Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world in innumerable ways including the loss of human lives, damage to the global economy, doubt about the credibility of political and scientific institutions, and erosion of our basic way of life. From the lens of several leadership scholars, it is impossible to avoid seeing the leadership implications of an event like this. Could leaders have done more? What styles of leadership are most effective? How valid are our common understandings of the leadership process in such crises? Indeed, public protests signal a loss of faith in or disagreement with our political leaders and their policies (Mampilly, 2021) and the Great Resignation suggests a lack of faith in business and public institutions, their leaders, and/or a major reframing of individuals’ aspirations concerning work and their relationships with employers (Mann, 2021).
Leadership and crisis have long been examined in tandem because leadership is so important to guide organizations through crises and also because crises create acute opportunities for leaders to show remarkable successes and even more remarkable failures. Despite the immense implications for leadership in crisis or extreme contexts as a field of study, the work on this topic is relatively underdeveloped (Bavik et al., 2021). The lack of development could be explained in part by the fact that the issues related to each crisis are often different and, therefore, it may be difficult to generalize from one crisis to the next.
For example, there is evidence that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 created the opportunity for President Bush to demonstrate stronger and more decisive leadership behavior (Bligh et al., 2004a, 2004b). Indeed, increased mortality salience (i.e., thinking about one's own mortality) predicts a preference for a charismatic leader like Bush and decreases the preference for supportive leadership (Landau et al., 2004). In the broader literature, crisis leadership often takes the perspective of leaders as problem solvers (Bundy et al., 2017; James et al., 2011; Kahn et al., 2013), potentially requiring decisive action.
In contrast, after the 2008 economic crisis, researchers argued that preferences for more collaborative, authentic, and shared leadership occurred (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016; Hiller, Piccolo, & Zaccaro, 2020). Likewise, when a company is in crisis due to poor performance, research suggests there is a tendency to select leaders with greater interpersonal skills to bring about change resulting in the “think crisis – think female” phenomenon (Ryan et al., 2011). This “glass-cliff” research consistently shows that a performance crisis creates a preference for shared, collaborative, and interpersonally-oriented leadership styles, which are more often exhibited by female leaders (see Ryan et al., 2016 for a review). Additional work shows that crises precipitate the need for leaders to demonstrate supportive behavior (Halverson, Murphy et al., 2004b; Howell & Shamir, 2005; James et al., 2011; Pillai & Meindl, 1998) or self-sacrifice (Bundy et al., 2017; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; Halverson, Holladay et al., 2004a), two aspects of charismatic leadership.
What about the COVID-19 crisis? Of course, there was a strong threat to public safety and loss of lives. There was also an economic crash, layoffs, and persistent job insecurity. There was no specific enemy to fight against. The pandemic created widespread uncertainty and fear given the shifting and often inconsistent explanations for the cause of, and ways to protect from and cure the virus. Many citizens and leaders also voiced that they questioned the credibility of leaders and scientists, holding a sense that overarching narratives and proposed remedies were being shaped by political rather than evidence-based, scientific motives. Many people were fearful of being in close proximity to others, which forces an immediate shift in where and how people went to work, altering the level and patterns of human interactions in organizations.
The shift to widespread working from home (WFH) is a unique byproduct of the COVID-19 pandemic that had large implications for leadership and intragroup dynamics, though most leaders at that moment in time had not managed remotely, and most employees had not contemplated the possibility of working remotely. The closure of schools, daycares, and other public facilities is unique in terms of its impact on parents and created greater overlap and tensions between individuals’ spheres of work and private lives. In this context and these extraordinary circumstances, what type of leadership would be most effective in building cohesion among team members, nurturing organizational culture, maintaining employee engagement, and encouraging high performance? Although we cannot definitely answer these and many other questions, JLOS thought it pertinent to capture research on leadership during this once-in-a-generation crisis to document the impact on our understanding of the leadership process.
The articles in this special issue take different approaches to illuminate a number of unanswered questions concerning leadership during COVID-19. Wittmer and Hopkins (2022) examine leadership from the leader's perspective, whereas Eichenauer et al. (2022) examine it from the follower's perspectives. Stoker et al. (2022) look at both the leader and follower and reveal that their perspectives do not always align. Dasborough and Scandura invoke a hardened theorical frame to contribute to the conversation whereas Bauwens et al. (2022) use a bibliometric analysis to track trends in leadership research during the time most associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Three of the papers deal with apparent paradoxes brought about by the crisis. Dasborough and Scandura (2022) ask the question of whether leadership should be more hands on or hands off amidst the crisis, using theory to assert that the relationship between leader engagement and outcomes is largely curvilinear. Similarly, Stoker, Garretsen, and Lammers differentiate between the hands-on approach of being directive versus the hands off approach of delegating and reveal that, at least during the pandemic, leaders and followers agree that many leaders became less directive at the height of the crisis. Leaders also saw themselves as being more delegating although followers did not share this perspective. Both managers and employees agreed that increased delegation was positively related to productivity.
The paper by Eichenauer, Ryan, and Alanis examines the dichotomy between male and female leaders and agentic and communal leadership behavior during the pandemic. The authors tested whether women are perceived to be more effective during a crisis, and found that there were no differences between men and women leaders in their effectiveness, but that a communal rather than an agentic leadership style, regardless of the gender of the leader using the style, was more effective during the crisis.
Although not focusing on communality specifically, the study by Wittmer and Hopkins tested the importance of people-skills (i.e., emotional intelligence) in a leader's ability to navigate the complexity of a crisis. The Wittmer and Hopkins study also revealed several interesting qualitative themes in the most recent pandemic that explain why emotional intelligence is important for leadership in general, and for this politically charged crisis in particular. Several themes in the Wittmer and Hopkins’ article suggest that leaders must be more aware of their own personal stress – a theme echoed by Dasborough and Scandura – and revealed an increased need for supporting one's team with empathy and compassion as well as the need to maintain optimism during such a difficult time.
Bauwens, Batistic, Kilroy, and Nijs bibliometric review looked for similarities and differences in the topics of study during the pandemic as it relates to leadership. The authors found six main themes in the types of topics being studied. Three of these related to shifts in content areas (a focus on leadership and employee health, a focus on leadership and diversity, and a focus on leadership and communication) and a shift in the domains in which leadership is studied (health care leadership, educational leadership, public leadership). These papers provide unique perspectives on leadership during this crisis period and offer an interesting starting point to continue examining the unfolding nature of leadership in the 2020s.
Finally, Moss et al. (2022) draw upon implicit leadership theories, social learning theory, and research on decision-making to conduct a meta-analysis of 17 nationally representative databases to estimate the link between approval of President Donald Trump's leadership style and willingness to engage in personal protective behaviors (PPBs). A second study by Moss et al. extended results of the first, highlighting how affect for a leader shapes cognitive and behavioral responses.
In sum, the purpose of this special issue was to introduce creative studies that examined leadership and the leadership process since the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020. Many conventional theories and models of leadership, organizational behavior, and interpersonal dynamics have been challenged, and much of what we thought we knew about leadership in crisis situations was put to the test in real time. The studies in this special issue can only study limited aspects of leadership in this crisis, but present a diverse set of perspectives on leaders and leadership, test the robustness of select traditional leadership theories, and collectively provide new insights for continued research and practical application. We hope you find that the studies presented in the special issue advance our understanding of how the most preferred and effective leader behaviors may shift and evolve as the situation demands, as was the case in the most recent crisis.