Virtual leadership adaptation in times of crisis: a process framework from a South African higher education institution

Introduction: The COVID-19 crisis served as a disruptive catalyst for reimagining leadership in higher education institutions (HEIs), particularly within resource-constrained and traditionally contact-based environments. This disruption demanded rapid adaptation from leaders who were unprepared for the abrupt transition to virtual work. The study focused on understanding how academic leaders and directors of professional services within a traditional South African HEI navigated this transformation in leadership practice during the national shutdown.

Methods: A qualitative research design was adopted, employing semi-structured interviews with academic and administrative leaders. The data were analysed thematically to capture patterns and dimensions of adaptive leadership behavior. Nicholson’s (2013) Adaptive Cycle Model was used as a guiding framework to interpret how leaders’ experiences aligned with the cyclical interplay between situational context, leadership processes, and adaptive qualities.

Results: Three overarching dimensions of leadership adaptation emerged from the data: situational challenges, adaptive processes, and enabling qualities. Leaders encountered multiple contextual challenges, including institutional and structural barriers, team disengagement, and personal strain. Despite these difficulties, participants demonstrated progressive adaptation through a three-phase transition process, Discovery, Normalisation, and Stability, marking a developmental shift from uncertainty and experimentation toward competence and confidence in virtual leadership. Enabling factors such as institutional support, collaboration, flexibility, and digital competence facilitated this transformation.

Discussion: The findings reveal that leadership adaptation during crisis conditions is a cyclical and developmental process rather than a linear progression. The study underscores the dual necessity of organisational preparedness and individual agility in navigating disruptive change. By integrating challenges, transition phases, and enablers within Nicholson’s (2013) Adaptive Cycle Model, the study proposes a holistic framework for understanding adaptive virtual leadership in higher education. This framework contributes to emerging scholarship by highlighting the need for resilient, digitally literate, and future-oriented leadership within increasingly hybrid academic contexts.

1 Introduction

Crises often catalyse profound shifts in organisational behavior, and the COVID-19 pandemic was one such global disruption that redefined the future of work (Bouziri et al., 2020). For higher education institutions (HEIs), particularly in developing countries, the pandemic accelerated a necessary but abrupt shift from traditional, face-to-face leadership models to virtual modes of operation (Landa et al., 2021). In South Africa (SA), this transition was layered atop long-standing structural inequalities, such as limited digital infrastructure, socio-economic disparities, and legacy challenges within post-merged institutions, which complicated the leadership response. South African comprehensive universities, especially those formed after the 2004/2005 restructuring, continue to grapple with fragmented campuses, infrastructural deficits, and tensions between local responsiveness and academic mandates (Kele and Mzilen, 2021).

Virtual leadership within this context emerged not as a planned evolution but as a crisis-driven imperative. While digital tools had begun to shape teaching practices following previous disruptions such as student protests (Ahmed, 2017; Landa et al., 2021), leadership, and administrative processes in HEIs remained largely contact-based. When COVID-19 forced HEIs into remote operation, many leaders, especially within traditional, contact-mode universities, found themselves managing virtual teams without adequate policies, preparation, or precedent. This presented not just technical or operational challenges, but also demanded psychological and strategic adaptability from leaders across both academic and professional service divisions.

This study investigates the lived experiences of academic and professional services leaders in a traditional South African HEI as they navigated the forced transition to virtual leadership during the pandemic. Framed by Nicholson’s (2013) Adaptive Cycle Model, which emphasises situational transformation and role adjustment, the study identifies the key challenges, enabling factors, adaptive processes, and future outlooks associated with virtual leadership in crisis contexts. While existing literature has explored remote leadership through the lens of global VUCA frameworks (e.g., Agarwal et al., 2020; Contreras et al., 2020), this research uniquely contributes a context-sensitive, process-oriented framework that integrates the phases of leadership adaptation—Discovery, Normalisation, and Stability, within Nicholson’s situational, processual, and qualitative dimensions. This Integrated Framework for Virtual Leadership Adaptation advances understanding of how leaders evolve through cyclical learning and adjustment in constrained environments. The findings thus inform not only immediate institutional strategy but also broader considerations for resilient and adaptive leadership in higher education amidst growing uncertainty and hybridisation.

2 Literature review

Scholarly discourse on leadership has predominantly emphasised inspiration and collaborative processes as foundational competencies applicable across organisational contexts (House et al., 1999; Northouse, 2021). However, this perspective presents a conceptual tension that warrants examination: whether leadership comprises transferable attributes that can be adapted across varied contexts, or whether contextual factors fundamentally shape and redefine leadership practice itself. Higher education institutions (HEIs) have undergone significant transformation over the past decade, driven by technological advancement, demographic shifts, and the COVID-19 pandemic’s abrupt transition to virtual operations. This institutional shift has revealed a substantive gap in leadership scholarship: traditional leadership frameworks that emphasise hierarchical authority and face-to-face interpersonal engagement prove inadequate for institutions confronting rapid, complex change. Gallos and Bolman (2021) articulate this limitation, arguing that hierarchical leadership models are insufficient for navigating contemporary academic environments. A recent study by Bauwens and Cortellazzo (2025) on digital leadership found that the relationship between leadership and digital technologies remains poorly understood, with competing conceptualisations of what constitutes digital. While distributed leadership proponents, Badru et al. (2025), advocate for collaborative and participatory decision-making as alternatives, empirical evidence validating their effectiveness within virtual HEI contexts and understanding how leaders sustain these adaptations within resource-constrained institutional environments remains underexplored.

Msila (2022) highlighted that Southern African HEI contexts are distinguished by financial constraints, variable technological infrastructure, and connectivity limitations, generating leadership demands that are markedly different from those documented in the established literature. Yet, this region remains inadequately represented in international scholarly discourse. The particular challenges facing leaders in these contexts, including unreliable connectivity, limited institutional support systems, and variable technological literacy among academic personnel, represent substantive factors that differentiate virtual leadership requirements from those in the Global North (Msila, 2022).

2.1 Virtual leadership in higher education

Virtual leadership has become increasingly prominent as organisations embrace remote work and distributed collaboration facilitated by digital technologies. Ganesan (2024) defines virtual leadership as the process through which leaders effectively manage and guide geographically dispersed teams by leveraging digital communication tools, fostering trust, and building relationships without face-to-face interactions. This definition emphasises that virtual leaders must be skilled in communicating effectively across multiple digital channels and managing remote team dynamics. However, this operationalised definition prioritises individual leader competencies while undertheorising institutional contexts and structural constraints shaping virtual leadership effectiveness.

The scholarly conceptualisation of virtual leadership in higher education has advanced beyond generic definitions. Virtual academic leadership (VAL) encompasses four core dimensions: digital strategic foresight, resource coordination, technology awareness, and culture building, with variations observed across institutional tiers and disciplinary clusters (Jing et al., 2025). VAL requires leaders to reconcile institutional mission, pedagogical integrity, and distributed team coordination across asynchronous environments, integrating technological portfolios including e-platforms, webinars, and collaborative systems (Cheng and Dinh, 2024). This reconceptualisation acknowledges that virtual leadership in HEIs involves more than technological adoption; it fundamentally concerns how leaders build trust, foster participation, and maintain academic coherence when physical presence no longer legitimates authority.

The transition to virtual academic leadership presents particular challenges rooted in academic culture. Empirical understanding of how academic leaders develop and enact VAL competencies, particularly in resource-constrained contexts, remains limited. Current literature often conflates infrastructure adoption with leadership adaptation, obscuring critical questions regarding how leaders sustain academic engagement and institutional coherence amidst dispersed operations.

2.2 Virtual leadership challenges

Virtual team leadership presents a set of complex challenges that extend and intensify those found in traditional co-located teams while introducing new difficulties unique to dispersed, technology-mediated environments (Michel, 2024). Core among these are issues of trust building, communication, and relationship development, which become increasingly difficult to sustain when interactions are mediated through digital platforms (Morrison-Smith and Ruiz, 2020; Hale and Grenny, 2020). Physical separation limits leaders’ ability to gauge team members’ commitment and engagement, while subordinates often hesitate to voice opinions or concerns openly, thereby constraining collaboration and mutual understanding (Kameneckienė, 2022). The absence of informal, spontaneous exchanges that typically occur in physical workplaces further weakens social cohesion and can obscure the nuanced dynamics of team relationships, challenges that become particularly pronounced in large, geographically dispersed virtual teams.

Beyond relational barriers, the structural and psychological demands of virtual work introduce additional layers of strain. The dissolution of traditional boundaries between professional and personal life often compels leaders to remain accessible across multiple digital channels, heightening the risk of overwork, fatigue, and emotional exhaustion (Bernhardsson et al., 2021). Smock (2024) further identifies communication and collaboration, trust and rapport building, conflict management, fostering a sense of belonging across diverse time zones and cultures, and maintaining emotional intelligence and work–life balance as interrelated challenges that virtual leaders must navigate concurrently. The rapid evolution of digital technologies compounds these pressures, requiring leaders to continually enhance their digital literacy while addressing emerging concerns such as cybersecurity, data privacy, and information management in virtual team settings (Jayavelu et al., 2024).

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified these pre-existing challenges by forcing a sudden and large-scale shift to virtual collaboration within Higher education institutions (HEIs), demanding rapid adaptation and strategic improvisation from leaders (Axtell et al., 2022). Recent evidence underscores the enduring strain of this transformation: leadership turnover in higher education exceeded 20% between 2022 and 2024, signalling persistent institutional stress and leadership fatigue in the post-pandemic era (Deloitte, 2025). Collectively, these findings highlight that the virtual leadership context is characterised not merely by technological complexity but by deep interpersonal, structural, and psychological challenges that demand continuous adaptation and resilience.

2.3 Virtual leadership enablers

Emerging scholarship identifies a range of interdependent enablers that underpin effective virtual leadership in higher education. Siregar et al. (2019) synthesised these into three overarching categories: (1) intrinsic factors, including leaders’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and willingness to innovate; (2) extrinsic factors, encompassing institutional resources, supportive policies, and technological infrastructure; and (3) individual characteristics such as creativity, skills, and emotional intelligence. Among these, strategic communication is consistently highlighted as a foundational enabler, requiring leaders to employ both synchronous and asynchronous platforms thoughtfully while aligning communication richness with contextual demands (Fernandez and Shaw, 2020; Ford et al., 2017).

Leadership effectiveness in virtual environments also hinges on motivational intelligence, which enhances self-awareness, empathy, and communication sensitivity. Midlage (2025) emphasise that these competencies enable leaders to manage conflict constructively and maintain cohesion within geographically dispersed teams. Recent research from the South African higher education sector reinforces the importance of institutional scaffolding for developing such competencies. Badru et al. (2025) argue that HEIs should prioritise targeted training programmes in virtual team management, focusing on three core domains: proficiency in digital communication tools, systematic time management suited to remote environments, and strategies for sustaining engagement across dispersed teams. Institutional investment in these areas represents a critical enabler of adaptive leadership, particularly for first-line leaders navigating rapid organisational change.

Importantly, studies show that the success of technological integration depends less on the adoption of tools than on the transformation of belief systems and the willingness of faculty and leaders to innovate. This perspective suggests that sustainable virtual leadership extends beyond technical implementation to include broader cultural and organisational shifts (Siregar et al., 2019). However, how these enabling conditions interact within resource-constrained contexts, and the extent to which Global North-derived frameworks are applicable to Southern African HEIs, where infrastructure disparities and institutional resource limitations persist, remains insufficiently explored and warrants further investigation.

2.4 Virtual leadership adaptation frameworks

The transition from face-to-face to virtual leadership constitutes a significant organisational change requiring adaptation across multiple dimensions. Given these intertwined challenges and enablers, understanding how leaders adapt across phases of disruption becomes critical. The following section discusses frameworks that conceptualise leadership adaptation as a dynamic and cyclical process. Recent empirical research on employees’ abrupt transition to remote work demonstrates that this shift involves dynamic psychological and behavioral adjustments spanning job demands, job resources, and work engagement patterns (Birman et al., 2024). Peiró and Martínez-Tur (2022) emphasise that virtual leadership adaptation demands more than extending traditional practices to digital settings; rather, leaders must develop specific competencies suited to digitalised and geographically dispersed environments while maintaining employee engagement and psychological safety. Research by Beauregard et al. (2019) similarly indicated that successful virtual work implementation depends less on technological proficiency than on how leadership practices evolve to support distributed team coordination and wellbeing.

Transition models from organisational and leadership studies provide frameworks for understanding phased adaptation. Bridges (1986) conceptualises organisational transitions as three-phased psychological processes: the Ending of previous practices, navigation through a Neutral Zone of uncertainty, and envisioning a New Beginning. Similarly, Scharmer’s (2009) Theory U describes personal leadership transformation through Downloading, Presencing, and Performing, cascading through iterative sub-processes of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-creating, and co-evolving. Jooss et al. (2022) extended this understanding through empirical examination of global workers transitioning from travel-based work to remote operations, identifying Pre-onset, Transition, and Post-transition periods as distinct phases with specific psychological and behavioral characteristics, as illustrated in Figure 1. However, these models primarily focus on individual-level adaptation, undertheorising how institutional contexts shape transition trajectories.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Global workers’ transition process (Jooss et al., 2022, p. 11).

Recent research indicates that leaders must adapt behaviors to manage distributed teams while navigating the interplay between physical and virtual spaces and maintaining social cohesion across both contexts (Bell et al., 2023; Vartiainen and Vanharanta, 2024). These studies reinforce the view that adaptation in virtual environments is a complex social and organisational process requiring continuous learning and systemic support mechanisms rather than a linear, individual-level transformation. Based on the various transition models discussed, Table 1 presents a generic work–role transition matrix that outlines three phases: the current, transition, and future states.

Table 1

Table 1. Work role transition phases.

While these frameworks collectively explain phases of behavioral and organisational adaptation, they often overlook the dynamic interplay between contextual factors, leadership qualities, and the processes that drive change. Nicholson’s (2013) Adaptive Cycle Model addresses this limitation by conceptualising leadership adaptation as an ongoing, cyclical interaction among Situation, Process, and Qualities, the core elements that determine how leaders respond to disruption. Unlike traditional organisational-change or ecological adaptation frameworks, Nicholson’s approach is leader-centric, emphasising how contextual pressures (the Situation), leadership actions (the Process), and personal or institutional capacities (the Qualities) co-evolve during periods of uncertainty. The model further identifies six adaptive pathways—Shaping, Discovery, Shot Selection, Situational Impact, Instinct, and Self-Development—that describe how leaders integrate reflection, action, and learning to align internal competencies with external challenges (Ramage, 2017).

In this study, Nicholson’s model is reinterpreted to align with the virtual leadership transition experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides a conceptual structure for understanding what triggered change, how adaptation unfolded, and what sustained it, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Nicholson adaptive cycle model (Ramage, 2017, p. 41).

Building on Nicholson’s logic, the study extends the model by positioning Situation, Process, and Qualities as analytical lenses corresponding to the empirical realities of leadership transition (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Link between Nicholson’s adaptive framework and this study.

Nicholson’s Adaptive Cycle Model, therefore, provides a multidimensional lens for understanding how leaders navigated the shift to virtual contexts. It integrates the situational triggers of change (challenges), the behavioral mechanisms of transition (process), and the qualities that enabled successful adaptation (enablers). This cyclical conceptualisation captures leadership adaptation as both contextual and developmental, reflecting an iterative process of reflection, adjustment, and learning that shapes leadership identity during and beyond times of crisis.

3 Aim and research questions

This study aims to investigate the virtual leadership adaptive practices of Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services at a traditional HEI by answering the following research questions:

• How did Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services navigate the process of adapting from face-to-face to virtual leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic?

• What challenges did Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services experience in leading virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic?

• What factors enabled Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services to lead virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic?

• What are the future perspectives of Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services on virtual leadership post-pandemic?

4 Research methods

This study employed the qualitative research approach to explore leaders’ adaptive practices leading virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic at a traditional HEI in South Africa. A purposive sampling technique was employed to select the study participants, enabling the collection of appropriate data to answer the research questions. A semi-structured in-depth interview was conducted with 13 participants, including Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services. The interview was stopped at the thirteenth interview as data saturation was reached (Saunders et al., 2019). The interview guide consisted of three sections: information about the job and participant roles, leadership experience, and questions related to the main research questions, adapted from studies such as Bernhardsson et al. (2021) and Agarwal et al. (2020). The interviews were recorded via Zoom and subsequently transcribed. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic analysis process was employed to identify patterns and themes in the interview transcripts, with the aid of NVivo software. The six processes comprise data familiarisation, coding, theme generation, theme review, theme finalisation, and writing up. The thematic analysis comprised two coding phases as recommended by Saldana (2021); in the first phase, initial, in vivo, and process coding methods were used, and in the second phase, axial coding was used for categorising and theme generation that answered the research questions, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Data analysis process.

Research ethics were conformed to during the study. A gatekeeper’s letter was obtained from the institution’s registrar, giving permission to engage leaders at the university about their virtual leadership experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Institution’s Ethics Committee before data collection. During data collection, participants read and signed an informed consent form that informed them of the study’s purpose and their right to opt out at any time.

4.1 Study site

The study site of this research was a public HEI in South Africa. The institution ranks among the top HEIs in South Africa and Africa. It is governed under the leadership of appointed leaders, with the Vice-Chancellor as its head, supported by other executives, including the Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Registrar, and Directors. The traditional working model at the institution was face-to-face, with teaching, learning, research, and administrative activities carried out across multiple campuses. In terms of the leadership structure within the institution, the university employs a hierarchical structure, with the Vice-Chancellor at the top.

The target population comprised first-line leaders who had led their departments both before the COVID-19 pandemic (in face-to-face settings) and during the pandemic (in virtual environments). The total population consisted of 59 potential participants, including 38 Academic Leaders and 21 Directors of support services. Invitations were extended to all members of this group, of whom 25 consented to participate. However, six individuals were excluded because they had assumed leadership roles only during the pandemic and therefore lacked pre-pandemic leadership experience relevant to the study’s focus. During data collection, interviews were discontinued after the thirteenth session, as the participants’ responses began to show significant repetition. Although participants represented diverse contexts, the data revealed consistent themes aligned with the study’s objectives, particularly concerning the transition process, challenges, enablers, and future perspectives. The point of data saturation was therefore reached, resulting in a final sample of 13 participants. Table 3 presents the profiles of the 13 participants in the study.

Table 3

Table 3. Profile of participants.

5 Findings

From the analysis of the interviews, themes and subthemes related to the study’s objective were generated. Table 4 presents the themes and subthemes that emerged in answering the research questions.

Table 4

Table 4. Study themes and subthemes.

5.1 Virtual leadership adaptation process

To address the question “How did Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services navigate the process of adapting from face-to-face to virtual leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic?” Participants were asked to describe how they transitioned to leading virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic; their narratives revealed a clear pattern of progressive adaptation. From the thematic analysis, three interrelated phases of this transition emerged: Discovery, Normalisation, and Stability, which together represent the adaptive process leaders experienced while responding to situational disruptions. These phases capture the evolving ways in which leaders learned, adjusted, and eventually stabilised their leadership practices in the virtual environment.

5.1.1 Discovery phase

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, participants described this initial stage as a period of learning, experimentation, and adjustment. Leaders faced an unfamiliar working environment, characterised by uncertainty and the absence of clear structures or guidelines. They recalled this phase as one of exploration and “figuring things out” while maintaining open-mindedness and resilience in the face of rapid change. Participants narrated their experiences as follows:

The first time in 2020, it was very challenging because everything was new, and nobody knew what to expect. (Participant G)

It’s important that we do not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude during a transition like this. It was a trying time for everybody. Nobody knew the right answers. It was a period of discovery, so we kept an open mind. I sometimes tie my hands in the back and let things unfold, and you troubleshoot as you go along. (Participant E)

I think we were all anxious in the beginning because of the high level of uncertainty, but once we all got used to the situation and everyone had an understanding of how things were going to work, then it was fine. (Participant D)

This phase reflected leaders’ initial attempts to navigate a new reality while providing guidance to their teams. They were learning how to balance organisational expectations with personal adaptation, often emphasising the importance of open-mindedness and patience to allow new ways of working to emerge.

5.1.2 Normalisation phase

Following the early period of discovery, participants described a gradual stabilisation of routines and expectations as they and their teams became more accustomed to virtual operations. This stage, which participants referred to as the “new normal,” was marked by a sense of increasing familiarity and competence with online tools, communication practices, and virtual collaboration, as explained by some participants:

But perhaps at the end of 2021, we had seen it all and were now trying to get back to some normality in 22, so things sort of started to even out of burden, settle down, and the academics also knew what was expected. (Participant G)

Over time, of course, the challenges were diminishing because everybody was getting used to it, and we were better off as time moved on because everybody was getting used to what we were supposed to be doing. (Participant F)

This phase illustrated how leaders normalized virtual leadership as part of institutional life. While challenges persisted, participants indicated that the sense of chaos and unpredictability had diminished. They began to integrate virtual leadership as a routine practice, emphasising team adaptation and shared understanding.

5.1.3 Stability phase

By the third year of virtual leadership, participants described a phase of consolidation and confidence, where the once “new normal” had become an embedded and accepted mode of working. At this stage, leaders demonstrated proficiency in managing virtual teams, sustaining engagement, and navigating recurring disruptions with greater ease and foresight. Some of the participants expressed this when they said:

Through no conscious effort, we have improved, and things are operating more smoothly now. I think that the uncertainty that we had in the initial period have become the new normal so now everybody’s sort of on the same page. (Participant H)

Like anything, you become more proficient over time and more able to handle the situation. However, we remained agile and ready to learn again as new things unfolded (Participant M)

Although leaders continued to encounter minor challenges, these were predictable and manageable. Participants’ reflections revealed a heightened sense of adaptability and confidence, suggesting that leadership in this phase had evolved beyond reaction to become strategic and proactive.

5.2 Virtual leadership challenges

To address the research question, “What challenges did Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services experience in leading virtually during the COVID-19 crisis?,” three overarching categories of challenges were identified: Institutional and Structural Barriers, Relational and Team Engagement Challenges, and Personal and Emotional Strain. These themes highlight the complex interplay between systemic limitations, interpersonal dynamics, and individual wellbeing that shaped leaders’ experiences during the rapid shift to virtual leadership in a traditionally contact-based higher education context.

5.2.1 Institutional and structural barriers

Participants highlighted how the absence of robust institutional structures, limited digital infrastructure, and inadequate leadership support hindered their ability to lead effectively at the initial stage of the transition. The institution’s systems and policies remained heavily aligned to face-to-face operations, leaving leaders to navigate the transition with minimal guidance and unstable technological support.

“Everybody was new to it… I had questions coming constantly, but no one had answers, not even those above me … Our rules are still designed for face-to-face… we did not have a structure… The system wasn’t set up for virtual work… the structures do not support it.” (Participant B)

“My boss let me down… I needed someone available to resolve issues quickly.” (Participant M)

“Load shedding is a hindrance… even with battery routers, we need more support.” (Participant K)

“Connectivity issues meant team members got disconnected, even from work entirely.” (Participant A)

These reflections reveal the institutional unpreparedness that compounded the leadership burden. Leaders faced both technological and procedural obstacles that limited consistency and accountability in virtual operations.

5.2.2 Relational and team engagement challenges

Another prominent challenge was team disengagement, as well as the difficulty of sustaining communication and motivation virtually. Leaders struggled with inactive participation, reduced accountability, and competing personal responsibilities among staff.

“The biggest challenge is the lack of active participation… some remain silent, hiding behind the virtual veil.” (Participant K)

“People tend to prioritise personal matters… taking care of a child during meeting time.” (Participant J)

This disengagement created an emotional and managerial strain for leaders who were accustomed to in-person cues and direct oversight. The virtual setting diminished spontaneity and feedback, making it more challenging to gauge morale and maintain collective focus.

5.2.3 Personal and emotional strain

Finally, leaders described the emotional toll of navigating prolonged remote work. The collapse of work–life boundaries, constant availability expectations, and social isolation produced significant fatigue and mental strain.

“I’d answer emails late into the night… I was exhausted.” (Participant G)

“I’d sit at my desk till 7 p.m… as a woman leader, caregiving increased… it wasn’t sustainable.” (Participant C)

“I could not even meet someone for coffee… it was very isolating.” (Participant M)

This theme underscores the human dimension of virtual leadership, where professional and personal demands blur. Leaders’ narratives reveal how emotional exhaustion and isolation compounded institutional and relational challenges, further testing their adaptive capacity.

5.3 Virtual leadership enabling factors

To address the question, “What were the factors that enabled Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services to lead virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic?” two main themes emerged: individual efforts and institutional and senior management support.

5.3.1 Individual efforts

Participants highlighted their own proactive steps in adapting to virtual leadership. These included improving digital skills, equipping subordinates, and coordinating virtual platforms. They rapidly upskilled in using online tools like Zoom and Teams:

“We had to learn very quickly how to use Zoom and Microsoft Teams… those were the most crucial skills.” (Participant I)

“To lead properly, I had to also be a leader on this platform… not knowing basic functions creates doubt in your team.” (Participant K)

They also assessed team needs, secured necessary tools, and arranged training:

“We had to identify what the team needed… secured laptops, data routers, and training.” (Participant D)

Additionally, leaders took initiative in selecting and structuring digital platforms for effective collaboration:

“We set up team folders… deciding on the platform helped coordinate the team quickly.” (Participant G)

5.3.2 Institutional and senior management support

Participants received extensive support from institutional leadership, including devices, internet, power solutions, technical assistance, and training.

“We were all given dongles… later power banks… and ICT support was always available through WhatsApp.” (Participant L)

“We used Zoom first, then moved to Teams… both platforms helped us coordinate the team.” (Participant H)

Institutions also enhanced existing digital systems to streamline workflows:

“They enhanced the Higher Degree Management System… team members could make decisions using HDMS.” (Participant A)

Leaders also benefited from extensive capacity-building programs, including technical, psychosocial, and emotional support.

“There were trainings on using Zoom and coordinating online sessions… that support helped.” (Participant A)

“There were webinars on stress, health, and emotional intelligence… many of us lost loved ones.” (Participant L)

Some participants emphasised the value of moral support and leadership visibility from senior management:

“We had more meetings with senior management… the DVC and Dean tried to support us and answer questions.” (Participant B)

These narratives underscore how personal initiative and structured institutional support jointly enabled effective virtual leadership during the pandemic.

5.4 Future outlook on virtual leadership in higher education

To address the research question, “What are the future perspectives of Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services on virtual leadership post-pandemic?” participants shared their thoughts on long-term institutional practices. Five key perspectives emerged: hybrid work as the emerging norm, the importance of pre-existing physical relationships, the limitations of virtual work for some individuals and tasks, and the need for formal training in virtual leadership.

5.4.1 Hybrid work as the emerging norm

All participants anticipated a shift toward hybrid work models combining physical and virtual components. They agreed that fully physical arrangements were outdated and that higher education institutions (HEIs) should adopt flexible formats that merge the productivity and accessibility of virtual tools with the interpersonal benefits of in-person work.

The word cloud and word tree visualisations (Figure 4) illustrate the frequency and centrality of “hybrid” in participant responses. Leaders emphasised leveraging both pre-pandemic structures and pandemic-era innovations to create a sustainable, blended work environment.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Word cloud and tree visualisation on future work arrangement.

5.4.2 Importance of pre-existing physical relationships

Participants noted that virtual leadership is more effective when preceded by in-person relationship building. Physical rapport helped teams communicate more openly and collaborate effectively in virtual settings.

“We became freer to speak and build relationships… because we already had a relationship before working remotely.” (Participant M)

5.4.3 Virtual work limitations for certain individuals

Some participants believed virtual work is not suited for everyone. They described cases where individuals lacked the discipline, autonomy, or professionalism to work remotely.

“Not everybody… is capable of working virtually… they need to be managed in the old-fashioned way.” (Participant E)

5.4.4 Non-virtualisable work functions

Certain roles and responsibilities, such as those in security or facilities management, were described as inherently physical and incompatible with virtual oversight. Leaders stressed that face-to-face interaction remains essential for some work to be performed effectively.

“You have to be there to control people… virtual does not help when you need to physically check buildings.” (Participant J)

“Some issues are resolved quicker face-to-face rather than sending 10 emails.” (Participant L)

5.4.5 Need for formal training in virtual leadership

While participants appreciated training on technology use, they identified a gap in leadership-specific training for the virtual environment. They felt that more structured guidance could have improved their effectiveness during the pandemic and should be provided in preparation for future crises.

“We all kind of just got on with the job and did it… it might not be best practice.” (Participant G)

These insights reflect a growing consensus among Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services that while virtual leadership holds significant promise, its effectiveness depends on a thoughtful blend of hybrid structures, relational groundwork, and targeted institutional support. Their perspectives offer a roadmap for reimagining leadership in higher education beyond the pandemic context.

6 Discussion

This study explored the challenges and enablers of the COVID-19 pandemic virtual leadership transition and the future perspectives on virtual leadership post-pandemic by Academic Leaders and Directors of professional services at a HEI in South Africa. This section presents a discussion of the findings of the study.

6.1 Virtual leadership adaptation process

The findings revealed that participants experienced a progressive, three-phase adaptation process: Discovery, Normalisation, and Stability, as they transitioned from face-to-face to virtual leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. These phases illustrate the dynamic, iterative nature of leadership adaptation, consistent with Jooss et al.’s (2022) global worker transition process, Scharmer’s (2009) Theory U, and Bridges’s (1986) model of managing organisational transitions. Together, they demonstrate how leaders move from disorientation to mastery as they unlearn, experiment, and eventually stabilise within new modes of practice.

In the Discovery phase, leaders confronted the abrupt disruption of established routines and were compelled to unlearn conventional, in-person leadership behaviors. This period was marked by uncertainty, experimentation, and the search for workable virtual practices. Participants described this phase as both demanding and formative, requiring openness and reflection as they assessed the adequacy of their previous approaches. This mirrors Scharmer’s (2009) Downloading phase, in which leaders release habitual patterns to perceive emerging realities, and Bridges’s (1986) Ending phase, where individuals must let go of the familiar to embrace change.

The Normalisation phase signified growing acceptance and confidence in virtual leadership. Leaders began consolidating new routines, applying lessons learned from the initial period, and helping their teams adjust to the “new normal.” Anxiety and confusion gradually subsided as competence increased, aligning with Scharmer’s (2009) Presencing stage, where leaders connect experience with emerging possibilities, and with Bridges’s (1986) Neutral Zone, the experimental space between the old and new realities. During this phase, participants displayed adaptability, flexibility, and a coaching mindset, fostering a culture of collective learning.

Finally, the Stability phase reflected the internalisation of virtual leadership as a sustainable practice. By this point, new systems and behaviors had become embedded, and participants demonstrated confidence, agility, and technological proficiency. Although challenges persisted, leaders described a sense of equilibrium and preparedness for future shifts. This resonates with Scharmer’s (2009) Performing phase, where action becomes aligned with new insight, and with Bridges’s (1986) Vision (New Beginning) stage, where stability and renewed purpose emerge.

Overall, the three-phase process depicts leadership adaptation as cyclical rather than linear—leaders continually loop between discovery, learning, and consolidation as they encounter evolving digital realities. The study reinforces that effective virtual leadership requires ongoing reflection, experimentation, and the development of adaptive competence to sustain performance in volatile contexts.

6.2 Virtual leadership challenges

Participants encountered three overarching challenges they experienced while transitioning to virtual leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: institutional and structural barriers, relational and team engagement challenges, and personal and emotional strain. These dimensions reveal the interplay between systemic limitations, interpersonal dynamics, and individual pressures within a traditionally contact-based higher education context.

Institutional and structural barriers were among the most pervasive. Leaders reported inadequate support and guidance from senior management, which left them unprepared to address team concerns, echoing Marshall et al. (2020), who stress that visible, responsive leadership is crucial during organisational transitions. Technological constraints such as load shedding and unstable internet access further undermined productivity and communication, despite temporary remedies like routers and power banks. These issues are reflected in Prabashini (2021) and Nadine (2022), who link South Africa’s infrastructural weaknesses to the fragility of remote work, and Manse and Holmberg (2021), who note that poor connectivity contributes to disengagement. Participants also highlighted policy and structural deficiencies: institutional systems remained tailored to face-to-face operations, forcing leaders to make ad hoc decisions without virtual protocols. Such findings reinforce Liu’s (2022) call for innovation-oriented governance and Marshall et al.’s (2020) argument that structured digital systems sustain performance and accountability.

Relational and team engagement challenges compounded these difficulties. Leaders observed declining participation, delayed responsiveness, and passivity among team members balancing work with personal commitments. These experiences align with Vallin (2020) and Nydegger and Nydegger (2010), who document disengagement in dispersed teams, and underscore the importance of structured communication protocols and milestone tracking, as noted by Stephanie (2022), Kaplan et al. (2018), and Newman and Ford (2021). Maintaining cohesion required persistence, empathy, and flexibility as leaders sought to re-establish connection and motivation in virtual spaces.

Finally, personal and emotional strain emerged as a profound challenge. Leaders described experiencing exhaustion, blurred boundaries, and isolation due to constant availability and extended hours, particularly among those with caregiving responsibilities. These experiences align with Marshall et al. (2020) and Koehn (2020), who associate crisis leadership with emotional depletion, and with Manse and Holmberg (2021), who highlight work–life imbalance among remote leaders. Feelings of loneliness and detachment are echoed by Newman and Ford (2021) and Manse and Holmberg (2021), who advocate for informal virtual interactions to sustain morale.

Overall, these findings show that institutional fragility, relational disengagement, and personal exhaustion collectively defined the virtual leadership experience, demanding continuous adaptation and resilience from higher-education leaders navigating unprecedented uncertainty.

6.3 Virtual leadership enabling factors

Despite the many challenges of transitioning to virtual leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, participants employed various adaptive mechanisms that contributed to their success. Two primary categories of enablers emerged: individual efforts and institutional or senior management support. A central theme among individual efforts was self-digital capacitation, where leaders rapidly upskilled themselves in using platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams. This technological confidence enhanced their credibility and ability to lead effectively, echoing Alfehaid and Mohamed’s (2019) emphasis on e-leader competence and Pramjeeth and Mutambara’s (2022) call for continuous reskilling in times of crisis.

Leaders also invested in subordinate digital capacity by conducting needs assessments, providing necessary hardware, and arranging relevant training. This proactive leadership style aligns with Agarwal et al. (2020), who underscore the importance of technological competence across virtual teams, and Thambusamy and Bekiroğulları (2020), who argue that identifying and responding to team needs is a critical leadership responsibility in digital environments. These efforts were strengthened by virtual platform orchestration, where leaders took charge of selecting and managing online platforms to ensure clarity and consistency. As Fernandez and Shaw (2020) note, thoughtful platform selection grounded in stakeholder needs helps prevent confusion and supports streamlined communication.

At the institutional level, participants credited their successful virtual leadership transitions to robust support from the institution, including provision of internet data, technical assistance, morale-boosting leadership, digital tools, and structured capacity-building programs. For many, internet subscriptions and routers were fundamental enablers of remote work, reflecting Asio et al.’s (2021) findings from the Philippines and Faturoti’s (2022) reporting on African institutional collaborations with internet providers. Technical support lines were also instrumental, allowing staff to quickly resolve system issues, a point affirmed by Morrison-Smith and Ruiz (2020) and Roache et al. (2020), who stress the need for responsive tech infrastructure.

Moral encouragement from senior leaders further bolstered team resilience, with visible appreciation and check-ins fostering psychological stability, as highlighted by Tran et al. (2020). Beyond connectivity, the provisioning of critical technology, including devices and workflow applications, allowed teams to function efficiently from home. These practices align with Rudnicka et al. (2020), who advocate ergonomic digital setups, and Pramjeeth and Mutambara (2022), who call for automation in hybrid environments. Finally, institution-wide training and psychosocial support initiatives played a vital role. Programs covering virtual platform use, emotional wellbeing, and healthy lifestyles equipped leaders and their teams to navigate uncertainty with greater confidence, reinforcing recommendations by Marshall et al. (2020), Rudnicka et al. (2020), and Burgess et al. (2022) on the importance of holistic support during transitions to remote work.

6.4 Future outlook on virtual leadership in higher education

Participants’ reflections on virtual leadership post-COVID-19 reveal an evolving vision for the future of academic work. A dominant perspective was that hybrid work is the emerging norm, with many believing that fully physical arrangements are no longer viable. Leaders emphasised combining the relational value of face-to-face work with the efficiency of online systems. This aligns with Guzar (2022), who found HEI leaders envisioning hybrid futures, and Radziukiewicz’s (2021) longitudinal surveys, where a majority preferred varying levels of hybrid engagement. However, participants stressed that successful hybrid leadership requires intentional structure and policy that balances collaboration with productivity.

Equally important was the importance of pre-existing physical relationships; leaders noted that knowing their team in person before shifting online fostered stronger virtual collaboration. This aligns with Watkins (2013), who recommends initial in-person bonding and regular physical touchpoints to sustain remote team dynamics. In addition to structural expectations, participants offered cautionary insights. Many agreed that virtual work is not for everyone, describing staff who lacked the autonomy and discipline to manage remote tasks. Echoing Bolisani et al. (2020), they emphasised the need to assess readiness before offering remote roles. Similarly, they argued that not all work functions are suited to virtual formats, particularly roles requiring physical presence or real-time coordination, such as security and facilities. While Bolisani et al. (2020) acknowledged that some non-virtualisable tasks may become adaptable with better design, participants remained sceptical in certain contexts.

Finally, the need for formal training in virtual leadership was a major recommendation. Though many had received technology training, few had guidance on leadership practices specific to remote settings. This supports Alward and Phelps (2019), whose participants developed their virtual competencies informally, and Ford et al. (2017), who advocate structured training in key areas such as delegation, conflict resolution, and self-management to foster effective remote leadership and team trust. Together, these findings reflect a growing recognition that the future of leadership in a HEI must be both hybrid-ready and leader-prepared.

6.5 An integrated framework for virtual leadership adaptation

The framework illustrates the cyclical and developmental nature of leadership adaptation as it transitions from face-to-face to virtual contexts. It depicts three interrelated phases, Discovery, Normalisation, and Stability, which collectively represent an iterative journey of learning, unlearning, and relearning during times of disruption. The left segment shows the situational challenges that triggered adaptation, including institutional barriers, team disengagement, and personal strain. The curved U-shaped process captures leaders’ adaptive progression, while the right segment highlights the enabling qualities, institutional support, collaboration, flexibility, and digital competence that sustained effective transformation. Together, these dimensions align with Nicholson’s (2013) Adaptive Cycle Model of Situation–Process–Qualities, illustrating how leadership adaptation is not linear but cyclical, continuously evolving through feedback between contextual demands, behavioral processes, and personal or organisational capacities.

Figure 5 conceptualises leadership adaptation as an ongoing, cyclical process of transformation rather than a one-time event. Leaders initially confronted situational challenges that disrupted established practices (Discovery Phase) and progressively experimented with new strategies and behaviors (Normalisation Phase). Over time, this led to the emergence of adaptive competencies and institutional stability (Stability Phase). However, consistent with Nicholson’s Adaptive Cycle, the Stability Phase does not mark closure but rather readiness for subsequent change cycles, as new disruptions may reinitiate discovery and learning. This model, therefore, captures the recursive interplay between context, action, and capacity, underscoring that effective virtual leadership in higher education is sustained through continual reflection, flexibility, and renewal.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Integrated framework for virtual leadership adaptation.

7 Conclusion

The transition to virtual leadership during a national crisis revealed both the adaptive capacity and systemic limitations of higher education institutions. This study showed that the shift from face-to-face to virtual leadership was not an immediate adjustment but a progressive transition unfolding through three interrelated phases—Discovery, Normalisation, and Stability. These phases reflected how leaders learned, experimented, and eventually consolidated new leadership approaches in response to disruption. Anchored in Nicholson’s (2013) Adaptive Cycle Model, the findings highlight that adaptation is driven by the interplay between situational challenges, adaptive processes, and leadership qualities. Leaders confronted institutional barriers, team disengagement, and personal strain, yet navigated these through resilience, flexibility, collaboration, and digital competence. The study thus demonstrates that effective adaptation in volatile contexts relies on both organisational support and individual openness to change. By integrating the transition phases with the identified challenges and enablers, the research offers a holistic framework that conceptualises leadership adaptation as cyclical, reflective, and developmental. Ultimately, it underscores that sustainable virtual and hybrid leadership requires higher education institutions to invest in adaptive systems, inclusive digital policies, and leadership development strategies that enhance responsiveness and resilience in dynamic work environments.

8 Recommendations for practice and policy implementation

Based on the findings, this study offers the following recommendations to enhance leadership adaptability and institutional resilience in digitally mediated and crisis-responsive environments:

• Develop adaptive leadership training:

HEIs should implement comprehensive training programs to prepare leaders for operating in hybrid and uncertain contexts. Beyond technology usage, training should focus on adaptive thinking, digital team management, and decision-making under pressure, building capacity for leading in dynamic and unpredictable work settings.

• Institutionalise crisis-ready support systems:

To mitigate future disruptions, HEIs should strengthen cross-functional support structures that integrate IT support, mental wellness resources, and leadership mentoring. These systems should be responsive, accessible, and integrated into institutional emergency preparedness frameworks.

• Formalise hybrid work policies:

Institutions should establish clear, flexible hybrid work policies with built-in contingency protocols. These policies should define which roles or tasks are suited to remote delivery, how performance is assessed, and how hybrid structures align with the institution’s mission during crises.

• Foster digitally connected team cultures:

Leaders must be equipped to nurture virtual team cohesion over time. Institutions can support this by facilitating ongoing virtual engagement practices, informal check-ins, and digital collaboration rituals that sustain morale and connection, even in fragmented work environments.

• Invest in resilient technological infrastructure:

Long-term investment is essential in technologies that enable seamless virtual operations—including mobile internet access, load-shedding workarounds, and secure communication ecosystems that can withstand crisis-scale usage and facilitate equitable access for all staff.

These recommendations reflect a shift from reactive adaptation to proactive system design, ensuring that HEIs are not only prepared for future crises but also equipped to lead through them with clarity, agility, and inclusiveness.

9 Limitations of the study

While this qualitative study offers rich insights into the lived experiences of academic and professional services leaders navigating virtual leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the findings are derived from a single higher education institution, which limits transferability to other institutional contexts with differing organisational structures, resources, or digital capacities. Second, the data relied solely on self-reported narratives gathered through interviews, which may have been influenced by social desirability bias or selective recall, despite efforts to ensure anonymity and reflexivity. Third, the absence of triangulation through document analysis or participant observation restricts the ability to cross-validate findings across multiple data sources. Additionally, the study did not disaggregate experiences by gender or generational cohort, both of which may shape leaders’ adaptation to virtual environments and perceptions of digital competence. Future research should address these limitations by employing mixed-method or comparative multi-institutional designs to enhance depth, generalisability, and contextual diversity.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Humanities and Social Sciences Ethics Committee (HSSREC). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AB: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CG: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

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.

References

Agarwal, S., Ferdousi, S., John, M., Nalven, A., and Stahl, T. (2020) Effective leadership in virtual teams during the COVID-19 pandemic (unpublished bachelor’s thesis), Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

Google Scholar

Ahmed, A. K. (2017). # rhodesmustfall: decolonization, praxis and disruption. J. Comp. Int. Higher Educ. 9(Fall, 8–13.

Google Scholar

Alfehaid, L., and Mohamed, E. E. (2019). Understanding the influence of e-leadership on virtual team performance empirical study. Int. J. Bus. Appl. Soc. Sci. 5, 521–536. doi: 10.33642/ijbass.v5n10p3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alward, E., and Phelps, Y. (2019). Impactful leadership traits of virtual leaders in higher education. Online Learn. 23, 72–93. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i3.2113

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Asio, J. M. R., Gadia, E., Abarintos, E., Paguio, D., and Balce, M. (2021). Internet connection and learning device availability of college students: basis for institutionalizing flexible learning in the new normal. Stud. Humanit. Educ. 2, 56–69. doi: 10.48185/she.v2i1.224

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Axtell, K., Demaria, S. S., and Gurick, M. (2022). Challenges and strategies of virtual team leaders: a global overview. Scholarship Without Borders J. 1, 11–49. doi: 10.57229/2834-2267.1014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Badru, A. E., Gerwel Proches, C., and Ojogiwa, O. T. (2025). “First-time virtual leaders' approaches during disruptions: reflections from first-line leaders in a South African higher education institution” in Higher educational leadership in VUCA contexts. 1st ed (Leeds, England: Emerald Publishing), 113–134.

Google Scholar

Bauwens, R., and Cortellazzo, L. (2025). The different faces of e‑leadership: Six perspectives on leading in the era of digital technologies. Human Resource Management Review, 35:101058. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101058

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Beauregard, T. A., Basile, K. A., and Canónico, E. (2019). Telework: Outcomes and facilitators for employees. In The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior. Ed. R. N. Landers. (pp. 511–543). Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Bell, B. S., McAlpine, K. L., and Hill, N. S. (2023). Leading virtually. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 339–362. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920050115

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernhardsson, F., Khochaba, B., and Etaix, R. (2021) Leadership in a virtual work environment: A case study of managers perception of transition to virtual leadership (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). Jönköpin University, Jönköpin, Sweden

Google Scholar

Birman, N. A., Katz-Navon, T., Vashdi, D., and Hofstetter, H. (2024). Remotely engaged - The role of job crafting in the change of employees’ engagement after an abrupt transition to remote work. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 2:1363859. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2024.1363859

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., Ipsen, C., Kirchner, K., and Hansen, J. P. (2020). Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and issues. Manag. Mark. Challenges Knowl. Soc. 15, 458–476. doi: 10.2478/mmcks-2020-0027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bouziri, H., Smith, D. R., Descatha, A., Dab, W., and Jean, K. (2020). Working from home in the time of COVID-19: how to best preserve occupational health? Occup. Environ. Med. 77, 509–510. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2020-106599,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bridges, W. (1986). Managing organizational transitions. Organ. Dyn. 15, 24–33. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(86)90023-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burgess, R., Kim, A. W., Cele, L., Khadka, S., Sigdel, K., and Hagaman, A. K. (2022). Psychosocial training and support guidelines for research staff. Bull. World Health Organ. 100, 578–580. doi: 10.2471/BLT.21.287159,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheng, L., and Dinh, T. T. (2024). A systematic review of digital academic leadership in higher education. Int. J. High. Educ. 52, 789–814. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v13n4p38

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Contreras, F., Baykal, E., and Abid, G. (2020). E-leadership and teleworking in times of COVID-19 and beyond: What we know and where do we go. Front. Psychol. 11, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590271

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deloitte (2025). 2025 higher education trends report: 2025 leadership report. Available online at: https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/articles-on-higher-education/2025-us-higher-education-trends.html (Accessed December 04, 2025)

Google Scholar

Faturoti, B. (2022). Online learning during COVID-19 and beyond: a human right based approach to internet access in Africa. Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol. 36, 68–90. doi: 10.1080/13600869.2022.2030027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fernandez, A. A., and Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: the coronavirus and COVID-19. J. Leadersh. Stud. 14, 39–45. doi: 10.1002/jls.21684

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ford, R. C., Piccolo, R. F., and Ford, L. R. (2017). Strategies for building effective virtual teams: trust is key. Bus. Horiz. 60, 25–34. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gallos, J. V., and Bolman, L. G. (2021) Reframing academic leadership. John wiley & sons.

Google Scholar

Ganesan, K. (2024). Virtual leadership: A complete guide for remote leaders to crush it in 2024. CultureMonkey. Available online at: https://www.culturemonkey.io/employee-engagement/virtual-leadership/ (Accessed November 13, 2025).

Google Scholar

Guzar, K. (2022) Virtual leadership in uncertain times: a case study of higher education leaders' response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Unpublished doctoral thesis), William Howard Taft University, Denver, CO, USA

Google Scholar

Hale, J., and Grenny, J. (2020). How to get people to actually participate in virtual meetings. Harvard Business Review Digit Articles. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2020/03/how-to-get-people-to-actually-participate-in-virtual-meetings (Accessed December 15, 2022).

Google Scholar

House, R., Hanges, P., Quintanilla, A., Dorfman, P., Dickson, M., and Javidan, M. (1999). Culture, leadership, and organizational practices. New York: JAI.

Google Scholar

Jayavelu, D., Maheswari, K., Princy, A. A., Narendar, C., Aby, J., and Reena, R. (2024). Ethical leadership in the digital age: navigating complexities and building trust in virtual work environment. Educ. Adm. Theory Pract. 30, 1716–1722. doi: 10.53555/kuey.v30i4.1735

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jing, M., Guo, Z., Wu, X., Yang, Z., and Wang, X. (2025). Higher education digital academic leadership: Perceptions and practices from Chinese University Leaders. Education Sciences, 15:606. doi: 10.1142/S0219649225500443

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jooss, S., Conroy, K. M., and Mcdonnell, A. (2022). From travel to virtual work: the transitional experiences of global workers during Covid-19. Int. Bus. Rev. 31, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102052

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kameneckienė, V. (2022). The influence of manager’s trustworthiness on subordinate’s trust in the manager. Jaun. Mokslin. Darb. 52, 15–25. doi: 10.15388/jmd.2022.13

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., and Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust in allowing telework: comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. J. Bus. Psychol. 33, 365–382. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9498-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kele, K., and Mzilen, P. (2021). Higher education leadership responses applied in two South African comprehensive universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a critical discourse analysis. Transform. High. Educ. 6:6114. doi: 10.4102/the.v6i0.114

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Koehn, N. (2020). Real leaders are forged in crisis. Harv. Bus. Rev. 6, 31–36.

Google Scholar

Landa, N., Zhou, S., and Marongwe, N. (2021). Education in emergencies: lessons from COVID-19 in South Africa. Int. Rev. Educ. 67, 167–183. doi: 10.1007/s11159-021-09903-z,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Manse, S., and Holmberg, E. (2021) Challenges leading global virtual teams: a qualitative study of the COVID-19 pandemic impact. (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Google Scholar

Marshall, J., Roache, D., and Moody-Marshall, R. (2020). Crisis leadership: a critical examination of educational leadership in higher education in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. Stud. Educ. Admin. 48, 30–37.

Google Scholar

Michel, A. J. (2024). Navigating the Dynamics of Virtual Leadership: Strategies for Success in a Digital Age. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5, 3197–3199.

Google Scholar

Midlage, L. (2025). Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: Enhancing Team Dynamics. Research Invention Journal of Current Issues in Arts and Management, 4, 17–22. doi: 10.59298/RIJCIAM/2025/411722

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morrison-Smith, S., and Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review. SN Appl. Sci. 2, 1–33. doi: 10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Msila, V. (2022). Higher education leadership in a time of Digital Technologies: a South African case study. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 12, 1110–1117. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.10.1728

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nadine, M. (2022). Managing load-shedding in the post-COVID-19 workplace. Available online at: https://www.lexology.com/commentary/employment-immigration/south-africa/bowmans/managing-load-shedding-in-post-covid-19-workplace (Accessed November 11, 2022).

Google Scholar

Newman, S. A., and Ford, R. C. (2021). Five steps to leading your team in the virtual COVID-19 workplace. Organ. Dyn. 50, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100802

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nicholson, N. (2013). The" I" of leadership: Strategies for seeing, being and doing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Google Scholar

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Nydegger, R., and Nydegger, L. (2010). Challenges in managing virtual teams. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 8, 69–82. doi: 10.19030/jber.v8i3.690

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peiró, J. M., and Martínez-Tura, V. (2022). ‘Digitalized’ competences. A crucial challenge beyond digital competences. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 3, 189–199. doi: 10.5093/jwop2022a22

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Prabashini, M. (2021). Load shedding has affected the productivity of employees working from home. Available online at: https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/load-shedding-has-affected-productivity-of-employees-working-from-home/ (Accessed November 11, 2022).

Google Scholar

Pramjeeth, S., and Mutambara, E. (2022). A conceptual leadership framework and process for leading in a volatile environment. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 21, 1–15.

Google Scholar

Radziukiewicz, M. (2021). Remote work in Poland and perspectives thereof. Econ. Reg. Stud./Stud. Ekon. Reg. 14, 409–427. doi: 10.2478/ers-2021-0029

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramage, S. D. (2017) A leadership transition: an examination of the transition from face-to-face leadership to remote leadership in a retail sales context (Unpublished doctoral thesis), George Washington University, Washington DC, USA

Google Scholar

Roache, D., Rowe-Holder, D., and Muschette, R. (2020). Transitioning to online distance learning in the COVID-19 era: a call for skilled leadership in higher education institutions (HEIs). Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. 48, 103–110.

Google Scholar

Rudnicka, A., Newbold, J. W., Cook, D., Cecchinato, M. E., Gould, S., and Cox, A. L. (2020) Developing effective strategies for remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Paper presented at the New Future of Work Symposium, Online, August 3

Google Scholar

Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 12, 169–170.

Google Scholar

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Google Scholar

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Google Scholar

Siregar, Z. M. E., Suryana, E. A., and Senen, S. H. (2019). Factors influencing innovative work behavior: an individual factors perspective. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8, 324–327.

Google Scholar

Smock, A. M. (2024). Virtual leadership: The challenges and strategies to overcome them [Master’s thesis, University of New Hampshire]. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. Available online at: https://scholars.unh.edu/ms_leadership/127

Google Scholar

Stephanie, W. (2022). 9 Challenges of virtual teams and how to solve them. Available online at: https://cirkus.com/blog/9-challenges-of-virtual-teams/ (Accessed November 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

Thambusamy, R. X., and Bekiroğulları, Z. (2020). Virtual leadership in small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and possibilities. Eur. J. Soc. Behav. Sci. 29, 179–190. doi: 10.15405/ejsbs.281

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tran, H., Hardie, S., and Cunningham, K. M. (2020). Leading with empathy and humanity: why talent-centred education leadership is especially critical amidst the pandemic crisis. Int. Stud. Educ. Admin. 48, 39–45.

Google Scholar

Vallin, O. (2020) The impact of team size on communication in globally distributed teams (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Google Scholar

Vartiainen, M., and Vanharanta, O. (2024). True nature of hybrid work. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 2:1448894. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2024.1448894

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Watkins, M. (2013). Making virtual teams work: ten basic principles. Harvard Business Review Digit Articles. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2013/06/making-virtual-teams-work-ten (Accessed December 17, 2022).

Google Scholar