research paper leadership challenges

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

The role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review.

• 1 Department of Management, Ca' Foscari University, Venice, Italy
• 2 Department of Business and Management, LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy

Digital technology has changed organizations in an irreversible way. Like the movable type printing accelerated the evolution of our history, digitalization is shaping organizations, work environment and processes, creating new challenges leaders have to face. Social science scholars have been trying to understand this multifaceted phenomenon, however, findings have accumulated in a fragmented and dispersed fashion across different disciplines, and do not seem to converge within a clear picture. To overcome this shortcoming in the literature and foster clarity and alignment in the academic debate, this paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the contribution of studies on leadership and digitalization, identifying patterns of thought and findings across various social science disciplines, such as management and psychology. It clarifies key definitions and ideas, highlighting the main theories and findings drawn by scholars. Further, it identifies categories that group papers according to the macro level of analysis (e-leadership and organization, digital tools, ethical issues, and social movements), and micro level of analysis (the role of C-level managers, leader's skills in the digital age, practices for leading virtual teams). Main findings show leaders are key actors in the development of a digital culture: they need to create relationships with multiple and scattered stakeholders, and focus on enabling collaborative processes in complex settings, while attending to pressing ethical concerns. With this research, we contribute to advance theoretically the debate about digital transformation and leadership, offering an extensive and systematic review, and identifying key future research opportunities to advance knowledge in this field.

Introduction

The findings of the latest Eurobarometer survey show the majority of respondents think digitalization has a positive impact on the economy (75 percent), quality of life (67 percent), and society (64 percent) ( European Commission, 2017 ). Indeed, people's daily lives and businesses have been highly transformed by digital technologies in the last years. Digitalization allowed to connect more than 8 billion devices worldwide ( World Economic Forum, 2018 ), modified information value and management, and started to change the nature of organizations, their boundaries, work processes, and relationships ( Davenport and Harris, 2007 ; Lorenz et al., 2015 ; Vidgen et al., 2017 ).

Digital transformation refers to the adoption of a portfolio of technologies that, at varying degrees, have been employed by the majority of firms: Internet (IoT), digital platforms, social media, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Big Data ( Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, 2017 ). These tools and instruments are “rapidly becoming as infrastructural as electricity” ( Cascio and Montealegre, 2016 , p. 350). At macro levels, the shift toward different technologies is setting the agenda for new mechanisms of competition, industry structures, work systems, and relations to emerge. At the micro level, the digitalization has impacted on business dynamics, processes, routines, and skills ( Cascio and Montealegre, 2016 ).

Across different sectors and regardless of organization size, companies are converting their workplaces into digital workplaces. As observed by Haddud and McAllen (2018) , many jobs now involve extensive use of technology, and require the ability to exploit it at a fast pace. Yet, digitalization is being perceived both as a global job destroyer and creator, driving a profound transformation of job requirements. In result, leaders need to invest in upskilling employees, in an effort to support and motivate them in the face of steep learning curves and highly cognitively demanding challenges. Moreover, increased connectivity and information sharing is contributing to breaking hierarchies, functions and organizational boundaries, ultimately leading to the morphing of task-based into more project-based activities, wherein employees are required to directly participate in the creation of new added value. As such, the leadership role has become vital to capture the real value of digitalization, notably by managing and retaining talent via better reaching for, connecting and engaging with employees ( Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, 2017 ; World Economic Forum, 2018 ). However, leaders need to be held accountable for addressing new ethical concerns arising from the dark side of digital transformation. For instance, regarding the exploitation of digitalization processes to inflict information overload onto employees, or to further blur the lines between one's work and personal life.

In the last few decades, leadership scholars have been trying to monitor the effects of digitalization processes. Part of the academic debate has been focused on the role of leaders' ability to integrate the digital transformation into their companies and, at the same time, inspire employees to embrace the change, which is often perceived as a threat to the current status quo ( Gardner et al., 2010 ; Kirkland, 2014 ). To bring clarity to this debate, the construct of e-leader has been introduced to describe a new profile of leaders who constantly interact with technology ( Avolio et al., 2000 ; see also Avolio et al., 2014 for a review). Accordingly, e-leadership is defined as a “social influence process mediated by Advanced Information Technology (AIT) to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations” ( Avolio et al., 2000 , p. 617).

Despite the increasing interest in discussing the relationship between digital technology and leadership, contributions have accumulated in a fragmented fashion across various disciplines. This fragmentation has made scholars struggle “to detect larger patterns of change resulting from the digital transformation” ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 , p. 114). It also suggests that scholars have relied on multiple theoretical models to explain the phenomenon. Indeed, if, on one hand, it is clear that organizations are changing due to technological improvements, on the other hand, the way in which the transformation is occurring remains under debate. Furthermore, due to the fast-changing development and implementation of digital technology, there is a need to continuously update and consider the latest contributions to the topic.

This article addresses the aforementioned issues by offering a systematization of the literature on digitalization and leadership that has been accumulating across different disciplines, while adopting an interdisciplinary approach and providing a systematization of articles from different fields that analyze digitalization and leadership. Specifically, the present article reviews the literature on how the advent of digital technologies has changed leaders and leadership roles. Moreover, it structures and summarizes the literature, considering both theoretical frameworks and empirical findings, and fostering the understanding of both the content of the debate and its practical underpinnings. Lastly, reflecting on the findings of this review, we offer suggestions for future directions of research.

The present review draws on the following boundary conditions. First, we relied on a broad definition of leadership, in which the leader is understood as a person who guides a group of people, an organization, or empowers their transformational processes. Second, we excluded studies referring to market or industry leaders, in which the leader is represented by an organization. Third, we considered studies that clearly referred to a digital or technological transformation. Fourth, we did not include studies in which there was not a clear link between information technology and leadership (e.g., city leaders protecting the physical and digital infrastructures of urban economies regarding climate change). Therefore, our review was guided by the following research questions: (i) What are the main theoretical frameworks guiding the academic discussion on digital transformation and leadership? (ii) What are the main categories emerging from the contributions that address the relationship between digital transformation and leadership? And (iii) Which are the main future directions of research that scholars should consider?

This paper is structured as follows: First, it describes the methodology used; Second, it proposes a classification of findings based on theoretical frameworks and content. Finally, it describes implications of our findings for both research and practice, and proposes directions for future research.

Research Design

The aim of this paper is to investigate how the debate on digital transformation and leadership has evolved in recent years, to identify key theories and findings, and to propose potential future directions of research. To answer our research questions, we use a mixed method approach, that involves both quantitative research through standard databases and qualitative coding ( Crossan and Apaydin, 2010 ; Peteraf et al., 2013 ; Zupic and Čater, 2015 ).

Data Collection

We collected papers from the Scopus database, one of the most widely used sources of scientific literature ( Zupic and Čater, 2015 ). We also checked Web of Science and Ebsco databases in order to avoid missing articles. Because we did not find any relevant distinction between these databases regarding this topic, we chose to use Scopus only. We firstly accessed the database on September 1st, 2018.

Since our research questions concerned the academic discussion on digital transformation and leadership, the scope of our search was limited to academic articles (not only from peer-reviewed journals but also from unpublished sources, such as unpublished manuscripts). Non-academic books and other publications were outside the scope of our study and were therefore excluded from our search. Our initial search was undertaken using the basic keywords: leader * AND digital * OR e-leader * . The keywords were used as a selection criterion for the topic (title, keywords, or abstract). We searched peer-reviewed papers published in English, in journals focusing on the following subject areas: Business, Management, and Accounting; Psychology; and Social Science, without any additional selection restrictions. We decided to scan articles published in other areas than Business and Management since the topic is covered by several disciplines. These criteria resulted in an initial sample of 790 articles. The following figure ( Figure 1 ) shows how the debate grew since 2000, and significantly expanded since 2015.

Figure 1 . Growth of articles on leadership and digitalization.

In order to avoid a potential publication bias ( O'Boyle et al., 2017 ), and to scan recent studies that might not have had the time to go through the entire publication process, we performed a search within conference proceedings since 2015, using the same aforementioned criteria. The initial sample comprised 113 articles.

The second step within our data collection process involved a qualitative selection of articles. We first considered publications with at least one citation among those published before 2013, seen that the number of citations is a common criterion of scientific rigor and impact in academia ( Garfield, 1979 , 2004 ; Peteraf et al., 2013 ). As citation-based methods may discriminate against recent publications ( Crossan and Apaydin, 2010 ), we kept all papers published after 2013. Based on the assumption that top journals publish high quality papers, we discarded studies that were not included within the first 200 journals appearing in the Scimago list within the Management and Business, Social Science, and Psychology areas. Then, both peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings were filtered based on the assessment of whether the abstracts were in alignment with the topic and the boundary conditions. Articles were selected based on the following criteria: (i) the leader was a person who guides a group, organization, or empowers their transformational processes; (ii) there was a clear reference to digital or technological transformation; (iii) there was a clear link between information technology and leadership. Articles that focused on either digital transformation or leadership only were excluded, as well as papers that were outside our boundary conditions, such as studies on industry leaders using digital platforms. Figure 2 summarizes the selection criteria and the boundary conditions used to scan the articles. The search criteria resulted in a final dataset of 54 studies.

Figure 2 . Search strategy and selection criteria.

Data Analysis and Qualitative Coding

To attain a “systematic, transparent and reproducible review process” ( Zupic and Čater, 2015 , p. 429), and identify research streams and seminal works, we first performed a bibliometric analysis of the initial dataset of 790 articles. In order to map the origin and evolution of the academic debate on digital transformation and leadership, a systematic coding analysis was conducted on the entire set of articles. Then, the iterative reading and discussion of the final dataset of articles highlighted the following emerging categories that guided our analysis ( Strauss and Corbin, 1998 ): (i) theoretical or empirical papers; (ii) research methodology; (iii) level of analysis (micro and macro); (iv) definition of leadership and digitalization; (v) main themes or objectives of the article; (v) main underlying theories; (vi) field of study (e.g., Management and Planning, Economics and Business, Psychology and so forth). Based on this coding scheme, the three authors independently read and coded all articles. Subsequently, they discussed their coding attribution until an agreement on the final coding of each article was reached.

Dataset Description

The final database comprises 54 articles, of which 42 are peer-reviewed papers published by 33 journals, while the remaining 12 papers are conference proceedings (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Dataset citations, source, level of analysis and empirical/theoretical approach.

Regarding the peer reviewed articles in our dataset, most of them stem from Economic, Business and Management (22 articles), and Information and Communication Sciences (10 articles). Only three studies come from the Psychology discipline. As for the sources wherein these articles are published, we count two journals that specifically address the leadership field, such as “The Leadership Quarterly” and “Strategy and Leadership”, whereas the remaining 31 other journals are spread across areas such as Economics, Business and Management, Information and Communication Sciences, Psychology, Educational, Heath and Political Sciences. The novelty of the topic and the breadth of journals in which it is published confirms that the field of digital transformation and leadership has garnered interest from several difference disciplines. Such fragmentation of the literature and the different perspectives it has enabled, justifies the need for systematization and alignment of future research.

As for the conference proceedings, half of the articles come from international and peer-reviewed conferences advancing the debate of digital transformation in business, such as the International Conference on Electronic Business, the Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems, the IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services.

Among the top five most cited articles in our sample, three come from journals that specifically relate to Human Resources: “Leadership Quarterly” and “Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.” In these articles the authors focus on the characteristics of digital leaders in terms of roles and behaviors, stressing the idea that technology is deeply changing the way in which leaders conceive communication and cope with their followers ( Avolio et al., 2000 , 2014 ; Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ; Hambley et al., 2007 ).

As shown in Figure 1 , the early 2000s witnessed an initial interest in the topic, when pioneering work began to consider the changes that digitalization brings in the area of leadership and how the concept and practice of leadership are affected by new technologies ( Avolio et al., 2000 ; Coutu, 2000 ). However, it has been mostly over the last decade that the topic garnered seesawing attention. It is plausible to assert that the much stronger impact that technological development has had within organizations recently, and the expectation that technological evolution will be even more disruptive in the near future, has accelerated the interest on the topic. Indeed, while all peer-reviewed articles in our sample are from 2000 on, 60 percent were published after 2014. As for conference proceedings, we only considered the contributions presented after 2015 in order to understand how the debate has been developing in recent years.

Regarding the level of analysis (micro vs. macro), the majority of contributions within our sample are at the micro-level (30 articles), while 24 adopt a macro perspective. Within the latter, it is interesting to notice that a considerable number of articles do not pertain to the management field. As to the type of contribution, the majority of articles in our sample (37) are empirical studies, while only a few articles are conceptual. This imbalance reveals there is still a lack of theorization about the impact of technology on leadership. Nevertheless, in the next session we systematize the main theoretical frameworks that have been used to address this topic.

Main Theoretical Frameworks

The analysis of the theoretical content of our dataset highlighted that only a small set of studies explicitly refers to the extant theoretical frameworks describing the impact of digital transformation on leadership. Advanced information technologies theory ( Huber, 1990 ), according to which the adoption of information technologies influences changes in organization structure, information use, and decision-making processes, is used as common ground. Scholars agree on the high impact of technology in leadership behavior and identify Information Technologies (IT) developments as a driver for creating disruptive changes in businesses and in leadership roles across different organizational functions ( Bartol and Liu, 2002 ; Geoffrion, 2002 ; Weiner et al., 2015 ; Sousa and Rocha, 2018 ). These changes are so dramatic that scholars started to adopt a new terminology to characterize the e-world, e-business and e-organizations ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). Recent studies have been discussing the notion of digital ubiquity ( Gerth and Peppard, 2016 ; Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ), describing the pervasive proliferation of technology ( Roman et al., 2018 ). With this term, scholars refer to a context in which technological equipment is prevalent and constantly interacts with humans. It describes a scenario in which “computer sensors (such as radio frequency identification tags, wearable technology, smart watches) and other equipment (tablets, mobile devices) are unified with various objects, people, information, and computers as well as the physical environment” ( Cascio and Montealegre, 2016 , p. 350).

In terms of leadership theoretical frameworks, scholars seem to turn to a plethora of different theories and definitions. Horner-Long and Schoenberg (2002) contrapose two main theoretical approaches: universal theories and contingency theories. The former supports the view that leaders differ from other individuals due to a generic set of leadership traits and behaviors which can be applied to all organizations and business environments (see for example Lord et al., 1986 ; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991 ). The latter argues that, in order to be effective, leadership should adopt a style and behaviors that match the context (e.g., Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973 ; Goleman, 2000 ). The authors empirically explore leadership profile characteristics, comparing e-business leaders and leaders from traditional bricks and mortar organizations. Results do not clearly support any of the two approaches. They suggest that in both contexts most of leadership characteristics are equally valued. However, certain characteristics distinguish e-world leaders from leaders in traditional industries. While Horner-Long and Schoenberg (2002) analyze leader profile differences across industries, Richardson and Sterrett (2018) adopt a longitudinal design, exploring how digital innovations influenced the role of technology-savvy K-12 district leaders across time. They base their work on a unified model of effective leadership practices that influence learning ( Hitt and Tucker, 2016 ). Although the leadership practice model is maintained across time, the authors recognize some shifts in the way those practices are implemented.

Only Obschonka et al. (2017) specifically adopt a universal perspective, drawing from trait approach theory ( Stogdill, 1974 ). By analyzing the language used to communicate via Twitter, the authors identify the personality characteristics that distinguish the most successful managers and entrepreneurs.

Heinz et al. (2006) follow a contingency approach, emphasizing the need to take into account the context and consider situational aspects that can influence leadership and cooperation practices.

Most studies in our sample assume that the change in context due to technological advancement may influence leadership. According to Lu et al. (2014 , p. 55), it cannot be assumed that “leadership skills identified in offline context should be transferred to virtual leadership without any adjustment.”

However, some authors make this assumption tacitly (e.g., Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ), without explicitly addressing any related theoretical framework. Bolden and O'Regan (2016 , p. 439) report that “there is no one approach to leadership,” since leadership is context specific and must to be adapted to the needs of the day. Similarly, Lu et al. (2014) maintain that effective leadership behaviors are determined by the situation in which leadership is developed.

To address the diversity of situations and contexts, Jawadi et al. (2013) overcome the limits of a pure contingency approach and embrace complexity, adopting the framework of leadership behavioral complexity theory ( Denison et al., 1995 ). In a context characterized by complex and unanticipated demands, a leader needs to develop a behavioral repertoire that allows dealing with contradictory and paradoxical situations ( Denison et al., 1995 ). As contingencies are evolving so rapidly as to be considered in a state of flux, an effective leader needs to be able to conceive and perform multiple behaviors and roles.

Avolio et al. (2000 , 2014 ), make a step forward in defining the role of context.

Similarly to Bartol and Liu (2002) , the authors adopt a structurational perspective (Adaptive Structure Theory) (AST; DeSanctis and Poole, 1994 ) as the main theoretical framework. According to their point of view, digital technologies and leadership reciprocally influence and change each other in a recursive relationship. In their perspective, not only technology influences leadership, but also leaders appropriate technology, and it is through the interaction between information technology and organizational structures that the effect of technology on individuals, groups, and organizations emerges. In this view, the context is not only shaping and shaped by leaders; it is part and parcel of the construct of e-leadership itself. Avolio et al. (2000 , 2014 ) remarkably paved the way for the conceptualization of e-leadership, which has since been adopted by many other authors to inform their studies ( Avolio et al., 2000 ; Lynn Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ; Roman et al., 2018 ).

Similarly, Orlikowski (1992) develop a Structurational Model of Technology, whereby technology influences the context in which actors perform but is also designed and socially constructed by its users ( Van Outvorst et al., 2017 ).

Looking at leaders' relationships with their teams, scholars refer to the following main theories: transactional leadership theory, transformational leadership theory ( Burns, 1978 ; Bass, 1981 , 1985 ), and leader-member exchange theory (LMX; Graen and Scandura, 1987 ). Transactional and transformational leadership are among the most influential and discussed behavioral leadership theories of the last decade ( Diaz-Saenz, 2011 ). They distinguish transformational leaders, who focus on motivating and inspiring followers to perform above expectations, from transactional leaders, who perceive the relationship with followers as an exchange process, in which follower compliance is gained through contingent reinforcement and rewards ( Bass, 1985 ). Previous studies reveal that leadership styles may influence virtual team interactions and performance (e.g., Sosik et al., 1997 ; Sosik et al., 1998 ; Kahai and Avolio, 2006 ). As such, Hambley et al. (2007) explore the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on team interactions and outcomes, comparing teams interactions across different communication media: face-to-face, desktop videoconference, or text-based chat. Likewise, Lu et al. (2014) compare virtual and offline interactions, drawing on transactional and transformational leadership theories to understand whether leadership styles of individuals playing in Massive Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) can be associated to their leadership status in offline contexts. However, this association is found to be significant only with offline leadership roles in voluntary organizations, not in companies. Results in Hambley et al. (2007) also show that the association between leadership style and team interaction and performance does not depend on the communication medium being used.

While transactional and transformational leadership theories adopt a behavioral perspective in which the focal point is the leader behavior with regards to the follower, leader-member exchange theory (LMX) introduces a dyadic point of view. Leader-member exchange theory focuses on the nature and quality of the relationship between leaders and their team members. The quality of this relationship, which is characterized by trust, respect, and mutual obligation, is thought to predict individual, group and organizational outcomes ( Gerstner and Day, 1997 ). Jawadi et al. (2013) use the concept of leader-member exchange as a dependent variable, exploring how multiple leadership roles influence cooperative and collaborative relationships in virtual teams. Bartol and Liu (2002) build on leader-member exchange theory to suggest policies and practices HRM professionals can use to implement IT-information sharing and positively influence employee perceptions.

The democratization of informational power gave momentum to distributed power dynamics. Moving beyond the centrality of the sole vertical leader, the shared leadership approach emphasizes the role of teams as potential source of leadership ( Pearce, 2004 ; Ensley et al., 2006 ; Pearce et al., 2009 ). Shared leadership is “a manifestation of fully developed empowerment in teams” ( Pearce, 2004 , p. 48) in which leadership behaviors that “guide, structure, or facilitate the group may be performed by more than one individual, and different individuals may perform the same leadership behaviors at different times” ( Carte et al., 2006 : p. 325).

Acknowledging the relevance of increased connectivity in the digital era, some studies underscore the importance to take into account a network perspective. Lynn Pulley and Sessa (2001) contrapose the industrial economy to the current networked economy. Bartol and Liu (2002) define networked organizations as those organizations characterized by three major types of connectivity: inter-organizational (also known as boundaryless; Nohria and Berkley, 1994 ), intra-organizational, and extra-organizational. Kodama (2007) views the organization as the integration of different types of networked strategic communities, wherein knowledge is shared and assessed. Sullivan et al. (2015) use a network representation to depict shared leadership. Gordon (2007) explores how the network is embedded in the concept of web that is currently accepted.

The Macro Perspective of Analysis: Main Categories

The studies on digitalization and leadership that adopt a macro-perspective of analysis can be classified in four different categories, according to whether they focus on: (1) The relationship between e-leaders and organizations; (2) How leaders adopt technology to solve complex organizational problems; (3) The impact of digital technologies on ethical leadership; or (4) The leader's use of digital technologies to influence social movements.

The Relationship Between E-Leaders and Organizations

The studies within our sample that take a macro or organizational-level approach are considerably less than those which investigate the micro dynamics occurring within organizations. A summary is shown in Table 2 . This imbalance is probably due to the relatively greater urgency and challenge to understand the role of leaders and leadership in guiding and implementing the digitalization process within organizations, rather than what new forms of organizations are emerging as a result of the digital transformation. As observed by a recent Harvard Business Review Analytic Services report (2017 ), leaders have increasingly become the key players in driving positive results from the investments on digital tools and technologies.

Table 2 . Main categories summary.

In the last few years, scholars have begun to adopt the construct of e-leader in order to specifically refer to those leaders who have initiated a massive process of digitalization in their organizations. Despite the call to understand how organizations and e-leaders are intertwined, few studies provide an empirical explanation of the new organizational configurations emerging from the interaction between technology and the human/social system. Berman and Korsten (2014) is one among the few. By surveying a large sample of CEOs, running companies of different sizes and across 64 countries and 18 industries, the authors showed that outperforming organizations had leaders that created open, connected and highly collaborative organizational cultures. The authors suggest future leaders should base their organizations on three pillars: (1) Assuring a highly connected and open working environment at any hierarchical levels and units in organizations; (2) Engaging customers by gathering knowledge about the whole person; and (3) Establishing more integrated and networked relationships with partners and competitors ( Berman and Korsten, 2014 ). They posit these three pillars transform the organizations at all levels. This implies organizations are becoming boundaryless, at both the internal and external levels. Further, the organizational structure is no longer a static feature, but an ongoing process ( Van Outvorst et al., 2017 ). While a shift toward an ecological perspective— one where organizations' boundaries are loose and permeable—requires higher coordination, collaboration and individual responsibility, it also enhances innovative capabilities ( Lynn Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ). According to Kodama (2007) , managers at any level can foster innovation if they go beyond the formal organization, to create real or virtual networks among internal and/or external communities of practice. These communities of practice enable a more agile response to change, promoting the free-flow of information and breaking down information silos ( Petrucci and Rivera, 2018 ), thereby empowering both managers and employees to integrate, transform and stimulate knowledge that fosters innovation. This way, information and communication technology enables the creation of shared information pools wherein diverse staff across the organization contribute to a collaborative and dynamic process of idea generation. Moreover, such co-generation of ideas and knowledge cultivates stronger relationships between disparate organizational units, further facilitating open innovation processes ( Henttonen et al., 2012 ).

In sum, by breaking the organizational boundaries within and between internal and external stakeholders, the traditional leader-centered information and decision-making process is giving way to novel processes that democratize access to information and share decision power among all parties involved.

Digital Tools and Organizations: How Technology Enhances the Optimization of Complex Organizational Environments

Although most papers adopting a macro perspective reflect on the novel structures of organizations, they tend to underestimate the effect of digital transformation on organizational processes. That is, however, not the case with Weiner et al. (2015) , who discuss how the effective achievement of operational goals relies on the fit between strategic planning and information technology, particularly in operationally complex organizations, such as hospitals. Their empirical study shows that digital tools could highly contribute in the planning and monitoring of internal processes, increasing the transparency and accountability across all levels of management, and engaging customers' trust. For instance, the intelligent use of data through sophisticated digital tools, allowed hospitals administrators to lead improvements in decision-making processes and service quality by enhancing the usage of traditional management tools, such as key performance indicators (KPIs), and storage of critical data, namely on infections and diseases. Notably, this study offers empirical evidence on the need to adopt digital technology to develop efficient internal organizational processes and guarantee high quality service to customers. In another empirical study conducted in a hospital, the authors confirmed that the use of digital tools helped leaders solve complex issues related to personnel and operational costs. Similarly to the previous study aforementioned, data were used to re-design the entire organization with the aim of optimizing the efficiency in the use of both facilities and processes ( Morgareidge et al., 2014 ).

Leaders are responsible for verifying the suitability of technological tools being adopted or implemented in relation to the organizational needs and objectives. Moreover, while we acknowledge that digital technologies hold the potential for improving the efficiency of organizational processes, we contend that they need to be internalized and integrated within employees' routine tasks in order for organizations to minimize attritions from their adoption and fully capture its benefits.

Organizations and Ethics

Ethics in leadership roles has been an issue of concern to scholars especially since the emergence of the transformational leadership paradigm ( Burns, 1978 ; Bass and Avolio, 1993 ). In general, ethical leadership is defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” ( Brown et al., 2005 , p. 120). With the advent of digital transformation and the massive use of data, scholars have begun to call into question the integrity of leaders. Indeed, the use of data and technologies exposes leaders to new dilemmas, which nature is intertwined with ethical concerns. For instance, the use of sensitive data is driving leaders' increased concerns about privacy protection and controlling mechanisms in the workplace ( Kidwell and Sprague, 2009 ). Electronic surveillance (ES) is a way to collect data about employees and their behavior, so as to improve productivity and monitor behaviors in the workplace ( Kidwell and Sprague, 2009 ). ES rules vary across countries and cultures. For instance, the US Supreme Court of Justice obliged employers to adopt ES to monitor employees in order to prevent sexual harassment ( Kidwell and Sprague, 2009 ). Notwithstanding, Europe has been more concerned with individual privacy. Notably, in 1986, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) approved a declaration on social aspects of technological change, whereby member states “were concerned that employers and unions ensure that workers' privacy be protected when technological change occurs” ( Kidwell and Sprague, 2009 , p. 199). Perhaps the boldest manifestation of this concern is the recently adopted EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has just come into force the past May 25th, 2019.

In this scenario, leaders are required to set clear guidelines and practices that lie within national and international data security policies. In particular, they need to monitor the use of personal sensitive data, if not for the ethical concern per se , because if otherwise caught in unlawful data practices, their organizations' reputation, trustworthiness, and brand image could suffer irreparable damage (e.g., the recent scandal of Cambridge Analytica about an inappropriate use of personal data, has affected the reputation of all organizations involved) ( Gheni et al., 2016 ; Jones, 2017 ). Leaders also need to set clear expectations for employees and act as role models for all members of the organization in order to clarify what ethical behavior regarding personal sensitive data looks like. This is especially true for organizations that strongly rely on virtual communications, as these tend to stimulate more aggressive and unethical behavior, due to their lack of face-to-face interactions ( Gheni et al., 2016 ). Leaders, therefore, have a pivotal role in weeding out potential unethical behaviors from their organizations.

Finally, an emerging topic in leadership concerns the unlawful appropriation of technology from private and public organizations. Specifically, it refers to situations wherein technology is used for purposes other than those it had originally been intended ( Jones, 2017 ). For instance, improper use of technology may result in unauthorized access to data and lead to cyber security breaches ( Jones, 2017 ).

Despite the interdisciplinary relevance of ethics, the debate of ethical concerns within e-leadership seems to be currently confined to the literature on governance and information technology. Yet, there is room for more theoretical and empirical discussion about how ethics is affecting power relations, surveillance, safety perceptions in the workplace, and human resource processes.

Leadership and Digital Tools: Insights From Social Movement Studies

A complementary perspective of leadership and digitalization is provided by several recent studies that analyze social and political events, in particular grassroots movements such as the Occupy and Tea Party ( Agarwal et al., 2014 ), the Umbrella Movement in China ( Lee and Man Chan, 2016 ) and the political tensions in Russia ( Toepfl, 2018 ). These contributions share the notion of leader as someone who directs collective action and creates collective identities ( Morris and Staggenborg, 2004 ). These studies, mainly rooted in communication and political sciences, are certainly relevant to our review as they shed light on the social nature of leadership in the new digital era.

These studies focus on how social media and digital tools are disrupting traditional forms of leadership, altering the structure, norms and hierarchy of organizations, and creating new practices to manage and sustain consensus ( David and Baden, 2018 ). New forms of leadership are for instance defined as horizontal and leaderless ( Castells, 2012 ; Bennett and Segerberg, 2013 ). The horizontality defines movements and groups in which authority is dismissed, whereas leaderless points to the lack of power stratification among the participants ( Sitrin, 2006 ; Gerbaudo, 2017 ).

In a similar vein, recent studies looking at the use of digital tools by participants in social movements, observe how power struggles were changed by new information and communication technologies (ICTs): “ICTs have transformed the power dynamics of social movement politics by challenging traditional forms of [social] organizations” ( Agarwal et al., 2014 , p. 327).

The single case study of the ultra-orthodox community illustrates for instance how authoritarian leadership can be broken down by digital tools and social media ( David and Baden, 2018 ). When the leadership of a closed and conservative religious community is questioned in social media, that creates a new space to renegotiate the community's boundaries and modify its power dynamics: “the fluidity and temporality of digital media have advanced to become an influential, independent factor shaping community opinion” ( David and Baden, 2018 , p. 14). As such, the identity of a closed and inaccessible community and its leadership are challenged by both internal and external actors through the use of digital media.

The study of different digital tools is also considered a relevant subject matter to gain understanding about what tools are more efficient in organizing and mobilizing resources ( Agarwal et al., 2014 ). Technology and digital tools are not value-neutral nor value free, because they influence how people organize, coordinate, and communicate with others ( Hughes, 2004 ; Agarwal et al., 2014 ). For instance, the study on the Russian activists shows how the long-term success of the movement was a result of a centralized, formalized and stable network, wherein its leading representatives and other members were bonded together by a new digital tool ( Toepfl, 2018 ). The use of digital instruments enabled the transformation of an organization that was initially chaotic into a more structured one, as they facilitated the discussion and coordination between the leader and its followers ( Toepfl, 2018 ). This resulted in a more efficient and effective way to achieve consensus.

Taken together, these studies show how technology is far from being a neutral instrument. Rather, digital tools influence power dynamics in any type of organization (e.g., flat, bureaucratic or networked), and at any level. If on one hand, digital tools can lead to the de-structuring of extant hierarchies and challenge organizational boundaries and rules, on the other hand, they can be used as communication and coordination mechanisms that allow leaders to build structured networks from scratch and, through them, reinforce their power.

In sum, these studies stress that, despite the participatory dynamics that characterize social movements, power struggles and hierarchies are still the underlying forces that bond heterogenous groups of people together. Leaders are then the key actors in identifying objectives, orienting followers, and providing a clear identity to organizations, by means of a shared vision ( Gerbaudo, 2017 ; Bakardjieva et al., 2018 ).

The Micro Level of Analysis: Main Categories

The studies that adopt a micro-perspective to the topic of leadership and digital technology can be classified in three different categories, depending on whether they focus on: (1) The increased complexity of C-level roles; (2) The skills e-leaders need; and (3) The practices for leading virtual teams effectively.

The Evolution of C-Level Roles

The huge impact that digitalization has had in the competitive business environment, transforming markets, players, distribution channels, and relationships with customers, has made it necessary for organizations to adopt a high-level strategic view on digital transformation. New responsibilities on the selection of digital technologies that will drive an organization's ability to remain competitive in a highly digitized world, are given mainly to its CEO ( Gerth and Peppard, 2016 ). CEOs in the Digital Age assume the additional role of digital change agents and digital enablers, implying that they should recognize the opportunities offered by new technologies, and also push for their implementation. As suggested by Avolio et al. (2000) , e-leaders have a fundamental role in appropriating the right technology that is suitable to their organizations' needs, but also in transmitting a positive attitude to employees about their adopting of new technology. CEOs are required to instill a digital culture into the top management team, involving it in actively sustain a digital change inside the organization ( Gerth and Peppard, 2016 ). For this matter, a greater interaction is needed between the CEO and the Chief Information Officer (CIO), who will increasingly become a key player in the digital strategy definition and implementation, rather stay confined to an “IT-is-a-mess-now-fix-it” flavor of a role ( Gerth and Peppard, 2016 ; Bekkhus and Hallikainen, 2017 ). Bekkhus and Hallikainen (2017) acknowledge an increased ambidexterity in the role of CIOs and develop a toolbox related to their role as gatekeepers and contributors. In order to reach their goals successfully, CIOs need to have a clear picture of both the characteristics of the digital strategy and the organizational needs it is supposed to satisfy. They should also carefully evaluate the readiness of the organization in every step of the changing process in order to adopt the proper pace. To avoid IT project failures, CEOs need to facilitate the recognition of the CIO's role, as well as promote collaboration between the CIO and other top managers ( Bygstad et al., 2017 ).

As described before, digital technologies are not only used to support internal processes, but are also a way to build relationships with different actors in the external environment. Social media platforms in particular, are de facto powerful tools that C-level executives use to build communications channels with their followers ( Obschonka et al., 2017 ). In a study analyzing the rhetoric of CEOs in social media, Grafström and Falkman (2017) suggest that CEOs' willingness and ability to construct a continuative dialogue through digital channels is a powerful way not only to manage organizational crisis but also to sustain the reputation and the image of the organization, positioning the brand and communicating the organizational values. Thus, as Tsai and Men (2017) unveil, by properly using social media, CEOs, as organizational leaders and spokespersons, can build trust, satisfaction and advocacy among their followers. According to the authors, digital technologies, and social media in particular, support CEOs in becoming “Chief Engagement Officers [who develop] meaningful interpersonal interactions and relationships with today's media savvy publics” ( Tsai and Men, 2017 , p. 1859). Even if CEOs have always been considered the personification of the organization, the rising need for transparency and authenticity has led CEOs to embrace the task of visible, approachable and social leaders who actively contribute to the engagement of followers and costumers ( Tsai and Men, 2017 ).

In sum, C-level managers are faced with higher complexity of roles, related not only to new responsibilities in the digital strategy development, but also in the engagement of stakeholders across the organization's boundaries.

Leaders' Skills in the Digital Era

Defining what skills characterize leaders in the digital era has become a matter of interest in the literature. Studies analyze what are the relevant skills e-leaders should display in order to be effective. In line with the debate on universal and contingency theories, scholars ask to what extent the skills leaders need in order to lead e-businesses differ from the ones needed in traditional organizations ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). Most studies are based on expert surveys that engage with digital experts, managers, CEOs and Managing Directors of e-businesses ( Lynn Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ; Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ; Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ; Sousa and Rocha, 2018 ). A few studies also integrate expert surveys with interviews to IT specialists ( Sousa and Rocha, 2018 ) and C-level managers ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ).

Scholars agree that the introduction of digital tools affects the design of work, and, particularly, how people work together ( Barley, 2015 ; Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). For example, digitalization opens up new possibilities such as virtual teams and smart working, introduces new communication tools, increases speed and information access, influences power structures, and increases efficiency and standardization. In order to steer organizations and help them reap the benefits from such digital transformations, leaders may need to develop a variety of different skills. We present below the main skills leaders need in the digital transformation era that have been highlighted in the literature.

Communicating through digital media

Global connectivity and fast exchange of information have created a much more competitive and turbulent environment for e-businesses, which must deal with rapid and discontinuous changes in demand, competition and technology ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). Scholars agree that the need for speed, flexibility, and easier access to information has facilitated the adoption of flatter and more decentralized organizational structures ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). In the digital context, knowledge and information become more visible and easier to share, allowing followers to gain more autonomy ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ) and to make their voices heard at all levels of the organization ( Lynn Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ). As information becomes more distributed within the organization, power tends to be decentralized. Digital transformation allows real-time involvement of followers in many decision processes, increasing their participation. Therefore, leaders are expected to adopt a more inclusive style of leading ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ), asking for and taking into account followers' ideas into everyday decision making, using a two-way communication and interaction. Scholars maintain that followers' higher autonomy and participation can lead to a higher sense of responsibility for the work they are accountable for. This in turn should reduce the need for control-seeking behaviors previously exerted by leaders ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ; Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ).

At the same time, inspiring and motivating employees have become pivotal skills for leaders to master ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ), and seem to be required to an even greater extent in order to encourage the continuous involvement and active participation of followers. Indeed, the same digital tools that provide autonomy to followers, may also drive them toward greater isolation ( Lynn Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ). According to Van Wart et al. (2017) and Roman et al. (2018) , some of the most common problems generated by the digitalization of organizations are worker alienation, weak social bonding, and poor accountability. It is therefore extremely important that leaders support and help followers in dealing with the challenges of greater autonomy and increased job demands, by adopting coaching behaviors that promote their development, provide resources, and assist them in handling tasks ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ).

Similarly, the ability to create a positive organizational environment that fosters a strong sense of collaboration and unity among employees has become vital for leaders to have. Yet, e-leaders' reliance on traditional social skills, such as the abilities of active listening and understanding others' emotions and points of view, may not be enough to warrant success in creating such environments. Rather, they need to integrate these social skills with the ability to master a variety of virtual communication methods ( Roman et al., 2018 ). According to Carte et al. (2006 , p. 326), “while leadership in the more traditional face-to-face context may emerge using a variety of mechanisms, in the virtual context it likely relies largely on the communication effectiveness of the leader.”

Roman et al. (2018 , p. 5) label this skill as e-communication, and define it as “the ability to communicate via ICTs in a manner that is clear and organized, avoids errors and miscommunication, and is not excessive or detrimental to performance.” The leader needs to set the appropriate tone for the communication, while organizing it and providing clear messages. Moreover, the leader needs to master different communication tools, as their communication effectiveness depends largely on the ability to choose the right communication tool. Roman et al. (2018) provide a set of major selection criteria, which includes richness of the tool, synchronicity, speed of feedback, ease of understanding by non-experts, and reprocessing capability (ability to use the communication artifact multiple times in different venues). This ability allows to adapt the communication to the receiver preferences (as it would otherwise happen in a face-to-face interaction), so as to provide a variety of cues that enhance social bonding ( Shachaf and Hara, 2007 ; Stephens and Rains, 2011 ), convey the right message to the target audience, and better manage urgency and complexity.

High speed decision making

One way in which the introduction of technology has changed the organizational life has been the greater need for speed. Scholars agree that e-business leaders are forced to make decisions more rapidly ( Lynn Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ; Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). This seems to suggest that decisiveness, and problem-solving abilities keep being extremely relevant for e-leaders, and may become even more prominent in the future ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). According to Lynn Pulley and Sessa (2001) , never-ending urgency can create situations in which leaders needs to make decisions without having all information or without having time to think and analyze the problem properly, which may lead to falling back onto habitual responses, instead of creating novel and innovative ideas. To help navigate such situations, leaders need to be able to tolerate ambiguity, while being creative at the same time ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ; Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). If it is true that the digital world forces leaders to examine problems and provide innovative answers at a faster peace, the use of information technology also allows them to make more informed decisions. Information systems can provide enormous amounts of real-time data. For this reason, the ability to process high volumes of fast-paced incoming and outgoing data (e.g., Big data), in order to analyze it, prioritize and make sense of the relevant information for decision-making, has become and will be even more relevant in the future. Recent research points out that leaders will increasingly need to collaborate with IT managers, providing directions for data analysis and offering meaningful interpretations of results ( Harris and Mehrotra, 2014 ; Vidgen et al., 2017 ).

Managing disruptive change

The fast-paced technological evolution places high demands on organizations' ability to deal with continuously changing conditions and players. Lynn Pulley and Sessa (2001) highlight the constant need for organizations to adapt, foresee opportunities, and sometimes improvise, in order to maintain their competitiveness in the market. Under increasing pressure to innovate, leaders need to undertake an active role in identifying the need for change, as well as handling, and initiating change within their teams and organizations ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). Horner-Long and Schoenberg (2002) findings confirm that e-leaders tend to show more entrepreneurial and risk-taking characteristics than leaders in traditional contexts. However, continuous change should not disrupt the focus and mission of the organization. While promoting a flexible and innovative attitude in the organization, the leader needs to clarify a common direction. Lynn Pulley and Sessa (2001) identify the ability to inspire and share a common vision about the future of the organization as one of the challenges of e-leaders, who are frequently confronted with the need for change. While acknowledging the importance of this skill, Horner-Long and Schoenberg (2002) did not find it to characterize e-leaders any more than traditional leaders.

Managing connectivity

Scholars maintain that e-leaders also need to foster their networking abilities. Beyond the need to explore and create networks to lobby for resources and stakeholder support ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ) developing social interactions seems to play a key role in favoring innovation. As innovation becomes a top priority, leaders need to understand how to take advantage of networking opportunities ( Avolio et al., 2014 ). The hyper-connected environment, in which leaders operate, especially with the ubiquitous use of social media and other digital platforms, provides new networking opportunities due both to an easier access to larger groups of individuals, and the possibility to establish connections through more immediate communication. New technologies and especially the advent of social networks might have reinforced the perception that being persistently part of the network is compulsory. As reported in Horner-Long and Schoenberg (2002 , p. 616) “in the new economy some leaders do nothing but network - there is no commercial need. It is simply networking for networking's sake.” Although it is a general requirement to be able to create and maintain social relationships with various stakeholders, effective leaders differ specifically in the ability to recognize those relationships that lead to tangible benefits ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ).

The renaissance of technical skills

Lastly, scholars underscore the increased value of technical competencies. This represents a shift from the latest paradigm established over the past four decades, whereby leadership primarily requires emotional and social intelligence competencies that enable the leader to understand, motivate and manage his team effectively. Notwithstanding, leaders also need to understand and manage the use of various technologies. Indeed, IT knowledge and skills have become high on demand requirements to operate in a digitalized environment ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ). Furthermore, the mastery of current technologies must be balanced with the ability to stay current on the newest technological developments ( Roman et al., 2018 ). This emphasizes the need to adopt a life-long learning approach to developing one's digital skills.

Developing leadership skills in the digital era

To lead in the era of digital transformation requires individuals to be both people-oriented and technically minded ( Diamante and London, 2002 ). These two skills often characterize very different profiles of people that, yet, need to come together in order to implement an effective digital transformation in their organization. The case study presented by Coutu (2000) , highlights the need to establish a profitable exchange relationship between leaders of people-oriented (e.g., sales), and IT functions, in order to create a cross-functional and cross-skill contamination. Systematic knowledge dissemination from the individual to the group is highlighted as the most effective way to spread knowledge and expertise across the organization ( Boe and Torgersen, 2018 ). Coutu (2000) addresses how this cross-skill contamination can be performed, by means of implementing reverse-mentoring programs. Nonetheless, the author uncovers the problem of potential generational conflicts, whereby newer generations, who tend to be more knowledgeable and skilled in digital technologies, may gain informational power over others, generating concern and skepticism in older, change averse, individuals ( Coutu, 2000 ).

Studying modern military operational environments, Boe and Torgersen (2018) highlight the need to lead under volatile, uncertain and complex situations, characteristics they find similarly describe the context of modern e-businesses. According to the authors, leadership training needs to combine both technology and change, creating simulations of scenarios in which ambiguous information and improvisation create complex and uncertain conditions.

One way in which exposure to technology and simulations can be combined is through training in virtual spaces ( Lisk et al., 2012 ; Lu et al., 2014 ). In large community games, leaders may have to recruit, motivate, reward, and retain talented team members. They have to make quick decisions that may affect their outcomes in the long-run, for which they need to analyze the environment in order to build and keep their competitive advantage ( Avolio et al., 2014 ). Lu et al. (2014) adopt experiential learning theory ( Kolb and Kolb, 2005 ) to explain e-leadership skills development, referring to activities in which learning is performed in a virtual context. Their study attempts to empirically examine the transferability of virtual experiences into in-role job situations. Results show partial association between virtual games behaviors and hierarchical position of the participants, however, conclusions concerning the transferability of certain skills or experiences gained in virtual games may be highly affected by reverse causality. Ducheneaut and Moore (2005) , conduct a virtual ethnography to show that people participating in multiplayer role-playing games train behaviors related to networking, management and coordination in small groups. However, in a recent review on the use of games, based on digital tools or virtual realities, for training leadership skills, Lopes et al. (2013) highlight a general lack of theoretical grounding in the development and analysis of virtual games. Moreover, they find extant studies rarely show these games affect leadership skill outcomes ( Lopes et al., 2013 ). Robin et al. (2011) find that while simulations facilitate learning, they do not seem to lead to better results than traditional methods. The authors suggest simulations' main advantage lies in the possibility to enable learning in situations where it would otherwise be difficult or impossible. They thus propose the use of a combination of traditional and technology-based training to achieve the most effective learning outcomes.

Leading Virtual Teams

The introduction of digital tools has enable the organizational structure to become not only flatter and decentralized, but also dispersed. One way in which digital technology has shaped organizational life and people management has been by enabling the potential use of virtual teams. Virtual teams are defined as “interdependent groups of individuals that work across time, space, and organizational boundaries with communication links that are heavily dependent upon advanced information technologies” ( Hambley et al., 2007 , p. 1). They have become increasingly pervasive in the last years, especially in multinational organizations ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ).

Indeed, several benefits of virtual teams have been acknowledged in the literature. First, the use of virtual teams has allowed for a dramatic reduction of travel times and costs ( Bartol and Liu, 2002 ; Bergiel et al., 2008 ). Second, it has enabled teams to draw upon a varied array of expertise, regardless of location ( Jawadi et al., 2013 ), making it easier to access and recruit talent across the globe. Third, by facilitating the heterogeneity of team members, it has fostered creativity and innovation, due to the possibility of combining different perspectives ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ).

Despite its advantages, certain specificities of virtual teams' challenge the traditional way in which teams are managed and led. For instance, virtual teams are characterized by geographical and/or organizational distance. This implies that leaders cannot physically observe team members' behavior nor rely on verbal cues, facial expressions, and other non-verbal communication in order to understand the team's thoughts, feelings, moods and actions. This is considered one of the biggest barriers to developing and managing interpersonal relationships ( Jawadi et al., 2013 ). The heavy dependence on ICT may lead to communication problems, such as failing to distribute information to all team members, understand or convey the level of urgency or importance of the information, and interpret silence ( Cascio and Montealegre, 2016 ). Geographical dispersion often implies cultural diversity between team members, which may affect leaders' ability to build and maintain team spirit and trust ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ). According to Sullivan et al. (2015) , space may suppress leadership capacity, even in situations of shared leadership. Moreover, virtual teams are subject to time differences.

In order to overcome these challenges, virtual team leaders need to adopt specific behaviors and practices. One of the most important practices highlighted in the literature involves the setting and periodical revision of communication norms within the team ( Jawadi et al., 2013 ). Instead of focusing on behavioral norms, as in traditional teams, virtual teams require a clear definition of the norms pertaining to their use of communication tools, through witch information flows and activities are performed. Clear communication norms entail a number of advantages for virtual teams, such as: correct exchange of information, regular interaction and feedback, less ambiguity about teamwork processes, better monitoring of each member's contributions, faster detection of problems and mistakes. Moreover, because leaders play a fundamental role in enabling and mediating the communication between team members, they are able to lead them in the construction of a common language. This involves gaining a deep understanding of the underlying meaning of words and expressions used in the team. The mutual understanding of the organizational and social context in which each team member is embedded facilitates this process ( Plowman et al., 2007 ; Bjørn and Ngwenyama, 2009 ; Rafaeli et al., 2009 ).

As mentioned in the previous section, virtual team leaders also need to be able to choose the right communication tools and navigate well through their functionalities and the interactivity across various tools, if they are to avoid disruptions in communication and achieve a more vivid and open communication that favors positive team member relationships ( Jawadi et al., 2013 ). While synchronous communication is considered more appropriate to manage complex, interdependent tasks ( Hambley et al., 2007 ), asynchronous instruments may allow for team members with different backgrounds to adopt their own pace in processing others' ideas or generating new ones ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ). Moreover, asynchronous communication facilitates a continuous flow of information and the ability to work for a greater number of hours ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ). Furthermore, leaders need to use multiple channels with different levels of richness ( Hambley et al., 2007 ). According to Hambley et al. (2007) , “a rich medium allows for transmitting multiple verbal and nonverbal clues, using natural language, providing immediate feedback, and conveying personal feelings and emotions.” A richer tool is supposed to lead to better team cohesion. Yet, the authors found mixed results in terms of the association between constructive interaction and task performance ( Hambley et al., 2007 ).

Virtual teams often group together individuals from different educational, functional, geographical and cultural backgrounds. On one hand, such heterogeneity should promote innovative solutions, but on the other hand, it may also undermine collaboration. A virtual team leader thus needs to have good cross-cultural skills ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ), to identify different cultures' characteristics and understand similarities and differences across cultures. Especially at the early stages of a virtual team's lifecycle, the leader needs to assure that the diversity of team members is understood, appreciated, and leveraged. As virtual teams do not usually have the chance to enjoy in-person informal activities typically used to share personal characteristics and abilities and foster team building, the leader needs to share and manage personal information virtually and ensure the team has a clear understanding of each team member's expertise and skills ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ). Once the diversification of skills is acknowledged, virtual teams can also benefit from a clear distribution of roles and tasks ( Jawadi et al., 2013 ). Especially if virtual teams adopt asynchronous communication tools, tasks and schedules need to be clearly defined to avoid delays due to task misallocation or overlapping.

According to Malhotra et al. (2007) , virtual teams may also engage in practices aimed at digitally monitoring the team activity, relying on remote monitoring of virtual communication and participation, as well as document posting. However, Jawadi et al. (2013) notice how monitoring and controlling mechanisms may be negatively perceived by team members. Indeed, their findings show that behaviors directed at monitoring and coordinating team interactions are not associated with higher leader-member relationship quality. According to Carte et al. (2006) , high performing virtual teams are characterized by monitoring behaviors, but only when these are shared between members. Although, traditional performance appraisal and monitoring mechanisms are being replaced by alternative systems that rely on real-time digital feedback, the key features that characterize effective face-to-face feedback have been kept ( Petrucci and Rivera, 2018 ).

Perhaps the best measure of impact of the pervasive adoption of virtual teams in organizations has been the extensive accumulation of literature focused on studying the phenomenon, alongside its antecedents, challenges and outcomes. As our study reveals, scholars have identified a number of best practices, whereby virtual team leaders become the key players in charge of resolving the challenges posed by physical and organizational distance.

However, especially when considering virtual teams, there has been a shift in the literature to steer away from traditional notions of leadership as being assigned to one individual, toward focusing on new conceptualizations of shared and distributed leadership. Virtual teams, which are often cross-functional, are indeed characterized by a relative absence of formal hierarchical authority ( Pearce et al., 2009 ). In the same way that the need for speed in responding to accelerated environmental change and higher connectivity led to the development of virtual teams, that same need may be driving the flattening of hierarchical structures toward more evenly distributed, shared and empowered leadership among virtual team members ( Pearce et al., 2009 ). As such, virtual teams are often left alone to shape and define their own leadership style, which may encourage all team members to perceive themselves as leaders and drive the collective development of leadership skills ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ). In these so called self-managing work teams (SMWTs; Manz and Sims, 1987 ; Druskat and Wheeler, 2003 ), decisions and leadership responsibilities are equitably allocated among team members, who are also engaged in supporting and accompanying each other in the accomplishment of their tasks. The concept of shared leadership does not necessarily imply the rejection of a “formal” leader, but introduces the idea that any team member may be a leader, and as such, is expected to assess the team in its context and assert what is best for the team: whether to volunteer himself as team leader or empower any fellow team member(s) to serve the team as leader(s). This process leads to the creation of a shared understanding of both the leadership responsibilities and the power dynamics within the team ( Grisoni and Beeby, 2007 ; Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014 ; Hoegl and Muethel, 2016 ).

Toward The Future: Research Directions

Despite the urgency felt by scholars to understand how leaders keep the pace with technological change, the literature seems to lack a shared approach in studying and theorizing about this phenomenon. Although researchers have been introducing relevant new concepts, such as e-leader and e-organizations, there is a shortage of well-established and consensual definitions in the literature. Our review reveals scholars have relied on several leadership theories to explain the relationship between leadership and digital transformation. However, we question whether theories based on traditional views of industrial organization and business, that still prevail in the literature, are the most suitable to comprehend the multifaceted phenomenon of digital transformation and its impact on all matters leadership of organizations, communities, teams, and even self. As suggested by Kahai et al. (2013) , scholars may need to go beyond traditional leadership theories to explain the impact digitalization exerts on leadership and leaders. Are the existing theories in social sciences able to explain the antecedents, characteristics and outcomes of this disruptive phenomenon or do we need new theoretical lenses to make sense of how leaders may respond to this change?

One of the most complex and pressing issues concerns e-leaders (un)ethical behaviors. Notably, the higher risk leaders now face of engaging in unethical uses of personal and sensitive information, or the inexistence of a code of conduct for ethical leadership behavior are critical concerns to raise in any debate of e-leadership ( Lee, 2009 ). Collaboration through digital technologies brings about new questions regarding the role leaders may play in the digital environment. What is the role of leaders in guiding an ethical appropriation of digital technologies? What can e-leaders do in order to be an example and instill an ethical culture within their followers? How do digital tools such as social media and online communities and forums change the conditions under which interactions occur and how do these affect the maintenance of ethical behaviors? These are questions that future research is pressed to answer. While the theoretical debate has already started to address some of these questions, empirical research remains considerably underdeveloped.

The present review uncovers a shortage of contributions addressing the role that institutions play in supporting ethical behaviors of leaders. In particular, what remains unclear is whether and how leaders will be prepared to face the new wave of data and policies that affect their ability to manage privacy and regulatory issues. Studies in this area are thus highly encouraged.

The leader-follower relationships mediated by ICTs can also be affected by concerns for privacy and information that the parties do not want to share. Social media interactions, for example, leave digital footprints that can be monitored by leaders and organizations, which may compromise the interactions and responses of followers that feel their privacy is at risk. The same can be said regarding the instruments that digital technologies provide for tracing personal productivity. Project management applications, for instance, trace individual contributions to a certain project, but can challenge an impartial evaluation if the relationship between individual effort and contribution to the results is not clear, thus putting into question the trust in the relationship with leaders. Future research should consider these aspects and work toward a broader comprehension of how to balance the need for higher transparency in ICT- mediated relationships with followers' higher autonomy and need for privacy.

We acknowledge that the introduction and use of digital tools it strictly linked to organizational cultures that value the use of technology and establishes the readiness of organizations to successfully implement digital tools. Therefore, we suggest further research needs to investigate the extent to which culture affects the selection and effective implementation of digital technologies within organizations. Answering to this question also provides relevant information on how digital technology alters organizational identity and shapes new organizational boundaries. Exploring this line of inquiry using both theoretical and empirical approaches, may inform the creation of new organizational identities, and their relationship with different types of organizations and institutions.

Since digitalization is enabling a growing propensity to share information, organizational boundaries are becoming more fluid and expanding outside the formal organization. Hence, collective forms of leadership are expected to increase. Notably, distributed or shared leadership is supposed to gain momentum, especially if it is considered a better fit to the characteristics of virtual teams, such as the informal nature of its communication channels, task interdependence and team member autonomy ( Avolio et al., 2014 ; Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014 ). What remains unclear is the role that leaders play in recognizing and encouraging distributed leadership in teams. Moreover, how much does the success of shared leadership styles depend on the organizational culture? What is the effect of shared leadership on virtual team dynamics? We claim that these are questions that should be explored with greater detail in the future.

Networked organizations, as well as the rise of virtual teams, speak volumes about the endless connectivity possibilities that digital technology has enabled. However, empirical studies on virtual teams also highlight that digital tools and media can disconnect individuals and undermine established power dynamics. Despite the relevance of increased connectivity, only a few studies adopt a network approach to understand how leaders and followers are interconnected to one another.

Literature has already acknowledged that the lack of face-to-face interactions makes the task of leading virtual teams a more complex job ( Purvanova and Bono, 2009 ). Indeed, the physical and cultural distance that characterizes virtual teams threatens the ability to build trust, create commitment and enhance cohesion among team members ( Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014 . As suggested by Lee (2009) trust in virtual teams is related to ethics: the way in which leaders and team members behave, the extent to which they demonstrate transparency when interacting with others, the integrity and compliance to the rules and procedures of the organization and the team are key issues that should not be neglected. However, little is known about the methods and behaviors that effective leaders can adopt in order to build trust in virtual teams. Literature on this topic needs contributions that focus specifically on the process of trust creation in virtual teams, describing its characteristics and mechanisms and informing about which digital tools can be used to support such process. Indeed, along with the ability of creating trust among team members, virtual team leaders are required to have the ability of choosing and exploiting the right communication tools ( Jawadi et al., 2013 ; Roman et al., 2018 ). Future research should try to uncover the effect different characteristics of communication tools may have on team dynamics and leader-followers relationships.

The lack of face-to-face interaction also creates new challenges in the deployment of social skills. Processes related to interpersonal understanding may be inhibited by distance and by the use of interfaces. Indeed, comparing traditional face-to-face teams and pure virtual teams, Balthazard et al. (2009) found that leader characteristics that are easier to perceive from nonverbal cues, such as personality traits, predicted the emergence of transformational leadership in face-to-face teams, but not in computer-mediated teams. Considering the importance of social understanding and affect-based perceptions, we encourage future research that analyzes the ways in which leaders can create positive emotional contagion, through technology. For example, it could be interesting to inquire whether the use of facial/emotional recognition devices ( Pentland and Choudhury, 2000 ), and affective haptics ( Arafsha et al., 2012 ) can contribute to interpersonal emotional understanding and sharing, and how it affects leader-follower relationships and team dynamics. Balthazard et al. (2009) found written communication quality to be positively related to the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual teams. Indeed, the increasing adoption of written communication-based tools such as chats, social media, or document sharing platforms, calls for the use of linguistic analysis of online communication to understand how leaders effectively instill emotions, convey their vision, or communicate urgency through text.

As suggested by Avolio et al. (2014) , leadership in the digital world may be influenced by gender. Men and women may adopt different criteria in choosing which technologies to adopt. However, this topic of research has earned little attention in the literature. We claim that other studies are needed to investigate more in depth gender differences, and its effect on organizational outcomes.

Another topic that future researcher needs to address regards the way in which leaders can develop the skills needed to perform in the digital era. Some scholars maintain virtual games might be useful instruments to foster both social and technical skills ( Ducheneaut and Moore, 2005 ; Lu et al., 2014 ). However, findings have not yet showed whether virtual games have a clear effect on social and digital skills development. We suggest future research could inspect what types of virtual behaviors foster team engagement and higher team performance in multiplayer virtual games, while examining the role of these variables in organizational settings. Other scholars propose digital natives and technical experts in organizations may be engaged in the training of those who are less familiar with or demonstrate a negative attitude toward the adoption of technology, for example by means of reverse mentoring programs ( Coutu, 2000 ). However, conditions that can favor a successful digital transformation of organizations should be analyzed. The technological skill advantage of young generations may destabilize traditional power relations. A closer look to this phenomenon is suggested.

In a digital world where physical presence is becoming unnecessary, the possibility that some leadership responsibilities begin to be performed by AI-based technology is not unrealistic. A tough debate is raising awareness as to whether robots can be programmed to express emotions and how this fosters the possibility that robots may be better leaders than humans ( Avolio et al., 2014 ). Complementing the literature that has so far stressed the importance of emotions and emotional intelligence for leaders' performance (see for instance Boyatzis, 2006 ; Boyatzis et al., 2017 ), future research should shed light on whether and how robots, algorithms and technological tools substitute or complement leaders.

Even if macro and micro level of analysis are explored by social science scholars, management literature would still lack the analysis of the phenomenon of leadership and digitalization at the meso-level. A promising way of combining micro and macro levels of theorizing might be to introduce a multiple level of analysis. Some of the papers in our dataset move toward this direction, however, it is not clear how digitalization is affecting relationships between diverse organizations.

Finally, from a methodological point of view, our study shows a plethora of methods employed by scholars to analyze leaders' behavior ( Hambley et al., 2007 ; Malhotra et al., 2007 ; Jawadi et al., 2013 ), leaders' skills ( Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002 ; Roman et al., 2018 ), or technology adoption ( Bartol and Liu, 2002 ; Weiner et al., 2015 ). If on one hand, this richness provides a portfolio of techniques that scholars could use depending on the subject of analysis, on the other hand, it confirms that there is still a confusion about how to monitor this recent phenomenon. Moreover, we observe that contributions are confined within their own disciplinary frontiers. For instance, social movements literature, that mainly draws on qualitative methods such as ethnography, case study, and interviews, should inform organizational scholars how to observe power relations within companies. Extant contributions investigating what are the skills leaders facing the digital transformation require are based mainly on experts' surveys and interviews. Literature reveals a lack of empirical research which examines the relationship between identified leadership skills and successful performance in highly digitalized organizations. Future studies should also take into account how much this relationship may be affected by the context in which the leader operates.

Nowadays, digital transformation is an unavoidable choice for any company, regardless of size or sector. Leaders cope with new tools on a daily basis and they make decisions according to the data they have access to. Therefore, we highly encourage future research to shed more light on the effect of digital transformation on leadership, both at organizational and individual level. If the debate about the relationship between human beings and machine is not a recent one ( Turing, 1950 ), not to management literature, nor social sciences in general, the relationship between digital transformation and leadership requires updated lenses. This systematic review offers a structured framework of a promising field, and we hope it will help future research generate coherent efforts to garner novel and relevant knowledge in this research topic.

The purpose of this review was 3-fold. First, we discussed how leadership in the digital era has been conceptualized, reviewing the theoretical perspectives that have been used in prior research. Our review did not reveal a strong unifying theory of the relationship between leadership and digital transformation, thus calling for more attention to theoretical contributions.

Second, we mapped the academic debate on the relationship between digital transformation and leadership, organizing and structuring the main emerging themes at macro and micro level of analysis. We observed that both contributions with micro and macro approaches underscore that information technology and strategic management need greater alignment. Digital transformation is successful in the long term when the overall organizational objectives match the need to adopt a new digital tools or instruments. In a similar vein, individuals embrace technological advancement only when they perceive it is relevant to their tasks. It is an important responsibility of the leader, particularly of C-level leaders, to steer this strategic alignment and the proliferation of a digital culture.

In a networked economy, the digital transformation has led organizations to open their boundaries, and connect with other industries, stakeholders, and customers, to generate innovation. From a micro perspective, this openness is also required by leaders who need to invest in networking. This means to be “out there” ( Grafström and Falkman, 2017 ), present in the network ( Gordon, 2007 ), and willing to communicate with different types of stakeholders, through digital tools and social media. Especially for leaders, the digital tools are no longer a distant container of everyday life; rather, they are instruments in which everyday life emerges ( Gordon, 2007 ).

Although the introduction of digital tools influenced organizational boundaries and leadership boundaries, for instance favoring the development of concepts such as shared leadership, studies show that trust among members and employees is still achieved and maintained through leaders' intervention ( Carte et al., 2006 ). Cascio and Montealegre (2016 , p. 356), reminds us that inspirational leaders will remain pivotal in making the right decisions, as “humans will continue to enjoy a strong comparative advantage over machines.” However, the growing development and use of AI-based technology to make decisions, calls for a closer understanding of what leadership will mean in the future. Growing ethical concerns related to the application of AI in managerial activities as well as to the appropriation of technology and data are becoming an urgent topic to address.

To overcome the challenges derived from the digital transformation, leaders are required to develop a combination of digital and human skills, mainly related to the ability to communicate effectively in a digitalized context, create cohesion between geographically distant followers, foster initiative and change attitudes, and deal with complex and fast problem solving.

Third, we highlighted the current gaps and open questions in the literature, and laid out a future research agenda that targets opportunities for the empirical and theoretical advancement of knowledge.

While our review is timely and includes the most recent contributions, some limitations should be considered and overcome in future studies. First, since our concern was to map prior research, we have not provided detailed propositions to the suggested categories, a void that should be addressed by future studies. The second concern regards the sample. We drew from the Scopus database only. Albeit we checked other databases to avoid potential bias, we may have missed some relevant articles contained elsewhere. Third, despite the rigorous procedure of our systematic review, a limitation is ascribed to the inclusion of only peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings. A future review should also include industry research reports, professional outlets publishing research-based findings, and other non-pear reviewed manuscripts to better clarify how the multidimensional phenomenon of digitalization is affecting organizations and leadership. Finally, we excluded, as per our boundary conditions, articles that considered organizations as leaders in the digital transformation, and studies that discussed about digital platforms. Future studies should adopt a broader overview of the macro-organizational and strategic effects in order to understand how digital transformation is implemented across different organizations, communities and teams.

Author Contributions

LC and EB contributed conception and design of the study. LC, EB, and RZ organized and analyzed the database. LC and EB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RZ wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Agarwal, S. D., Barthel, M. L., Rost, C., Borning, A., Bennett, W. L., and Johnson, C. N. (2014). Grassroots organizing in the digital age: considering values and technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Inform. Commun. Soc. 17, 326–341. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.873068

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arafsha, F., Masudul Alam, K., and El Saddik, A. (2012). “EmoJacket: consumer centric wearable affective jacket to enhance emotional immersion,” in Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) , 350–355.

Google Scholar

Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., and Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice. Leader. Q. 11, 615–668. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., and Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leader. Q. 25, 105–131. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003

Bakardjieva, M., Felt, M., and Dumitrica, D. (2018). The mediatization of leadership: grassroots digital facilitators as organic intellectuals, sociometric stars and caretakers * . Inform. Commun. Soc. 21, 899–914. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1434556

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., and Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. Leader. Q. 20, 651–663. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.008

Barley, S. R. (2015). Why the internet makes buying a car less loathsome: how technologies change role relations. Acad. Manage. Disc. 1, 5–35. doi: 10.5465/amd.2013.0016

Bartol, K. M., and Liu, W. (2002). Information technology and human resources management: harnessing the power and potential of netcentricity. Res. Personnel Hum. Resour. Manage. 21, 215–242. doi: 10.1016/S0742-7301(02)21005-1

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. Revised and Expanded Edition, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, 1st ed. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Admin. Q. 17, 112–121.

Bekkhus, R., and Hallikainen, P. (2017). “A new dualistic Cio toolbox: towards ambidexterity in the digital business transformation,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conferência da Associação Portuguesa de Sistemas de Informação, CAPSI' (Guimarães), 23–41.

Bennett, W. L., and Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bergiel, J. B., Bergiel, E. B., and Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Manage. Res. News 31, 99–110. doi: 10.1108/01409170810846821

Berman, S., and Korsten, P. (2014). Leading in the connected era. Strategy Leader. 42, 37–46. doi: 10.1108/SL-10-2013-0078

Bjørn, P., and Ngwenyama, O. (2009). Virtual team collaboration: building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Inform. Syst. J. 19, 227–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00281.x

Boe, O., and Torgersen, G. E. (2018). Norwegian “digital border defense” and competence for the unforeseen: a grounded theory approach. Front. Psychol . 9, 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00555

Bolden, R., and O'Regan, N. (2016). Digital disruption and the future of leadership: an interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, chairman of Centrica and MasterCard. J. Manage. Inquiry 25, 438–446. doi: 10.1177/1056492616638173

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive competencies to predict financial performance of leaders. Psicothema 18, 124–131. Available online at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72709519

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Boyatzis, R. E., Thiel, K., Rochford, K., and Black, A. (2017). Emotional and social intelligence competencies of incident team commanders fighting wildfires. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 53, 498–516. doi: 10.1177/0021886317731575

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., and Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decision Process. 97, 117–134. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Bygstad, B., Aanby, H., and Iden, J. (2017). “Leading digital transformation: the Scandinavian way. Lecture notes in Business Information Processing,” in Proceedings of the 8th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems, SCIS (Halden), 1–14.

Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., and Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams. Group Decision Negotiation 15, 323–343. doi: 10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7

Cascio, W. F., and Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3, 349–375. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352

Castells, M. (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age . Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Too old to learn? Harvard Business Rev. 78, 37–42. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2000/11/too-old-to-learn

Crossan, M. M., and Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manage. Stud. 47, 1154–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x

Davenport, T. H., and Harris, J. G. (2007). Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning . Boston, MA: HBS Review Press.

David, Y., and Baden, C. (2018). Reframing community boundaries: The erosive power of new media spaces in authoritarian societies. Inform. Commun. Soc. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486869. [Epub ahead of print].

Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., and Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organ. Sci. 6, 524–540. doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.5.524

DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organ. Sci. 5, 121–147. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.2.121

Diamante, T., and London, M. (2002). Expansive leadership in the age of digital technology. J. Manage. Dev . 21, 404–416. doi: 10.1108/02621710210430597

Diaz-Saenz, H. R. (2011). “Transformational leadership,” in The Sage Handbook of Leadership , eds A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson and M. Uhl-Bien (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 299–310.

Dimitrov, A. (2018). “The digital age leadership: a transhumanistic perspective,” in Symposium: “Envisioning Future Leadership: Utopia, Dystopia, or More of the Same?” , University of Phoenix. Phoenix, AZ.

Druskat, V. U., and Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: the effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Acad. Manage. J. 46, 435–457. doi: 10.2307/30040637

Ducheneaut, N., and Moore, R. J. (2005). More than just ‘XP’: learning social skills in massively multiplayer online games. Interactive Technol. Smart Educ. 2, 89–100. doi: 10.1108/17415650580000035

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., and Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the performance of startups. Leader. Q. 17, 217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002

European Commission (2017). Attitudes Towards the Impact of Digitisation and Automation on Daily Life . 1–171.

Eyal, H. (2016). Digital fit as a leg-up for Nongovernmental Organizations' media and political success. Polit. Commun. 33, 118–135. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2015.1011294

Foerster, C., and Duchek, S. (2018). “Leaders' resilience – A systematic literature review and future research agenda,” in Proceedings of the 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, AOM 2018. (Chicago, IL).

Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., and Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: a review of The leadership quarterly's second decade, 2000–2009. Leader. Q. 21, 922–958. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003

Garfield, E. (1979). “Citation indexing: its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities,” in Mapping the Structure of Science , ed E. Garfield (New York, NY: Wiley, 98–147.

Garfield, E. (2004). Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature. J. Inform. Sci. 30, 119–145. doi: 10.1177/0165551504042802

Geoffrion, A. M. (2002). Progress in operations management. Produc. Operations Manage. 11, 92–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00186.x

Gerbaudo, P. (2017). Social media teams as digital vanguards: the question of leadership in the management of key Facebook and Twitter accounts of Occupy Wall Street, Indignados and UK Uncut. Inform. Commun. Soc. 20, 185–202. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1161817

Gerstner, C. R., and Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 827–844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Gerth, A. B., and Peppard, J. (2016). The dynamics of CIO derailment: how CIOs come undone and how to avoid it. Business Horizons 59, 61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2015.09.001

Gheni, A. Y., Jusoh, Y. Y., Jabar, M. A., Ali, N. M., Abdullah, R. H., Abdullah, S., et al. (2016). “The virtual teams: E-leaders challenges,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on E-Learning, e-Management and e-Services , IC3e 2015, 38–42. (Melaka).

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Rev. 78, 78–90. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results

Gordon, E. (2007). Mapping digital networks from cyberspace to Google. Inform. Commun. Soc. 10, 885–901. doi: 10.1080/13691180701751080

Graen, G. B., and Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 9, 175–208.

Grafström, M., and Falkman, L. L. (2017). Everyday narratives: CEO rhetoric on Twitter. J. Organ. Change Manage. 30, 312–322. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-10-2016-0197

Grisoni, L., and Beeby, M. (2007). Leadership, gender and sense-making. Gender Work Organ. 14, 191–209. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00339.x

Gupta, S., and Pathak, G. S. (2018). Virtual team experiences in an emerging economy: a qualitative study. J. Organ. Change Manage. 31, 778–794. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-04-2017-0108

Haddud, A., and McAllen, D. (2018). “Digital workplace management: exploring aspects related to culture, innovation, and leadership,” in Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, PICMET 2018 (Honolulu: HI), 1–6.

Hambley, L. A., O'Neill, T. A., and Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decision Processes 103, 1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004

Harris, J. G., and Mehrotra, V. (2014). Getting value from your data scientists. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 56, 15–18. Available online at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/getting-value-from-your-data-scientists/

Harvard Business Review Analytic Services (2017). Operationalizing Digital Transformation: New Insights Into Making Digital Work. 1–12 . Available online at: https://hbr.org/sponsored/2017/05/operationalizing-digital-transformation-new-insights-into-making-digital-transformation-work

Heinz, U., Baga, T., Gebert, D., and Kearney, E. (2006). Leadership and cooperation as success factors in innovative R&D projects on electronic platforms. Team Perform. Manage. Int. J. 12, 66–76. doi: 10.1108/13527590610674077

Henttonen, K., Pussinen, P., and Koivumäki, T. (2012). Managerial perspective on open source collaboration and networked innovation. J. Technol. Manage. Innovation 7, 135–147. doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242012000300012

Hitt, D., and Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: a unified framework. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 531–569. doi: 10.3102/0034654315614911

Hoch, J. E., and Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 390–403. doi: 10.1037/a0030264

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoegl, M., and Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: a practitioners' guide. Project Manage. J. 47, 7–12. doi: 10.1002/pmj.21564

Horner-Long, P., and Schoenberg, R. (2002). Does e-business require different leadership characteristics? An empirical investigation. Eur. Manage. J. 20, 611–619. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00112-3

Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of Advanced Information Technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15, 47–71. doi: 10.5465/amr.1990.4308227

Hughes, T. (2004). Human-Built World: How to Think About Technology and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Jawadi, N., Daassi, M., Favier, M., and Kalika, M. (2013). Relationship building in virtual teams: a leadership behavioral complexity perspective. Hum. Syst. Manage. 32, 199–211. doi: 10.3233/HSM-130791

Jones, M. (2017). “E-leadership case study and the impact of (un)faithful appropriation of technology,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, ICMLG 2017 (Johannesburg), 191–199.

Kahai, S. S., and Avolio, B. J. (2006). Leadership style, anonymity, and the discussion of an ethical issue in an electronic context. Int. J. e-Collaboration 2, 1–26. doi: 10.4018/jec.2006040101

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. (2013). “Effects of transformational leadership and media on collaboration and performance in virtual teams,” in Leadership in Virtual Groups: Looking Back and Charting Paths Forward. Symposium Conducted at the Meetings of the Academy of Management , eds N. S. Hill and N. M. Lorinkova (Orlando, FL).

Kidwell, R. E., and Sprague, R. (2009). Electronic surveillance in the global workplace: laws, ethics, research, and practice. N. Technol. Work Empl. 24, 194–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00228.x

Kirkland, R. (2014). Artificial Intelligence Meets the C-suite. McKinsey Quarterly . Available online at: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/artificial_intelligence_meets_the_c-suite

Kirkpatrick, S., and Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? Acad. Manage. Perspect. 5, 48–60. doi: 10.5465/ame.1991.4274679

Kodama, M. (2007). Innovation through boundary management - A case study in reforms at Matsushita electric. Technovation 27, 15–29. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.006

Kolb, A. Y., and Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad. Manage. Learn. Educ. 4, 193–212. doi: 10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Lee, F. L. F., and Man Chan, J. (2016). Digital media activities and mode of participation in a protest campaign: a study of the Umbrella Movement. Inform. Commun. Soc. 19, 4–22. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093530

Lee, M. R. (2009). E-ethical leadership for virtual project teams. Int. J. Project Manage. 27, 456–463. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.012

Lisk, T. C., Kaplancali, U. T., and Riggio, R. E. (2012). Leadership in multiplayer online gaming environments. Simulation Gaming 43, 133–149. doi: 10.1177/1046878110391975

Lopes, M. C., Fialho, F. A., Cunha, C. J., and Niveiros, S. I. (2013). Business games for leadership development: a systematic review. Simulation Gaming 44, 523–543. doi: 10.1177/1046878112471509

Lord, R., De Varder, C., and Alliger, G. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 402–410. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402

Lorenz, M., Rüßmann, M., Strack, R., Lueth, K. L., and Bolle, M. (2015). Man and Machine in Industry 4.0. How Will Technology Transform the Industrial Workforce Through 2025? Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group.

Lu, L., Shen, C., and Williams, D. (2014). Friending your way up the ladder: connecting massive multiplayer online game behaviors with offline leadership. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.013

Lynn Pulley, M., and Sessa, V. I. (2001). E-leadership: tackling complex challenges. Industr. Commercial Training 33, 225–230. doi: 10.1108/00197850110405379

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., and Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 21, 60–70. doi: 10.5465/amp.2007.24286164

Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P. Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 32, 106–129. doi: 10.2307/2392745

McAfee, A., and Brynjolfsson, E. (2008). Investing in the IT that makes a competitive difference. Harvard Business Rev. 86, 98–107. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2008/07/investing-in-the-it-that-makes-a-competitive-difference

Morgareidge, D., Cai, H., and Jia, J. (2014). Performance-driven design with the support of digital tools: applying discrete event simulation and space syntax on the design of the emergency department. Front. Architectural Res. 3, 250–264. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2014.04.006

Morris, A., and Staggenborg, S. (2004). “Leadership in social movements,” in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements , eds D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi (London: John Wiley & Sons, 171–196.

Nohria, N., and Berkley, J. D. (1994). “The virtual organization: bureaucracy, technology, and the implosion of control,” in The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change , eds C. Heckscher and A. Donnellon (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd, 108–128.

O'Boyle, E. H. Jr., Banks, G. C., and Gonzalez-Mule, E. (2017). The Chrysalis effect: how ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. J. Manage. 43, 376–399. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527133

Obschonka, M., Fisch, C., and Boyd, R. (2017). Using digital footprints in entrepreneurship research: a Twitter-based personality analysis of superstar entrepreneurs and managers. J. Business Venturing Insights 8, 13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.05.005

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 34, 398–427. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398

Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Acad. Manage. Execut. 18, 47–57. doi: 10.5465/ame.2004.12690298

Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P. Jr. (2009). Where do we go from here? Is shared leadership the key to team success? Organ. Dyn. 38, 234–238. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.008

Penney, J. (2017). Social media and citizen participation in “official” and “unofficial” electoral promotion: a structural analysis of the 2016 Bernie Sanders digital campaign. J. Commun. 67, 402–423. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12300

Pentland, A., and Choudhury, T. (2000). Face recognition for smart environments. Computer 33, 50–55. doi: 10.1109/2.820039

Peteraf, M. A., Di Stefano, G., and Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: bringing two diverging conversations together. Strateg. Manage. J. 34, 1389–1410. doi: 10.1002/smj.2078

Petrucci, T., and Rivera, M. (2018). “Leading Growth through the Digital Leader,” in Symposium: “Envisioning Future Leadership: Utopia, Dystopia, or More of the Same?” , University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., and Beck, T. E. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. Leader. Q. 18, 341–356. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.004

Prince, K. A. (2017). “Industrie 4.0 and Leadership,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic Business, ICEB 2017 (Dubai), 132–139.

Purvanova, R. K., and Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: face-to-face and virtual teams. Leader. Q. 20, 343–357. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.004

Rafaeli, A., Ravid, S., and Cheshin, A. (2009). Sensemaking in virtual teams: the impact of emotions and support tools on team mental models and team performance. Int. Rev. Industr. Organ. Psychol . 24, 151–182. doi: 10.1002/9780470745267.ch5

Richardson, J. W., and Sterrett, W. L. (2018). District technology leadership then and now: a comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014. Educ. Admin. Q. 54, 589–616. doi: 10.1177/0013161X18769046

Robin, B. R., McNeil, S. G., Cook, D. A., Agarwal, K. L., and Singhal, G. R. (2011). Preparing for the changing role of instructional technologies in medical education. Acad. Med . 86, 435–439. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dbee4

Roman, A. V., Van Wart, M., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S., and McCarthy, A. (2018). Defining e-leadership as competence in ICT-mediated communications: An exploratory assessment. Public Admin. Rev. doi: 10.1111/puar.12980. [Epub ahead of print].

Rosenbloom, R. S. (2000). Leadership, capabilities, and technological change: the transformation of NCR in the electronic era. Strat. Manage. J. 21, 1083–1103. doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1083::AID-SMJ127>3.0.CO;2-4

Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D., and Welpe, I. M. (2018). How does the digital transformation affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design and leadership. Manage. Revue 29, 114–138. doi: 10.5771/0935-9915-2018-2-114

Shachaf, P., and Hara, N. (2007). Behavioral complexity theory of media selection: a proposed theory for global virtual teams. J. Inform. Sci. 33, 63–75. doi: 10.1177/0165551506068145

Sitrin, M. (2006). Horizontalism: Voices of popular politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., and Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. J. Appl. Psychol . 89–103. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.89

Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., and Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Res. J. 11, 111–121, doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1102_3

Sousa, M. J., and Rocha, Á. (2018). Skills for disruptive digital business. J. Business Res. 94, 257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.051

Stephens, K. K., and Rains, S. A. (2011). Information and Communication Technology sequences and message repetition in interpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 38, 101–122. doi: 10.1177/0093650210362679

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of Leadership, 1st Ed. New York, NY: Free Press.

Stolze, A., Sailer, K., and Gillig, H. (2018). “Entrepreneurial mindset as a driver for digital transformation - A novel educational approach form university-industry interactions,” in Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Innovation & Entrepreneurship, ECIE 2018 (Aveiro), 806–813.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sullivan, S. D., Lungeanu, A., Dechurch, L. A., and Contractor, N. S. (2015). Space, time, and the development of shared leadership networks in multiteam systems. Netw. Sci. 3, 124–155. doi: 10.1017/nws.2015.7

Tannenbaum, R., and Schmidt, W. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Rev. 51, 162–180.

Toepfl, F. (2018). From connective to collective action: internet elections as a digital tool to centralize and formalize protest in Russia. Inform. Commun. Soci. 21, 531–547. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1290127

Tsai, W. H. S., and Men, L. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs' communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. N. Media and Soc. 19, 1848–1867. doi: 10.1177/1461444816643922

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 49, 433–460. doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Van Outvorst, F., Visker, C., and De Waal, B. (2017). “Digital leadership: the consequences of organizing and working in a digital society,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference On Management, Leadership & Governance, ICMLG 2017 (Johannesburg), 43–471.

Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X. H., and Liu, C. (2017). Integrating ICT adoption issues into (e-)leadership theory. Telematics Inform. 34, 527–537. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.003

Vidgen, R., Shaw, S., and Grant, D. B. (2017). Management challenges in creating value from business analytics. Eur. J. Operational Res. 261, 626–639. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.023

Wang, C. H., Liu, G. H. W., Lee, N. C. A., and Chen, K. J. (2018). “On online engagement: Does the leadership style matter?” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Electronic Business, ICEB 2018 (Guilin, 430–438.

Weiner, J., Balijepally, V., and Tanniru, M. (2015). Integrating strategic and operational decision making using data-driven dashboards: the case of St. Joseph mercy Oakland hospital. J. Healthc. Manage. 60, 319–330. doi: 10.1097/00115514-201509000-00005

World Economic Forum (in collaboration with Accenture) (2018). Digital Transformation Initiative - Unlocking $100 Trillion for Business and Society from Digital Transformation (Executive Summary), 1–71 . Available online at: https: http://reports.weforum.org/digital-transformation/wp-content/blogs.dir/94/mp/files/pages/files/dti-executive-summary-20180510.pdf

Zupic, I., and Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18, 429–447. doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629

Keywords: leadership, e-leadership, digital transformation, digital technology, literature review, skills, ethics, virtual teams

Citation: Cortellazzo L, Bruni E and Zampieri R (2019) The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized World: A Review. Front. Psychol. 10:1938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938

Received: 25 February 2019; Accepted: 07 August 2019; Published: 27 August 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Cortellazzo, Bruni and Zampieri. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Laura Cortellazzo, laura.cortellazzo@unive.it

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Leadership in a time of crisis: Lessons learned from a pandemic

Christian m. beilstein.

a Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland

Lutz E. Lehmann

Matthias braun, richard d. urman.

b Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02138, USA

Markus M. Luedi

Frank stüber.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is testing political leaders and healthcare systems worldwide, exposing deficits in crisis communication, leadership, preparedness and flexibility. Extraordinary situations abound, with global supply chains suddenly failing, media communicating contradictory information, and politics playing an increasingly bigger role in shaping each country's response to the crisis. The pandemic threatens not just our health but also our economy, liberty, and privacy. It challenges the speed at which we work, the quality of our research, and the effectiveness of communication within the scientific community. It can impose ethical dilemmas and emotional stress on healthcare workers. Nevertheless, the pandemic also provides an opportunity for healthcare organizations, leaders, and researchers to learn from their mistakes and to place their countries and institutions in a better position to face future challenges.

Introduction

From its origin in Wuhan, China, the novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) has traveled the world. It was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 3, 2020, and has caused about 50 million infections worldwide so far. By September 2020, the death toll had reached 1 million worldwide, and it continues to rise.

The unprecedented speed at which the virus has traveled and its dramatic consequences have forced leaders worldwide to come up with new game plans. Although they all face the same opponent, they have at times reacted very differently, with results ranging from successful containment of the disease to largely uncontrolled growth.

During acute phases of a pandemic, a nation's fate lies in the hands of the responsible political leader, who needs to act quickly. Most Western European countries battling COVID-19 have bypassed normal legislative channels, calling on laws governing national emergencies in order to avoid delays deemed unacceptable. Therefore, a nation's well-being has largely been dependent on the leadership skills of its executive authority.

The imposed restrictions have greatly changed citizens' lives, as economies were partially or completely shut down in many areas. After the first COVID-19 ‘wave’, leaders were under pressure to reopen economies, as negative consequences of the lockdown began to outweigh potential benefits. In parallel, the public's expectations and corresponding pressure on the scientific community to provide answers and guidelines rose steadily, leading to a surge in scientific publications. While the mass media can contribute to the rapid delivery of important information in real time, some sources have instead played a disruptive role, providing a platform for misleading information.

By analyzing how well leaders have been able to cope with the COVID-19 challenge and how institutions and communities are learning to live with the virus, we can draw conclusions for the future.

Role of media and communication

The COVID-19 pandemic is the first global event that we have been able to observe and react to in real time from everywhere, through global high-speed data networks, television, social media, and interpersonal contact. Anyone with a mobile telephone, a computer, or a tablet has access to the most recent facts and data around the clock.

This is not always a good thing. As growing numbers of infections and deaths are reported without corresponding information about appropriate counter measures, fear has spread, and many people have turned to self-proclaimed ‘specialists’ who claim to have the knowledge necessary to deal with the situation. Some of these ‘gurus’ share their own views with the community via social media [ 1 ]. Others are members of the media who judge the ability to generate clicks more important than the ability to provide their customers with concise and reliable information.

Journalists and publishers must be aware of the important role they play in health communications and of the influence they have on public opinion [ 2 ]. As seen in the climate change debate, uncertainty can be used to sow doubt and to manipulate public opinion. In addition, the absence of governmental guidance and the existence of conflicting information have fostered the spread of rumors and unsubstantiated news reports. To underline the severity of this development, the situation was even referred to as an ‘infodemic’ by World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus [ 3 ]. This shows the importance but also the difficulty of providing early, clear, and effective communication, especially in the face of rapidly growing but still incomplete knowledge. Risks inherent in the use of social media have led to the suggestion that guidelines be provided for professional use [ 4 ].

In view of the special circumstances of the pandemic, there should be close collaboration between journalists and scientists. Despite intrinsic differences in motivation, providing the public an overview of the current scientific evidence and consensus in understandable words is key.

What are the main aspects of good communication during a crisis? In general, communication should happen frequently – certainly more often than one thinks. It should be empathetic, honest, transparent and understandable, able to build trust, and foster resilience. Communication should focus on the provision of honest information, which clearly distinguishes between facts and assumptions, and labels them.

On the basis of previous experience from the outbreaks of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and Ebola, a five-step checklist for effective health communication practice has been developed [ 5 ]:

• 1. Set shared goals
• 2. Establish a coordinated response
• 3. Devise a communications strategy
• 4. Implement the communications plan
• 5. Be ready to adapt

To reach the target audience, communication needs to be proactive, as it is competing with many other sources of information. It should aim to establish trust and contradict false information. This can be achieved by focusing on people and their needs and expectations.

Even if core messages – which are usually of unpleasant nature – must be repeated frequently, we can still counter them with bright spots and opportunities. Ideally, leaders should react to the special circumstances of a pandemic, offering safe feedback channels, addressing concerns, providing adequate plans for the future, and supporting remote communications like video calls [ 6 ].

Challenges for the scientific community

Research questions are often triggered by unforeseeable events. When a hypothesis is formulated, peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal is usually years of hard work away. Therefore, scientific work-up inevitably lags behind frontline development. But during times of crisis, and especially during a pandemic, there is enormous interest in information, and people expect to get answers quickly. Some researchers choose to respond to the public directly, often taking advantage of social media. Others reach out to their peers, bypassing the normal scientific process of data generating, discussion, scientific failure and success to publish unverified theories. The result is an increase in public uncertainty and a possible loss of trust in science. This dilemma is a major challenge for the scientific community.

The interest of the scientific community and enormous socio-economic pressure have led to a surge of scientific publications about COVID-19, with mixed consequences [ 7 ]. Open access publications and collaboration between researchers were fostered. But pressure, lack of time, inadequate research facilities, and lack of experience may lead to avoidable scientific waste, which has been reported to be as high as 85%, even in the pre-pandemic era [ 8 ].

One option for making new research data rapidly accessible to the scientific community are preprints. Their use has massively increased in the current year [ 9 , 10 ]. Initially conceived as a basis for discussion within the scientific community, preprints risk being misinterpreted if they are not scrutinized by experts but are accepted as completely true by laypersons. In addition, inaccurate or questionable results already communicated by the media are difficult to retract or eliminate and may be misleading, undermining the credibility of properly performed scientific work and aggravating the problem of “fake news.” [ 11 ].

An additional challenge for the community is to avoid duplicate work, as it is difficult to oversee all research in progress without an internationally centralized infrastructure providing an overview. Therefore, the research community has the responsibility to challenge and test its own results in-depth before making them available to the public or labeling them as “evidence-based.” The scientific community must resist the temptation to ignore scientific rules of good practice in order to fulfill the wishes of leaders, sponsors, and peers. What seems to be a win–win situation in the beginning may endanger trust in science in the future, for example, if severe side effects or lack of efficacy of a vaccination are discovered after a premature launch of the product [ 12 ].

To ease the dilemma between speed and quality, centralized infrastructure and pre-established networks have proven useful for the rapid set-up of appropriate studies, as shown by the United Kingdom's multicenter trials infrastructure being used to set up the RECOVERY trial [ 13 ]. The peer-review process must be more scalable and adaptable without putting quality at risk [ 14 , 15 ]. Currently, even renowned journals seem to be struggling to maintain the quality of the scientific review process [ 16 ]. For example, an article describing a novel COVID-19 vaccination using a vector virus has been heavily criticized by the scientific community since its publication [ 17 , 18 ].

Despite the best intentions and quality assurance, scientific evidence and consensus will shift over time. To maintain public support for science-based policies, careful, effective, and honest science communication is critical [ 19 ].

Good leadership in a time of crisis

In response to the rising number of infections and fatalities during the first COVID-19 wave, most Western European countries and the US went into lockdown, just as China had in the previous weeks and months. These lockdowns partially shut down economies and led to increased national debt, unemployment, and exacerbation of existing socioeconomic disparities. However, only a few countries chose a different strategy – for example, Sweden, which did not go into lockdown in Spring but paid a high price for the failure to protect elderly people from the virus [ 20 ]. It is too early to determine which model is better or to predict which will be the ‘right’ approach to take, especially given the concurrent annual common cold and flu season and the accompanying rise in the number of respiratory infections.

But why would politicians support such tough measures – putting their political careers at risk – especially if evidence of the real risk (mortality rates) and effectiveness of measures (e.g., social distancing, protective equipment) is scarce?

At the core of good crisis leadership is decision-making. Leaders must make the right decisions at the right time and be able to convince their workforce or constituents that they have done so, even if the decision is unpopular and associated with major restrictions. The goals set must be supported by optimal communication and followed through with progress in the planned direction. Timely decisions made in a state of uncertainty are risky but potentially offer the only chance at a window of opportunity.

For the right decision to be made, a problem must be recognized and correctly assessed. This may involve using risk management tools such as a likelihood/severity of consequences matrix. It is important to incorporate the best available evidence into your decision-making. Humans have a natural tendency to delay decisions and downplay the magnitude of a problem (e.g., cognitive bias). In addition, dysfunctional group dynamics and organizational or economic pressure are often underestimated and threaten the ability of a leader to achieve situational awareness [ 21 ].

An example of good leadership and crisis communication comes from New Zealand, where the government gave its population a clear, stepwise escalation and de-escalation plan in the face of the pandemic [ 21 ]. In October 2020, New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won a landslide victory in the country's general election, harvesting the fruits of hard labor [ 22 ].

With the situation changing rapidly, every decision must be challenged frequently. Situational awareness is built through an iterative process of continuously analyzing the environment and circumstances. In the words attributed to Helmuth von Moltke (1800–1891), a Prussian General Field Marshall: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”; it requires continuous updating and redirecting. In modern terms, this is called ‘adaptive leadership’. It can be remembered through a mnemonic device, the four A's: “ A nticipation of likely future needs, trends and options; A rticulation of these needs to build collective understanding and support for action; A daptation so that there is continuous learning and adjustment of responses as necessary, and A ccountability, including maximum transparency in decision-making processes and openness to changes and feedback.” [ 23 ].

In this process, mistakes are inevitable and must be viewed as an opportunity for productive action. Leaders should avoid blame and stay focused on the superordinate goal [ 21 ].

As leaders and their situational analyses differ, so does the timing of measures they support. On the one hand, South Korea's actions were early and effective, with small and controlled numbers of reinfections, building on its experience with the Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) epidemic in 2015. In comparison, countries such as the United States and Brazil acted late and less stringently, possibly leading to more infections and deaths [ 24 , 25 ]. Consistency and style of communication chosen by the respective political leaders probably contributed to this, as it did within the US in a comparison of Seattle and New York [ 26 ]. Lack of trust in officials and their statements seems to be a common denominator of failure [ 27 ].

As the first wave of the pandemic eventually flattened and the economic implications of the lockdown became unbearable, countries had to reopen to an uncertain future based on limited scientific knowledge about the efficacy of protective measures. From a citizen's perspective, civil rights, data protection and individual freedom must be balanced against restrictions due to the need for tracing and containment of outbreaks. Emergency law must be followed by legislative processes. All these measures must be based on an adequate situational analysis taking into account the latest scientific evidence. Balancing these contradictory requirements and choosing the right time to implement them is a major challenge and requires profound leadership skills.

Caring for your employees during a crisis

In the special circumstances of a pandemic, people become more fearful as the future becomes more unclear and the situation appears increasingly unstable. People feel enormous pressure as their daily lives are significantly disrupted. In addition, the pandemic seems to exacerbate inequalities, with wealthy people coping better with the imposed restrictions than the poor [ 28 ]. This additional tension can lead to increased racism, discrimination, and aggression [ 29 , 2 ].

In addition to disruption of their private lives, healthcare workers experience a massive increase in pressure at work. As the number of patients spirals upwards and exposure to potential harm increases, holidays are canceled, shifts lengthened, and regulations covering maximum work hours cannot always be followed. If other healthcare professionals or even direct colleagues are affected by the virus and require medical assistance or even die, this intensifies the burden.

Employers in the healthcare sector have to take into account the fact that their workforce is especially at risk of disease transmission. While providing advice, training, and equipment for personal protection is key to maintain confidence and avoiding cross-contamination, staffing and roster models should be revised in light of the threat. As it is unclear how long the pandemic will last and how many employees will be affected, sufficient reserves should be planned in advance in order to be able to maintain service even if the situation becomes worse than expected. For example, adapting the staff roster to meet the epidemiological characteristics of the pandemic might significantly reduce intensive care staffing shortages [ 30 ].

Steps necessary to keep hospital services running must be carefully chosen and extensively communicated, as informed personnel tend to work better and show more understanding. This should be done in close collaboration with labor unions to prevent unnecessary – and in such a situation dangerous – opposition. It is of utmost importance to emphasize that abolition of an employee's rights must be a temporary measure, and that the employer can be held responsible in the aftermath of a pandemic.

Whereas working remotely has proven to be an option for many members of the workforce, it is less feasible on the healthcare frontline, where having enough workers available on the spot is key to keep services up and running. Employees at risk should be allowed to work from home or in other roles that minimize their exposure, but employers must be cognizant of the fact that this requires different management skills. It can be more difficult to maintain efficiency and productivity in a remote setting, which requires more trust and potentially more technical resources, and imposes a different kind of stress on the home-based worker [ 31 ]. In addition, who will handle the costs of the technology needs must be clarified. In Switzerland, for example, a court ruled that employees have to be compensated for the use of their infrastructure [ 32 ].

Workers in the acute care setting during a pandemic – especially in emergency departments and intensive care units – may face ethical dilemmas when balancing therapy options. In the case of rapidly increasing numbers of sick patients and scarce resources (hospital/intensive care beds, respirators, etc.), doctors and nurses may find themselves in a situation for which they have not been adequately trained. Under normal circumstances, the aim is to provide the best possible care to every patient treated. In a pandemic, it may be necessary to decide which patient receives treatment and which has to be denied [ 33 , 34 ].

Trying to respect all four principles of medical ethics – autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and especially justice – can place huge emotional pressure on healthcare workers [ 35 ]. To ease this pressure and to help maintain the public's confidence in medical institutions, in March 2020 [ 36 ], the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences published national guidelines in collaboration with the Swiss Society of Intensive Care Medicine (updated in November 2020) [ 37 ]. The Swiss guidelines focus on the potential benefit of intensive care therapy, irrespective of age (although age of course influences the potential benefit as physiological reserves diminish). The guidelines have been criticized for not adequately respecting patients' wishes, but have been widely accepted in practice [ 38 ]. In contrast to the Swiss guidelines, their Italian counterpart focuses more on years of life expectancy saved [ 39 ]. Whichever strategy is preferred, clear and accepted guidelines are of utmost importance for employees on the frontlines. Having medical and scientific societies communicate sound guidelines in a timely fashion can help overcome the many single voices of scientists communicating their own agendas to the public.

From a leadership perspective, employers must offer as many resources and strategies as possible to help employees build up their resilience and coping strategies. This starts with the good communication described earlier and includes rapid development of clinical and institutional guidelines and a commitment to offer safe and open feedback channels and a positive learning culture throughout the institution.

Preparing for the ‘unthinkable’

During the first wave of a pandemic, hospitals have to cope with high, exponentially growing, unforeseen workload. They have to be able to recruit resources in a short period of time (e.g., retired workers, students, personal protective equipment) and to follow a steep learning curve in adaptation (and if possible simplification) of treatment processes in order to meet increasing demand. In this situation, an organization should aim for an imperfect but practicable solution, rather than aiming for a perfect solution which comes too late.

As we learned from the initial stages of the pandemic, personal protective equipment (such as face masks) is rapidly out of stock if the spread of the virus is global and production facilities are concentrated in one region or country. Previously well-functioning supply chains are suddenly disrupted, and the very efficient just-in-time approach to production stagnates, as production ceases and transportation facilities are lacking.

It therefore seems prudent to have a stockpile of critical goods and to strive for diversification of your supply chains, as these seem to be more vulnerable than we previously thought [ 40 ]. These stockpiles must be correctly sized and actively managed, as Taiwan has demonstrated in exemplary fashion, based on the experience gained from the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 [ 41 ]. The costs of critical goods have risen, and production machinery and know-how had to be reimported into many western countries. If disaster strikes, every country will be looking out for itself. This was seen in the current pandemic, with countries confiscating protective equipment being transported on the ground through their territories, even when bought by friendly, neighboring countries [ 42 ].

With the flattening of the first wave, recommencement of elective surgeries has to be planned, all the while keeping in mind the likelihood of a second wave and the possibility of further waves. During this planning process, every step that helped us cope with the first wave of the COVID-19 virus (e.g., newly installed piping for critical care facilities, conversion of non-clinical into clinical areas, staff pools) should be documented and condensed into a plan of action for the next wave.

The leadership needed during these different phases might be compared to the leadership needed in start-ups, which follow the so-called S-curve model [ 43 ]. During the initial phase, start-ups struggle immensely and experiment vigorously to determine what works and how to streamline processes. It takes them a while to find the formula for success. Approaching their work systematically by documenting the processes they use helps in reaching phase two, in which an institution can cope with rising demand due to optimized efficiency. After a while, the situation will change again (e.g., recommencement of elective surgical service, onset of the second pandemic wave) and your initial formula for success will become obsolete, as it does not meet the new needs. To master the transition to this third phase successfully, you will need to constantly reassess and analyze the situation.

By combining communication, leadership, management and science, leaders can play an important role in the way their citizens and workforces experience and overcome a crisis. To succeed, leaders must make the right decisions at the right time; communicate their decisions in an understandable, honest and transparent way; and be ready to adapt – the situation will change repeatedly (see Fig. 1 ).

Practice points

Communication

• • Communicate more often than you think is necessary;
• • Be honest, transparent, understandable, and empathetic;
• • Repeat core messages, but also highlight bright spots and opportunities;
• • Offer safe feedback channels.
• • Be predictable, as this builds trust;
• • Strive for situational awareness by assessing likelihood and potential consequences of a threat;
• • Use risk management tools and call on expertise as needed;
• • Make timely decisions;
• • Consider options that are risky but appear in a brief window of opportunity;
• • Realize that errors are inevitable and approach them as opportunities rather than a reason to blame;
• • Communicate decisions transparently and constantly reassess them thereafter;
• • Support your employees by providing open and respectful feedback and a positive learning culture.
• • Start preparing before the crisis;
• • Have measures ready to minimize a potential loss in workforce by adapting the staff rosters;
• • Be aware that supply chains are vulnerable and critical goods might be out of stock quickly;
• • Resist the temptation to bend or ignore scientific rules in order to achieve results more quickly.

Research agenda

The chief research priorities necessary to advance current understanding and practice include:

• • An understanding of the need to work with the media in communicating facts about the pandemic;
• • Recognition and development of leadership qualities needed to manage large healthcare organizations;
• • Provision of resources needed for employees to build up their resilience and coping strategies;
• • Creation of guidelines for managing ethical dilemmas, such as triage.

Adapted from harvard business review 2020, what hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 can learn from startups [ 43 ].

The current COVID-19 pandemic threatens our health, economy, liberty, and privacy. It challenges the speed and quality of research. It exposes deficits in communication, leadership, preparedness and flexibility, but also provides an opportunity for healthcare organizations, leaders, and researchers to learn from their mistakes.

Modern mass media and communication channels offer an opportunity to rapidly distribute important news and guidelines, but come with an inherent risk of being equally efficient at spreading misleading or dangerous information. Journalists and their publishers must be aware of their important role in building public opinion.

Close collaboration between journalists and scientists is necessary to maintain trust in science. Researchers must resist the temptation to ignore the rules of good clinical practice and to publish preliminary data without adequate peer review.

Good communication must be honest, transparent (“What do we know? What do we assume because we don't know?”), understandable, and empathetic. During a crisis, responsible leaders can never communicate too often.

Employees need support during a pandemic. In the case of healthcare workers facing high workload, high emotional pressure, and, at worst, ethical dilemmas, employers should not only provide supplies and training but also psychological and emotional support and robust clinical guidelines. Adapting staff rosters can help minimize staff shortages and work overload and maintain a minimal work-life balance.

The hallmark of good leadership is to make the right decision at the right time even if consequences are unpleasant. Every decision has to be adapted in a timely manner as circumstances change.

This research did not receive specific support from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contributions

Christian M. Beilstein helped to write the article.

Lutz E. Lehmann helped to write the article.

Matthias Braun helped to write the article.

Richard D. Urman helped to write the article.

Markus M. Luedi helped to write the article.

Frank Stüber helped to write the article.

All authors have seen, reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

Richard D. Urman reports research funding/fees from Merck, Medtronic/Covidien, AcelRx, Takeda. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

• Self Empowered
• Student Leadership
• The Five Practices
• Others Research
• Use the LPI in Your Research
• Develop Your Organization
• Develop Your Student
• Sample Reports
• Try for Free

Solutions Overview

• The LPI 360 ®
• Self Empowered™
• Student Leadership Challenge ®

Training Overview

• Trained Coach
• Trained Facilitator
• Certified Facilitator
• Certified Master
• Develop Your Students

Research Overview

• Certified Masters Directory
• Community Resources

Discover the Research That Illuminates the Leader Within Everyone

Explore the collected body of research behind the brand.

Meet the Authors Behind The Leadership Challenge

Between 1981 and 1982, Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner began exploring the question, “What do leaders do while operating at their personal best?” Asking this question led to a wave of groundbreaking research along with Jim and Barry’s first leadership workshop in 1984. The publication of their book, The Leadership Challenge , followed next in 1987. A year later, Jim and Barry launched the first edition of the LPI ® : Leadership Practices Inventory ® assessment. Since then, Jim and Barry have changed the way organizations and individuals discuss and approach leadership. Through 5 million collected surveys and hundreds of studies, Jim and Barry proved that leadership is everyone’s business—it’s a set of skills and behaviors that everyone can teach, learn, and practice. To discover the logic, data, and studies behind The Leadership Challenge, explore the research below.

About The Authors

Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner are coauthors of the award-winning, best-selling book The Leadership Challenge . Now in its seventh edition, The Leadership Challenge has sold nearly three million copies worldwide. For over forty years, Jim and Barry have collaborated and co-authored more than a dozen other award-winning leadership books.  Together they developed the widely used and highly acclaimed Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) for assessing leadership behavior. Among the honors and awards that Jim and Barry have received are the Association for Talent and Development’s (ATD) highest award for their Distinguished Contribution to Workplace Learning and Performance and named by HR Magazine as among the Most Influential International Thinkers.

Jim Kouzes, Fellow at the Doerr Institute for New Leaders at Rice University Read More

Barry Posner

Barry Posner currently serves as the Michael J. Accolti, S.J., Chair and Professor of Leadership for the Leavey School of Business Read More

Psychometrics

Reference materials, recent papers.

• Bringing the Rigor of Research to the Art of Leadership
• Psychometric Properties of the Student Leadership Practices Inventory ®
• LPI Normative Data
• LPI Normative Data Narrative
• LPI Percentile Ranking Sheet
• Suggested Reading List
• The Impact of Gender, Ethnicity, School Setting, and Experience on Student Leadership: Does It Really Matter?
• An Investigation into the Leadership Practices of Volunteer Leaders

Connect with us

Join our newsletter for the latest insights.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Why Leadership Teams Fail

• Thomas Keil
• Marianna Zangrillo

In pursuit of strong performance, CEOs often overlook a critical factor in organizational success: the health of their leadership team. That’s a big problem, because a dysfunctional team can be a serious drag on strategy execution.

To learn more about the problems that affect leadership teams, the authors interviewed more than 100 CEOs and senior executives in a multiyear research program. They identified three main patterns of dysfunction: the shark tank, characterized by infighting and political maneuvering; the petting zoo, characterized by conflict avoidance and an overemphasis on collaboration; and the mediocracy, characterized by complacency, a lack of competence, and an unhealthy focus on past success.

This article helps leadership teams diagnose their dynamic and find ways to improve it.

And what to do about it

In their pursuit of strong performance, CEOs and executives often overlook a critical factor in organizational success: the health of their leadership team. That’s a big problem, because a dysfunctional team can become a serious drag on strategy execution and erode morale. Not only that, the health of a senior team can make or break a CEO’s tenure.

It’s not just who’s in the room—it’s how they behave together.

• TK Thomas Keil is a professor and the chair in international management at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. He is a partner at the Next Advisors.
• MZ Marianna Zangrillo is a partner at the Next Advisors.

Partner Center

Advarra Clinical Research Network

Onsemble Community

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion

Participants & Advocacy

Advarra Partner Network

Community Advocacy

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)

Data Monitoring Committee (DMC)

Endpoint Adjudication (EAC)

GxP Services

Research Compliance & Site Operations

Professional Services

Coverage Analysis​

Budget Negotiation​

Calendar Build 

Technology Staffing

Clinical Research Site Training

Research-Ready Training

Custom eLearning

Services for

Sponsors & CROs

Sites & Institutions

BioPharma & Medical Tech

Oncology Research

Decentralized Clinical Trials

Early Phase Research

Research Staffing

Cell and Gene Therapy

Ready to Increase Your Research Productivity?

Solutions for need.

Clinical Trial Management

Clinical Data Management

Research Administration

Study Startup

Site Support and Engagement

Secure Document Exchange

Research Site Cloud

Solutions for Sites

Enterprise Institution CTMS

Health System/Network/Site CTMS

Electronic Consenting System

eSource and Electronic Data Capture

eRegulatory Management System

Research ROI Reporting

Automated Participant Payments

Life Sciences Cloud

Solutions for Sponsors/CROs

Clinical Research Experience Technology

Center for IRB Intelligence

Not Sure Where To Start?

Resource library.

White Papers

Case Studies

Ask the Experts

Frequently Asked Questions

COVID-19 Support

About Advarra

Consulting Opportunities

Leadership Team

Our Experts

Accreditation & Compliance

Join Advarra

Learn more about our company team, careers, and values. Join Advarra’s Talented team to take on engaging work in a dynamic environment.

Budgeting for IRB Review: A Guide for HRPP Leadership

• Frank Conte Vice President, Strategic Partnerships;

At institutional research programs around the U.S., there exists a pervasive myth: internal institutional review board (IRB) reviews are free. Years of relying on local IRB reviews have led many in research to mistakenly believe there is no cost associated with local IRB review.

This misconception can lead to significant budgeting oversights, impacting both the institution and its research strategy – especially in the current era of single IRB (sIRB) mandates .

In this blog, we hope to debunk this myth while also providing practical strategies for assessing and establishing IRB review costs.

Internal IRBs serving as single IRBs for multicenter trials can use this flexible approach, originally developed by Kelley O’Donoghue for an R1 research university. The model also supports other local human research protection program (HRPP) functions, ensuring these research-related resource expenditures are appropriately valued and funded.

Challenges Arising from IRB Cost Misconceptions

The misconception of free internal IRB reviews overlooks the various resources—personnel, processes, technology, and time—required for IRB reviews. This can lead to inadequate budgeting and unforeseen financial strains.

Many investigators, as well as grants and contracts offices, are not fully aware of the costs associated with IRB reviews. This can result in incomplete budget planning for federal grants, potentially resulting in resource shortfalls (and scrambling for additional funds) as the research proceeds.

Additionally, when IRB resourcing is not properly accounted for, institutions serving as single IRBs for multisite research studies may not be able to adequately provide sIRB services.

Investigators may also face uncertainty regarding whether their local institution will charge for sIRB reviews or if they will need to seek external IRB partnerships.

Implementing a Costing Model for IRB Reviews

A practical approach to managing IRB review costs is to implement a costing model. Let’s explore one possible framework for this purpose.

The approach we present here assigns weights to each HRPP activity based on workload and operating budget, calculates a dollar value per work unit, and assigns costs for each IRB activity. These activities may include initial reviews, continuing reviews, modifications, and consent forms.

This model offers flexibility and adaptability, allowing institutions to tailor it to their specific needs and circumstances. By assigning a value to each activity, institutions can better understand the financial implications of their IRB reviews and plan accordingly.

As a best practice, periodically review and adjust these templates to reflect changes to the actual work and costs. This helps the institution maintain a balance between accurate costing and supporting its investigators.

How to Build a Costing Model for IRB Reviews

If organizations have not yet determined the actual cost of their IRB’s work, HRPP experts suggest the following steps.

Note: In this model, the generic term “work unit” is used to mean “the value assigned to the IRB work based on the operating budget.”

• For example, an HRPP may decide full board review should be weighted 100%. Comparatively, they may then weight expedited review at 85%, since it does not require as many resources as full board.
• Using the activity totals from the most recent fiscal year, calculate how many work units were used in total.
• Multiply the number of activities by the weighted percentage, then divide the overall operating budget by the total of weighted activities for that fiscal year. This is your cost per work unit.
• See Figure 1 for an example of these calculations.

• The cost per activity will serve as the budget template’s building blocks.
• Figure 2 provides an example of these calculations for an organization serving as single IRB, with costs broken down by protocol-level and site-level activities.

Creating a Budget Template

With the true costs of IRB review established, you can develop a budget template to help ensure grant budgets and other financial projections account for all potential costs.

When building your template, be sure to identify the factors potentially impacting costs. These may include the number of participating sites, the study’s duration, expected number of amendments or modifications, and other variables.

Figure 3 provides an example of a single IRB budget template based on this model.

For realistic budget planning, be sure not to underestimate costs. Consider all potential expenses to prevent budget shortfalls during the project. This includes administrative and expert time, technology expenses, and any other relevant costs the organization incurs.

Best Practices for Internal and Single IRB Communications

Understanding and communicating the true costs of IRB reviews is essential for effective financial planning for an HRPP. Developing clear policies and procedures, maintaining ongoing communication, and utilizing flexible financial models are key for success.

Effective communication within the institution about IRB processes and costs helps ensure all stakeholders, including researchers, grants and contracts offices, and other stakeholders (including vice presidents for research), understand the true cost of IRB reviews.

By understanding the financial realities of IRB reviews and implementing effective communication and financial planning strategies, HRPP leadership can better support their research programs.

Tagged in: single IRB , Single IRB (sIRB)

Back to Resources

To learn more about IRB budgeting, watch our on-demand webinar.

Subscribe to our monthly email

Receive updates monthly about webinars for CEUs, white papers, podcasts, and more.

Advancing Clinical Research: Safer, Smarter, Faster ™

Copyright © 2024 Advarra. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Cookie Policy

• Starting a Business
• Growing a Business
• Small Business Guide
• Business News
• Science & Technology
• Money & Finance
• For Subscribers
• Write for Entrepreneur
• Tips White Papers
• Entrepreneur Store
• United States
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• South Africa

Copyright © 2024 Entrepreneur Media, LLC All rights reserved. Entrepreneur® and its related marks are registered trademarks of Entrepreneur Media LLC

Underprepared Leaders Will Destroy Your Company Growth — 3 Key Challenges and Opportunities for New Leaders As companies grow, developing internal talent to take on leadership roles becomes essential — especially when budgets are tight. Learn how to support first-time leaders and what they need to succeed.

By Daniel Marcos Edited by Micah Zimmerman Aug 15, 2024

Key Takeaways

• Developing first-time leaders requires time, training and support to foster growth and company success.
• New leaders must earn trust, communicate effectively and embrace challenges for successful leadership.

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Before you can successfully scale your company, you must focus on developing your team, especially when budget constraints prevent you from hiring experts to lead every department. You need to invite your current talent to rise and step into leadership roles that demand more than they might initially believe they can offer. This transition presents challenges and opportunities for new leaders and those who guide them.

Team members who are transitioning to a leadership role need to have adequate preparation and training for the benefit of the rest of the team members, and a Gallup study shared that when leaders and managers are trusted and inspirational, employees find meaning in their work, feel like part of your culture and perform better.

For example, employees who strongly agree they trust their organization's leadership are 4.0 times as likely to be engaged and 58% less likely to be watching for or actively seeking a new job.

So, what will you need as a leader to provide to your first-time leaders?

As a general director or CEO, your responsibility extends beyond managing day-to-day operations. You must invest in your team's development, equipping them with the tools and mindset needed to take on leadership roles.

Here are three key areas where your focus is essential:

Related: If You Want People to Follow You, Stop Being a Boss — 8 Steps to Truly Effective Leadership

1. Time investment

Developing new leaders takes time and effort, and it requires a significant time commitment from you as a leader. This involves regular check-ins, mentoring sessions and ongoing support as your team members navigate their new roles. Time spent now will pay dividends as your team grows more capable and confident.

You can reduce one-on-one training sessions by creating a checklist of skills, books, videos and courses that this new leader needs to consume.

2. Education and training

First-time leaders often need more formal training or experience than seasoned managers possess. To bridge this gap, you must provide education and training opportunities tailored to their new responsibilities. Whether through workshops, online courses or one-on-one coaching, ensuring they have the knowledge needed to succeed is critical.

To execute his new position, these new skills must focus on emotional intelligence , strategic leadership and communication, not only technical development.

Related: A Leader's Guide to Managing Anxiety

3. Assumption of mistakes

Pitfalls and mistakes are inevitable, especially when individuals are learning on the job. As a leader, it's crucial to foster an environment where errors are seen as learning opportunities rather than failures. This mindset encourages innovation and risk-taking, which are vital for growth.

To address team mistakes wisely, I recommend understanding the root of the error together and fixing it. This will allow your new leader to think strategically, learn from mistakes and be open to constructive conversations.

Related: Small Business Owners Are Taking 3 Creative Actions to Achieve Their Goals in 2024, According to a New Report

So, what is required?

What is required of them to evolve and become first-time leaders? Stepping into a leadership role for the very first time is challenging. However, with the right mindset and effort, they can evolve into effective leaders.

Here's what they need to focus on:

1. Communication is the cornerstone of good leadership

New leaders must learn to articulate their vision, provide constructive feedback and navigate difficult conversations with their team members. Developing these skills will enable them to lead their teams more effectively.

Your new leaders can significantly reduce their stress by having an execution methodology that allows for a communication rhythm, clear priorities and KPIs and real-time dashboards.

2. Extra effort and learning on the job

New leaders must be prepared to put in extra effort. They are learning while executing, which demands high dedication and resilience . Balancing their existing responsibilities with new leadership duties can be overwhelming.

As CEO, you must encourage first-time leaders by reminding them that training and education are important investments for their careers. Your team can feel more comfortable with sessions held remotely or in a self-paced learning format.

Related: Get Picky With Your Clients — How to Identify and Attract Your Ideal Customer

3. Earning leadership

Leadership is not a title given; it's a role earned through respect, trust and consistent performance. New leaders must understand that their authority will be recognized only when they demonstrate their capability and commitment. They need to lead by example, showing that they are worthy of the trust placed in them.

Transitioning into a leadership role is both a challenge and an opportunity for growth, not just for the individuals stepping up but for the entire company. By investing time, education and understanding into your team's development, you lay the foundation for a stronger, more capable organization. Likewise, as new leaders embrace the challenges of their roles, they contribute to the company's collective success. In the end, your company's growth hinges on your people's growth.

Entrepreneur Leadership Network® Contributor

Want to be an Entrepreneur Leadership Network contributor? Apply now to join.

Editor's Pick Red Arrow

• Lock How to Design a Work Session That Tricks Your Brain Into Peak Performance, According to a Neuroscientist
• She Launched Her Black-Owned Beauty Brand with $1,500 in Her Pockets — Now Her Products Are on Sephora's Shelves
• No One Explained a 401(k) Until He Reached the NFL. So He Started Putting His Money to Work — and Helping Others Do the Same .
• Lock How to Land Your Next Job Without Sending a Single Resume
• Kevin O'Leary Says This Is the One Skill He Looks For in a Leader — But It's 'Almost Impossible to Find'
• Food Franchisees Are Shifting to Non-Food Investments — And You Should, Too

Most Popular Red Arrow

She batched a beloved product at home, inspired by a black-owned business from the 1960s. then it became a multimillion-dollar brand: 'we'd never intended this.'.

Arsha Jones, founder and CEO of Capital City Mambo Sauce, wanted to satisfy a very specific craving — and it led to a seven-figure business.

Gen Z and Millennials No Longer Want to Relax on Vacation — Here's What They're Looking for Instead

A new survey found sharp contrasts between what Gen Z, millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers want to do when traveling.

Build Trust with Customers Through Strong Online Security

Use AdGuard VPN to keep your business's reputation in good standing.

5 Powerful Ways to Make Your Company Somewhere Employees Can Truly Thrive

Here's how to create a psychologically safe organizational culture where your employees can reach their full potential.

Starbucks' New CEO Can Make Up to $113 Million His First Year — And He's Allowed to Work Remotely

Brian Niccol will leave his position as Chipotle CEO and take over at Starbucks in September.

New Details Emerge About Apple's Secret $1,000 Robot Project

Several hundred people are now working on it, according to a new leak.

Successfully copied link

• Office of the Vice President for Research
• Location Location
• Contact Contact
• Offices and Divisions
• News & Publications
• Research News

Maximizing the Butterfly Effect in Faculty Mentoring

As we approach the launch of the fourth cohort of the Propel Research Mentorship Program, it's an opportune moment to reflect on the profound impact of faculty mentoring in academia. The Propel program, which supports new and early-career faculty through intensive mentorship, education and editing support, exemplifies our institution's commitment to nurturing the next generation of researchers. Over the past three years, 172 junior faculty members have completed the program, securing over $27 million in grant funding—a testament to the power of structured mentorship.

However, the importance of mentoring extends far beyond any single program. It's a cornerstone of academic success, shaping careers and strengthening institutions in ways both seen and unseen. As we prepare to welcome 52 mentees to Propel, I find myself reflecting on how my own journey demonstrates the ups and downs, and ultimately the vital importance of faculty mentorship in fostering a supportive and thriving academic community.

Over the years, mentoring students, postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty has been one of the most rewarding parts of my job.

Serving as a professor at an R1 university in the United States can bring great challenges, but it is also a great privilege. Over the years, mentoring students, postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty has been one of the most rewarding parts of my job. Perhaps because I entered academia with a somewhat poor understanding of the complicated demands of a faculty position, I later made it one of my missions to guide new assistant professors through the complexities of their roles.

Starting out as a mentee

As is the case for many first-generation college students, my path through higher education was long and winding, marked by false starts and direction changes. Impostor syndrome – the persistent feeling of self-doubt where a person believes they are not as competent as others perceive them to be, despite evidence of their success – does not quite capture how I felt as a graduate student. A more apt description might be that, in the beginning, I felt clueless regarding the path forward as I navigated graduate school at the University of Arizona. But once I had found my path, the rest of the way was like a sprint through an intellectual obstacle course, keeping an eye on the graduation prize but just barely clearing each hurdle along the way. In hindsight, I think I sacrificed the quality and depth of my education for speed because I felt I had squandered too much time after dropping out of college earlier. Don’t get me wrong, my Ph.D. mentor, Audrey Holland, was a world-renowned researcher, but in some ways, I failed to take full advantage of what she had to offer because I was in such a rush to move on with my life (and, like so many graduate students, I was completely broke with lots of student loan debt).

I left Arizona without having defended my dissertation and took a faculty position at the University of South Carolina. Here was my meager academic baseline: No teaching experience, only two peer-reviewed papers in print, an “ABD” degree ( all but dissertation ), no grant writing experience, limited understanding of the tenure requirements, and no experience directing graduate students. Regardless, ready or not, in my first year as an assistant professor, I took on my first Ph.D. student. In over two decades since, I have mentored 16 Ph.D. students and 12 postdoctoral fellows. I suspect I'm a far better advisor now than when Leigh Odom and Dana Moser, my first two Ph.D. students, started in my lab. Despite my inexperience, both Dr. Odom and Dr. Moser have excelled, becoming tenured professors and department chairs—achievements that fill me with immense pride.

I emphasize the critical balance between meeting professional standards and maintaining personal well-being, stressing that sustainable success requires both.

So, as I began my career at USC in 2001, I was woefully underprepared for life on the tenure track. Thankfully, the chair of my department, Dr. Elaine Frank, took it upon herself to mentor me. Elaine was no shrinking violet, and she was always the strongest voice in the room so I knew that being her mentee would mean lots of hard work and very little hand-holding. In hindsight, she operated more like a department dictator than a department chair, but her forcefulness was always in service of the worthy goal of improving our department’s academic stature. Dr. Frank approached mentorship with the same strength and clarity of intention.

I have had many lucky breaks in my academic career – being mentored by Elaine Frank was certainly among the top two. From the start, we set up regular meetings to discuss my career plans, goals and trajectory with a clear list of to-dos. This included prepping classes, setting up a lab and outlining initial studies with a clear path to publication. These initial meetings were structured but also involved ample time for a free conversation about whatever I was struggling with at the moment. Upon my hiring, Elaine, who had recently become department chair, transferred to me some of her teaching responsibilities along with all associated slides, syllabi, and class notes. She also brought me into a couple of research collaborations she already had in the works. When it came to faculty service beyond research and classroom responsibilities, Elaine made sure that my load was minimal, but involved activities that would help me learn about the governance of the department, college and university.

Although Elaine’s approach to structured mentoring was helpful, I think that the most important aspect of our mentor-mentee relationship was having someone to act as my “go-to” person—someone who could give advice regarding difficult situations or just be there to listen when things looked bleak. In the beginning, there were lots of those moments. In my second and third years as an assistant professor, I didn’t have a single publication. Although I had managed to secure an R03 grant from the NIH, the lack of publications was a concern, which, much to my dismay, was clearly reflected in my annual reviews. Starting out from such a weak baseline, it took me a while to figure out how to be productive as a proverbial nobody in my field who was scarcely sought out by graduate students and postdocs. Without Elaine’s sage mentoring, I am not convinced I would have received tenure and promotion to associate professor.

Earlier, I mentioned two major breaks in my career. The second and biggest break was being Dr. Audrey Holland’s mentee. A giant in my field, Audrey was second to nobody. Going to conferences with her was like being with a celebrity. People were drawn to Audrey and sought her counsel on all kinds of topics. Although Audrey had been my Ph.D. mentor, our relationship in those years was nowhere near as significant as what was to come as I established my faculty career at USC. As a Ph.D. mentor, Audrey was extremely demanding, and I found it impossible to warm up to her. I suspect the feeling was mutual. After I defended my dissertation the same fall that I started my faculty job, I lost touch with her for several years. We met occasionally at conferences, but our conversations were routine and unmemorable.

Then, something happened that would change our relationship forever. I was struggling to write my first NIH R01 grant application and mentioned this to Audrey at one of the conferences where we happened to meet. Audrey had retired from the University of Arizona but maintained a very active academic life as a researcher and consultant on projects all over the world. Much to my surprise, she suggested that I visit her in Arizona where she would help me write the grant proposal. The result of that trip was my first funded R01 grant and, more importantly, the true beginning of one of the most consequential relationships of my life.

I found Audrey, the retired professor, to be kind and thoughtful and to have a first-rate sense of humor. So, starting in 2007 and most years since, I would visit Audrey annually, and we would work on grant proposals or manuscripts. Gradually, our phone calls increased in frequency, and the topics changed from grants and publications to career advice and eventually to things mostly unrelated to academia. Audrey died last year, and although age had taken a toll on her mental acuity, her passing marked the ending to our unique relationship, which merged mentoring and friendship without a clear boundary between the two.

As vice president for research, my primary goal is to enhance USC's collective research impact. The most effective way to achieve this is by supporting our faculty, including through mentorship.

Transitioning from mentee to mentor

As I mentioned earlier, my foray into mentoring graduate students was like building an airplane mid-flight. Thankfully, I had Elaine Frank to guide me through the initial hurdles, and my experiences as Audrey's student also gave me ideas. Undoubtedly, I also learned quite a bit through trial and error, hopefully without causing too much trouble for my students. Over the years, I developed a mentoring philosophy centered on setting high expectations while recognizing individual potential. I establish a clear baseline threshold that all my Ph.D. students must meet in terms of preparation and performance. However, I make it explicit that while this threshold is non-negotiable, I understand that each student's capacity to exceed it varies. Some may soar far beyond, while others may hover just above it – and both scenarios are acceptable. This approach allows me to push students to reach their full potential without applying a one-size-fits-all standard. I combine this with regular communication, constructive feedback and guidance in navigating academia beyond just research. My goal is to cultivate independent researchers who not only contribute significantly to our field but also understand and work within their individual strengths and limitations.

Drawing from my experiences as a first-generation college student and new assistant professor, my approach to mentoring junior faculty is not that much different from mentoring graduate students. I start by making sure they thoroughly understand their unit's tenure guidelines and expectations, analyzing the academic stature of recent tenure recipients to set realistic benchmarks. I emphasize the critical balance between meeting professional standards and maintaining personal well-being, stressing that sustainable success requires both. My approach involves regular check-ins to offer tailored advice, helping mentees navigate academia's unwritten rules and connect with essential resources. The ultimate goal is to cultivate resilient faculty who excel academically, maintain a balanced life and eventually mentor others, fostering a supportive academic ecosystem.

Creating a legacy of excellence

Although the previous paragraph is written in the present tense, it is mostly aspirational at this point as I have very limited time for personal mentoring due to a demanding administrative schedule. Yet, I remain deeply committed to peer-to-peer mentoring and applaud our academic units and faculty that take this responsibility seriously. That’s why one of my first acts as USC’s new vice president for research in 2021 was to institute or expand programs like the Propel Research Mentorship Program and the NSF Career Bootcamp. After just a few short years, the results speak for themselves. Never have we had as many active NIH R01 grants or NSF Career awards at USC, an accomplishment that is directly related to our mentoring programs. But beyond the numbers, it's the individual stories of growth and success that truly resonate. For example, one of our assistant professors and Propel graduates recently had an NIH R01 grant application ranked in the first percentile, an amazing feat.

As vice president for research, my primary goal is to enhance USC's collective research impact. The most effective way to achieve this is by supporting our faculty, including through mentorship. My experiences as both mentee and mentor have shown me that mentorship transcends mere professional development; it creates a supportive ecosystem where individuals can thrive, pushing boundaries while maintaining personal well-being. Developing junior faculty from the outset of their careers is one of the best investments we can make as a university.

As we welcome the next cohort of Propel participants, I challenge all of us at USC to embrace mentorship wholeheartedly. Regardless of career stage, every member of our academic community has valuable insights to offer and gain. Let's make mentorship a cornerstone of our culture, remembering that every great mentor was once a mentee. Your experiences can illuminate the path for others. In case mentoring is not already a part of your academic portfolio, I urge you to seek out mentorship opportunities, offer your guidance and advocate for mentorship programs. Together, we can foster an academic community that not only supports and challenges, but truly inspires us all, propelling USC to new heights of research excellence and impact.

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.

Social Profit Orientation: Pioneering a New Leadership Style and Corporate Strategy

13 August 2024 10:33

Businesses are increasingly called upon to address global challenges, with Social Profit Orientation emerging as a transformative strategy that transcends traditional profit motives.

This innovative approach, detailed in our Journal of Marketing paper, Social Profit Orientation: Lessons from Organizations Committed to Building a Better World , empowers leaders to redefine their roles by embedding societal well-being at the core of corporate strategy.

This shift unlocks new pathways for sustainable success. As businesses increasingly become key players in addressing modern society’s challenges, Social Profit Orientation provides a blueprint for transforming responsibility into opportunity.

Harvard professor Rebecca Henderson's best-selling book, Reimagining Capitalism , presents a compelling argument for businesses to move beyond the narrow focus on shareholder value, advocating for purpose-driven models that address the world's most pressing challenges. Henderson points to four key elements for leaders to move forward: Purpose-Driven Business Models, Systemic Collaboration, Sustainable Innovation, and Leadership and Cultural Change.

Our recent Journal of Marketing paper builds upon this concept. We offer a concrete framework—Social Profit Orientation—that aligns with Henderson’s vision and provides a practical roadmap for businesses to embed societal well-being at the core of their operations.

Key Aspects of Social Profit Orientation

Leadership that Challenges Conventional Boundaries

Leaders embracing SPO are not content with merely complying with norms; they actively push the boundaries of what is possible in their industries. As Henderson suggests, leadership plays a crucial role in reimagining capitalism. SPO leaders dare to innovate and invest in social and environmental initiatives that may not yield immediate financial returns but are essential for long-term sustainability and societal benefit.

Strategic Resource Allocation for Social Impact :

Social Profit Orientation requires businesses to invest strategically in resources that drive social change. This is in line with Henderson’s emphasis on sustainable innovation. SPO leaders leverage their organization's unique resources—whether it’s knowledge, technology, or capital—to tackle systemic issues like climate change or inequality, often developing new methodologies and solutions that set them apart from competitors.

Embedded Relationships and Stakeholder Collaboration :

SPO shifts the focus from transactional relationships to deeply embedded, mission-driven collaborations with stakeholders. This aligns with Henderson’s call for systemic collaboration, where businesses, governments, and civil society work together. Our research shows that SPO organizations view their stakeholders—employees, customers, communities—as partners in a collective mission, fostering trust and shared purpose that drive both social and business outcomes.

Impact Measurement and Accountability :

Unlike traditional CSR, which often focuses on inputs and short-term outputs, SPO prioritizes assessing the tangible impact of social initiatives. This aligns with Henderson’s vision of businesses taking responsibility for their societal footprint. Organizations with a social profit orientation rigorously evaluate their initiatives, actively contributing to systemic change and societal well-being.

The emerging leadership style and corporate strategy of Social Profit Orientation mark the next evolution in responsible business practices. We build on the theoretical foundations laid out by Rebecca Henderson and others. SPO offers a framework for businesses to weave social profit into their core mission, enabling them to thrive in a world where societal impact is increasingly linked to business success.

This shift towards SPO is not just a response to ESG or external pressures but a proactive strategy that aligns with the intrinsic values of modern consumers, employees, and investors who expect more from the businesses they support. As organizations navigate the complexities of the 21st century, those that adopt and excel in social profit orientation will lead the way toward a more sustainable and equitable future.

In Norway, the following companies provided valuable input to this study:

Storebrand, Gjensidig, Posten, Telenor, DNB, Gelato, and COOP.

More DIG news and blogs

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share by e-mail

More From Forbes

Why asking women to lean in undermines gender equality efforts.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Full length side view of young man and woman walking towards white ladders against coral background

Women in leadership are often encouraged to "Lean In," a phrase popularized by the book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg, the former Chief Operating Officer of Facebook. The message is clear: confidence and resilience are the keys to breaking through the glass ceiling. However, a new research study , which includes a survey of over 1100 women, finds that "lean in" messaging reduces women's motivation to protest gender inequality.

"The messages are certainly about the self and how you can build your resilience. So, by implication, there's a blame-the-victim narrative there. It's like you could get ahead if you were more resilient," says Dr Renata Bongiorno , lead author of the research and Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Bath Spa University.

While leaning in may boost an individual's sense of agency, it can inadvertently shift the focus away from addressing the systemic barriers women face and, worse still, hold women solely accountable for fixing gender inequality at work.

"It is interesting because other research did find the lean in narrative results in women being more likely to be blamed for ongoing gender inequality and more likely to be seen as responsible for fixing it", she says.

The lean in approach encourages organizational solutions focused on fixing women rather than fixing organizational policies, processes and cultures that devalue women and their contributions. Importantly, these messages also damage men's perceptions of women.

Supreme Court Blocks Enforcement Of Sex Discrimination Rule Protecting Some States’ Transgender Students

Today’s nyt mini crossword clues and answers for friday, august 16, kamala harris addresses economy in speech—here’s what to know about her policy agenda, "it makes men feel like women could get ahead if they were more resilient. both men and women are more likely to blame women for gender inequality and think women are responsible for fixing," says dr bongiorno..

While it is enticing to believe that women alone can overcome gender inequality, Dr Bongiorno says a lack of individual resilience or perseverance is not the reason for the poor representation of women in leadership. Moreover, this narrative is counterproductive as it prevents collective action.

To overcome these challenges, Dr Bongiorno shares three actions companies can take to ensure their gender equality efforts have the right impact.

Examine Existing Efforts

There are countless self-help books and programs designed to help women fix themselves to get ahead. These programs and trainings tell women they must upskill themselves, join women's groups, find a mentor, attend conferences, learn to negotiate, speak up, ask for a pay rise, and own their power. However, Dr Bongiorno says initiatives like these can make women feel worse about themselves.

"Women realize their organization isn't actually going to do anything to change itself. It's all about how you must be more resilient in this organization to fit in."

While individual-focused initiatives can support personal development, they do not address the systemic barriers gender inequality creates. For example, there is a commonly held belief that women are not paid the same as men because they can't negotiate and don't ask for a pay rise as frequently as their male colleagues. But, a 2018 research study finds that women do ask for a pay raise just as often as men, but they are less likely to be given one because of gender bias.

If companies want to advance gender equity, they must examine their existing efforts to understand how many solutions focus on changing women rather than changing the organization's culture, systems, policies and processes.

Get The Balance Right

Once organizations have reviewed their existing efforts, they need to ensure there is a balance between individual and organizational solutions. At a minimum, organizations should aim to have at least one organizational-wide initiative for every initiative focused on women.

"If organizations focused as much on how they will change their systems and processes, it would make it easier for women to progress. But it's often the case that they don't have those types of interventions because they're a lot harder to change," she says.

When companies don't get the balance right, Dr Bongiorno says it perpetuates gender inequality and places the blame for this on women.

Enroll Men To Be A Part Of The Solution

Dr Bongiorno believes that fix-the-women solutions are popular because these initiatives make it seem like companies are committed to tackling gender inequality even though the problem is not being addressed.

"I think these strategies can be popular with leadership because it's like, 'Oh, look, we are doing something, but we don't actually have to change ourselves; we just have to make women more resilient'. I don't think the solution is to focus on ourselves continuously or how we can ride it out alone. It's about support from others," she says.

Every organization can educate men on the barriers women experience and then engage them to identify solutions to remove these obstacles. It's time to rethink the fix-the-women narrative and ensure that company strategies for advancing women don't inadvertently hold women back.

Dr Renata Bongiorno, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Bath Spa University

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• About the DPRU
• Staff Profiles
• Prof. Haroon Bhorat - profile
• Social Responsiblity
• Publications Overview
• Working Papers
• Policy Briefs
• Fact Sheets
• Other Publications
• Research Overview
• Brookings Africa Growth Initiative
• Minimum Wages
• COVID-19: Labour Markets & Social Assistance
• INSETA Research Chair
• merSETA: Economic Complexity
• Towards Resilient Futures: CoP phase 2
• EPP Phase III: Research, Projects & Outputs
• ELLA: Experiences and Learning from Latin America
• First IZA / WB / NJD Conference on Jobs & Development
• China’s Impact on African Employment: What Do We Know and Where are the Gaps?
• Africa's Lions
• Building economic complexity in Africa
• Towards Resilient Futures: CoP phase 1
• Multimedia Overview
• Media Clippings
• Current News
• Archived News

New report: Lesotho’s Demographic Dividend

A new report by the United Nations Population Fund and the Development Policy Research Unit titled “ Lesotho’s Demographic Dividend in the Context of Health and Other Development Challenges ”, has just been published. 

Authors Dr Morné Oosthuizen and Lisa Martin analyse the potential demographic dividend in Lesotho through the lens of National Transfer Accounts. These accounts measure resource flows across generations and allow us to study how different generations draw on different types of resources—labour income, transfers, and assets—to fund their consumption. The methodology also enables us to estimate and analyse the demographic dividend, to identify the period during which the dividend may be harnessed, and to explore the types of changes in the socioeconomic context that might boost or constrain the demographic dividend.

While Lesotho’s population is relatively young, it has already begun to age and will continue to do so for the rest of the century. In the process, Lesotho’s economy, societal priorities, and patterns of government spending will be impacted. At the same time, Lesotho is faced with challenges related to slow economic growth rates, high unemployment, and poverty, and has been particularly hard hit by HIV and AIDS, which together with the more recent effects of COVID-19, serves to erode the country’s human capital base.

These various challenges highlight the value of suitably harnessed demographic dividend in achieving improved socioeconomic outcomes in the country but may also act to constrain the attainment of the dividend.

Lesotho’s Demographic Dividend in the Context of Health and Other Development Challenges: Full Report

Lesotho’s Demographic Dividend Summary Report: July 2024

This work was commissioned by the United Nations Population Fund’s Lesotho Country Office and the East and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO), in collaboration with the Government of Lesotho.

Search form

You are here, lehigh university researchers dig deeper into stability challenges of nuclear fusion—with mayonnaise.

Mayonnaise continues to help researchers better understand the physics behind nuclear fusion.

“We’re still working on the same problem, which is the structural integrity of fusion capsules used in inertial confinement fusion, and Hellmann’s Real Mayonnaise is still helping us in the search for solutions,” says Arindam Banerjee , the Paul B. Reinhold Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics at Lehigh University and Chair of the MEM department in the P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science. 

In simple terms, fusion reactions are what power the sun. If the process could be harnessed on earth, scientists believe it could offer a nearly limitless and clean energy source for humanity. However, replicating the sun’s extreme conditions is an incredibly complex challenge. Researchers across science and engineering disciplines, including Banerjee and his team, are examining the problem from a multitude of perspectives.

Inertial confinement fusion is a process that initiates nuclear fusion reactions by rapidly compressing and heating capsules filled with fuel, in this case, isotopes of hydrogen. When subjected to extreme temperatures and pressure, these capsules melt and form plasma, the charged state of matter that can generate energy. 

“At those extremes, you’re talking about millions of degrees Kelvin and gigapascals of pressure as you’re trying to simulate conditions in the sun,” says Banerjee. “One of the main problems associated with this process is that the plasma state forms these hydrodynamic instabilities, which can reduce the energy yield.”

In their first paper on the topic back in 2019, Banerjee and his team examined that problem, known as Rayleigh-Taylor instability. The condition occurs between materials of different densities when the density and pressure gradients are in opposite directions, creating an unstable stratification. 

“We use mayonnaise because it behaves like a solid, but when subjected to a pressure gradient, it starts to flow,” he says. Using the condiment also negates the need for high temperatures and pressure conditions, which are exceedingly difficult to control.

Banerjee’s team used a custom-built, one-of-a-kind rotating wheel facility within Banerjee’s Turbulent Mixing Laboratory to mimic the flow conditions of the plasma. Once the acceleration crossed a critical value, the mayo started to flow. 

One of the things they figured out during that initial research was that before the flow became unstable, the soft solid, i.e., the mayo, went through a couple of phases.  

“As with a traditional molten metal, if you put a stress on mayonnaise, it will start to deform, but if you remove the stress, it goes back to its original shape,” he says. “So there’s an elastic phase followed by a stable plastic phase. The next phase is when it starts flowing, and that’s where the instability kicks in.”

Understanding this transition between the elastic phase and the stable plastic phase is critical, he says, because knowing when the plastic deformation starts might tip off researchers as to when the instability would occur, Banerjee says. Then, they’d look to control the condition in order to stay within this elastic or stable plastic phase.

In their latest paper , published in Physical Review E , the team (including former graduate student and first author of the study, Aren Boyaci '24 PhD, now working at Rattunde AG as a Data Modeling Engineer in Berlin, Germany), looked at the material properties, the perturbation geometry (amplitude and wavelength), and the acceleration rate of the materials that undergo Rayleigh-Taylor instability.

“We investigated the transition criteria between the phases of Rayleigh-Taylor instability, and examined how that affected the perturbation growth in the following phases,” Boyaci says. “We found the conditions under which the elastic recovery was possible, and how it could be maximized to delay or completely suppress the instability. The experimental data we present are also the first recovery measurements in the literature.”

The finding is an important one as it could inform the design of the capsules in such a way that they never become unstable.

There is, however, the looming question of how the team’s data fit into what happens in actual fusion capsules, the property values of which are orders of magnitude different from the soft solids used in their experiments. 

“In this paper, we have non-dimensionalized our data with the hope that the behavior we are predicting transcends these few orders of magnitude,” says Banerjee. “We’re trying to enhance the predictability of what would happen with those molten, high-temperature, high-pressure plasma capsules with these analog experiments of using mayonnaise in a rotating wheel.”

Ultimately, Banerjee and his team are part of a global effort to turn the promise of fusion energy into reality. 

“We’re another cog in this giant wheel of researchers,” he says. “And we’re all working towards making inertial fusion cheaper and therefore, attainable.”

Arindam Banerjee is Paul B. Reinhold Professor and chair of Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics.

Lehigh Engineering alum Aren Boyaci '24 PhD is now a Data Modeling Engineer at Rattunde AG.

Schematic of the rotating wheel experimental facility, where (a) rotating disk, (b) test section, (c) LED light source, (d) counterweights, (e) mirrors, and (f) high-speed camera. Click to expand.

Snapshots of the perturbations with full elastic recovery and instability at t = 0 , @ t = EP threshold, and @ t = end of the experiment. Click to expand.

Related News

Lehigh microscopy school continues its tradition of excellence in 2024, transatlantic ruhr fellows develop leadership, entrepreneurial skills at lehigh, sengupta delivers plenary lecture at cambridge university on co2 capture, sequestration, leadership updates for lehigh’s materials research institute.