The Covid-19 crisis acted as an accelerator for WFH (Wethal et al., 2022). Before, in most organizations only small parts of the staff worked regularly from home, often with agreements that allow only one working day from home in a week. The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted this situation and enforced all employees to work full time from home if their job could be accomplished outside of the office (Steude, 2021). Many employees benefited from WHF due to more flexible working hours and better integration of work and private life (Al-Habaibeh et al., 2021). Because of that about 50% of the employees wish to remain in a hybrid working model in the future with 2 or 3 working days a week from home and even 21% wish to spend almost their entire working time from home (Krick et al., 2022). Also, many organizations support WFH and tend to permanently transfer some of their employees to remote positions to save costs (Gartner, 2020). As it is to be expected that WFH remains part of our working world, consequences and challenges need to be examined and addressed.

One group that experiences particular challenges are leaders (Kirchner et al., 2021). Their leadership role becomes more challenging. At the same time it gets more relevant to keep the team together and to ensure cooperation among followers (Contreras et al., 2020). Leadership tasks can be generally divided into two categories: (1) monitoring and managing of ongoing activities in the department and within the team and (2) communication, collaboration and shaping team processes (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). Regarding the first leadership function, leaders have additional administrative tasks like reorganizing projects and ensuring collaboration during WFH. Regarding the second leadership function, leaders suffer from limited communication and interaction with their followers (Kirchner et al., 2021). The digitalized communication might provoke misunderstandings because the tone of a message is not conveyed in written language. For example, humor and irony are more difficult to understand (van Wart et al., 2019). Moreover, for leaders it is more difficult to access their followers due to the physical distance. It needs more effort to start a conversation and especially spontaneous informal chats are limited (van Wart et al., 2016; Kirchner et al., 2021). Leaders need to make an extra effort to create cohesion and team spirit between followers and to develop new employees into one work unit in the remote setting (Kozlowski et al., 1996). Overall, it is important to understand that leadership in the remote context follows its own rules (Avolio and Kahai, 2003). Leaders must adapt to the new remote conditions and adopt new communication and relationship building methods (Contreras et al., 2020).

While there is already some understanding regarding general challenges for leadership in the new employees into one work unit in the remote setting (Kozlowski et al., 1996), literature regarding the consequences of WFH for specific leadership styles that depend on regular communication and face-to-face interaction is scarce. Two of these leadership styles which are well-established are TFL (Bass and Riggio, 2006) and HOL (Franke and Felfe, 2011; Franke et al., 2014). In the following we will elaborate on specific challenges and consequence for these leadership styles during WFH and explore if and to what extent they are still feasible in a setting with limited interaction and communication.

TFL is one of the most studied leadership styles in the current literature and has proven its effectiveness for performance, job satisfaction and commitment in the traditional office setting in numerous studies (Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Tims et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011; Braun et al., 2013). The concept of TFL aims to increase intrinsic motivation of employees and differentiates four sub-dimensions: (1) idealized influence (acting as a role model; transmitting values and beliefs), (2) inspirational motivation (inspiring, motivating with demanding goals; emphasizing team spirit), (3) intellectual stimulation (encouraging followers to think outside the box) and (4) individualized consideration (knowing and considering the individual needs and strengths of followers; Bass and Riggio, 2006).

Empirical evidence found in the traditional office setting cannot be simply transferred to the remote setting (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014). Effectiveness and feasibility might differ in a context with limited interaction, digital communication and lack of social interaction. However, the few studies that have investigated TFL in the remote context show inconsistent results. While some studies found that the effectiveness decreases (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2019), others report the opposite (Purvanova and Bono, 2009). Possible reasons for a decrease of TFL could be the lack of contact and the use of digital media for communication (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2019). Eisenberg et al. (2019) speculate that leaders’ authenticity is declined due to the distance and lack of face-to-face interaction. In contrast, Purvanova and Bono (2009) found that TFL is more effective for team performance in a setting with only e-mail communication, compared to a face-to-face setting. They explain their results by suggesting that leaders might put more effort into displaying TFL behaviors in the remote setting to compensate the uncertain and ambiguous situation. In a current study, Liebermann et al. (2021) conducted interviews in the public sector during the Covid-19 crisis and found that primarily demanding working conditions become stronger in the WFH context and therefore challenge the feasibility of TFL.

In the following we outline which specific challenges may influence the feasibility of the different sub-dimensions of TFL during WFH. Idealized influence might be hindered because of the limited contact and interaction between leaders and employees. They only talk occasionally with each other or not even at all (Kirchner et al., 2021). This lack of contact might impede being perceived as role model. As the bonding between leader and employee is looser and more fragile, inspiring messages from the leader might be perceived as inauthentic and out of place. Further missing information in conversations like tone, mimics, gesture and body language might lead to misunderstandings (Wang et al., 2020) and hence impair the effects of inspirational messages. This is in line with Eisenberg et al. (2019) who speculate that the geographic distance makes it more difficult for leaders to be perceived as authentic role models and to reach followers on an emotional level. A challenge for inspirational motivation is primarily that leaders no longer receive much information from their followers. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) assume that in the remote setting it is difficult for leaders to capture the atmosphere within the team and to manage team dynamics. Therefore, it might be more difficult to share a common vision and to encourage the team spirit. Also, Liebermann et al. (2021) found that the lack of communication impairs the assessment of the followers’ level of motivation so that leaders do not know when to intervene. Intellectual stimulation might be challenged due to the fact that there is often no adequate technological equipment like videoconferencing tools (Liebermann et al., 2021) so that leaders and followers cannot elaborate on ideas face-to-face with each other and have no possibility to share their screens to show something and ensure common understanding. Also, meetings are more efficient and more accurately timed so there might be less room for brainstorming, letting thoughts flow and taking time to develop ideas. Creative thinking also needs breaks. But these might feel strange and lead to misunderstandings during digital communication because the other person does not know if the break is related to a technical problem, distraction or thinking processes. Further, the generation of new ideas often happens in spontaneous chats (McAlpine, 2018) which are limited during WFH. Individualized consideration may decrease in the remote context as this dimension particularly thrives on regular contact and communication. To consider the individual needs and strengths of followers, leaders must know them very well. However, during WFH leaders do barely get any private information about their followers as spontaneous informal chats are limited. Eisenberg et al. (2019) postulate that as it is more difficult for leaders to recognize when followers need help and support, they feel more inhibited to approach them proactively.

Research Question 1: Which challenges do leaders perceive in executing (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration when WFH compared to working in the office?

Research Question 2: To what extent do employees perceive (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration from their leader when WFH compared to working in the office? And what are the reasons for different perceptions?

While TFL rather focuses on increasing employees’ performance, satisfaction, and engagement, HOL specifically aims to increase health and well-being (Franke et al., 2014). As a multidimensional construct, HOL consists of the three components StaffCare (leaders considering and actively promoting their followers’ health), leader SelfCare and follower SelfCare (taking care of one’s own health). Each of these components can be broken down into the three sub-dimensions of value, awareness, and behavior (Franke et al., 2014). In our study we mainly focus on StaffCare and its three sub-dimensions because we aim to particularly investigate the challenges for leadership. SelfCare we conducted just in employees’ interviews. StaffCare value means attaching importance and willingness to take over responsibility for the health of followers as a leader. Awareness means being aware and sensitive of warning signals regarding the health status of followers. Behavior refers to promoting and engaging in concrete health-oriented activities (e.g., encouraging to take breaks and participate in occupational health programs, improving work environments). While there is much evidence for positive effects of HOL for employees’ health in the traditional office setting (Franke et al., 2014; Klug et al., 2019; Arnold and Rigotti, 2021; Kaluza et al., 2021) it is unclear if these findings can be transferred to the remote setting. To date, we are only aware of one study that deals with HOL in a remote setting. Efimov et al. (2020) conducted an interview study with leaders of virtual teams and identified first insights regarding feasibility and possible action steps to promote HOL. However, the concrete challenges and opportunities regarding the three sub-dimensions are still unclear. In the following we will outline which specific challenges may influence the feasibility of the different sub-dimensions. Regarding value, it can be assumed that leaders attach less importance to promoting followers’ health in the WFH context because they have less access to their followers and therefore, they might feel less responsible for their health. In their study, Efimov et al. (2020) found that leaders do not feel responsible for employees’ health but for creating a healthy environment. However, it is questionable if leaders succeed in doing this. Moreover, as communication is very limited (Kirchner et al., 2021) leaders might use the few conversations they have with their followers for rather talking about tasks and goals and not about health issues. Awareness might also be challenged during WFH. Warning signals for health issues are often conveyed over mimics, body language and tone. This nonverbal information is especially limited when communication only happens via digital media (Fayard et al., 2021). So, it can be expected that it becomes more difficult for leaders to recognize when their followers feel stressed or sick. This assumption goes along with the findings from Efimov et al. (2020). Additionally, followers might be more hindered to disclose private health issues to their leader because it is more difficult to develop a trustful atmosphere in the remote context. In terms of the third sub-dimension health-oriented behavior, we assume that leaders see fewer possibilities to influence working conditions from the distance. For example they do not see the working hours of their employees, how often they take breaks or if they suffer from technical challenges. Based on this, leaders might take less action steps to proactively promote followers’ health.

Research Question 3: Which challenges do leaders perceive in executing the three StaffCare dimensions (a) value, (b) awareness, and (c) behavior when WFH compared to working in the office?

Research Question 4: To what extent do employees perceive StaffCare and its three dimensions (a) value, (b) awareness, and (c) behavior when WFH compared to working in the office? And what are the reasons for different perceptions?

All participants were recruited through personal networks of the authors. Inclusion criteria were leaders and employees who regularly WFH and from the office and are therefore able to compare both settings. Among the participants with leadership responsibility were 10 women and 13 men at the age between 29 and 62 years (M = 42.02). They are all employed and work in one of the following industries: IT, consulting, public sector, engineering, event management, automobile, or retail. At the time of the data collection, they had between 1 and 30 years of leadership experience (M = 7.62) and worked between 1 and 5 days a week from home (M = 2.71). Among the participants without leadership responsibility were 13 women and 5 men at the age between 20 and 57 years (M = 39.12). They are also all employed, report to a direct leader and work in one of the following industries: IT, consulting, public sector, finances, insurances, e-commerce, logistics or retail. At the time of the data collection, they worked between 1 and 4 days a week from home (M = 2.50).

We started the data collection with a quick warm-up. In this phase, we collected descriptive data from the participants and informed them about the purpose of the study and data security. Afterwards participants received a survey with items regarding the four dimensions of TFL and the three dimensions of HOL and were asked to rate them on a scale from 1 (does not apply at all) – 5 (fully applies). For each dimension they received one item and were asked to first rate to what extent it applies when they are working at home and second to rate to what extent it applies when they are working collocated in the office. Leaders were asked to do a self-assessment of their own leadership style and employees were asked to assess the leadership style of their direct leader. In a next step, the qualitative interview started. Participants were asked to elaborate on their ratings. For each item they explained why they perceive it as challenged in the WFH context compared to the traditional office setting. Or, when their rating was higher in the WFH context which opportunities they experienced. The interview ended with a closing statement and gave the participants the opportunity to report any experiences that they had made and were not addressed to this point.

The items used to assess TFL were derived from the MLQ (Felfe, 2006) while the items to assess HOL are based on the instrument of Franke et al. (2014). The interview guide was first pre-tested with academics and practitioners to check for its content validity and comprehensibility. The modified interview guideline was then pilot tested with two participants to check its appropriateness for the target population before the interview process started. The interviews were conducted between June 2021 and July 2022 via videocall or telephone and lasted between 45 and 90 min.

The qualitative data were analyzed and interpreted according to Mayring (2022). The interviews were read and screened for common patterns and similarities by the authors. In a first step, categories were developed deductively based on the previous literature. Then the coding tree was enriched inductively with categories based on the transcripts. All steps of the analysis were carried out by the authors. Agreements and disagreements of the screenings and categorization from the authors were discussed and resulted in adjusting the categories for finding the best fit of the data. To analyze the quantitative data, we calculated means and paired t-tests. The premises for the paired t-test were met except for the premise of normal distribution. However, due to the explorative approach of our study and since the paired t-test is considered to be very robust to violations (Pagano, 2012), we decided to continue with the data.

One of the main challenges regarding the feasibility of TFL and HOL is the lack of social presence and regular interaction. Since both leadership styles are built on frequent contact and communication they suffer from a setting with limited contact. Especially non-verbal cues like facial expressions, gesture, body language and tone are very limited when communication happens only over digital media (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000; Wang et al., 2020). In our study leaders reported that this impairs the awareness for health-related warning signals as these are often not directly disclosed but can be rather discovered over non-verbal clues (e.g., when employees are unusually quiet or when they look tired and exhausted). Dimoff and Kelloway (2019) found that for most leaders the recognition of health-related warning signals is already difficult in the traditional office setting. Accordingly, it is even worse in a setting with no non-verbal cues. Moreover, in line with the findings of Hinds and Weisband (2003) we found that conveying emotions like enthusiasm and sensing the atmosphere within the team becomes increasingly difficult in the remote setting. As Avolio et al. (2001) claimed, leaders need to take over a more proactive role to ensure and create social bondings between followers. This is particularly relevant for inspirational motivation. Also idealized influence is challenged due to the lack of social presence which impairs role modelling. Employees need to perceive the leader throughout the workday and during different situations like managing tasks or interacting with others to be perceived as a role model which is limited during WFH.

In line with Kirchner et al. (2021) we found that a key challenge to both TFL and HOL are fewer possibilities for spontaneous informal chats about private, non-work-related subjects. These seem to diminish with advancing digitization (Antoni and Syrek, 2017). In addition, meetings and discussion in the remote context become rather task-oriented and efficient. These findings are supported by Klebe et al. (2021), who confirm that task-focused communication increases within teams that face volatile and new work situations. While in the office there are many opportunities to chat about private matters apart from official meetings (e.g., encounters at the coffee machine, common lunch breaks or spontaneous chats on the floor), they do only exist to a very limited amount during WFH and need to be proactively initiated. During our interviews employees revealed that they rather disclose personal needs, emotions and health-oriented issues in exact these informal settings. Accordingly, leaders can barely recognize them during WFH which impedes particularly individualized consideration and health-oriented awareness.

In addition to the lack of social presence and informal conversation, the communication over digital media and technical problems (e.g., connection break downs, issues with software and updates) further challenge the feasibility of TFL and HOL. Leaders face especially difficulties when communication happens mainly over asynchronous media like e-mail or chat. According to the media richness theory (Daft and Lengel, 1986) these communication technologies do not include rich information like non-verbal cues and might rather lead to misunderstandings. In our study leaders reported that they find it difficult to display intellectual stimulation and develop creative thinking processes in a digital setting where they barely receive any feedback from followers in the form of eye contact, nodding or smiling. It might also happen that followers are thrown out of chats, that voices are distorted or that messages come in delated due to network problems (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000). These technical problems hinder a stable and rich conversation and might inhibit followers to proactively participate in discussions. Hogg and Reid (2006) confirm that the restrictions based on the digitalized communication make it difficult to socially connect, to communicate ideas and novel information and to assess if there is a common understanding. These and further technical problems therefore harm TFL and HOL.

During WFH the interpersonal relationships and ties between leaders and employees also affect TFL and HOL. Both leaders and employees feel less close to each other due to fewer interactions, less informal conversation, and increased task-orientation. A further reason for the detachment of leaders and followers is the lack of mutual trust and confidence during WFH. As some leaders do not trust their followers to work efficiently or at all from home, their bonding and perception of the leader as role model is impeded. Wang et al. (2020) confirm that in the remote setting it is difficult to assess the mood and emotions of others which hampers the formation of a strong bonding. As a strong relationship is also necessary for health disclosure in the workplace (Li and Lee, 2021), awareness decreases. It is worth highlighting, that leaders report that these experienced challenges regarding TFL and HOL apply stronger to new employees. If a strong tie and connection does already exist, challenges like lack of contact and informal discussions do not matter as much for the investigated leadership styles. Whereas regarding new employees, leaders feel more challenged and insecure to communicate effectively and convey motivation and enthusiasm. Purvanova and Bono (2009) support this finding by claiming that in the remote context leader need to increase their effort to create a strong bonding and relationship while in the office this evolves almost automatically by itself.

During WHF leaders experience that their influence on followers and control diminishes as there are fewer opportunities for monitoring (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000; Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). Therefore, leaders feel less responsible for their employees which affects particularly the HOL dimension value and behavior. Leaders stated that they cannot influence the working conditions or health behavior of their followers at home anyway. Hence, they shift the responsibility to their followers. They are rather asked to take care of themselves. Also, when challenges occur during work employees tend to feel left alone because their leader is less accessible. On the other side, the shift of responsibilities increases autonomy and independence of followers which supports the development of new competencies. They receive more opportunities to solve problems and make decisions on their own. The fact that personal responsibility and independence of employees grow goes along with previous literature suggesting that new leadership concepts like team leadership and self-leadership become more relevant in the remote setting (Kayworth and Leidner, 2000; Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Müller and Niessen, 2018).