Leadership in Environment and Workplace Contexts

#### **Chapter 7**

## Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust

*Joseph Crawford*

#### **Abstract**

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought forth substantial unrest in the ways in which people work and organize. This had led to disconnection, rapid adaptation, work from home, emergence of a new digital industry, and an opportunity to create anew. This chapter provides a position for the future state of work and organizing, drawing on the belongingness hypothesis, to characterize a revised method of human connection that acknowledges unique differences in online connections. It also explores the role that flexibility and working from home have on organizational outcomes, through changing presenteeism, changes in how people develop trust, and how social resources are deployed. Advancing an understanding of this position creates a possible post-pandemic model of work that acknowledges the current climate and the learnings from before that pandemic. Through genuine acknowledgment of the current and past ways of working, it is possible to build a pathway to heighten employee's sense of belonging and trust. This will support the return to, and evolution of, a form of normality post-pandemic.

**Keywords:** COVID-19, working from home, sense of belonging, flourishing, belongingness, connectivity

#### **1. Introduction**

The word "unprecedented" has perhaps been expressed across 2020–2021 more than any of our past years to describe the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, regardless of the discipline or context within which it is represented. The documented and theorized effects of the pandemic continue to emerge as we collectively seek to understand the uncertainty presented to contemporary conceptualizations of organization, work, work-life balance, and human flourishing. And rightly so, prior to 2020, scholars were exploring related concepts; yet these were exacerbated in their application.

For many, this was manifested in visual and physical forms first. The empty streets of lockdown as a society worked from home, the global toilet paper exodus [1] face masks "fiascos" [2], World Health Organization compliant alcohol-based hand sanitizer at every café, and check-in apps and clipboards on each entrance. Each of these pandemic artifacts offers a symptomatic view of how the world operates and operated across 2020–2022. While many of these will become part of comedy skits and long-term legend for future generations, these will likely be

archived to history books rather than become business-as-usual in ordinary life. Importantly, and notwithstanding, the pandemic has not operated inside a vacuum; technological innovation, climate change, and inequity are also shaping the future of work.

The contemporary workplace upheaval during early 2020 has had a significant effect on attitudes, appetite, and perception of work and organizations. If contextualized within the last 100 years of work and organization, the post-pandemic nexus offers a new and important turn of our understanding of work and its product(s). The late nineteenth century industrialist philosophy of work suggested that for work to be completed, it is done by industry with minimal governmental intervention (e.g., Laissez-Faire capitalism). The industrialist emphasizes the strength of the individual and their resilience (rugged individualism) and deployment of a survival of the fittest mentality (social Darwinism). Added, division of labor, specialization, positional power [3], the rise of charismatic authority [4, 5], and the growth of scientific inquiry [6] emerged as a modernist pursuit for effective and efficient organizational structures. In response, the postmodernist problematized the dehumanized organization to theorize connected workforces rather than alienated or estranged, with an acknowledgment that informal daily lives and lived experiences were also important. This transition was an important signpost in understanding how humans interact and organize for the purposes of *work*.

Skipping forward to pre-pandemic 2019 where much of the work and the organizational landscape was situated in competing sides of the modernist bureaucratic organization and *still* emergent postmodern post-bureaucratic organization. These tensions gave rise to large scale enterprises embedding activities of meaning, often formulaically, into their bureaucratic organizations: employee assistance programs constrained by fixed numbers of free appointments, workload models to support balance that typically fails to recognize implicit roles, free gym memberships with low uptake, renaming our human resources departments to *People and Wellbeing*, and a mental health and behavior policies with arduous hurdles to reporting and responding. While the workplace of today is far from only these catastrophized examples, they highlight the ongoing challenge of balancing the aim to support workplace-directed human flourishing in a rather complex world.

The pandemic created a catalytic event that has infected every corner of business and organizational practices. It has offered a radical change to the nature of work, with much of the rapid responses focusing on back-of-the-napkin redefined continuity over carefully considered strategy for work productivity. The result has been a multi-year international pilot study on new ways of work, learning, and living characterized by flexibility, agility, continuity, and wellbeing (at times) [7]. Yet, do these work principles remain when the world resumes? Has the pilot created a successful environment for future work? Is the post-pandemic landscape the intervention activity required for scholars to create new ways of working, much like Luthans [8] argued for in the need for positive organizational behavior in the early 2000s.

In the same domain, Avolio and colleagues [9] began a discussion on the e-leader, and later updated its definition to highlight that e-leadership is:

*"A social influence process embedded in both proximal and distal contexts mediated by AIT that can produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and performance" [10].*

Indeed, e-leadership has evolved since 2014, and has likely been accelerated and exacerbated in its use during and beyond the pandemic context. The context was seen as a particularly important conceptual addition between 2001 and 2014 [10], and this chapter seeks to prioritize this conceptual exploration.

#### *Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102055*

In this chapter, I advance a position on the future state of work and organizing beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and do so through a theoretical lens of belongingness [11]. The pandemic literature has yet to progress towards clear theoretical positions on post-pandemic work. I will argue that through the sustained human need to belong, we can better understand how working from home, forms of work-based connectivity and technology, and emotional labor and wellbeing can inform the desired future work context. The positioned end-state is informed from a perspective of positive organizational scholarship, and the human pursuit of flourishing at work.

To advance this position, I begin with a theoretical framework that describes belongingness and the belongingness hypothesis. Following, I describe and justify the critical review approach taken, and continue to discuss connectivity, working from home, and future work redesign. The aim of these sections is to connect an understanding of what leaders can do to better understand and support their followers and staff as work begins to resume. Developing a leader's sense of context is a critical component that underpins diverse conceptualizations of leadership effectiveness [12, 13].

#### **2. Theoretical framework**

The belongingness hypothesis argues that humans have a "need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships" [11]. Indeed, this hypothesis follows two criteria: a few frequent affectively positive interactions; and the interaction being sustained in a temporally stable mutual affective concern for wellbeing. Belonging, from one perspective, should be analyzed from three lenses: social and economic locations, identifications and emotional attachments, and ethical and political values [14]. In an individual's need to belong, and to become a person who "belongs," they seek intrapersonal and interpersonal attachments to membership, identity, origin, beliefs, and social or economic position. Interestingly, Yuval-Davis laments that the politics of belonging can pose socially constructed boundaries within which a normative person can feel they belong [14].

To provide an example, a person performatively articulates their sense of belonging, "I'm a coffee person" and the social and economic context may moderate their comfort in feeling they can belong to this group. This comment may garner respect among colleagues in the work lunchroom, as the majority likely share of their membership to this group. But such discussions may turn political if followed with "I love kopi luwak," the most expensive and ethically questionable coffee bean. Kopi luwak is the practice of a civit (a catlike creature) partially digesting coffee beans to remove the acidity. This may begin a conversation of competing attachments to ethical values or personal constitution. By this, individual's ability to feel they belong to particular groups may be promoted by socially constructed ideas of being and alienated away from socially unappealing ideals. While established standards for how belonging might occur within existing workplace settings exist (e.g., the post-meeting water cooler conversations), the hybrid digital and face-to-face work environment is driven by pandemic-based lockdowns could reinvent some of these practices.

To extend, existing identities can create a sense of belongingness uncertainty. In one study, students were led to believe they would have few friends in their intellectual domain. White students were unaffected, black students saw a reduced sense of belonging. In a follow-up on mitigating doubts, a shared intervention raised the academic success of black students, but not white [15]. Belongingness uncertainty, as I discuss throughout, is likely to be an unconscious factor that will challenge the extent to which employees may attach themselves and their "worker" identity to

their physical workplaces, their home office, or somewhere else. As organizations return to work, there will be a need to consider how employees make sense of their redefined attachment to their colleagues, and to their workplaces.

A focus on understanding and cultivating the human sense of belonging has occurred in education [7, 16], politics [14], and psychology [15]. In this research, I focus on applying aggregate team-level belongingness as a key theoretical foundation for understanding the future design of work. If the belongingness hypothesis [11] holds true, then an individual's feel a sense of belonging to their interpersonal workplace relationships and their sense of individual workplace identity will form a core foundation for how they engage or reengage with work and their organization.

#### **3. Method**

This research adopts a critical review method to advance an understanding of the future state of work and organizing beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and do so through a theoretical lens of belongingness. I modeled this work on one of the most significant critical reviews in the field [17]. The focus of this chapter is on creating a clear understanding of how leaders can understand the contextual conditions affecting staff and followers' sense of belonging. While systematic and metanalytic reviews are typically more rigorous, they require an established domain of literature. This chapter focuses on literature and practice that while may have some roots in existing scholarly works, is situated in a context that is largely unknown. Sense of belonging has had a limited discussion in the pandemic literature [7], yet within a future post-pandemic state of work, it requires a critical lens. This critical lens that I apply is focused on examining how existing literature can be synthesized to create a better understanding of the future of work. This remains one of the greatest challenges for post-pandemic leaders.

#### **4. Discussion**

#### **4.1 Connectivity**

Mutually effective human relationships are a key foundation for a sense of belonging. Prior to the pandemic, work was a common place to meet future friends. However, these relationships tended to have mixed effects on individual wellbeing and workplace performance. While work friendships created higher productivity through trust, creativity, and satisfaction [18], there is also a dark side [19, 20]. These informal social structures, while difficult to adequately capture, likely generate an indirect attachment to workplaces. The morning group coffee, expression of individual-level organizational citizenship behavior on late-night overtime, and establishment of communal norms support individuals to be connected to their peers and their work.

In the early modernist workplace, friendships were likely formed through mutual self-disclosure [21] and perceived similarity [22]. This likely took place in overtime work meetings, the "knock-off drinks," and the indirect or direct benefits attached to physical and proximal workplace connections (e.g., preferential application of existing rules [21]). Contemporary technologies affect this. In one study, social proof (e.g., mutual group membership or group identification) was a central decision rule for when individuals "accept" an online friend request from a person they do not know on Facebook [23]. Yet, there is scant evidence for how digital ways of working affect individual connections in workplaces. Initial pandemic evidence

#### *Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102055*

highlights the shift to working from home created higher rates of loneliness, depression, and suicidal ideation [24]. If working from home is poised as a staple in the return, the effect on those employees beginning their career, or with low social supports, may see the greatest risk.

If the return to work includes heightened face-to-face time, it could include elements of social hypochondria, suspicion, and distrust. The return to work arrived with emotional vulnerability for those who are returning, it may also create forms of in/out-group dynamics with those who were employed pre-pandemic and those new employees. New employees will have only engaged with their peers in limited face-to-face capacity; in parts of the world with large-scale lockdowns, perhaps not at all. Arslan found, however, that perceived belongingness to an organization tended to curve individual effects on loneliness [25]. Effective belongingness approaches therefore may engender a more supportive return climate.

In a review of e-leadership [10], a focus on individual, dyadic, and group level leadership was considered. Importantly, a perspective of affective, cognitive, and behavioral attitudes was applied to understanding how e-leadership exists across multiple groups. Connections as the dyadic level are enabled through leaders supporting haptic and emotional recognition and response drivers [26].

The informal organization is an environment by which individuals organize by self-defined means, often within the confines of formal organizational boundaries. This can take shape in the form of social group outings, the selective Secret Santa the boss did not organize, or weekend getaways. As discussed, workplace friendships can create such informality, but also be a place where work is discussed and decided in the absence of full consultation. These environments will likely be more complex when human connectivity is based on primarily digital interactions. In one study, the Sunflower Movement tended to use social media for its promotional activities rather than networking [27], with an assumption that such networking likely took place in offline environments. The proposition proposed by Metaverse rebranding (Facebook parent company) also suggests growing supply-driven movements within the online social landscapes. In a primarily online workplace, therefore, individuals are likely to make their friendships outside of work or sustain workplace relationships with peers they can meet in person.

Likewise, in hybrid workplaces, it will likely be those best equipped for work (e.g., social, or economic resources) that will be able to make more informal connections through physical proximity. Observational mobile phone data was found to predict 95% of friendship dyads based on their extra-role behaviors (e.g., proximity outside of work hours [28]). These relationships may have formed during work hours; however, they appear to be sustained through out-of-hours social activity. This speaks to suggest that despite potential pursuits of organizations to establish positive social relationships among workers, their role may largely be in generating a spark rather than fanning the flame. An understanding such as this creates optimism among some cynical data on the future of work embedded in the online. It offers assurance that with the right forms of organizational connection, that strong interpersonal bonds may remain possible within work teams.

For leaders to facilitate a connection in purely online and hybrid work environments, effort needs to go to examining the ways organizations facilitate work meetand-greets. Lambert et al. [29] highlight that across multiple contexts, individuals who were primed with a sense of belonging, social support, or social value had heightened levels of perceived meaningfulness. Organizations therefore may not see the same value they once saw in the casual morning teas in the office and need to be more creative in their approaches to generating social goodwill between their employees.

#### **4.2 Working from home**

Working from home is not a new concept, but perhaps its current and prospective application during and beyond the pandemic offers novelty. While working from home was often seen, stylized, and reserved for graphic designers and their MacBook in cafes, cultural norms surrounding working from home are beginning to evolve. The literature is also proliferating in recent years on the topic. Google Scholar reports 20,500 results for "working from home" between 2020 and November 2021. Contrast this to 2000–2019 (16,900 results), and pre-2000 (2520 results). While some evidence argues that previous resistance provides a precedent that the working from home reality will not occur as a "new normal" [30], others argue its benefits [31].

Organizational change literature often discusses iterative changes [32], where changes often evolve over time. For working from home individuals, the likely resistance to return to a regimented and rigid environment, any iterative return to hybrid or fully onsite work may lead to resistance. Indeed, while some individual differences characterized the likelihood of voluntary flexible work designs [33], employees who have engaged in working from home have higher rates of positivity towards the flexible work arrangements [34]. This may speak to adoption models whereby broad acceptance may not always emerge until innovators and early adopters have sustained engagement with the "new" way of working. The design of flexible working from home environments however require careful consideration, as I will go on to discuss.

To provide an example from the working from home scholarship, I present unique differences in our understanding in pre-and during-pandemic environments. Working from home experiment at the NASDAQ-listed travel agency Ctrip (*n* = 249, [31]), identified a 13% increase in performance, with 9% from working more minutes per shift (e.g., less sick leave and fewer breaks), and 4% to call efficiency (e.g., quieter environment shortening call durations). Yet, despite higher employee satisfaction and retention, performance-based promotion rates declined by 50%. Compare this case study to 2020, a working paper surveying 30,000 U.S. workers argue a move from 5to 20% of work time being conducted from home, with an implied 5% gain in productivity in a post-pandemic environment [35].

To explore some of the potential pitfalls of the limited understanding of working from home, the use of existing primarily digital tools may be used as a parallel. In more established online transitions, the Tinder Revolution can be drawn on to understand how we move key components of our lives online. Emergent evidence on online dating indicates 18–25% of Tinder users were in committed relationships, and that these individuals tended to have more casual sexual behavior [36]. Likewise, compulsive use of the app tended to create worse outcomes for individual wellbeing [37]. The progression online during the pandemic likely had similar effects to employee wellbeing: a key focus of effective leaders. Yet, the context still only represents inertia with rapid change. New ways of working, that leverage online connectivity, may require adaption of existing resource deployment to support a technologically connected and physically disconnected workplace. Importantly, the diminished trustworthiness of some in the online dating environment may point to a greater need for training that supports positive character, virtue, and ethical leadership [38, 39]. Leaders build environments that enable commitment, yet if online environments have reduced psychological attachment to existing commitments for employees (or followers), the existing leader and organizational commitment relationships [40] may not as easily apply to the digital context.

#### *Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102055*

This is salient with arguments that while it may be easier to lie online, issue moral intensity may change the outcome [41]. For virtue-based organizational scholarship [42], a focus on doing something for its inherent good may also be a factor, as opposed to consequentialist perspectives that focus on the potential outcome of the lie. The prospective dark side of working from home will be the reduced moral threshold that individuals – without effectively cultivated moral identities – require to make an unethical decision. In practice, a dyad member may find it much easier to "ghost" an individual when their pair is only visible through digital means than if they were next-door neighbors, had adjacent work offices, or shared a favorite morning coffee routine. While the focus of this chapter was not on leaders, dark side leadership [43] will still have the capacity to take place in online environments.

Returning to how working from home may change the way individuals work, Brown et al. identify that technology used for communication, can satisfy the need to belong, but it tends to follow suite with a higher interest in physical interaction [44]. This means that telework models have the propensity to be successful in cultivating human flourishing, but by different means. An individual pivot may be required, and the visibility of home environments (e.g., Zoom backgrounds) may capture unique vulnerabilities. Likewise, the use of artificial video backgrounds or accessing video conferencing without cameras on can create perceived challenges to inclusion or honesty. Meaningful affective relationships tend to form through mutual disclosure, and where digital barriers are established, these environments may be less conducive to productive and high-quality relationship formation. This may especially be true of early-career or low financial resource professionals without adequate space for a dedicated office at home. For e-leaders, there will be changes needed to enable a focus on understanding how leader and follower authenticity changes with self-disclosure [10, 45].

Interestingly, and notwithstanding, is a question of absenteeism and presenteeism. In a study of 25,465 European workers, there was heightened sickness-based presenteeism [46]. This was highest in individuals who teleworked daily and several times a week, contrasted to those less often and never teleworking. For this, employees who were sick attended work more frequently when this was able to be home-based work. The reduced barriers (infection risk, travel, work attire) may have supplemented this, yet it can lead to self-exploitation. Critically, individuals who have trust-based working time tended to self-report higher presenteeism than those with fixed schedules [47]. The potential normalization also creates risks within the working from home environment. On one side, employee monitoring can be deployed to assure productivity, yet much of the theoretical evidence is inconclusive as to the benefits and costs [48, 49]. Yet, where there are home environments involved that employees do not wish to show their Zoom background for, it is quite likely that a decision to implement monitoring in home offices would cause controversy. These vulnerabilities may create pause for followers as they seek to engage effectively with their managers and leaders. Instead, there perhaps is a required need to support effective and flexible workplaces, there may be a need to support high-quality character building as a safeguard against employee deceit; such an approach has greater potential for long-term success than rigid policies. Leaders are, at least in part, measured on their capacity to enable organizational outcomes and absenteeism and presenteeism can create an impediment to such achievement. Leaders have a direct effect on absenteeism, particularly ethical leaders [39]. However, the online environment will make responsiveness to absenteeism and presenteeism less visible (e.g., an empty office versus staff in a blank Zoom meeting room).

#### **4.3 Redesign of work**

The third pillar characterizing new forms of work is redesign. In this, there is a need to examine workflow from a new model. This may seem intuitively salient, yet it is not how much of the pandemic response looked like. In the immediate response, there was sustained evidence of an adapt-to-survive mentality. For some organizations, this was taking a seemingly always face-to-face service and delivering these digitally. These ranged from telehealth consultations using Zoom [49], university curriculums being digitalized [50], to boutique restaurants delivering high-end takeaway [51]. These models have created a form of continuity during uncertainty, yet they also likely contain practices that are yet to be effectively assessed for quality. Indeed, while online education may be possible to enable quality outcomes, online education that is simply recorded versions of face-to-face content is likely lower in quality.

Currently, many sector leaders are innovating new business products and services to support their financial viability; yet, when the pandemic ends, what of those things will remain in their existing form? Indeed, it may be their temporal relevance that supports their profitability or their embeddedness in current work. Whereas Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and similar offer high quality and increasingly popular products, what form do these take in an organization that chooses to have only face-to-face meetings? Or how do organizations move to adapt to hybrid meetings where such products and their rooms are not equipped for adaptive user experiences. This limited example offers important insight – whereas some pandemic-produced products and services may sustain, others may be immediately irrelevant, or require rapid innovation.

In the redesign of work too, is a need to reflect on the changing leader-follower and peer-to-peer power dynamics and organizational cultures that existed during the lockdown periods. While full videoconference meetings have varied perspectives of equity [52], there are invariably challenges that will emerge in an environment where some participants attend by videoconference and others attend in person. This will likely be exacerbated by situations where there is a limited number of participants online, and the majority in person. Such satellite meeting situations can create an environment that preferences those in the room (i.e., ignoring the screen), the person on Zoom (i.e., overemphasized interactions from online participants), but rarely balance participation. In leader-member exchange, the emergence of in- and out-groups is common when leaders prioritize their time with those, they have stronger affective relationships with [53]. When mutually affective relationships are considered, leaders may have better employment relationships with those they can see informally more easily (e.g., in-person) [54]. Leader-follower dynamics that exist in temporally consistent but spatially inconsistent locations will be challenging. Organizational politics is likely to add to that complexity [55]. The potential to create an inequitable scenario does require an address.

Many of the assumptions so far have focused on a return-state environment; that is, one where employees employed before the pandemic are returning in some way. This is unlikely to be true, however, with many employees never having met their colleagues in a face-to-face environment yet. In socialization resources theory, identification of resources required for new employees to be successful in their adjustment and socialization is critical for their role longevity [56]. In a return environment, existing employees will return to a different environment than they left in; and this may require adjustment support. However, those individuals who may be entering the physical workplace for the first time will have an unpredictable set of needs and wants to be associated with their acclimatization with geographically specific work conditions. According to Feldman's model of organizational

#### *Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102055*

socialization, there are three stages: anticipatory socialization, accommodation, and role definition [57]. Some employees may have been initiated to their tasks and adapt to them (stage one), completed initiations and been accepted in (stage two), and have an established work-life balance (stage three). Yet, when they move from distance to face-to-face, some of these elements will require re-socialization. Where an employee may have once started work "late" and finished "early," they may now need to factor in a train ride causing a stage three reset.

Indeed, the redesign of work may also be an opportunity for a critical review of the existing and residual workplace structures that existed during the modernist pursuit for order. Some of these elements (e.g., fixed timesheets, specializationbased job design, and neat corporate hierarchies) could be assessed for their relative value to the contemporary workforce. If the worker now operates more flexibly, perhaps roles should follow outcomes rather than hours completed. Likewise, if informal organizations provide enormous influence in the formal structure, then should the role they play also be more effectively acknowledged and moderated. Are there ways that positive emotions can be embedded into organizational life [58] to create conditions for human flourishing? Are the organizational constraints actually hindering productivity as much as enabling it? This too, when built on a foundation of belonging also seeks to ask how this might be possible through high quality mutually affective relationships at work.

#### **5. Conclusions**

#### **5.1 Theoretical contributions**

This chapter focused on the application of the belongingness hypothesis to the future post-pandemic landscape. Leadership theory will be challenged by being conceptually adaptive within the new context, examining what concepts from the broader domain of leadership still holds true when conventional physical proximity changes. Indeed, leader distance has been studied [59, 60] and offers conceptual ambiguity when physical distance is both near and far. Early twenty-first century studies articulate that leader-follower physical distance affects performance [60, 61], this research extended to pose new questions surrounding hybrid environments where a leader has mixed proximal distance from their followers.

Additionally, in presenting the belongingness hypothesis in the post-pandemic organization, there is an opportunity for scholars to begin to better understand how leader-follower dyads are formed and maintained when the environmental conditions are not "traditional." That is, when leaders and followers are: i) sometimes face-to-face and sometimes online (e.g., hybrid); ii) always online (e.g., distance work); and iii) rarely face-to-face (e.g., attending annual events only). The chapter poses questions about the future climate of leadership and invites scholars to continue to examine how leader effectiveness may be enabled in increasingly.

#### **5.2 Practical contributions**

There are numerous practical contributions offered in this chapter. Leaders must suspend some of their pre-existing assumptions established in the pre-pandemic environment. While the primary brunt of the pandemic will only last a few years, the rapid digitalization and workforce change observed over this time has likely affected ongoing attitudes towards work. Followers will have different perceptions about the value of attending a physical workplace, and productivity and work teams will be affected as a result. This chapter articulates that effective leaders will need

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

to seek out new environmental conditions to enable their teams to be effective. One way is to enable high-performing teams is through building ongoing and sustained relationships that are built on mutual affective concern for each other's wellbeing. From a practical perspective, this could include establishing replacements for the previous on-campus activities.

#### **5.3 Conclusion**

This chapter offered a position on the future state of work and organizing beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. I did this by applying the lens of the belongingness hypothesis. That is, what value is created and what challenges emerge in the current state of work when viewed from a perspective of interpersonal belonging? Within this chapter, connectivity was described as a key challenge. Physical proximity to others supports sustained relationships, and individual assumptions about the relative value of the work contexts in forming meaningful relationships may also offer complexity. Likewise, the influence that digital technologies had on perspectives of working from home was also discussed. The hybrid and flexibility models of work can create inequities within enterprises through inconsistent applications of rules, technologies, and different baselines of moral character. Finally, this chapter discussed how the redesign of work affected future productivity and work-life balance. As the return-state begins, there will be a diverse range of individuals at staggering levels of socialization, and managers may find it difficult to adequately monitor those socialization journeys. This chapter offers a position of hope though, as the potential for humans to build a more enriching and fulfilling workplace may be enabled through support flexibility, but not without appropriate boundaries for working.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Joseph Crawford University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia

\*Address all correspondence to: joseph.crawford@utas.edu.au

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102055*

#### **References**

[1] Paul SK, Chowdhury P. Strategies for managing the impacts of disruptions during COVID-19: An example of toilet paper. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 2020;**21**(3): 283-293

[2] Kefalaki M, Rudolph J, Tan S, Diamantidaki F. Face masks in education: The cases of Greece and Singapore. Thesis. 2021;**10**(1):3-42

[3] Durkheim E. The division of labor in society. Published Dissertation. Translated by G. Simpson. United States of America: Free Press of Glenco, Illinois; 1960

[4] Conger JA. Max Weber's conceptualization of charismatic authority: Its influence on organizational research. The Leadership Quarterly. 1993;**4**(3-4):277-288

[5] Weber M. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2013

[6] Taylor FW. Scientific Management: Reply from Mr. FW Taylor. The Sociological Review. 1914;**7**(3):266-269

[7] Tice D, Baumeister R, Crawford J, Allen KA, Percy A. Student belongingness in higher education: Lessons for professors from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2021;**18**(4):2

[8] Luthans F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002;**23**(6):695-706

[9] Avolio BJ, Kahai S, Dodge GE. E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly. 2000;**11**(4):615-668

[10] Avolio BJ, Sosik JJ, Kahai SS, Baker B. E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly. 2014;**25**(1):105-131

[11] Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;**117**(3):497

[12] Antonakis J, Avolio BJ, Sivasubramaniam N. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly. 2003;**14**(3):261-295

[13] Hannah ST, Uhl-Bien M, Avolio BJ, Cavarretta FL. A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009;**20**(6):897-919

[14] Yuval-Davis N. Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of prejudice. 2006;**40**(3):197-214

[15] Walton GM, Cohen GL. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;**92**(1):82

[16] Allen K, Kern ML, Vella-Brodrick D, Hattie J, Waters L. What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2018;**30**(1):1-34

[17] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;**88**(5):879

[18] Sias PM, Gallagher EB, Kopaneva I, Pedersen H. Maintaining workplace friendships: Perceived politeness and predictors of maintenance tactic choice. Communication Research. 2012;**39**(2): 239-268

[19] Methot JR, Lepine JA, Podsakoff NP, Christian JS. Are workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multiplex relationships and their associations with job performance. Personnel Psychology. 2016;**69**(2): 311-355

[20] Pillemer J, Rothbard NP. Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review. 2018;**43**(4):635-660

[21] Derfler-Rozin R, Sherf EN, Chen G. To be or not to be consistent? The role of friendship and group-targeted perspective in managers' allocation decisions. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2021;**42**(6):814-833

[22] Byrne D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961;**62**(3):713

[23] Belentschikow V, Pfeffel K, Müller NH. Making friends on Facebook: Common group membership as a central decision rule. Computers in Human Behavior. 2022;**126**:107040

[24] Killgore WD, Cloonan SA, Taylor EC, Miller MA, Dailey NS. Three months of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown. Psychiatry Research. 2020;**293**:113392

[25] Arslan G. Loneliness, college belongingness, subjective vitality, and psychological adjustment during coronavirus pandemic: Development of the college belongingness questionnaire. Journal of Positive School Psychology. 2021;**5**(1):17-31

[26] MacLean KE. Haptic interaction design for everyday interfaces. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 2008;**4**(1):149-194

[27] Tsatsou P. Social media and informal organisation of citizen activism: Lessons from the use of Facebook in the sunflower movement. Social Media+ Society. 2018;**4**(1): 2056305117751384

[28] Eagle N, Pentland AS, Lazer D. Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;**106**(36):15274-15278

[29] Lambert NM, Stillman TF, Hicks JA, Kamble S, Baumeister RF, Fincham FD. To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2013;**39**(11):1418-1427

[30] Williamson S, Colley L, Hanna-Osborne S. Will working from home become the 'new normal' in the public sector? Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2020;**79**(4): 601-607

[31] Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2015;**130**(1):165-218

[32] Rosenbaum D, More E, Steane P. Planned organisational change management: Forward to the past? An exploratory literature review. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2018;**31**(2):286-303

[33] Lambert AD, Marler JH, Gueutal HG. Individual differences: Factors affecting employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2008;**73**(1):107-117

[34] Giannikis SK, Mihail DM. Flexible work arrangements in Greece: A study of employee perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2011;**22**(02): 417-432

[35] Barerro J, Bloom N, Davis S. Why working from home will stick. Working *Defining Post-Pandemic Work and Organizations: The Need for Team Belongingness and Trust DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102055*

Paper 28731. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series. 2021. Available from: https:// www.nber.org/system/files/working\_ papers/w28731/w28731.pdf

[36] Timmermans E, De Caluwe E, Alexopoulos C. Why are you cheating on tinder? Exploring users' motives and (dark) personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018;**89**:129-139

[37] Her YC, Timmermans E. Tinder blue, mental flu? Exploring the associations between tinder use and well-being. Information, Communication and Society. 2021;**24**(9):1303-1319

[38] Newstead T, Dawkins S, Macklin R, Martin A. The virtues project: An approach to developing good leaders. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020;**167**(4): 605-622

[39] Hassan S, Wright BE, Yukl G. Does ethical leadership matter in government? Effects on organizational commitment, absenteeism, and willingness to report ethical problems. Public Administration Review. 2014;**74**(3):333-343

[40] Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, Neves P, Becker TE, Gonzalez-Morales MG, et al. Leader– member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied psychology. 2010;**95**(6):1085

[41] Logsdon JM, Patterson KD. Deception in business networks: Is it easier to lie online? Journal of Business Ethics. 2009;**90**(4):537-549

[42] Newstead T. Being explicit about virtues: Analysing TED talks and integrating scholarship to advance virtues-based leadership development. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021:1-19

[43] Liu D, Liao H, Loi R. The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of management journal. 2012;**55**(5):1187-1212

[44] Brown M, Young SG, Sacco DF. Competing motives in a pandemic: Interplays between fundamental social motives and technology use in predicting (non) compliance with social distancing guidelines. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;**106892**

[45] Klotz AC, Buckley MR. A historical perspective of counterproductive work behavior targeting the organization. Journal of Management History. 2013;**4**

[46] Steidelmüller C, Meyer SC, Müller G. Home-based telework and presenteeism across Europe. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2020;**62**(12):998

[47] Ball K. Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History. 2010;**51**(1): 87-106

[48] Martin K, Freeman RE. Some problems with employee monitoring. Journal of Business Ethics. 2003;**43**(4): 353-361

[49] Monaghesh E, Hajizadeh A. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: A systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health. 2020;**20**(1):1-9

[50] Crawford J, Butler-Henderson K, Rudolph J, Malkawi B, Glowatz M, Burton R, et al. COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 2020;**3**(1):1-20

[51] Kostromitina M, Keller D, Cavusoglu M, Beloin K. "His lack of a mask ruined everything." Restaurant customer satisfaction during the COVID-19 outbreak: An analysis of Yelp review texts and star-ratings. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2021;**98**:103048

[52] Tienken CH. The not so subtle inequity of remote learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 2020;**56**(4):151-153

[53] Cropanzano R, Dasborough MT, Weiss HM. Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review. 2017;**42**(2):233-258

[54] Audenaert M, Vanderstraeten A, Buyens D. When affective well-being is empowered: The joint role of leadermember exchange and the employment relationship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2017;**28**(15):2208-2227

[55] Kimura T. The moderating effects of political skill and leader–member exchange on the relationship between organizational politics and affective commitment. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013;**116**(3):587-599

[56] Saks AM, Gruman JA. Getting newcomers on board: A review of socialization practices and introduction to socialization resources theory. In: The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization. 2012. pp. 27-55

[57] Feldman DC. The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review. 1981;**6**(2):309-318

[58] Fredrickson BL, Losada MF. Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist. 2005;**60**(7):678

[59] Antonakis J, Atwater L. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002;**13**(6):673-704

[60] Howell JM, Neufeld DJ, Avolio BJ. Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005;**16**(2): 273-285

[61] Meirovich G, Goswami A. Psychosocial and Tangible Distance Between a Leader and a Follower: The Impact on Dyadic Relations. Journal of Leadership Studies. 2021;**14**(4):6-20

#### **Chapter 8**

## Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace?

*Anurag Mishra*

### **Abstract**

Organization is a group of people who are joining together to perform specific tasks. Every organization has a different set of policies and practices which an individual needs to follow. An organization includes teams and team members who have to perform specific tasks on a daily basis. People have to perform their work by proper communication, trust and integrity. Due to lack of these three attributes, conflicts arise among the team members which cause the conditions of anxiety, depression, anger and mood variation, improper response to top management, counter productivity and errors in tasks performance. To overcome such a situation, there is a need for an appropriate style of leadership which can help teams to perform well. The performance of a team depends upon the nature of leadership styles. The kind of leadership style adopted by leaders is sometimes not appropriate completely. To apply appropriate leadership in a particular situation, there is a need to be emotionally intelligent at the workplace. I would like to build a proper relationship between how the traits of Emotional Intelligence will influence positively on the leadership efficiency in organizations. Key findings of the study have focused on the impact of emotional intelligence on organizational growth. The given model has recommended that people with high emotional intelligence can build effective communication, trust and integrity in a team. The attempt has also been made to build a relationship between emotional intelligence and the nature of leadership styles to be adopted in organizations. The finding suggested that transformational style of leadership should be encouraged in an organization. The study of the mentioned topic will help in understanding individual and collective behavior and its effect on the quality of work.

**Keywords:** Leadership, Emotional Intelligence, Trust, Integrity, Communication

#### **1. Introduction**

In the current scenario, due to rapidly changing technology, organizations need to work on those areas which can provide them an edge over others at the workplace. Within an organization, team members have people with different sets of perceptions and personalities. The complexity of tasks and newer technologies have made organizations adapt to new ways of building and maintaining relationships to accomplish organizational goals. Along with the task at hand, there are feelings and emotions of employees that play a major role in building relationships. How to manage those relationships? What are the best practices to be used in organizations to build those relationships between seniors and subordinates? How to build those relationships for a longer time? These are the major challenges.

To overcome such challenges, there is a need for an adequate style of leadership practices. The proper leadership style can mobilize the team and influence the team members. Leadership can help to build confidence, provide direction to employees, increase motivation and improve efficiency of the employees. A good leadership style can provide job satisfaction, hope and optimism. A good leader can bring out the best abilities of the team members for achieving shared goals. A good leadership style can come by enhancing the level of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is the ability of understanding the feelings and emotions of ourselves and at the same time of the people around us. The capability of understanding emotions and control of emotions can make leaders successful in the organizations. Being able to handle emotions makes it less stressful when we deal with others. A team's emotional intelligence is related to inter-team conflict management and effectiveness of the team. In the cross-sectional study of five south Korean companies: Banking, Investment, Health care, Information technology, and Pharmaceutical industries, results stated that there is a significant relationship between Emotional intelligence and task conflict management [1].

Team leader's emotional intelligence has a positive effect on team's emotional intelligence. The capability of dealing with emotional ups and downs is a powerful asset for building and maintaining relationships. Emotional intelligence is a significant predictor of positive leadership outcomes. This in turn can help in the building good client relationships and business growth for an organization. Emotional intelligence is associated with leadership which can bring effective business outcomes [2].

Emotional intelligence can bring positive business, improve team work, customer service and manage diversity [3]. It is also helpful in recruitment, selection, training and development process at managerial level [4].

Positive emotions such as happiness, joy, hope and enthusiasm have a positive impact on the growth of an organization whereas negative emotions such as anger, disgust, jealousy and frustration brings negativity in an organization. Leaders need to handle their emotions based on the situation. Being emotionally intelligent can help in management of interpersonal relationships within the organizations. Leaders can be more competent in their day to day activities by being aware of the emotional states of people around them. As per previous studies, leaders having low levels of emotional intelligence have difficulty in building good relationships with peers, subordinates and superiors. However, leaders with strong minds can understand others as well and develop better working abilities. The positive leaders emotions bring positive outcomes whereas negative leaders emotions bring negative outcomes [5, 6].

The contemporary study, have attempted to measure the relationship between EI and organizational performance. The results stated that self-awareness, selfmanagement and awareness of others have significant impact on organizational performance [7]. However the study have recommended the future research on role of leadership styles in organization performance. Emotional intelligence is a helpful tool for conflict management, organizational commitment, team effectiveness and task performance. The study also emphasizes cross cultural transportability of EI which needs to be explored [8].

In another study it has been emphasis that employees performance is dependent upon the emotional intelligence, organization culture and adapted leadership style. However which leadership style to be adopted is the question? [9]. Emotional intelligence works as a mediating variable between leadership and organizational

#### *Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

commitment. Emotional intelligence leaders can motivate workers to achieve organizations goals [10]. The study among academic leaders have measured the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational style of leadership. Findings states that direct association between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership [11].

The above studies made an attempt to build a relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership within organizations. Many of the previous theories and studies have looked into the role of emotional intelligence and its positive impact on certain leadership styles in an organization. Researchers have tested and developed models of emotional intelligence for effectiveness of leadership in an organization.

However, there has not been much attention given to find out the association between emotional intelligence and leadership through the variables of trust, integrity and communication. The current study is an attempt to fulfill this gap by adopting these three major components to create an understanding whether the organizations need an emotionally intelligent leadership at the workplace?

Leadership and emotional intelligence are interrelated to each other. The current chapter is going to provide the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership styles. Also how much do the organizations require to adapt the practices of emotional intelligence to be successful? It is going to address the importance of emotional intelligence within organizations. It will also focus on the styles of leadership which organizations should adopt. By presenting the theories on emotional intelligence and leadership styles, the primary focus has been given to a proposed model that defines the relationship between the two with an emphasis on three major variables of trust, integrity and effective communication. The underlying issues in an organization have been addressed along with suitable suggestions and practical implications.

#### **2. Emotional intelligence**

The current changing trends and globalization have raised the level of competitiveness among the organizations. The success of any organization depends upon the maturity level and job performance of employees. The level of maturity is based upon the level of emotional intelligence.

#### **2.1 Mayer and Salovey model**

Mayer and Salovey defined Emotional Intelligence (El) as "the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions"([12], p. 189). Emotional intelligence is the understanding and management of emotions in appropriate manner to respond consciously and make others comfortable at work.

According to Salovey and Mayer "emotional intelligence as the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" ([13], pg. 5). As per above definitions we can conclude that our own feelings guide intrapersonal skills that include how to conduct oneself, Selfmotivation, Inner self control and interpersonal skills which include interaction with other people in a society or in an organization. Emotional Intelligence involves the ability to monitor others moods, emotions and temperaments along with recognition of one's own emotions for solving work related problems. Emotional intelligence can provide a better understanding in the working environment.

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

Further, in the year 1997, Mayer and Salovey proposed the ability based model of emotional intelligence which has been called the cognitive based model of emotional intelligence. This model has been divided into four branches known as the Four branch model" [14].

The model contains four parts:


Furthermore, Mayer et al. model was purely based on cognitive ability of an individual. It provided knowledge about our inner feelings and thoughts and the capability of understanding relationships based on shift of emotions. Leaders who have higher ability to regulate their emotions are appraised and they can also express their feelings in a positive manner with others [15]. However, the model did not suggest other aspects of emotional intelligence which can help organizations to manage their productivity, improve trust, remove conflicts and motivate employees to perform in a better manner.

#### **2.2 Daniel Goleman model**

In 1998, Daniel Goleman in his book *Working with emotional intelligence* came up with the new model of emotional intelligence which is called the 'Model of Affective Regulation'. Goleman has suggested emotional intelligence is the combination of *Personal Competencies and Social Competencies.* Personal competencies are those which help in managing yourself and social competencies are those who can help in managing our relationships. Goleman (1998) defined El as "the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships" ([16], p. 317).

Goleman has divided emotional intelligence in two major competencies:


Goleman has recommended that, to be an emotionally intelligent leader, there is a need for personal and social competencies in an organization. Further, he added

*Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

the concept of "Emotional competencies" which includes empathy and flexibility. From his book working with emotional intelligence -"One common mistake made by organizations is trying to install emotional competencies like a service orientation or leadership, using the same techniques that effectively teach how to create a business plan which is not enough. Changing a habit based on emotional intelligence demands an entirely new kind of learning strategy. Cultivating emotional competence requires an understanding of the fundamentals of behavior change" ([16], p. 245).

#### **2.3 Reuven Bar-on model**

Reuven Bar-On has suggested the model of "Emotional and Social Intelligence". According to him "emotional-social intelligence is a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands" ([17], p. 14). Bar-on's model includes five categories of emotional intelligence respectively: intrapersonal (emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-esteem, self-actualization and independence), interpersonal (empathy, interpersonal relationships and social responsibility), adaptability (problem solving, reality testing, flexibility), stress management (stress tolerance, impulse control) and general mood (happiness and optimism) [17, 18].

The above three models have suggested that emotional intelligence provides a competitive advantage to organizations that can help in maintaining good relationships within teams and with business clients. This will in turn facilitate an upward trajectory of growth. Today's business requires smart people who are not only smart at their work but also with their relationships.

#### **3. Organizational leadership**

#### **3.1 Concepts of leadership**

Organizational leadership is the strategic way of working for achievement of particular goals by influencing people to work in a productive manner. According to Conger ([19], p. 18) " Leaders are individuals who establish direction for a working group of individuals who gain commitment from these group of members to this direction and who then motivate these members to achieve the direction's outcomes" [19]. Similarly Stogdill stated that Leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts towards goal setting and goal achievement [20].

Burns defined transformational leadership as occurring "when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" Transformational leadership style inculcates morale and values among the employees ([21], p. 20).

Yukl defined transformational leadership as "the process of influencing major changes in the attitudes and assumptions of organization members and building commitment for the organization's mission or objectives" ([22], p. 204).

Based on the above studies, Bass has segregated the transformational and transactional styles of leadership. Transactional style of leadership provides clear goals and tasks. It also focuses on accomplishment of goals that provide rewards and punishments based on outcomes whereas transformational style of leadership encourages and boosts confidence among the team members. Bass and Avolio,

has described the Four "Is "of transformational leadership styles. First is Idealized Influence (II) which displays a sense of power and confidence among followers and makes others proud by being associated with leaders. Second is Inspirational Motivation (IM) where leaders believe in optimistic talk about the future and shows confidence for achieving organizational goals. Third is Intellectual Stimulation (IS) where leaders help others to look into issues from different angles and give suggestions creatively for solving problems. Finally, Individual Consideration (IC) where leaders spend time with other team members, care about followers' needs and help them to develop their strengths [23, 24].

A good leadership style can provide mutual respect, better conflict management, transparency in work and clarity in decision making. Similarly, it also provides an ability to identify meaningfulness in work. However, for achieving such capabilities, there is a necessity to be an emotionally intelligent person.

In the current scenario, organizations are involved in the process of automations and improvement in quality of work done to achieve high demanded targets that may cause heavy workload. The good quality of work requires mental stability at the workplace. Mental stability can only come with self-confidence, flexibility in performing different tasks, self-awareness, building peer bonds and organizational awareness. As per (Goleman, pg. 220) "Research on decision making in management teams shows that having people who possess three qualities of high cognitive capabilities, diverse perspectives, and expertise leads to higher-quality decision making" [16].

The performance of a team depends upon the development and building of a competent leader. Moods and emotions of leaders impact on the performance of teams. However, an adequate style of leadership can help to build strong bonding with a team. Emotional intelligence is a measurful tool for understanding leadership effectiveness in an organization. Emotional intelligence can improve leaders ability to understand and manage the political environment [25].

In the study of Kerr et al., it has been stated that employee perceptions of supervisor's effectiveness are strongly related to the EI of the supervisor. The overall result states that an individual's EI is a key determinant of effective leadership [26]. Proper communication and confronting underperforming team members can only be gained by effective understanding of emotions at the workplace. The study of Ashkanasy and Dasborough have highlighted the importance of emotional intelligence and emotional awareness in an organization. Researchers have described how emotional intelligence has been incorporated into an undergraduate leadership course. The team performance is being predicted by emotional intelligence. Similarly, teaching about emotions and emotional intelligence in leadership courses can affect team performance [27]. Our emotional intelligence helps us to enhance our practical skills at the workplace. It also provides the ability to manage customer and client relationships. Emotional competencies such as trustworthiness and empathy can make an individual more successful in a team. Team performance and motivation of team members can only be built in a highly empathetic environment. If leaders are lacking emotional intelligence skills, they will be inept in leading teams or catalyzing change. The study of Humphrey and hawver have stated that during the conditions of uncertainty, leaders' emotional response i.e. leaders' optimistic emotional displays increase the positive moods and feelings of team members, whereas leaders' negative mood displays results in of frustration among team members [28].

#### **3.2 Emotional intelligence and nature of leadership**

Leadership determines how members in an organization interact with each other and the level of harmony among all. Collaboration and cooperation influence all to

#### *Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

achieve a shared goal. Similarly, the capability of leaders builds strong professional bonds and creates synergy among team members.

The study of Colbert et al. stated that transformational style of leadership by top managers provides a dyadic relationship and harmony within a team for achievement of goals [29]. The awareness of leaders for adopting style of leaderships depending upon time and situation. Further, flexibility and emotional intelligence are the tools to bring organizational excellence which is need to be covered [30].

Transformational style of leadership is an approach which inspires followers towards their work. It also provides a suitable path for performing work and motivations for achievement of it. Transformational leadership style is significantly correlated with emotional intelligence. Hur et al. studied the role of transformational leadership and team outcome. They focused on the role of emotional intelligence and its effectiveness in organizational leadership and at group level among 859 employees, working in 55 teams in a South Korean public-sector organization. Results concluded a positive relationship between transformational leadership and emotional intelligence [31]. Koman and Koman have stated that team leader influences the team performance. Also, emotional intelligence is the mediator between the role of team leader, emotional competencies and team effectiveness. The study also suggested that organizations can develop emotionally competent groups to develop or hire emotionally competent managers [32]. One study of Milhem et al. states that employee engagement is influenced by transformational leadership style. Leader's emotional intelligence is working as a bridge between transformational leadership and employee engagement. For organizational development and employee engagement, leaders need to learn to develop high self-esteem and the art of influencing people at the workplace [33].

Transformational leadership style is more preferable as compared to transactional and laissez-faire. Emotionally intelligent leaders show concern towards their team members.

Gardner and Stough have examined the components of emotional intelligence and various leadership styles among the top managers. The Multifactor Leadership questionnaire (MLQ ) and Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) was conducted among 110 senior level managers. Findings of study concluded that transformational leadership was highly correlated to emotional intelligence as compared to transactional and laissez-faire styles of leadership. The technique of emotional management is helpful in understanding the positive and negative emotions of employees and themselves [34]. Similarly Palmer et al. determined the effect of emotional intelligence on effective leadership styles among 43 Participants of the Swinburne university center for innovation and enterprise programs (CIE). The results concluded that inspirational motivation and individual consideration components of transformational leadership were significantly correlated with both the ability to monitor and manage emotions in oneself and others [35].

#### **4. Emotional intelligence, trust, integrity and effective communication in leadership**

The above study has provided the nature of emotional intelligence which can work effectively within the organizations. The study has also proven that a mostly transformational style of leadership is more effective than other kinds of leadership styles. However, the question is whether there is an awareness related to application of transformational leadership styles at the workplace? Are there any training

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

programs about the concepts and practical implications of emotional intelligence and its relatedness with leadership styles at the workplace? Previous researchers have emphasized on the requirement of application of emotional intelligence on leadership and it can be taught (**Figure 1**) [36, 37].

There is a significant impact of trust, integrity and effective communication in an organization. Here, I would like to propose a new model for effective leadership in an organization. This model is based on how emotional intelligence positively influences the three organizational factors of trust, integrity and effective communication. These three factors can be inculcated through practical knowledge of Emotional Intelligence which will in turn create effective and ethical leadership in organizations.

**Figure 1.** *Proposed model of emotional intelligence, moderating variables and organizational leadership.*

#### **4.1 Emotional intelligence and trust in leadership**

Trust in an organization can bring a collaborative working environment. Trust reduces the inferiority complex among the group members. Emotionally intelligent leaders treat all the employees in the same manner without any kind of discriminations which can improve the performance of the organization. High level of trust can build mutual respect, motivate workers to perform well and bring in a happy mood at the workplace. If team members are trustworthy and collaborative, there will be transformational or charismatic style of leadership [38].

A study among 178 employees of six manufacturing plants, reveals that transformational leadership and leaders' emotional intelligence have a positive impact on team commitment. Similarly, effective leadership behavior is based on trust which creates team dynamics [39].

Transformational style of leadership and employee championing behavior is being influenced by trust in leadership. In an study among 175 project team members in information technology and software industry, results states that knowledge sharing and leaders trust is influence by ethical leadership. Also, project success is depend upon leaders trust and knowledge sharing [40, 41].

Trust can help to be open to the feelings with others which can reduce the feelings of anxiety, stress and burnout. Leaders need to understand the emotions in themselves and their followers for avoiding the situations like burnout and incivility at the workplace. Study of Knight et al. have revealed the significant

*Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

association between emotional intelligence and trust among supervisor and staff members respectively [42].

Employees trust plays a mediating mechanism between transformational leadership and organizational performance. At individual and team level, emotional intelligence has positive impact on trust and performance. Trust works as a mediator to build relationship between emotional intelligence and performance [43, 44].

Trust in a team, which can be increased by emotional intelligence is associated with team performance and it can reduce team conflicts. Organizational learning can be achieved by emotional intelligence and trust [45, 46]. Similarly, There is a positive impact of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction and trust which is a major cause of a project's success [47]. Followers trust is influenced by leaders emotional sincerity. Emotional sincerity significantly influences leaders trust, integrity and quality of relationship. There is a positive relationship between integrity, trust on leaders and ethical leadership. The development of leadership is based on integrity, consensus, high-value working environment. Trust and integrity can build a quality of work engagement [48–50].

#### **4.2 Emotional intelligence and integrity in leadership**

High integrity builds an innovative and transparent working environment, provides morale support, builds customer loyalty, transparency and adequate corporate culture. Organization's success is defined by the integrity of working people. Integrity refines honesty and moral values in the leaders. When people work with others in an organization, it is necessary to act openly in their tasks and behavior. Integrity makes leaders committed towards their tasks and accountable for their job performance. Work performance is significantly impact by competency, integrity and emotional intelligence [51]. The moral and ethical values of organization depend upon integrity and accountability. Leaders who admit their mistakes, are more honest to their team members. Organizations' partners, vendors and customers prefer a more open and honest style of communication. According to Daniel Goleman "Integrity- acting openly, honestly and consistently- sets apart outstanding performers in jobs of every kind." pg.no 90.

Today organizations require people who are not only capable enough to perform their tasks but also to stand for others in critical conditions, taking responsibility for making mistakes and performing work in an organized manner. The integrity of people in an organization can open up new idea generation and consistent performance of workers. Integrity, courage and empathy are three main essentials of leadership [52]. Emotionally intelligent leaders carry out all the three traits in their behavior. Leaders need to make decisions on a day to day basis. Courageous leaders have the capability to put themselves in uncomfortable zones and take risks for beneficial decision making. There is a strong and significant relationship managerial integrity and employees turnover. Authenticity, constructiveness and reliability of managers helps to overcome employee turnover [53].

Ethical behavior of leaders is influenced by leaders emotional intelligence and perceived integrity. Perception of employees about a leader's integrity is based on the actions of the leader and the moral vision implanted in an organization. Ethical decision making is based on interpretation of others' aspects in the same manner. Highly emotional employees are more adept in taking decisions based on others aspects [54, 55]. Employees performance is significantly impacted by integrity and organization commitment. Moral cultivation for employees can help in achievement of optimal organizational goals [56].

#### **4.3 Emotional intelligence and effective communication in leadership**

Effective communication is the part of team performance and organizational success. Leaders who have a high level of communication skills can work smartly with their team members. Effective communication is necessary for resolving conflicts, confusion, and improper responses to top management. Effective style of communication can build empathy, open minded conversations, mutual respect and provide feedback between worker and supervisor. Similarly, people with good communication skills can deal with difficult situations, listen to others carefully and share information in a better manner. Leadership communication helps to creates team building and empowers organizations performance, growth and profitability [57].

Leaders who are able to build emotional bonding with their teams can build long lasting relationships with them. Effective communication and task-relation oriented leadership can provide job satisfaction, motivation and organizational commitment [58]. Among the study 43 medical staff functional (MSF) have found that organizational commitment is influenced by organizational communication and transformational leadership [59].

Leaders' ability to be good with their interpersonal skills are a major source of communication in an organization. Interpersonal skills focus on thoughts, feelings and actions of others. Interpersonal skills can emanate a positive attitude and feelings towards each other. To gain the support from team members, leaders need to be competent with their interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. Team building provides positive communication, continuous growth, trust and leadership potential of team members [60].

Employees' satisfaction with their supervisor is impacted by the supervisor's competency in communication [61]. Emotionally intelligent leaders can build trust with others via interpersonal skills. Emotional intelligence skills play a significant role in development of communication and relational skills [62].

Leaders with a high level of emotional intelligence are able to provide adequate solutions to problems and can easily be adaptable to situations. The traits of negotiations and inspiring others in a group, build a strong relationship within a team. In a study Yue et al. have examined how transformational leadership, transparent communication, and organizational trust impact on employees' openness to change among the 439 employees in the United states. The results suggested that all three factors have positive impact on employees openness to change [63].

Employees creativity and feedback for supervisors is influenced by organizations internal communication. Symmetrical internal communication is positively impacted by leadership communication at senior levels [64].

Similarly, previous studies have emphasized the focus of leader's communication. Good communication of leaders enables and foster; create understanding and build trust which encourages followers to follow a leader. Obstacles and problems of the group can be overcome by certain types of communication competencies; group goals can be achieved by leaders via communication. Leader as a listener, educator and communicator provides positive organizational culture [65–68].

Clearly, group goals can only be achieved by proper style of communication. It is a process of exchange of ideas between two people. Proper communication competencies can help to overcome existing problems and remove ego tussle within a team. The effectiveness and success of a project is based on emotional intelligence and communication among the project managers and team members. Self-awareness and social - awareness competencies can make effective internal communication [69].

Emotional intelligence can help to enhance communication skills. A lack of emotional intelligence can generate the communication problem, which can lead to problems in corporate culture [70].

*Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

Emotional intelligence plays a major role in effective communication. A study among 145 employees in educational administrations in Iran has proven that there is a strong association between organization culture, communication effectiveness and emotional intelligence [71].

Leaders' effective communication style makes them more successful in an organization. Self-awareness about our emotions helps us to understand our strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, it also impacts our behavior in positive and negative manner. Emotional intelligence is significantly impacting on leaders' communication [72–74]. Leaders who are self-aware can examine and change their behavior based on situations. Similarly, adaptability brings flexibility in the job. People who are not flexible in their job, have many difficulties in learning new things and communicating their thoughts with others. Emotionally intelligent leaders have the ability to think independently and take accurate decisions in order to reach organizational goals. Similarly, they develop healthy communication and consolidate them with positive feelings at work.

#### **5. Conclusion**

I am suggesting that organizations who wish to get growth need to constantly check their leaders' performance and attitude at the workplace. In the above study, I have only focused on Bass's suggested leadership style. Previous studies showed that a transformational style of leadership is more effective for organizations growth. But there are other kinds of styles of leadership which include pace-settings, transactional, Democratic, autocratic, servant style and coach style of leadership. Further studies can focus on these areas. Leadership styles vary from situation to situation. But the major challenge is whether the organizations are aware about the kind of leadership styles that need to be adopted?

Secondly, I have focused on how emotionally intelligent leaders can help in relationship building and business growth for an organization. In addition to that, how they can effectively motivate employees to work and create value for the organization. Since, there is ongoing research in the field of emotional intelligence, it can be developed by practicing. Lack of proper training about self-awareness, political awareness, stress management, client relationship building and conflict management are the major challenges in front of organizations.

Finally, in my proposed model I have focused on three major areas i.e. trust, integrity and effective communication. They are enhanced by adopting the regular practices of emotional intelligence. This will help to create effective leadership. Emotional intelligence creates a positive environment at the workplace which releases positive emotions and thoughts. Effective communication of leaders generates self-motivation in a team. Interpersonal and intrapersonal skills of a leader helps them to be proactive at work. Trust and integrity are the major catalysts in an organization which can be helpful in avoiding conflicts and burnout situations among the team. Emotionally intelligent team building activities are necessary practices which need to be followed by organizations.

#### **5.1 Practical and theoretical contribution**

#### *5.1.1 Practical contributions*

The above study has stated that leaders' emotional intelligence can affect the productivity and growth of an organization. Involvement in the major practices of emotional intelligence can bring out effective changes in the behavior of

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

people. Leaders who experience emotional awareness build empathetic relationships with their team members.

Another practical finding of the study is to practice and apply emotional intelligence in day to day work. To be emotionally intelligent, there is a need of understanding the complexity of emotions and then responding in an appropriate manner. Since, there is ongoing research in the field of emotional intelligence, it can be developed by practicing. Emotional intelligence program sessions and leadership training should be conducted that can help organizations to perform better at emotional level and at task performance.

#### *5.1.2 Theoretical contribution*

Theoretical perspectives of the chapter have included the contributing parts of existing theories. Factors of emotional intelligence. i.e. self and social awareness, relationship building, empathy and motivations have significantly influenced the effectiveness of leadership in organizations. The major findings of above model have suggested the interrelated link between emotional intelligence and effective leadership.

The selected factors i.e. trust, integrity and communication can build confidence in the team. Organizations, employees, client partners and existing shareholders can be benefited by effective style of communication. Similarly, organizational ethics can be established and practiced based on existing theories of emotional intelligence, trust, integrity and communication. This will in turn be helpful in boosting morale of employees, building character and organizational values. Additionally, the application of trust, integrity and communication is a novel attempt to bring more effectiveness in the emotionally intelligent leadership styles.

#### **6. Limitations and future research**

Certain limitations of the study have been addressed here for future research work. The major limitation is that I have only suggested three variables to understand the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership. There are many other variables which can be helpful to understand the effectiveness of emotional intelligence and adapted style of leadership. Understanding about organization politics, decision making strategies of an emotionally intelligent leader and understanding about the learning curve of an employee in an empathetic manner can be a newer set of variables for future research.

Secondly, the above study is based on the suggested model for achievement of organizational effectiveness. Future research can be based on empirical findings.

*Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

### **Author details**

Anurag Mishra Presidency University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

\*Address all correspondence to: anurag.msr@gmail.com; anurag.mishra@presidencyuniversity.in

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Lee C, Wong CS. The effect of team emotional intelligence on team process and effectiveness. Journal of Management & Organization. 2019 Nov;25(6):844-859.

[2] Kerr R, Garvin J, Heaton N, Boyle E. Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2006 Jun 1.

[3] Bagshaw M. Emotional intelligence– training people to be affective so they can be effective. Industrial and Commercial training. 2000 Apr 1.

[4] Rosete D, Ciarrochi J. Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2005 Jul 1.

[5] Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly. 2005 Jun 1;16(3):315-338.

[6] Game AM. Negative emotions in supervisory relationships: The role of relational models. Human Relations. 2008 Mar;61(3):355-393.

[7] Krén H, Séllei B. The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Performance. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences. 2021;29(1):1-9

[8] Ashkanasy NM, Daus CS. Emotional intelligence in the workplace. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences: Clinical, Applied, and Cross-Cultural Research. 2020 Sep 18:485-490.

[9] Sharma A, Panicker A. How Ethical Leadership Impacts Employees Performance at the Workplace: A

Perspective. International Journal of Business Ethics in Developing Economies. 2020;9(1):18.

[10] Srivastava MS, Kunj V, Sinha S. Emotional Intelligence as a mediating variable in the impact of Leadership on Organizational Commitment.2020

[11] Baba MM, Makhdoomi UM, Siddiqi MA. Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership among academic leaders in institutions of higher learning. Global Business Review. 2021 Aug;22(4):1070-1096.

[12] Salovey P, Mayer JD. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality. 1990 Mar;9(3):185-211.

[13] Salovey P, Mayer JD. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality. 1990 Mar;9(3):185-211.

[14] Mayer JD, Salovey P. What is emotional intelligence. Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. 1997;3:31.

[15] Mayer, J, D., Salovey, P" & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Competing models of emotioral intell- igence. In R, Sternbe g (Ed.). Handbook of human intelligence ( pp. 396-420). New York: Cambridge University press.

[16] Goleman D. Working with emotional intelligence.

[17] Bar-On R. The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI) 1. Psicothema. 2006 Dec 31:13-25.

[18] Baron R. The BarOn emotional quotient inventory (BarOn EQ-i). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems Inc. 1997.

[19] Conger, J.A. 'Learning to Lead' San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1992, p18) *Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

[20] Stogdill RM. Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological bulletin. 1950 Jan;47(1):1.

[21] Burns J. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burris, ER, Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, DS (2008). Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1978;93(4):912-923.

[22] Yukl, G.A. Leadership in Organizations, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1989

[23] Bass BM. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan; 1985.

[24] Bass BM, Avolio BJ, editors. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. sage; 1994.

[25] Hanafi WN, Daud S. Managing sustainable development of government link companies (GLCs) in Malaysia through emotional intelligence and organisational politics. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. 2021;15(1):126-141.

[26] Kerr R, Garvin J, Heaton N, Boyle E. Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2006 Jun 1.

[27] Ashkanasy NM, Dasborough MT. Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching. Journal of education for business. 2003 Sep 1;79(1):18-22.

[28] Humphrey RH, Pollack JM, Hawver T. Leading with emotional labor. Journal of managerial psychology. 2008 Feb 15. pp. 151-168

[29] Colbert AE, Kristof-Brown AL, Bradley BH, Barrick MR. CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of management journal. 2008 Feb;51(1):81-96.

[30] Wyllie TM. Workplace leadership styles: my perspective-Botswana scenario.2020

[31] Hur Y, Van Den Berg PT, Wilderom CP. Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 2011 Aug 1;22(4):591-603.

[32] Koman ES, Wolff SB. Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance. Journal of Management Development. 2008 Jan,27(1):55-57, https://doi. org/10.1108/02621710810840767

[33] Milhem M, Muda H, Khalil A. The effect of perceived transformational leadership style on employee engagement: The mediating effect of Leader's emotional intelligence. Foundations of Management. 2019;11(1):33-42. eISSN 2300-5661, pISSN 2080-7279, DOI: 10.2478/ fman-2019-0003

[34] Gardner L, Stough C. Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & organization development journal. 2002 Mar 1. 23/2:68-78. ISSN 0143-7739, DOI 10.1108/0143773021041919 8.

[35] Palmer B, Walls M, Burgess Z, Stough C. Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization development journal. 2001 Feb 1.

[36] Antonakis J, Ashkanasy NM, Dasborough MT. Does leadership need emotional intelligence?. The leadership quarterly. 2009 Apr 1;20(2):247-261.

[37] Sadri G. Emotional intelligence: Can it be taught. Inquiry. 2011;15(3):197-215.

[38] Engelbrecht AS, Heine G, Mahembe B. Integrity, ethical leadership, trust and work engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2017 May 2;38(3):368-378. https://doi. org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0237

[39] Schlechter AF, Strauss JJ. Leader emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, trust and team commitment: Testing a model within a team context. SA Journal of Industrial psychology. 2008;34(1):42-53.

[40] Islam MN, Furuoka F, Idris A. Mapping the relationship between transformational leadership, trust in leadership and employee championing behavior during organizational change. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2021 Jun 1;26(2):95-102. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.09.002

[41] Bhatti SH, Kiyani SK, Dust SB, Zakariya R. The impact of ethical leadership on project success: the mediating role of trust and knowledge sharing. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 2021 Feb 9. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05- 2020-0159

[42] Knight JR, Bush HM, Mase WA, Riddell MC, Liu M, Holsinger JW. The impact of emotional intelligence on conditions of trust among leaders at the Kentucky Department for Public Health. Frontiers in public health. 2015 Mar 13;3:33. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpubh.2015.00033

[43] Le BP, Tran QT. Leadership practice for building trust of followers: Decisive factors of organizational performance. SEISENSE Journal of Management. 2020 Mar 4;3(2):45-57.

[44] Rezvani A, Khosravi P, Ashkanasy NM. Examining the interdependencies among emotional intelligence, trust, and performance in infrastructure projects: A multilevel study. International Journal of Project Management. 2018 Nov 1;36(8):1034- 1046.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2018.08.002

[45] Rezvani A, Barrett R, Khosravi P. Investigating the relationships among team emotional intelligence, trust, conflict and team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. 2019 Mar 11. 25 No. 1/2,:120-137. https://doi. org/10.1108/TPM-03-2018-0019

[46] Bettis-Outland H, Guillory MD. Emotional intelligence and organizational learning at trade shows. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2018 Feb 5.33(1): 126-133, https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03- 2017-0066

[47] Rezvani A, Chang A, Wiewiora A, Ashkanasy NM, Jordan PJ, Zolin R. Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Project Management. 2016 Oct 1;34(7):1112-1122. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.012

[48] Nisar QA, Basheer MF, Hussain MS, Waqas A. The Role of Leaders' Emotional Sincerity towards Followers' Trust: Leaders' Integrity & Quality Relationship. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government. 2021 Feb 5;27(1):472-479.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.012

[49] Engelbrecht AS, Heine G, Mahembe B. The influence of integrity and ethical leadership on trust in the leader. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists. 2015 Mar 1;24(1):2-10

[50] Duggar JW. The role of integrity in individual and effective corporate

*Do Organizations Need Emotionally Intelligent Leadership at the Workplace? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100294*

leadership. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics. 2009 Aug 12;3(1):1-7.

[51] Putra AS. The Effect of Competence, Integrity, and Emotional Intelligence on Work Performance. Asian Journal of Law and Governance. 2021 Apr 1;3(1):76-84.

[52] Stefano SF, Wasylyshyn KM. Integrity, courage, empathy (ICE): Three leadership essentials. People and Strategy. 2005 Oct 1;28(4):5.

[53] Akpotu c, ozioko ea. Managerial integrity and employee turnover intention in fast food and restaurant firms in port harcourt. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences Vol. 2020;8(1).

[54] Watts DL. The relationship of ethical behavior in the workplace to emotional intelligence and perceived leader integrity. Trevecca Nazarene University; 2013.

[55] Mesmer-Magnus J, Viswesvaran C, Joseph J, Deshpande SP. The role of emotional intelligence in integrity and ethics perceptions. In Emotions, Ethics and Decision-Making 2008 Jul 25. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

[56] Febrina D, Syamsir S. The Influence of Integrity and Commitment Organizational on Employee Performance. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR),. 2020;7(1):799-805.

[57] Colocassides EM. The efficacy of leadership communication under economic challenges. Science and Education. 2021;2(3).

[58] Mikkelson AC, York JA, Arritola J. Communication competence, leadership behaviors, and employee outcomes in supervisor-employee relationships. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. 2015 Sep;78(3):336-354.

[59] Widyanti R. Do Leadership Style and Organizational Communication Increase to Organizational Commitment? Study Among Hospital Staff. HOLISTICA–Journal of Business and Public Administration. 2020;11(2): 17-24.

[60] Mobolade GO, Akinade ME. Team Building And Teamwork In Organizations: Implications To Managers And Employees In Work Places. International Journal Of Management, Social Sciences, Peace And Conflict Studies. 2021 Mar 11;4(1).

[61] Berman SJ, Hellweg SA. Perceived supervisor communication competence and supervisor satisfaction as a function of quality circle participation. The Journal of Business Communication (1973). 1989 Mar;26(2):103-22.

[62] Petrovici A, Dobrescu T. The role of emotional intelligence in building interpersonal communication skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014 Feb 21;116:1405-1410. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.406

[63] Yue CA, Men LR, Ferguson MA. Bridging transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of trust. Public relations review. 2019 Sep 1;45(3):101779. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.04.012

[64] Lee Y, Kim J. Cultivating employee creativity through strategic internal communication: The role of leadership, symmetry, and feedback seeking behaviors. Public Relations Review. 2021 Mar 1;47(1):101998.

[65] Penley LE, Hawkins B. Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: A leadership application. Academy of Management Journal. 1985 Jun 1;28(2):309-326.

[66] Barrett D. Leadership communication: A communication approach for senior-level managers. Handbook of Business Strategy Emerald Group Publishing, 2006. Pages 385-390

[67] Barge JK, Hirokawa RY. Toward a communication competency model of group leadership. Small Group Behavior. 1989 May;20(2):167-189.

[68] Allert JR, Chatterjee SR. Corporate communication and trust in leadership. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. 1997.

[69] Belogrudova MZ, Antonova L. Correlation of internal communication with emotional intelligence in project teams in organization "x". In society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference 2021 May 28 (Vol. 6, pp. 540-550).

[70] Jorfi H, Jorfi M. Management: A study of organizational culture and the relationship between emotional intelligence and communication effectiveness (case study in organizations of Iran). Journal of management research. 2012 Jan 1;4(1):1. doi:10.5296/jmr.v4i1.936

[71] Raeissi P, Kalhor R, Azmal M. Correlation between emotional intelligence and communication skills in managers in educational hospitals of Qazvin. Journal of Inflammatory Disease. 2010 Feb 10;13(4):57-62.

[72] Sunindijo RY, Hadikusumo BH, Ogunlana S. Emotional intelligence and leadership styles in construction project management. Journal of management in engineering. 2007 Oct;23(4):166-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) 0742- 597X(2007)23:4

[73] Pryke S, Lunic D, Badi S. The effect of leader emotional intelligence on leader–follower chemistry: A study of construction project managers. Construction Management and Economics. 2015 Aug 3;33(8): 603-624.

[74] Momeny L, Gourgues M. Communication that develops teams: Healthy ministry team dynamics as a function of consistent leader communication of emotional intelligence. Christian Education Journal. 2020 Aug;17(2):283-297.

#### **Chapter 9**

## Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders

*Tessie H.H. Herbst*

#### **Abstract**

Peter Vaill's evocative metaphor of "living in permanent whitewater" is very relevant to universities today. Leaders in our institutions (and elsewhere) are navigating unfamiliar territory—and they are doing so without a map. The demands and expectations placed on leaders can be extreme and is testing the abilities of our institutions' leaders to the extreme. Leaders and leadership paradigms has been disrupted and the old model of fear and control do not work. However, the primary leadership challenge is not simply to develop a new leadership competency model—describing a group of behaviours we expect from our leadership. The deeper challenge is to develop a new mindset that anchors, informs, and advances these new behaviours. The ability to question your own deeply entrenched assumptions and well-established worldviews, habits and mindsets will be critical. When unpacking the case for change versus the capacity for change, this chapter surfaced, five kinds of shifts needed to lead in a world characterised by complexity, disruption and uncertainty. I have labelled these shifts as the Awareness shift, the Identity shift, the Mindset shift, the Paradigm shift and lastly the shift from Fear to psychological safety. Are these the only shifts that matter in the current state? I am sure not, we can add many more. But, I believe that these five shifts that demonstrate the complexities of the challenges facing higher education has the potential to reposition and reinvent our leadership for the future.

**Keywords:** leadership shifts, higher education, complexity, disruption, transformation

#### **1. Introduction**

"How do you lead when there is no map? When the territory is unknown? What skillsets and mind shifts are necessary?" [1].

The higher education (HE) sector globally—like other industries—are under enormous pressure to transform itself. However, higher education institutions (HEIs) are struggling to adapt to the fast pace of change and the increasing social, economic, and technological complexity of the challenges facing them. These challenges are becoming increasingly perpetual, pervasive and exponential, compelling HEIs to change and to embrace a new paradigm designed to meet the

changing needs of society. The current operating model1 for HEIs is outdated and is misaligned with the realities of a modern-day society. However, HEIs are acknowledging that they need to radically reinvent themselves or possibly cease to exist [3]. In a recent study by Prof. Bethuel Ngcamu (2017)—one of the leading scholars in the HE field leadership in South Africa—he identifies the following factors hampering the transformation agenda and suggesting inadequate leadership in universities, namely inflexible business processes; lack of reward for performance; inefficient change interventions and centralised decision making [4]. Another study by McGrath found that management styles in universities was either predominantly autocratic or democratic, with employees remarking that academic freedom has diminished significantly. The gap between the current leadership skills and capacity and future leadership requirements is widening—a gap that this chapter aims to address.

Work as we know it is changing rapidly—and subsequently the learning needs of our students. The scope and complexity of the technological revolution of the 4IR—distinguished by the fusion of the physical, biological and digital worlds using diverse new technologies [5]—will profoundly change the way we work, live, and relate to one another. Bryan Penprase [6] in the book *The fourth industrial revolution and higher education* describes the 4IR as "the result of an integration and compounding effects of multiple 'exponential technologies', such as artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnologies and nanomaterials" (p.215). The complexity of the current challenges is forcing universities to reconsider how and what we teach our students and how we lead people. Among the avalanche of impeding changes facing our institutions are the changing demographics of students who are both less prepared for HE and learns in new ways; how to motivate staff to adapt; increased competition; a decline in government funding and public confidence. Furthermore, new technologies offer both the opportunity to increase student access but simultaneously threatens the traditional model of higher education itself. To add to the complexity, is the fact that our current leadership has never had to successfully navigate the impact of an unexpected and disruptive occurrence like the current COVID-19 pandemic, which has triggered an unprecedented need for institutional redesign. To make matters even worse is that while preparing for the future, leaders have to deal with all of these challenges simultaneously. The "tyranny of the urgent"2 has seldom been felt more acute. The world and work is a different place now. Conditions such as these have been characterised in the leadership and management literature as being VUCA, an acronym for volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous [7].

There are numerous factors that will influence how HEIs respond with no approach that can be applied across the board. Dealing with these conditions requires that leaders change both how they think and behave in order to grow and transform how their institutions respond to the chaos and complexity that abounds. Traditional skills to predict and control outcomes has become redundant and instead resilience, agility and the ability to adapt quickly and recognise patterns has become critical [8]. It requires a shift in our awareness and how leaders perceive and think about their world; moving from an assumption of predictability, stability, continuity, and reliability—to an assumption of volatility, uncertainty, change and ambiguity. Amidst this increasingly complexity, disruption and uncertainty, the

<sup>1</sup> In studying the history of HEIs, Trow (2007) identified three predominant guiding models namely the *elite model*, the *mass model* and more recently the *universal model*. For a more elaborate discussion, see Ref. [2].

<sup>2</sup> Charles Hummel in his book *Tyranny of the Urgent* (1967) contends that a continuous tension exists between the important and the urgent—and that much too often the urgent wins.

*Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

question raised by Amit Mrig and Pat Sanaghan [9] concerning the future of higher education is extremely relevant: "**will higher education seize the future or fall victim to it?**"

This chapter aims to address some key issues in developing the leadership capacity needed to enable leaders to navigate the ever-increasing pace of change, disruption, uncertainty and complexity. It proposes five shifts that leaders in HEIs will have to master to enable them to seize the future and create lasting positive impact. It also advocates for a repurposing of leadership development and a philosophy and practice framework that takes an alternative perspective—one in which we view mindset and culture not from the outside in, but from the inside out. I hope that these shifts can guide the future development of leadership development programs in universities.

#### **2. Are leaders as prepared as they think?**

To be successful in dealing with these and other challenges, HEIs—like other organisations—need creative, resilient, agile, courageous, and effective leaders throughout their middle management and executive roles. In many ways, the challenges facing our institutional leaders are similar to the challenges encountered by famous explorers like Columbus and Livingston during their expeditions across Africa and the world. Leaders in HE institutions today are navigating unfamiliar territory—and they are doing so without a map. The demands and expectations placed on leaders can be extreme and is testing the abilities of our institutions' leaders to the extreme. As stated by Nasima Badsha in the book *Reflections of South African university leaders* (2017, p. ix) [10]—referring to the unprecedented levels of change in South African higher education:

"Leaders in universities, as well as those responsible for higher education policy in the government and associated statutory bodies, had no neat script to work off, nor 'manuals' or prescripts of 'good' leadership or practice".

Leadership scholars globally agree that universities need leaders who are not only credible scholars but also progressive futurists and inspiring leaders [11–13]. However, leadership remains one of the most sought after yet elusive concepts in the workplace today. The 2020 *State of Leadership Training Market Report* [14] states that over the past decade, one of the most rapidly growing segments in the learning and development (L & D) market has been leadership training. It further states that the leadership training industry—unlike other segments within L & D—has also been growing annually independent of economic trends. However, despite the \$3.5 billion spent globally in 2019 alone on leadership development solutions, the literature talks about the failure of an industry. The reason being that leaders soon revert to their old ways of doing things. When we lead in the absence of a map, we often rely mostly on what worked before or what we already know or think we know well. We fall back on our old habits, practices and traditions, losing sight of the originality and resourcefulness needed and the risks we need to take now. We can observe this tendency to rely more on our experience or "smartship" than leadership across all industries, but HEIs are especially prone to it because of the unique weight we assign to intellectualism, knowledge, tenure and qualifications. In their book *How Higher-Ed leaders derail* (2018), Patrick Sanaghan and Jillian Lohndorf talks about the "peril of smartship" as one of the reasons why leaders in HE derail. Therefore, leaders need to take heed and be mindful of the "confirming evidence trap" as described by Hammond et al. (2006), where we tend to look for information that confirms our original—but often outdated thinking [15].

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

Amidst all the confusion, if there is one thing we can all agree on—it is that HE—like other industries—is going through a momentous disruption and change. These trends in the world of work are irreversible and the challenges facing our leaders are overwhelming, pushing us (whether we like it or not) to a new normal. These challenges are adaptive challenges—as opposed to technical challenges. Put differently, complicated (technical) problems are not the same as complex (adaptive) problems and require different solutions. Adaptive or complex challenges is defined by Harvard's Heifetz and Linsky [16] as challenges that require risk taking, innovation, and constant learning. To successfully deal with adaptive challenges, the traditional leadership strategies and skill sets of the past are often no longer appropriate or sufficient. Adaptive challenges requires adaptive leaders who can innovate, experiment, engage in continuous learning and adapt to the increasingly complex organisational environments in which they work. Ronald Heifetz [17] states that adaptive leadership is one perspective on the kind of leadership necessary for today's VUCA work environments which he defines as "the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive" (p. 14). Furthermore, when facing adaptive challenges, the locus of responsibility for solving the problem is shifting to all employees, and the leader should only help to facilitate this. They regard this role of leadership to be the most difficult. They suggest that leaders should get away from the habit of providing solutions, and devolve this responsibility to find solutions to the "collective intelligence of all employees".

This distinction between "technical" and "adaptive" challenges has important implications for leaders and leadership in higher education. *Technical* or complicated challenges may be very complex and critically important but are situations we have encountered before with known solutions where we can apply our current resources and know-how to deal with them. This does not make technical challenges trivial but only implies that the solution to the problem already exists within the institution's existing repertoire. In contrast, *adaptive challenges*, has no established knowledge and clear solutions as to how leaders and institutions can effectively respond. These challenges require experimentation, creative and innovative thinking and risk taking. It requires from leaders to risk challenging the status quo and naming the elephants in the room—finding a way to push people out of complacency and mobilising the energy needed for transformation. However, in most of our institutions, adaptive leadership is a rare occurrence since adaptive leadership is inherently risky. As such, "the most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems" [18]. Most challenges facing our universities is a mixture of technical and adaptive challenges. Therefore, it is important to note that adaptive challenges are not only about change, but also about knowing what needs to continue—the essential elements in the system that should be sustained.

Universities that successfully navigate through these adaptive and technical challenges will emerge more dynamic and stronger, more competitive, and more able to educate students who are future fit for our changing society and workplace. However, the path for change is completely unclear and finding new ways of leading and tackling these "adaptive" [19] challenges will test even the brightest and most capable leaders we have. Nether less, we need to keep on trying to find new ways since the current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the life and death impact of leadership, and has also given us the opportunity to reflect on our own ability to deal with the complexity and uncertainty of the current leadership context. As Warren Bennis has said: "It is only when the tide goes in that we can see who has been swimming naked". The current pandemic has placed a spotlight on our existing fault-lines, but at the same time created opportunities for radically

new conversations in our universities—one such conversation is how we can reimagine and reinvent leadership. As stated by Amit Mrig and Pat Sanaghan in their recent Future of HE report [20], "Leadership matters; rarely has it mattered more than now".

### **3. Do we need a new type of leadership?**

If we agree that leadership is now more important than ever before, the next logical question would be: **Do we need a new type of leadership for the new VUCA world and the 4IR?** If yes, what is this new leadership we need to help us navigate this uncertainty, disruption and complexity? And—what does complexityfit leadership look like? As stated by Mrig and Sanaghan,

"The past and current academic leadership model that prizes vision, academic reputation, tenure and track record, communication and charisma is no longer enough to meet our current and future challenges" [21].

The current turbulence and disruption is forcing institutions to reinvent and renew themselves. In doing so institutions need to bring the much-needed clarity regarding their value propositions. It provides HEIs with an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ask the most pressing of all questions: **Why do we exist? Who do we choose to be? What do we want to create together?** In his book *Theory-U: Learning from the future as it emerges*, Otto Sharmer [22] states that how we respond to these questions will differ according to the level of consciousness and structure of attention we use to answer them. We can either respond mechanistically from a low level of leadership maturity or we can respond from a more holistic and systemic perspective of social reality creation.

In defining the term "leader", the premise of this chapter aligns with the views of Michael Hamman by defining a leader as:

"Anyone—in any role, at any level of the institution, and within any part of the institution—who are willing to take responsibility for their world and able to influence others in creating that world. In doing so, he/she is steered by a deep inner compass founded upon a profound sense of purpose. In addition, there is a visible willingness to recognise and evolve beyond the limitations of their current ways of seeing the world, of seeing others, and of seeing themselves."

In a VUCA world, we need to shift how we think about and exercise leadership since we are all called upon to lead in some way and at some moment in time. The notion of leadership that happens only at the top cannot possibly address the needs of the 4IR. This is because the VUCA world of work today requires a degree of institutional adaptability that can only be attained when the entire system—not just those at senior and executive levels—is in a state of readiness.

"Leadership is an Everywhere Phenomenon"3 .

#### **4. Why is leadership so tough?**

Heifetz and Linsky of Harvard tell us that "to lead is to live dangerously" [24]. Leading academics has been compared to the impossible task of "*herding cats*"—either impossible or pointless [25]. However, we think that most leaders will agree with us that with the current uncertainty and disruption, we have moved beyond herding cats "to riding a tiger". As stated by Priscilla Nelson and Ed Cohen [26]—leadership is like

<sup>3</sup> See Hamman [23].

riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten.4 Therefore, the quote by Margaret Heffernan strikes at the heart of this chapter:

"The organizational adaptability required to meet a relentless succession of challenges is beyond anyone's current expertise. No one in a position of authority—none of us in fact—has been here before."

Therefore, Peter Vaill's (1996)<sup>5</sup> evocative metaphor of "living in permanent whitewater" is very relevant to HEIs today. Without the agility to tolerate discomfort, the courage to see and seize opportunities that others shrink from and do those things that others are not willing to do—effective leadership will be unattainable. The ability to question your own deeply entrenched assumptions and well-established worldviews, habits and mindsets will be critical. In their article *Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis*, Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky [28], give us a renewed appreciation the value of adaptive leadership. They advocate that leaders should ensure that they surround themselves with diverse people who are willing to challenge ideas (especially the leader's ideas). To address the challenges they are faced with, leaders will need every team-member's help—not their blind loyalty—to follow them on a path to the future using the passion and collective intelligence of the whole team to help them to discover the path. Effective leaders will be the ones that can "confront loyalty to legacy practices" that keep people from taking the institution from 'good to great.' Not completely abandoning legacy practices, but rather not following them blindly [29].

The well-known quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson seems like very relevant advice for leaders now "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." To be able to empower innovation and future thinking throughout the institution, leaders will have to lead while not having all the answers. They will have to lead not by telling, not by directing, not even by "going first", or "eating last". They will have to lead by "pointing the way" as explained by Peter Senge [30]. However, in a culture where stability, certainty and predictability are traditionally more valued than innovation and risk-taking, reinventing our institutions will remain a complex challenge. Those who "point the way" or "go where there is no path's" will be met by resistance with people questioning the proposed path likelihood of success. However, this resistance is a trap that lulls leaders into inactivity. That is why the kind of leadership institutions will need going forward will require courage to deal with resistance with new and unproven approaches. Add to that an enthusiasm for continuous learning while leading. To make it even more anxiety providing—you need to do all of this in the full view of everyone. "Most of us are looking for a safe path through—a safe place to be great. There isn't one. There is no safe way to be great, and, there is no great way to be safe. The safe paths have all been taken. The paths left to us require courage. Leadership is inherently risky"6 .

Pollak and Wakid refer to this as "Lewis and Clark problems"7 where institutions must venture into unfamiliar territory without a clear map [32]. These challenges are not always new, but always require the response to be. Simply applying known solutions—adding new academic programs, offering more tuition discounts, or investing

<sup>4</sup> On January 7, 2009, the employees of Satyam Computer Services were shocked to learn about the resignation of the founder and Chairman of their company, Ramalinga Raju. This was after he confessed to a massive accounting scandal. In Raju's words, dealing with his own and others' reactions and trying to survive was "like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten."

<sup>5</sup> See Vaill [27].

<sup>6</sup> See Anderson and Adams [31].

<sup>7</sup> Lewis and Clark problems are ambiguous situations that involve numerous variables with no clear solution or by relying on past knowledge or experience.

#### *Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

in new infrastructure—will no longer be sufficient to set aside public doubt, nor to increase the value and relevance of higher education, nor to ensure our students are future-fit for the 4IR. The immense challenges facing universities have created a watershed moment for HEIs. In their *Future of Higher-Ed Report* Mrig and Sanaghan advocates that leaders in HE recognise that it is senseless to continue to make incremental changes to delay the inevitable reinvention needed. They state very clearly that the tide has turned and that "waiting" is no longer an effective strategy [33].

But, we know that change is hard—in fact, Alan Deutschman contents in his book—*Change or Die*—that even when our lives or institution's survival depend on it, old patterns and behaviours give up their dominance reluctantly [34]. For example, even when their doctors tell cardiac patients they will die if they do not exercise more and change their lifestyle or their diet, only one in seven will change their lifestyle. So, if staring death in the eye is not enough of a threat to invite some change, what will be? For a variety reasons—both neurological and psychological—few leaders actually undertake change. This is exactly the same pattern that plays out with intelligent, motivated managers who attend a leadership development workshop where they are taught new models, techniques and tools to increase their effectiveness as leaders. At the end of the program, everyone makes a commitment for changing their behaviour going forward. However, when they return to the office, they soon fall back into the same old behaviours they had before the program.

#### **So how does all of this start to play into the future of leadership in universities? How do we remap leadership's place in the university within this new landscape of disruption, uncertainty and everything else that comes with the 4IR?**

We do not have the research available for universities, but the *MIT 2020 Future of Leadership Global Executive Study and Research Report* [35] provides ample evidence that leaders are holding on to previously effective but now out-dated behaviours that stifle the talents of their employees. The report (based 27 executive interviews and on a survey with 4394 respondents) highlights the mounting mismatch between how many organisations are being led and how they should be led. The majority of respondents were of the opinion that their leaders do not have the right mindsets to lead them forward.

As stated by Mrig and Sanaghan8 developing leadership capacity is the strategic wedge [36]. However, the primary leadership challenge in the 4IR, is not simply to develop a new leadership competency model—describing a group of behaviours we expect from our leadership. The deeper challenge is to develop a new mindset that anchors, informs, and advances these new behaviours. Behaviour is only a function of mindset. Leadership mindset and style, set the overall tone for institutional culture and overall performance, including how we approach change initiatives. For example, a command and control leadership style does not work for transformational change, yet it is remains the most dominant leadership style most leaders and institutions still rely on. To change our behaviour and our institutional cultures, we first need to change our mindsets about the nature of leadership if we want to produce sustainable behaviour change. To truly lead universities through disruption, **leaders themselves must change. You need to disrupt your leadership**. Furthermore, our ability to change our institutional culture begins with the understanding of how we have helped to create it.

"Personal change must precede or at least accompany management and organization change … by attempting to change an organization or a management style

<sup>8</sup> See Mrig and Sanaghan [21].

without first changing one's habit patterns is analogous of attempting to improve one's tennis game before developing the muscles that make better stokes possible" [37].

#### **5. A new kind of leadership and a new kind of leader**

"The world as we have created it is a product of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking". Albert Einstein.

When unpacking the case for change versus the capacity for change, I surfaced, five kinds of shifts needed to lead in a VUCA world characterised by complexity, disruption and uncertainty. Are these the only shifts that matter in the current state? I am sure not, we can add many more. But, I believe that these five shifts that demonstrate the complexities of the challenges facing higher education has the potential to reposition and reinvent our leadership for the future.

#### **I have labelled them as the:**


Although each shift will be discussed separately, they are intertwined and interdependent. As I discuss each shift, I would like to invite you to think about how each one of these shifts translate into capabilities. In other words, what are the future proof capabilities for universities in general and your own university that we can extract from this discussion?

#### **5.1 Shift One: The Awareness Shift**

In Abraham Kaplan's [38] ground-breaking 1964 book on methodology for behavioural sciences he recites the following classic story:

Late one night, a policeman sees a drunk man on his hands and knees searching for something under a streetlight and asks him what he has lost. He says he lost a coin. The policeman helps him search for the coin for some time and after no luck, asks, "Are you sure you lost the coin here?". The drunkard replies, "No, I lost it in the park over there". The surprised policeman then asked him why then is he searching here, to which the drunkard replies, "This is where the light is."

Various versions of this humorous story referred to as *The streetlight effect*, or the *drunkard's search principle*, has been told for many years across different cultures. The story illustrates a type of observational bias playing out when people only search for something where it is easiest to look, or where we are used to looking, rather than where the answer most likely could be found. This error has limited the progress of science repeatedly.

In their White Paper *Leadership beyond competencies* (2014), Ruderman, Clerkin, and Connolly [39] state that in the field of leadership development, our streetlight has shone on behavioural competencies and skills as the standard for all leadership development. But, leadership encompasses much more than visible

#### *Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

behaviours—what happens in the mind or the "inner theatre"9 of the leader as described by Kets de Vries is just as important for effective leadership [40].

"As a field, we have long considered the mind a "black box"— an unknown and unknowable area—and so, like in the streetlight story, we have looked elsewhere". They suggest that in order to increase their effectiveness and impact, it is time that leaders expand the light to include the mind—calling attention to the dynamics of a leader's internal landscape—and its interplay with their behaviour. Leaders need to shift their awareness from external forces to forces that are less visible such as their physiological, emotional, and mental processes in order to increase the efficacy of their leadership. This is much more than an attitude or even a mindset, but an inner capability (cognitive, psychological and emotional). As such, it must be developed from the inside out—from the level of individual consciousness out and through the level of interpersonal engagement and relationship. And then—and only then further outward into the institutional territory [41]. Only by developing your inner leadership—your capacity to transcend your own inner uncertainty, insecurities, hesitance, and emotional triggers and to act, instead, from a place of intention, purpose and vision—will you be able to develop in your outer leadership—your ability to readily adopt the skills, practices and thinking needed to catalyse more efficiency and higher performance in the human systems around you.

In the current volatile, unpredictable, complex, and ambiguous world, the term "transformation" has become universal in the organisational change literature. The nature of the current complexity often leaves leaders feeling "in over their heads" recognising all too well that the nature of the complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity—both around them and within them—is beyond their capacity to act with insight, foresight, and grace. This necessitates a broadening of our understanding of the word "transformation"—from a process that applies primarily to the external environment of institutional structures, systems and processes, to include the consciousness from which those very structures, processes, systems and institutions originate—the inner world of the individual leader. This will imply that all us who think of ourselves as transformational leaders, must first catalyse transformation within ourselves before we can hope to catalyse transformation in the people and systems around us.

The well-known psychiatrist Dan Siegel10 calls this awareness "mindsight"—the ability to observe our internal mental processes unfold, "the capacity to perceive the mind in yourself and others" [42] (Siegel, 2010, p. x). According to Siegel, mindsight is different from the well-known practice of self-reflection in the sense that it is a metacognitive practice that allows us see the internal workings of our

<sup>9</sup> Manfred Kets de Vries [40] describes our "inner theatre" as our unique mixture of motivational needs and fears which determines our character and contributes to the triangle of our mental life—a tightly interlocked triangle consisting of cognition, affect, and behaviour. We all have an "inner theatre" which is filled with our early childhood experiences with people who have influenced, for better or worse, our response patterns as adults. Though we are generally unaware of it, we often relate to others as we once did to early caretakers or significant others. These early relational themes translate into consistent behavioural patterns of relating as adults and contribute to our unique personality style—that develops over time. How we anticipate that others will react to us, and how we in turn react to others is determined by this "basic script" for relating that we developed as coping mechanism in early childhood. As adults, we take these fundamental needs or fears into the context of our workplace relationships. Unfortunately, the life-scripts drawn up in childhood often cause us to behave inappropriately in adult situations—to the detriment of our effectiveness in relationships and in leadership.

<sup>10</sup> Prof. Dan Siegal is a renowned neuroscientist and psychotherapist, Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA Medical School and co-director of the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center, and executive director of the Mindsight Institute. He founded the field of "Interpersonal Neurobiology."

own minds in the present moment. Siegel is of the opinion that this ability to focus internally on our mind (and the minds of others) is a prerequisite for responding with emotional and social intelligence and fundamental to personal growth and transformation. It helps us to become aware of our internal mental and emotional processes or default patterns without it overwhelming us or being blown out of proportion. It is the inner capacity of individuals to sense acutely and to respond gracefully, in the midst of complexity and ambiguity. It enables us to shift out of our autopilot of habitual responses and beyond the reactive emotional patterns we often get trapped in. This awareness allows leaders to "hit the pause button" and to choose a more intentional and appropriate response in the face of emotionally charged or intellectually complex situations. In this way leaders can learn to both observe, as well as shape and shift, how they think, feel, and behave. This increased awareness promotes emotional regulation and mitigates impulsivity and reactivity while simultaneously sharping the leader's understanding of others' emotions and behaviours—skills both necessary and invaluable to leading self and others effectively. In this process we learn to use our self-awareness and inner will to realise our deepest resources and self-leading and self-mastery potential. When we become more self-aware we become more integrated and self-directed individuals taking action based on our values and purpose—becoming more responsive and less reactive.

#### *5.1.1 Becoming our own best friends*

By internal "tuning in" and paying attention to our mind's intention in a nonjudgemental and nonreactive way by self-observation, we become "our own best friends" as described by Siegal. To make this shift from outer to inner awareness, we need to shine light on disciplines not traditionally associated with leadership development, such as neuroscience, contemplative practices, and positive psychology. For example, an increased awareness of our neurological circuitry can help leaders better understand their own and others' behaviours. At its heart, effective leadership development rests on self-awareness and research in the field of neuroscience can helped us improve our understanding of how our internal systems interact to process information and influence behaviour. For example, understanding how the brain processes pleasure and pain can help us to understand how we subconsciously motivate much of how we navigate the world—with huge implications for leaders and institutions.

#### **5.2 Shift Two: The Identity Shift**

The second shift is labelled as an Identity shift. This shifts require that leaders disrupt their identities. In their book: *How HE leaders derail* (2018) Patrick Sanaghan and Jillian Lohndorf [43] state that in HE, there is a prevalent myth that the smartest person should be the leader. They talk about the "peril of smartship" and state it as follows:

"We rely more heavily on 'smartship' than leadership. This is a tendency we see in organizations across all industries, but we are especially prone to it in higher education because of the unique weight we assign to hierarchy and tradition".

However, there is a deep humility needed in leaders as a way of facilitating the creativity of employees, especially in an industry changing as rapidly as higher education. The skills that brought us to where we are, does not really fit this complexity. It requires new approaches, new mindsets and new skills. Humility and the willingness to admit mistakes may be two of the most important qualities for a leader in HE. This will require a shift from a performance mindset—that draws on

#### *Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

our current knowledge about one's competence—to a learning mindset, fueled by curiosity. A performance mindset is based on our need for favourable judgements and the avoidance of negative judgements [44].11 In very simple terms, it means a shift from providing answers to asking questions. What this shift is suggesting is a mindset of experimentation, discovery, partnership, and abundance-thinking. However, it will require that leaders embrace the discomfort of not having the answers and experience the liberation that comes from knowing you do not need to have the answers.

Most of the revolutionary inventions and noteworthy discoveries throughout history are the result of curiosity. Albert Einstein once memorably claimed, "I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious". In *The Businesss Case for Curiosity* [45], a recent issue of the Harvard Business Review, Professor Francesca Gino explains how new research indicates that curiosity is more important than ever to leadership and performance. "When our curiosity is triggered, we think more deeply and rationally about decisions and come up with more creative solutions." Curiosity, humility, and the willingness to admit error go hand-in-hand since you must be humble enough to know you do not have all the answers *and* confident enough to admit it. Traits exhibited by arrogant leaders are exactly the traits we *do not* need if institutions are going to confront the complex challenges facing them. Prof. David Schmittlein, at the MIT Sloan School of Management also advocates the business case for curiosity and states that "great leadership teams in the new economy have a deep and restless curiosity".

Therefore, in a sense, the very elements that make academia strong also make it vulnerable. In higher education, enormous emphasis is placed on smartship or individual intellectual achievement and credentials. "Being right" and having the answers matters—a great deal. Although well meaning, giving people answers as to how to solve problems based on your experience instead of asking powerful questions tends to keep people small and dependent. "You cannot expect people to seriously consider your idea without accepting the possibility that they will challenge it. Accepting that process of engagement as the terrain of leadership liberates you personally."<sup>12</sup>

Making this shift sounds simple, but it is really hard because it requires from leaders to stop trying to prove how smart they are and rather be the person in the room who can facilitate deep thinking and help all the best ideas come out. This shift could be quite challenging for academic leaders. It is also an important part of the shift from being an *academic* to being and *academic leader*. It is a shift that many do not make, or only achieve in part. The thing about these changes is that they are horribly uncomfortable for anyone who has been promoted into management due to their "smartship" or "expertise" and whose identity is built around their individual academic achievements. So, you can imagine—when you shift

<sup>11</sup> According to Ames [44] two major goal orientations are at play in any achievement situation: mastery or "task-oriented goal orientation" and performance or "ego-involvement goal orientation". Alternative labels are 'learning goal orientation' and 'performance goal orientation' respectively. The main distinction between these two types of goal orientations is whether learning is valued as a means to reach some external goals or primarily as an end in itself. More specifically, people with mastery-oriented goals focus upon the task, and prefer situations where they can expand their skills and knowledge and mostly assess their success by using "self-referenced standards" such as "Have I learned? Have I improved?" On the other hand, people with a "performance or ego" goal orientation focus upon the self, and prefer situations where they can demonstrate their competence and abilities and compare it with those of others. These students usually assess their success using interpersonal norms, such as "Did I do better than others? Do others think that I am smart?"

<sup>12</sup> See Heifetz [46].

from providing answers to asking questions, your performance mindset—based on your need to get favourable judgements and avoid negative judgements—will be challenged. The question in your mind will be: Will I still be perceived as competent?

In the VUCA world, leaders who set a tone with a mindset of experimentation, curiosity and humility will signal to their teams that they are not preoccupied with creating an image of the leader-as-hero but are committed to developing a remarkable community of leaders at every level in their institutions. Thereby, they will drive home the narrative that co-creating the future through a collective leadership capability is the strongest route to institutional performance in times of disruption.

#### **5.3 Shift Three: The Mindset Shift**

"Organizations unintentionally encourage people to choose to maintain what they have, to be cautious and dependent"13.

The essence of this shift I have labelled the mindset shift, is about the transformation of the word power that we have witnessed over the last couple of years. In their notable study of power conducted in 1959, social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven categorised power as coming from five separate and distinct sources [48]. Legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, referent power and expert power—information power was added later in 1965. But, these all have focused on the LEADER's sources of power and has largely ignored the rest of the organisation. In the VUCA world, this one-directional view of power has become outdated because leadership is about EMpowerment—and in that sense the directionality of the word is wrong. Old-style top-down authoritative leadership will not be enough to lead universities into the future. In their book *How HE leaders derail*, Patrick Sanaghan and Jillian Lohndorf [49], state that the pace of change is too fast and the challenges too complex to be figured out by one individual, irrespective of how smart, experienced or qualified you are. They also mention that the risk aversion that is endemic in many institutions of higher education, throttles empowerment—based on an entrepreneurial, learning culture—stifling it before it can really grow. Unfortunately, according to their research, arrogant and micromanaging leaders (two of the most important causes they have identified for derailment of leaders in HE) often thrive and retain their positions because they operate as "guardians of the status quo". This kind of shift in power is accompanied by a significant change of the centrality of leaders in our universities—a kind of phenomenon we can call UNBOSSING the university and forming an entrepreneurial contract with people, where every staff member accepts ownership for the success of the university as if it was their own. The path to empowerment is to shift from traditional patriarchal, autocratic organisational management and toxic political games where managers believe they have to control people and situations to an entrepreneurial cycle. Empowerment is based on the belief that the most trustworthy source of authority comes from within people. The role of leadership is to help people trust their own instincts, to realise that they are responsible for all of their actions—irrespective of the institutional culture or external environment—and that the local of control for their actions is internal. There is a lot a talk in HE about decolonising the curriculum, however, we also need to decolonise leadership. There is nothing more colonial than to lead people in a way that says: 'I know and you don't'.

<sup>13</sup> See Block [47], p. 21.

#### *Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

This shift from power to EMpower also links with the shift from patriarchy to partnership that Peter Block refers to in his book *The empowered manager*14. The first version of this book—which validated the shift in control from top management to front line people who are closest to the work—was published in 1987 [47]. Although it had its moment in the sun in the early 90s, the topic of empowerment needs to be reintroduced in institutions of higher learning since it is highly relevant for our current context. Most of our institutions still emphasise a top-down, high control orientation. People are still viewed as just another "resource" or a form of "asset" whose "talent" needs to be carefully managed. We still believe that remuneration drives motivation and performance and that the institutional vision should come from the executive management. People are often told the institution values autonomy and initiative but then they are treated like children by management who believes their role is to control people. In the same line, we hear people constantly call for strong leadership and waiting for management to give direction and vision. According to Peter Block, this is an expression of their dependency—finding comfort in being led—implying that until something above me change, do not expect me to operate much differently.

The patriarchal mindset underlies the choice for safety, predictability and control and nurtures a dependent mentality. The cornerstone of the patriarchal mindset is the belief that the foundation to the organisation's success is the leader or leaders at the top—the more heroic they are, the better. In contrast, the partnership or empowerment approach offered as an alternative to patriarchy by Peter Block, is about placing choice, decision making and control close to and in the hands of the people who do the work. It is about balancing the power between the leaders and those around them. This requires a shift in leaders' thinking and a shift in mindset where a sense of partnership and purpose is cultivated among people at all levels in the institution. When people trust that they have more control over their work, they then become co-creators in defining the institution's vision and purpose. In fact, people need to realise that dependency is no longer the safer path and that there is nothing to wait for from above to create a faculty or department of your own choosing. How we choose to behave and respond at any point in time is either a move in an entrepreneurial or a patriarchal direction. As stated by Peter Block, a hierarchical power-oriented culture breeds hierarchical power-oriented people. The institution then becomes a breeding ground for toxic political playoffs and manipulative tactics driven by personal ambition. The choice for self-assertion and risk is the antidote for caution and maintaining what we have inherited. A university with empowered staff who take ownership is a university that is moving forward. Empowerment also creates a much more positive and fulfilling working environment for everyone, managers included. Empowerment is a sound strategy in the face of all the uncertainty and volatility that is swirling our institutions. "If we have found a way of doing our job that does not entail any risk, then the organization probably does not need us"<sup>15</sup>

Good relationships are based on partnership, not patriarchy. Patriarchy creates a parent–child relationship between management and workers. Empowerment has huge implications for followership and creates a more accountable culture. Partnership is built on empowerment, not dependency. The reason we find partnerships so challenging is that parenting—and its fiercer version, patriarchy—is so deeply etched in our muscle memory and armature that we are often are not even

<sup>14</sup> The Book: *The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work* (2017) was the prescribed text book for TUT's LEAD programme in 2019. The theme of the LEAD programme in this year was *We are empowered*

<sup>15</sup> See Block [47], p. 191.

aware of it. In the VUCA world, honesty and transparency is critical. However, the dilemma with patriarchy is that we know that children do not speak the truth to their parents. People do not speak truth in front of power. This difficulty it creates in approaching leaders with open and candid feedback can foster a "seduction of the leader"16 dynamic—first introduced by Rodney Napier. An insidious dynamic that many senior managers fall victim to as they endeavour to lead their institutions where followers (for whatever reason) are hesitant to provide leaders with pertinent information and honest feedback about their ideas or impact. This in turn stalls quick action and decisive decision-making. However, as so eloquently mentioned by Peter Block, in partnership—not telling the truth is betrayal. Therefore, powerful leadership is not about being a good parent. Good and honest feedback is critical for leaders to become aware of their impact on people and their institutions. Leaders need to constantly and directly engage with their constituents and proactively seek candid unfiltered feedback and input. Without access to this information—honest and valid concerns, viewpoints, ideas and suggestions—leaders are at risk of being seduced into believing people are firmly behind them and that they are on the right track [50].

Unfortunately, in our institutions many of the complaints people have are often around micromanagement and is controlling people. This is because one of the most difficult shifts for leaders to make to go from their own power to orchestrating the energy of others. **The idea of the leader as the conductor of an orchestra is a good metaphor here:**

When you listen to a piece of music—you hear the violin, you hear the clarinet—but do you hear the conductor? We know there is a conductor who orchestrates the whole performance but we do not *hear* the conductor. The following story about the famous conductor Herbert van Karajan is a good illustration of this shift. It is told that in his early years of conducting, Karajan was a very directive conductor giving very precise instructions to musicians about how to perform. However, toward the end of his life, he made a major shift and became very restrained in his gestures when he was conducting. During one of the rehearsals, one of his musicians felt very frustrated by this 'lack of direction' and asked him: "Maestro, with all due respect, when should I start playing my tune?" Karjan responded by saying to him: "when you feel it is the time." During the press conference, one of the journalists asked Karajan: "Maestro why don't you give precise instructions to the orchestra?" To which Karajan wisely responded "that would be the worst damage I could do to them because if I would give them precise instructions then musicians will not listen to one another". In letting go of his need for control he allowed his musicians to make decisions, and also sends the message that I am going to trust you that you will make the right decision about when you are going to play your tune.

Collective and systemic intelligence is driving the new paradigm for leadership. From 'heroic' to 'collective and collaborative' or distributed leadership. However, leadership is often a well-developed misconception and its worth mentioning an interesting article which was published in 1985 by Meindl, Ehrlich and Durkerich. The title of the paper was *The romance of leadership* [51]. In this article the authors discussed our fascination with leadership in our collective consciousness and asked a rhetorical question: Do we glorify leadership? Why are we susceptible to falling

<sup>16</sup> "The seduction of the leader is a term that was first introduced by Dr. Rodney Napier. In short, it describes how (for various reasons) managers often do not receive important information and candid feedback about their impact or ideas because their subordinates or peers are hesitant to provide it to them. This reluctance to "speak truth to power" leaves the leader isolated and misinformed. Followers just go along to get along, which puts the leader—and, ultimately, the institution—at risk.

#### *Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

under the "spell" of leadership? Do we romanticise leaders and do we succumb to the charisma virus. Romanticism can shape conceptions not only of leaders, but also of followers, their agency and their (potential for) resistance to empowerment due to our tendency to over-attribute institutional successes and shortcomings to the leader. Seeing leaders as either charismatic heroes or charismatic villains both viewpoints are illustrations of falling victim to the romance of leadership. According to the first camp, the leader deserves the credit for any positive outcome even when he had little to do with the achievement. The second group singles out every failure and attribute them to the leader—even when he might have played a minor role in the failure. This article puts forward a question which is very relevant for the times we find ourselves is:

**Should we replace the romantic view of leadership with a view of leadership as a collective phenomenon that is shared among all members of an organisation and not the property of a single individual?**

Current leadership thinking includes such notions as servant leadership, distributed leadership, authentic leadership, collaborative leadership, and humble or quiet leadership by Robert Greenleaf, David Rock, and Edgar Schein, among others. We need leaders who embrace the mindset of humility—who realise the need to tap into the collective power and capability of the whole university. Jim Collins, the author of the best-selling book *Good to Great* (2001) found in his research that most executives leading lucrative companies were introverted, humble, reserved and self-effacing. They demonstrated "indomitable will" but did not direct their drive and ambition toward their personal interest but toward the goals and purpose of the organisation [52].

**Another question for us to reflect about is:**

#### **How many of our leaders have this mindset or need to make this mindset shift?**

#### **5.4 Shift Four: The Paradigm Shift**

The 4IR is not only about technology but how the human experience can be incorporated into technology in order to create an inclusive, human-centred future. The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is renowned for saying that Facebook is as much about psychology and sociology as it is about technology [53]. Steve Jobs said, "It is in Apple's DNA that technology alone is not enough—it's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing" [54]. We now have scientific evidence—thanks to the groundbreaking research of the late Dr. David Hawkins—that emotions have measurable energy. This energy can either foster or negate actual cell life. As explained in his book *Power vs. Force* [55], Hawkins reveals how an individual's log level—the measurable level of energy in their magnetic field—increases when positive emotions experienced by the person increase.

#### **So a question to reflect about as leadership is: What Energy Are We Sending?**

One of Hawkins's most remarkable findings was that when the log level was below 200, the cells actually started to die. This level below 200, is where the emotions of hate, shame, contempt, anxiety, regret, despair, blame, and humiliation reside. From a leadership perspective, what we can take from Hawkins's research is that it is key that leaders are able to regulate and manage their emotional state (one of the abilities of Emotional Intelligence or EQ ), not just for their own emotional well-being and physical health but for the overall well-being of their staff. Leaders need to be able to self-regulate and manage their emotions and emotional impact on people in the face of uncertainty. At the same time they need to be able to support

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

others to deal with their own fears, anxiety and discomfort [56]. Unfortunately, for a long time, especially in universities we have focused mostly on the cognitive intelligence of our leaders. When asked how you *feel* about an issue, the answer often is: 'Who cares, we are here to get a job done, to be rational and logical. A university is not a place to talk about feelings.' In fact, one of the strongest forms of contempt is to say to someone: 'Let's not get into the touchy feely issues'. Both personally and collectively, we pay a high price for denying our own and other people's feelings and denying them the opportunity for self-expression. I have not come across a manager who is not looking for new ways to motivate and engage their staff, but denying people their self-expression and expecting them to exercise self-control (which is different from self-regulation. Expecting people to suppress their emotions is putting a damper on their level of motivation and energy. It also keeps managers from really understanding the impact of their actions on the internal motivation and energy of people and expecting them to 'toe the line'. Our current context asks for a rebalancing of the relationship between IQ and EQ. It requires a paradigm shift from viewing leadership as cognitive labour alone to viewing leadership as emotional labour which requires EQ and a high level of emotional maturity. The complexity of the problems we are faced with is pushing us to make this shift. Is it going to be replace IQ? No—of course we will still need smart leaders, but EQ has been consistently undervalued—I often hear managers say 'I don't do emotions' but in the era of artificial intelligence we can expect a higher premium on the emotional capabilities of leaders—without it you will not be able to tap into the energy of empowerment. Napoleon is famous for saying that leaders are merchants of hope. Leaders in universities can create this much-needed hope by speaking to the collective imagination, hopes, dreams and fears of their people and create a sense of purpose and meaning. However, to accomplish this, they need to develop their emotional intelligence, a process that begins with self-awareness. This is not new of course—it is what the Oracle at Dephi has been telling us all along: **Know Thyself**! [57].

Our emotions guide us by assigning value to things and informing us what is worth striving for in future. Our emotions often contain a wisdom the analytic brain cannot reach—they are not the opposite of reason; they are the foundation of reason [58]. Unfortunately, as stated by Prof. Theo Veldsman [59] "Too often leaders are intelligence giants but maturity dwarfs" with wide-ranging and detrimental consequences for both the leader and the institution.

An overemphasis of IQ at the expense of EQ creates the conditions for toxic leaders. In order to be effective leaders, we need to be driven to seek deep connections and relations with others. These leaders firmly believe that deep change happens through deepening trusting relationships. The World Economic Forum (WEF) now considers EQ an essential skill for the 4IR. In fact, anything that makes us human is becoming very precious. Technology will be able to replicate human intelligence but not human emotions. These straining days of the current COVID-19 pandemic have once again highlighted the significance of a leader's emotional intelligence. The uncertainty about the future, constant disruptions and changes to the academic programme, working from home, stress and anxiety, and getting used to new ways of teaching and communication are all testing us in different ways. You will not be able to deal with the uncertainty and the anxiety it creates both in yourself, your team and your students if you cannot deal with your own and others emotions—or as mentioned before—orchestrate the energy provided by emotions. To do this you will need a highly developed EQ, which will include the ability to step back from your self-protective impulsive, emotional reactions triggered by uncertainty and instead operate from a place of presence and inner calmness. The importance of self-awareness cannot be emphasised enough, since awareness gives us choices about our behaviour.

*Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

Without exception, innovation is a social process which requires creative abrasion and constructive dissent—processes that rely on low social friction (as a result of trust) but high intellectual friction (as a result of the diversity of viewpoints). Our ability to be innovative will depend on our ability to be able to tap into the strength of the diversity in our teams. But then again—a word of caution—diversity has huge implications for your leadership. While we all realise that diverse teams can accomplish more than any individual member, we also understand that you just cannot throw a bunch of people in a room and hope for the best. To be able to capitalise on the intended outcomes of diversity, institutions need to focus on fostering an inclusive work environment that are *appreciative* of differences. The role of leadership in generating such an inclusive climate is pivotal. Research has provided clear evidence that diverse teams who are not well lead perform worse than homogeneous teams. Therefore, we need to move beyond diversity to build a deeply inclusive culture for which we need leaders with a highly developed EQ [60].

#### *5.4.1 Shift from fear to psychological safety*

"You know the adage 'People resist change.' It is not really true. People are not stupid. People love change when they know it is a good thing. No one gives back a winning lottery ticket. What people resist is not change per se, but loss. When change involves real or potential loss, people hold on to what they have and resist the change."17

EQ will also enable us to make the critical climate shift in our institutions from fear to psychological safety. The first key principle is that: **The presence of fear in an organisation is the first sign of weak leadership**. Low levels of psychological safety create a culture of silence. A culture of silence is a dangerous culture in the VUCA world. The book *The fearless organization* [62] by Prof. Amy Edmonson18 from Harvard Business School is one of the books we discussed in our LEAD Leadership Circles in our own university's leadership development programme. She defines psychological safety as the willingness to "show and employ one's whole self without fear of negative consequences to your self-image, status or career." Furthermore, it is "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking." Psychological safety, therefore, is a social condition in which you feel that you are included, it is safe to learn and to contribute, and safe to challenge the status quo—all without fear of being punished in any way [63]. Leaders who are humble, authentic, and transparent infuse trust and psychological safety. In turn, psychological safety empowers people to perform to the best of their ability. For our universities to flourish in a world where innovation will differentiate institutions as successful or failing—hiring the smartest academics will not be enough. You must be able to create a climate where it is safe for them to take interpersonal risks and share not only their knowledge and ideas, but also their emotions and feelings. Eliminating fear can promote innovation by freeing people's energy for complex problem-solving and innovative thinking—instead of self-protection. Understanding the importance of psychological safety traces back to organisational change research in the early 1960s. In his book *Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods* [64], MIT Professor Edgar Schein wrote about the need for psychological safety to help people cope with the uncertainty they experience at work. Schein later noted that psychological safety was vital for allowing people to

<sup>17</sup> See Heifetz [61].

<sup>18</sup> Amy Edmondson is a management Professor at Harvard Business School and has done a tremendous amount of work in the area of psychological safety.

#### *Leadership - New Insights*

overcome defensiveness and "learning anxiety" when things go wrong and focus on achieving shared goals rather than on self-protection. Psychological safety is essential to producing high performance in a VUCA world. If you have an unsafe culture, you are blocking your team's ability to innovate. Sadly, most leaders are not even aware that they are doing it.

**A question for reflection: which of these shifts are most needed in your university? Which of these shifts are most needed in your own leadership?**

#### **6. Shaping the future—Are we at a fork in the road?**

"The changes are so profound that, from the perspective of human history, there has never been a time of greater promise or potential peril".19

According to Prof Klaus Schawab - founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF - and author of *The Fourth Industrial Revolution*, there has never been a time of greater promise, or greater peril. In particular, he makes an appeal to all leaders to:

"Together shape a future that works for all by putting people first, empowering them and constantly reminding ourselves that all of these new technologies are first and foremost tools made by people for people."

As I have attempted to lay out in this chapter, our current and future challenges demand that we take a different view about leadership and the kind of leaders our universities need. Intelligence or functional expertise does not equate to knowing how to lead. Leadership is a deeply human and interpersonal process. Becoming a better leader follows the same process as becoming a better person.

In his book—*The rise of the robots*—Martin Ford forecasts a future that will be terrifying in the absence of public debate and intervention. He systematically sketches the possibilities of artificial intelligence and illustrate the societal implications using a wealth of economic data. Therefore, summarising everything being said in this chapter, the final shift needed would be from leadership to *Stewardship*. Stewardship is the umbrella idea that holds the potential to achieve the fundamental change and reform we seek in the way we lead and govern our institutions. In his book *Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest* [65] Peter Block defines stewardship as holding something in trust for another—as leaders, we are entrusted with the well-being of people—our students, our staff, our communities, the environment and the planet. Stewardship is a willingness to be accountable for the well-being of our institutions, because we hold our universities in trust for future generations. Stewardship is a willingness to act without needing to control those around us. Imagine how strong our universities would be if everyone were deeply committed and accountable for its success.

In conclusion, steward leadership starts with wanting to the best FOR the world or the university, not only the best IN the world. It is the basic call for all of us to become more than we currently are. However, you can only be more if you, through purposeful action, help others and allow them to be *more than you*. But—you cannot be more if you do not know *how to be less* [66]. Our firm belief in the value of leadership is fundamental to most of our theories about organisational change and transformation. However, this universal and almost religious belief in individual leaders as the answer to transformation and change is precisely what slows the process of fundamentally redesigning institutions and reforming our leadership. Quoting the wisdom of Peter Block (1993:15) "Stewardship offers an alternative approach to reform that puts leadership in the background where it belongs" [67].

<sup>19</sup> Klaus Schwab, WEF.

*Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

#### **7. Chapter reflection: what are the leadership skills for the future?**

Based on the shifts discussed in this chapter, the next question would be to ask how this translate into the future skills requirements for our leaders? A one-size-fits all approach will not work. To ensure relevance for our context we need to begin a robust conversation in our institutions with all our leaders around the following three questions:

#### **7.1 What are the** *eroding* **skills?**

What are the leadership behaviours that were considered effective in the past but are now considered outdated and even detrimental? Why?

For example, the time for top-down autocratic leadership is over, or should be anyway. This is not the leadership that is going to position our universities for the future.

#### **7.2 What are the** *enduring* **skills?**

What leadership attributes and behaviours have passed the test of time? They are those skills that are still important today, and will be important forever. Why?

For example, in the 4IR, aspects like integrity, trust, and emotional and social intelligence have become even more important. Without integrity, trust and compassion the advancements in technology can do lots of damage to our staff, students and society at large.

#### **7.3 What are the** *emerging* **skills?**

What are the behaviours that might have been regarded as unimportant before but are now considered highly relevant, significant and essential for a leader to be considered effective? Why?

#### **7.4 Crafting a future-fit leadership development strategy**

The next logical question to ask when designing a leadership development strategy would be: How can we cultivate the emerging behaviours, combine them with the enduring behaviours and proactively shed the eroding behaviours? However, future fit leadership development requires more than proposing a new list of competencies which leaders will need to acquire (also known as horizontal development)—as if it were just a matter of 'fixing' or 'servicing' our leaders—to transformational development gaining *greater capacity*. This implies expanding the mindsets or the mental models leaders engage when they are thinking—including their identity. It results in more sophisticated ways of thinking or what Hamman [68] refers to as "complexity of mind"—by developing leaders' cognitive and emotional maturity (also referred to as vertical development).20 Nick Petrie from the Centre for Creative Leadership asserts that if we want to have a better understanding as to why some leaders are so effective, we first have to understand that leaders do not only think differently from each other—they also think from different developmental stages. He states that "most leaders already know what they should be doing. What they lack is the personal development to do so."

<sup>20</sup> The process of horizontal and vertical development often occurs at the same time. However, it is helpful to make a distinction between the two since very often practitioners in the field of leadership development have little or no knowledge of vertical development.

Most leaders today find themselves in the arduous position where the complexity they deal with is overwhelming many leaders' capacity to cope and outpacing both their individual and collective development. For our institutions to thrive in the complicated VUCA world, we will need to develop leaders who can combine wisdom in choosing the right strategies (greater capacity) with the relevant experience and competencies to be able to execute them (competency acquisition). The current challenge however for most universities is that the leadership development interventions they embark on, are predominantly or even exclusively designed around a list of leadership behaviours or competencies. Therefore, we need a leadership development philosophy and practice framework that takes an alternative perspective—one in which we view mindset and culture not from the outside in, but from the inside out. It entails more than training a leader in skills or expanding their knowledge but about transforming the ways a leader thinks. This in turn will have an impact on what they do and how they behave. Only then will leaders be able to create and nurture an institutional culture where innovation can flourish. Leadership development practitioners should design interventions that address the identities, beliefs and mindsets that drives behaviour if they want to prepare leaders with the capabilities to lead successfully in a future that will be perpetually undergoing change.

### **Acknowledgements**

The TUT LEAD programme is funded by Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) University Capacity Development Grant (UCDG).

#### **Author details**

Tessie H.H. Herbst Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa

\*Address all correspondence to: herbstt@tut.ac.za

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

#### **References**

[1] Mrig, A., and Sanaghan, P. (2017). Report: The Skills Future Higher-Ed Leaders Need to Succeed. Academic Impressions. Retrieved from: https:// www.academicimpressions.com/PDF/ future-skillset.pdf

[2] Trow, M. (2007). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In: J. F. Forest, P. G. Altbach, eds. International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 243-280). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

[3] Watson, W. R., and Watson, S. L. (2014). Redesigning Higher Education: Embracing a New Paradigm. Educational Technology, May–June, pp. 47-51. Retrieved from: https://www. academia.edu/10400742/Redesigning\_ higher\_education\_Embracing\_a\_new\_ paradigm?email\_work\_card=abstractread-more

[4] Ngcamu, B. S. (2017). The effects of leadership traits on transformation: A case study of a South African University. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 13(1). Retrieved from: https://td-sa.net/index. php/td/article/view/403/615

[5] Penprase, B. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Higher Education. DOI:10.1007/978-981-13- 0194-0\_9

[6] Penprase, B. E. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution and higher education. In: N. Gleason (Ed.). Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 207-229). Palgrave Macmillan.

[7] Horney, N., Pasmore, B., and O'Shea, T. (2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA world. People and Strategy 33(4):32.

[8] McCormack, T. J., Lemoine, P. A., Waller, R. E., and Richardson, M. D. (2020). Global higher education: Examining response to the COVID-19 pandemic using agility and adaptability. Journal of Education and Development 5(1):10-16.

[9] Mrig, A., and Sanaghan, P. (2018). Report: The Future of Higher Education. Denver, CO: Academic Impressions.

[10] Reflections of South African University Leaders 1981 to 2014 (2016). Published by African Minds and the CHE. Retrieved from: http://www. africanminds.co.za/wp-content/ uploads/2016/03/CHEC-Reflectionsproof-05a.pdf

[11] Ngcamu, B. S. (2016). An exploratory study on the influence of leadership on transformation in a higher education institution: A case of the Durban University of Technology. Published Thesis. University of KwaZulu-Natal.

[12] Sirat, M., Ahmad, A. R., and Azman, N. (2012). University leadership in crisis: The need for effective leadership positioning in Malaysia. Higher Education Policy 25:511-529.

[13] Herbst, T. H. H., and Garg, A. K. (2017). Transformational leadership potential at a University of Technology. The Journal of Applied Business Research 33(4):741-758.

[14] The State of the Leadership Training Market Report (2020). Retrieved from: https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/ leadership/the-leadership-trainingmarket/

[15] Hammond, J., Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (2006). The Hidden Traps of Decision Making. Harvard Business Review.

[16] Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. and Linksy, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

[17] Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[18] Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. and Linksy, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

[19] Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. and Linksy, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

[20] Mrig, A., and Sanaghan, P. (2018). Report: The Future of Higher Education. Denver, CO: Academic Impressions.

[21] Mrig, A., and Sanaghan, P. (2017). The Skills Future Higher-Ed Leaders Need to Succeed. Denver: Academic Impressions.

[22] Otto Sharmer (2009). Theory-U: Learning from the Future as it Emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

[23] Hamman, M. (2019). Design for a new kind of leadership and a new kind of leader. Retrieved from: https://static1. squarespace.com/static/5cbe1f34e8 ba446390bdf54c/t/5cca02e70d92973d8f 127eb2/1556742891314/michael Hamman+-+whitepaper+-+A+New+Kin d+of+Leadership+and+a+New+Kind+ of+Leader.pdf

[24] Heifetz, R., and Linsky, M. (2002). A Survival Guide for Leaders. Harvard Business Review.

[25] Mccormack, J., Propper, C., and Smith, S. (2013). Herding Cats? Management and University Performance. The Economic Journal 124. DOI:10.1111/ecoj.12105

[26] Nelson, P., and Cohen, E. (2010). Riding the Tiger: Leading through Learning in Turbulent Times. American Society for Training and Development Press.

[27] Vaill, P. (1996). Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent White Water. JosseyBass: San Francisco.

[28] Heifetz, R., Alexander, A. G., and Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis. Harvard Business Review.

[29] Heifetz, R., Alexander, A. G., and Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis. Harvard Business Review.

[30] Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

[31] Anderson, B., and Adams, B. Reactive to creative leadership. The Leadership Circle. Retrieved from: https://leadershipcircle.com/ wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Reactiveto-Creative-Leadership\_edit.pdf

[32] Lauren Pollak and Katherine Wakid. Thriving in Ambiguity: Lessons from Exploratory Organizations. Harvard Business Review, 2010.

[33] Mrig, A., and Sanaghan, P. (2018). Report: The Future of Higher Education. Denver, CO: Academic Impressions.

[34] Alan Deutschman (2009). Change or Die: The Three Keys to Change at Work and in Life. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

[35] Ready, D., Cohen, C., Kiron, D., and Pring, B. (2020). The New Leadership Playbook for the Digital Age. MIT Sloan Management Review.

[36] Mrig, A., and Sanaghan, P. (2018) Report: The Future of Higher Education. Denver, CO: Academic Impressions.

*Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100208*

[37] Covey, S. R. (1985). Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership. Executive Excellence. Retrieved from: http://www. simpsonexecutivecoaching.com/pdf/ orgchange/transformational-vstransactional-leadership-stephencovey.pdf

[38] Kaplan, A. (2017). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. New York: Routledge.

[39] Ruderman, M. N., Clerkin, G., and Connolly, C. (2014). Leadership Development Beyond Competencies: Moving to a Holistic Approach. White Paper, Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). Retrieved from: https:// cclinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/02/leadershipdevelopment competencies.pdf

[40] Kets de Vries, M. F. R., Florent-Treacy, E., and Korotov, K. (2011). Psychodynamic Issues in Organizational Leadership, INSEAD Faculty Research and Working Paper. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/HerbstT/Downloads/ PsychodynamicIssuesinOrganizational Leadership.pdf

[41] Hamman, M. (2019). From Predict-and-Plan to Sense-and-Respond. Agile Leadership Institute. Retrieved from: https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5cbe1f34e8ba446390bdf54c/ t/5cca05244785d3a55c00 ef2a/1556743461276/michael Hamman+-+article+%232-+From+Predict-Plan+to+Sense-Respond+Feb+2019.pdf

[42] Siegel, D. J. (2010). Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

[43] Sanaghan, P., and Lohndorf, J. (2018). How Higher Ed Leaders Derail: A Survival Guide for Leaders. Denver: Academic Impressions.

[44] Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.

Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3):261-271. DOI:10.1037/0022- 0663.84.3.261

[45] Gino, F. (2018). The Business Case for Curiosity. Harvard Business Review.

[46] Ronald A. Heifetz. Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading.

[47] Block, P. (2017). The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.

[48] Forsyth, D. R. (2010, 2006). Group Dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

[49] Sanaghan, P., and Lohndorf, J. (2018). How Higher Ed Leaders Derail: A Survival Guide for Leaders. Denver: Academic Impressions.

[50] Sanaghan, P., and Eberbach, K. The Seduction of the Leader in Higher Education. Higher ED Impact. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/HerbstT/ Downloads/The\_Seduction\_of\_the\_ Leader.pdf

[51] Meindl, J., Ehrlich, S., and Dukerich, J. (1985). The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 30(1):78-102. DOI:10.2307/2392813

[52] Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don't. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

[53] Olejarz, J. M. (2017). Liberal Arts in the Digital Age. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr. org/2017/07/liberal-arts-in-thedata-age

[54] Horace, D. (2011). Steve Job's Ultimate Lessons for Companies. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2011/08/ steve-jobss-ultimate-lesson-fo

[55] Hawkins, D. R. (1985). Power vs Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior (5.2.1985). Hay House.

[56] Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., and Linksy, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

[57] Kets de Vries, M. (2003). Dysfunctional Leadership. INSEAD Working Paper Series. Retrieved from: https://flora.insead.edu/fichiersti\_wp/ inseadwp2003/2003-58.pdf

[58] David Brooks (2019). The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life. New York: Random House.

[59] Veldsman, T. (2017). Maturity makes great leaders. Management Matters 17(2). Retrieved from: file:///C:/ Users/HerbstT/Downloads/maturitymakes-great-leaders.pdf

[60] Ashikali, A., Groeneveld, S., and Kuipers, B. (2020). The Role of Inclusive Leadership in Supporting an Inclusive Climate in Diverse Public Sector Teams. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Retrieved from: DOI:10.1177/0734371X19899722

[61] Ronald A. Heifetz. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World.

[62] Edmonson, A. (2019). The Fearless Organization—Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. New Jersey: Wiley.

[63] Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation (2020th ed.). Berrett-Koehler.

[64] Schein, E. H. (1965). Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. John Wiley & Sons.

[65] Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest (1st ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

[66] April, K., Kukard, J., and Peters, K. (2013). Steward Leadership: A Maturational Perspective. Cape Town: UCT Press.

[67] Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest (1st ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

[68] Hamman, M. (2019). The Anatomy of Sensemaking and Logic. Agile Leadership Institute. Retrieved from: https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5cbe1f34e8ba446390bdf54c/t/5cc a3ed23054890001f1d 3af/1556758228048/michaelHamman+- +whitepaper+%233-+Anatomy+of+Sens emaking+and+Action+Logic+ Feb+2019.pdf

Section 4
