current call to action. Ultimately, the organization’s goal is to achieve its outcomes, and the leader’s goal is to drive behavior that will achieve those results. At the same time, the leader cannot lose sight of leading human beings who have different aspirations, backgrounds, and challenges. Embracing that today’s “best practice” leadership style is a journey to a new reality, the natural consequences of tailored leadership will be enhanced performance, increased retention, and loyalty, as well as greater collaboration toward a cohesive vision.
General Introduction to the 5 P’s
An esteemed mentor once said, “A client may have a “Problem,” but you cannot forget the “Person” or the “Place.” The appropriate action or decision will be different, depending on all three.” Whether pondering three employees who do not reach a particular performance goal and identifying the next steps; or assisting three students who fail a final assessment and determining plans to aid learning, one dimension of leadership cannot be isolated. It could be argued that the joy and reward of leadership is successful outcomes, not despite the variations but through seeing the opportunity in them. The three Ps from the mentor above, with the additional considerations of “Place” and “Pacing,” are suggested.
The First P is for Purpose (the Why)
Why start with purpose? Daniel Goleman, one of the primary researchers in Emotional Intelligence, suggests that a shared sense of purpose or shared vision was the strongest predictor of organizational-leader effectiveness, engagement, organizational citizenship, and product innovation in pre-pandemic times (Goleman, et al., 2001). Purposeful employees make a greater effort and have an increased likelihood of being innovative.
Since the pandemic, leaders have faced a situation in which company mission may have been trumped by a greater purpose—the health and safety of not only employees and stakeholders but also of all humanity. Leaders have worn the hat of company CEO or VP of HR (Human Resource) with expanded responsibility to be transparent about CDC guidelines, operational changes, and working from home. Through these messages, research indicates that a leaders’ goal has been to reinforce safety and health, including psychological safety, and the idea that work is a place where employees can learn to be their best selves and to prosper despite the changes and pressure (Baker, 2021; Whitwell, 2021). This has been called “a moral higher calling” around which the teams unite, even an altruistic venture (McKinsey, 2020; Van Bavel, et al., 2020). It is well documented that groups that face a tragic or uncertain event tend to bond. Van Bavel et al. (2020) stipulate that the opportunity to fight together for a common good may increase cooperation, shared values and increase employees’ sense of shared identity. Jadoul et al. (2020) suggests that through conversation of individual and team strengths, effective leaders may take hold of the opportunity to boost the level of engagement as the team rallies around learning new skills, a new model, or merely being in collaboration with one another.
The Second P is for Person (the Who)
Past models have looked to competence and commitment (motivation, confidence) as the employee factors that may affect the appropriate choice of leadership style (Patterson, et al., 2021). Research has recognized that direct reports have differing personalities, divergent thinking styles, and varying approaches to conflict resolution (Mayer, 2012; van Thiel, 2021). Post COVID-19, an effective leader needs to be consistently attuned to individual employees’ attributes and needs during tactical and strategic decision-making. Beyond ability, motivation and confidence which are addressed in situational leadership models, factors to consider related to an individual direct report may include the following aspects: level of trust in the existing member-leader relationship; emotional intelligence (EI); and presence of mental health challenges such as stress or depression. In times of uncertainty and fear, employees may have trouble trusting even those people who are normally viewed as trustworthy; an effective leader will consistently connect with warmth and strength, increasing employee engagement and openness (Bauer, 2021; Dimitriadis & Psychogios, 2016; Glaser, 2014). The relationships built translate into social capital that a leader can “spend” to glean ideas, gain followership, and bridge challenging conversations (Podsakoff, et.al, 1990; Zhu, et.al, 2013).
Second, post-COVID, effective leaders are those who consistently seek to understand and manage the emotions of others. Specifically, these leaders attend to both home and work considerations of the employees and strive to know the interests, needs and “usual” behaviors and attitudes of each person on the team (Lawton-Misra & Pretorius, 2021). This effective leader is more able to display cognitive and emotional empathy, impact employee perspective, and provide support (Druskat & Wolfe, 2018; Goleman, 2013).
Consider resilience, one specific outcome of high emotional intelligence on the part of an individual or team. Some individuals possess heightened levels of resilience enhancing their survival mechanisms. They have the ability and foresight to reach out to others for aid and care (mayoclinic.org). In the face of the pandemic, some employees encountered added challenges with extended lockdown(s), homeschooling children, job loss, and physical challenges. Employees who lack resilience may experience more psychological distress and become overwhelmed at work due to these trials (Very Well Mind, 2022). To that end, individualizing a leader’s approach to an employee, post pandemic, must include a cursory awareness of potential mental health challenges. Factors of consideration include a direct report’s novel stressors such as the following elements: changes in time constraints due to teaching children at home; loss of loved ones; loss of abilities; personal beliefs; food and supply insecurity; family loss of jobs; and more (Parks, 2021). It is not that the leader has the responsibility to manage others’ well-being, nor should they avoid crucial performance feedback. Instead, logically contemplate if mental health is an impact on the person’s or team’s performance.
The Third P is for Project (the What)
For purposes of this blog, the possibilities of which Project a leader is considering are infinite. This facet relates to the work itself, the task at hand. A senior leader may need to restructure reporting relationships in the organization; a Vice President of Human Resources may be forced to consider layoffs; or a front-line manager may be thinking about how to handle an employee who has continued to miss too much work. Rather, it is suggested that a few universal factors related to decision-making that taken with the other four P’s (purpose, person, place, and pacing) make a notable difference post-COVID-19. These aspects are as follows: alignment with strategy/mission, actual or forecasted impact, and frequency of the issue.
Tailored leaders remember that a primary consideration about the Project or the “what” of work assignments is the critical nature (or the lack thereof) of that concern. Does the challenge or issue relate to the organization’s strategy? Phrases such as “Choose your battles carefully! “, “Don’t fight a battle you can’t win!” or even “Is it mission critical?” apply here (Brobst, 2012, p. 1). COVID-19 is clearly indicated as a difficult or “strong” situation, suggesting that intensity of emotional reactions, helplessness and lack of control is possible (Meyer, et al., 2010). Especially in times of crisis and stress, even the most successful leader may be “emotionally hijacked” by passion for a project, or if fatigued, more “irked” by an associate’s behavior (Gohm, et al., 2005). An action step or a change in thinking that aligns with current strategic goals is more likely a “fight” in which to be engaged.
Beyond alignment with strategy, the conclusion to move ahead with a project or to address an employee challenge may be related to the actual or forecasted impact it has. The current state and projected outcomes are consistent factors in decision-making in standard business situations. However, post-COVID, it is critical that an effective leader not only shares the business case with transparency to stakeholders but welcomes questions, even employee challenges, to generate a greater level of understanding among the team. In this way, employees, other leaders, and shareholders may readily accept the change and see its relationship to individual and organizational success.
Last, an effective leader considers whether the present issue is a first-time occurrence or a repeating pattern. In other words, is the Project (challenge, issue, behavior) an anomaly or is there a trend that needs addressing? Under extreme stress such as that created by the pandemic, an employee or vendor may buckle for a moment, and the leader sees traits or behaviors that are unexpected, including absenteeism or turnover (Gohm, et al, 2005; Gupta & Beehr, 1979). In this unique time in history, is tackling this project, task, or issue necessary?
The Fourth P is for Place (the Where)
The facet Place nudges a leader to remember that the contextual environment surrounding a person and problem may influence the best decision or outcome. Research suggests several factors to be considered in this realm, beyond this chapter’s discussion of the overriding context of COVID-19 and the ongoing pandemic. These aspects include the state of the nation, e-leadership and presence, and the preponderance of mental health issues.
The state of the nation has been described as gloomy, tense, and uncertain (Gallup, 2021; Jones, 2022). Declines in national unity are attributed, but not limited to, the following concerns: racial unrest, vaccination status, political polarization, wealth and the economy, terrorism, crime, and women’s rights (Jones, 2022; MacDonald, 2022; VanBavel, et al., 2020). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ranks as one of top ten trends in corporate HR according to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s (SIOP) survey (Stark, 2021). Certainly, these aspects cannot be overlooked as a tailored leader serves their team. In the best case, if embraced as part of the environment in which a company lays, leaders are being provided an opportunity to speak about differences and reinforce organizational commitment to respect all people. Further, leadership with the collaboration of Human Resources may find this an appropriate time to establish (or re-establish) cultural norms, to train on harassment prevention, and to deepen DEI awareness, simultaneously preventing discrimination (Rowell & Torres, 2022).
Regardless of the industry, in this time, research suggests that leaders be omni-present, investing time and effort to be visible to employees in both usual and unexpected ways and places (Ball, 2020). Visibility and responsibility show accountability to and shared risk with the followers, providing opportunity to model personal vulnerability, resilience, and dependability (Ahern & Low, 2020). Among the greatest challenges in being omni-present has been bridging the move to telework. How does a leader “manage by walking around” in a virtual environment? In what ways can the same rich communication that occurs face to face happen in Zoom or Teams? Research suggests that the e-environment tests the following aspects of effective leadership: establishing virtual presence; creating and maintaining trusting relationships; generating a positive, motivated work atmosphere that spurs productivity; and leader support in problem-solving (Contreras, et al., 2020; Lilian, 2014; Roman, et al., 2019
Last, as discussed in prior sections, the pandemic has impacted the mental health of many employees through loss of loved ones, plant closings or layoffs, and general uncertainty surrounding public health (Parks, 2020). In consideration of Place, it is critical to recognize this context and affirm leaders’ dedication to praise and be positive in public, and as often as possible, to handle correction or negativity in private. In addition to traditional conversations leaders have held in private, Ahern and Low (2020) reinforce that an effective leader upholds confidentiality of vaccination status and COVID-related disabilities. Further, empathetic leaders may ask privately for permission to share a direct report’s tragic COVID circumstances with teammates, so the team can provide operational and emotional support.
The 5th P is for Pacing (the When)
Clark (2016) states, “What is true in baseball is true in life and leadership: Brilliant moves are based on timing…the problems you do not solve offensively you will eventually have to solve defensively” (p. 137). Organizations that get the timing right, balancing between longevity of the organization, the needs of society and supporting well-being of employees, will have differentiated themselves (Pasmore & Mallis, 2022). Factors to consider regarding pace include the following: pace of work tasks, pace of intervention, and pace of feedback.
As effective leaders, a paced approach leads to better outcomes and may improve employee experience (Collins, 2011). Jim Collins (2011) in Great by Choice suggests three reasons why a consistent pace leads to success: pace builds confidence to perform in adverse circumstances; the discipline required to maintain a consistent pace reduces the likelihood of failure when there are disruptions; the pace and discipline themselves lend to maintaining control in an out-of-control situation. Taken individually, pacesetting can be seen universally. Progress bars on the computer indicate how far into a cross-country flight the passengers have travelled or how long to complete software updates (Conrad, et al., 2011). Knowing that progress is taking place builds anticipation and motivation which may also lead to a sense of satisfaction (Latham, 2004).
For purposes of this article, brief review of self-control—the underlying process driving discipline—will be offered. Tangney, et al. (2016) defined self-control as “…the capacity to override, modify or suppress undesirable behavior when pursuing long-term goals...” (p. 275). Self-control is not limitless but instead may be seen as a well from which one draws throughout the day that needs replenished. Further, being practiced in self-control, or discipline as Collins calls it, may contribute to resilience discussed in prior sections. In the overlap between pace and discipline, the ability to gain control when situations are out of control may create habits that may give us comfort and bring success. In other words, the practice of pace and discipline may make some reactions automatic. As Rudyard Kipling (1943) might put it, “…If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs…” then a leader can lend guidance to others, and the others can help as well.
Second, when considering Pace, a tailored leader may find it useful to create a pause, a time during which decisions are not made and people intentionally “marinate” on a challenge (Schecter & Gould, 2020). Research has shown that when the leader delays their response to solve an issue, an employee or team will continue to brainstorm to resolve it themselves (Kokemuller, 2022). Further, employees may accept greater responsibility for the outcome of the decision having been involved. Post COVID-19, pacing leader interventions and involvement is impactful.
Last, appropriate timing of feedback to a manager or employee is critical. Compartmentalizing the facet of Pace only, according to B.F. Skinner, renowned psychologist, reinforcement theory suggests that feedback is best provided as closely to the execution of a good or unruly behavior (Gordan, 2014). In this way, the recipient of the feedback has a clear “line of sight” between action (the behavior) and response (the feedback). Also, the details of the occurrence are fresh in the minds of those involved. Especially post COVID-19, a sympathetic leader may question if delaying the conversation is best, not wanting to add stress to an already tense situation. However, it may be true that more immediate responses are preferable since that timing more closely mirrors what would occur in a “normal” time. Combined with the other factors discussed in this article, what is best for the individual? What is best for the company? What is ethical? What timing protects the organization legally?
Facet of Leadership Style |
Considerations |
Purpose |
•relationship to vision and mission •impact on humanity •intersection between mission and humanity
|
Person |
•level of trust in the member-leader relationship •emotional intelligence and resilience •mental health issues
|
Place |
•context of global setting: post COVID-19 •e-leadership and leader presence •where to provide feedback |
Project |
•relationship to strategy •actual or forecasted impact •new issue or repeated pattern |
Pacing |
•pace of task assignment •pace of intervention •timing of feedback |
Table 1. Summary of Facets of the Five P Framework and Considerations (Melton & Brooks, 2022)
SUMMARY
In summary, we are in unknown territory post-COVID-19 including the aftermath and probable workplace consequences. As leaders navigate through this unparalleled environment, this writing suggests a unique leadership approach while serving the employee during this challenging time keeping in mind the final objectives of employee and organizational performance, retention and market share.
This article summarizes six different types of leadership styles (transformational, transactional, charismatic, laissez-faire, situational, and servant leadership) including their valuable contributions as well as potential limitations. The authors have provided a suggested framework entitled “tailored leadership”. Overall, the framework presented highlights about how the leader can tailor their leadership style based on not only the person (most importantly), but a five-step framework that also takes into consideration the purpose, project, place, and pace of the current circumstance. What makes “tailored leadership” special is never losing sight that the leader is in the role to serve the individual and meanwhile steer the organization with heart, support, and integrity. As a result, organizations demonstrate concern for the best interests of the workforce and the organization, likely increasing market share.
This framework is not meant to be prescriptive, guiding one to audit every simple decision against this list of facets. Instead, to understand that as the world at large and the world of work continue to be more agile and complex, our approach to exceptional leadership must be as well.
REFERENCES
Ahern, S., & Loh, E. (2020). Leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: building and sustaining trust in times of uncertainty. Retrieved on 1/12/22 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000271
Ansary, A. S. (2019). Pros and Cons of Charismatic Leadership. Retrieved on 2/7/22 from http://careercliff/com/pros-and-cons-of-charismatic-leadership
Baker, M. (2021). 9 Future of Work Trends Post-COVID-19. Retrieved on 2.5.22 from https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/9-future-of-work-trends-post-covid-19
Ball, C. (2020). Leadership during the COVID crisis and beyond. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 63 (4) E370-E371; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.016020
Bande, B., Fernandez-Ferrin, P., Varela-Neira, C., & Otero-Neira, C. (2016). Exploring the relationship
among servant leadership, intrinsic motivation, and performance in an industrial sales setting.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 31(2), 219-231.
Bauer, T., Erdogan, B., Cauglin, D., & Truxillo, D. (2021). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management: People, Data and Analytics. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.
Brobst, D. (2012). Choose Your Battles Wisely. https://www.donbrobst.com/2012/05/choosing-your-battles-wisely/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Number of quits at all-time high November 2021. Retrieved on 2/5/22 from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/number-of-quits-at-all-time-high-in-november-2021.htm
Clark, T. (2016). Leading with Character & Competence. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., Oakland, CA.
Collins, J., & Hansen, M. (2011). Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos and Luck—Why Some Thrive Despite Them All. HarperCollins Publishers, NY, NY.
Conrad, F., Couper, M., Tourangeau, R., & Peytchev, A. (2010). The Impact or Progress Indicators on Task Completion. Interacting with Computers. 2010 Sep 1; 22(5), 417-427.
Contreras, F., Baykal, E., & Abid, G. (2020). E-Leadership and Teleworking in Times of COVID-19 and Beyond: What we Know and Where Do We Go. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-10.
Dess, G., & G., Shaw J. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446-456.
Domingues, J., Vieira, V. A., & Agnihotri, R. (2017). The interactive effects of goal orientation and leadership style on sales performance. Mark Lett 28, 637-649.
Druskat, V., & Wolff, S. (2001). Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups. In D. Goleman, A. McKee, & S. Achor (Eds.), Everyday Emotional Intelligence (pp. 73-93). Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston Mass.
Futcher, C. (2019). Transformational Leadership Advantages and Disadvantages Explored. Retrieved on 2/7/22 from http://info.cavendishwood.com/blog/transformational-leadership-advantages-and-disadvantages-explored
Gallup (2021). Americans Offer Gloomy State of the Nation Report. Retrieved on 1/22/22 from https://news.gallup.com/poll/389309/americans-offer-gloomy-state-nation-report
Glaser, J. (2014). Conversational Intelligence: How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary Results. Bibliomotion, Inc., NY, NY.
Gohm, C., Corser, G., & Dalsky, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence under Stress: Useful, unnecessary, or irrelevant? Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1017-1028.
Goleman, D. (2013). What is Empathy? In D. Goleman, A. McKee, & S. Achor (Eds.), Everyday Emotional Intelligence (pp. 293-297). Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston Mass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal Leadership: The Hidden Driver of Great Performance. In D. Goleman, A. McKee, & S. Achor (Eds.), Everyday Emotional Intelligence (pp. 25-44). Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston Mass.
Gordan, M. (2021). A Review of B. F. Skinner’s ‘Reinforcement Theory of Motivation.’ International Journal of Research in Education Methodology. Vol 5, No. 3, 680-688.
Green, M. T., & Puetzer M. (2002). The value of mentoring: A strategic approach to retention and recruitment. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 17(1), 67-74.
Gupta, N., & Beehr, T. (1979). Job Stress and Employee Behaviors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 373-387.
Jadoul, Q., Nascimento, A., Salo, O., & Willi, R. (2020). Agility in the Time of COVID-19: Changing Your Operating Model in an Age of Turbulence. McKinsey & Company, retrieved on 1.2.22 from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/agility-in-the-time-of-covid-19-changing-your-operating-model-in-an-age-of-turbulence
Jones, J. (2022). Americans Offer Gloomy State of the Nation Report. Retrieved on 2.2.22 from https://news.gallup.com/poll/389309/americans-offer-gloomy-state-nation-report.aspx?version=print
Kipling, R. (1943). If. Retrieved on 2.12.22 from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if--
Kokemuller, N. (2022). The Importance of Timing in Leadership. Small Business Chronicle. Retrieved on 1/12/22 from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-timing-leadership-51987.html
Kuntz, J., Davies, B., & Naswall, K. (2019). From transactional to transformational: Exploring the role of leadership style on CEO succession outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(7), 815-827.
Lapointe, E. & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the Relationships Between Servant Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and Voice and Antisocial Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 99-115.
Latham, G. (2004). The Motivational Benefits of Goal setting. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 18(4), Decision-Making and firm Success, 126-129.
Lawton-Misra, N., & Pretorius, T. (2021). Leading with heart: academic leadership during the Covid-19 crisis. South African Journal of Psychology, 2021. 51(2), 205-214.
Lilian, S. (2014). Virtual Teams: opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 1251-1261.
Lumen Learning. Listening: Three A’s of Active Listening. Retrieved on 2/15/22 from
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-comm101-master/chapter/chapter-4-three-as-of-active-listening/
MacDonald, M. (2022). Six Ways Leaders Can Adapt to the Workplace of 2022. Retrieved on 2.4.22 from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/six-ways-leaders-can-adapt-to-the-workplace-of-2022/
Mayer C-H, Louw L. Managing cross-cultural conflict in organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 2012;12(1):3-8. doi:10.1177/1470595811413104
Mayo Clinic. COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects. Retrieved on November 5, 2021, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
Mayo Clinic. Resilience Training. Retrieved 2/12/22 from Mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/resilience-training/in-depth/resilience/art-20046311
McKinsey (2020). Psychological safety, emotional intelligence, and leadership in a time of flux. July 2, 2020. Retrieved on 1/21/22 from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/psychological-safety-emotional-intelligence-and-leadership-in-a-time-of-flux
Melton, R. & Brooks, K. (2022). Tailored Leadership as a Post-COVID-19 Opportunity for Enhanced Performance. In R. Heinzman, D. Judge, V. Franklin and, J. McCleskey (eds). Business Models to Promote Technology, Culture and Leadership in Power-COVID-19 Organizations. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, Chapter 6, pending publication. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-4358-3
Meyer, R.K., Dalal, R.S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36(1), 121-140.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J.M., Minkin, R. (2022). COVID-19 Pandemic Continues to Reshape Work in
America. Pew Research Center. Retrieved on 7.25.2022 from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/02/16/covid-19-pandemic-continues-to-reshape-work-in-america/
Parks, R. (2021). COVID-19 Mental Health Crises: Holistic Understanding and Solutions. Parks Press, Asheville NC.
Pasmore, W., & Mallis, E. (2022). Re-set Your Organization for the Post Covid Future with Creative Leadership. Center for Creative Leadership. Retrieved on 1.12.22 from https://www.ccl.org/articles/white-papers/reset-your-organization-for-post-covid-future/
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2004). Crucial Confrontations: Tools for Resolving Broken Promises, Violated Expectations, and Bad Behavior. McGraw-Hill, NY, NY.
Peng, J. C., & Chen, S. W. (2021). Servant Leadership and Service Performance: A Multilevel Mediation Model. Psychological Reports, 124(4), 1738-1760.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors, and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Roman, A., Van Wart, M., Wang, X, Liu, C., Kim, S., & McCarthy, A. (2019). Defining e-leadership as competence in ICT-mediated communications: An exploratory assessment. Public Administration Review, 79, 853-866.
Rowell, S., & Torres, B. (2022). Strategic Insights for 2022: Linking DEI and Harassment Prevention Initiatives. Retrieved on 2.1.12 from https://www.shrm.org/learningandcareer/learning/webcasts/pages/0122rowell.aspx
Saliu, U. A., Wankasi, A. J., Eromosele, G. O., & Olukade, A. O. (2018). Leadership Styles and Motivation on Job Performance of Library Personnel in Public University Libraries in North Central Nigeria. Library and Philosophy Practice. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A580773835/AONE?=anon~585617ba&sid=googleScholar&xid=7ceece62
Saragih, R., Pradana, M., Wijaksana, T., Arwiyah, Y., & Fadhillah, N. (2021). Antecedents of Work Performance: The Effect of Leadership Style, Work Motivation and Discipline. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(6), 1-8.
Schecter, T., & Gould, M. (2020). Lead from Your Heart: The Art of Relationship-Based Leadership. HTI Institute, Ales, Occitani, France.
Shea, C., & Howell, J. (1999). Charismatic Leadership and Task Feedback: A Laboratory Study of their Effects on Self-Efficacy and Task Performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 375-396.
Stark, A. (2021). Top 10 Work Trends for 2021. SIOP Member News. Retrieved on 1.22.22 from https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/Items-of-Interest/ArtMID/19366/ArticleID/4914/Top-10-Work-Trends-for-2021
Tangney, J., Baumeister, R., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271-324.
VanBavel, J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M., Crum, A., Douglas, K., Druckman, J., Drury, J. Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E., Fowler, J., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S., Jettern, …Willer, R. (2020). Using Social and Behavioural Science to Support Covid-19 Pandemic Response. Nature Human Behaviour. 4, 460-471.
Van Thiel, E. (2021). Big 5 Personality Test. Retrieved on 1/25/22 at https://www.123test.com/personality-test/
Very Well Mind. What is resilience? Retrieved 2/12/22 from Verywellmind.com/what-is-resilience-2795059
Walls, E. (2019). The Value of Situational Leadership. Community Practitioner, 31-33.
Whitwell, G. (2021). Resetting the Leadership Agenda Post-COVID-19. AACSB. Retrieved on 1/12/22 from https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/articles/2021/01/resetting-the-leadership-agenda-post-covid-19
Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust in transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 94-105.
