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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.