business leader research paper

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Leadership →

• 26 Apr 2024

Deion Sanders' Prime Lessons for Leading a Team to Victory

The former star athlete known for flash uses unglamorous command-and-control methods to get results as a college football coach. Business leaders can learn 10 key lessons from the way 'Coach Prime' builds a culture of respect and discipline without micromanaging, says Hise Gibson.

• 26 Mar 2024
• Cold Call Podcast

How Do Great Leaders Overcome Adversity?

In the spring of 2021, Raymond Jefferson (MBA 2000) applied for a job in President Joseph Biden’s administration. Ten years earlier, false allegations were used to force him to resign from his prior US government position as assistant secretary of labor for veterans’ employment and training in the Department of Labor. Two employees had accused him of ethical violations in hiring and procurement decisions, including pressuring subordinates into extending contracts to his alleged personal associates. The Deputy Secretary of Labor gave Jefferson four hours to resign or be terminated. Jefferson filed a federal lawsuit against the US government to clear his name, which he pursued for eight years at the expense of his entire life savings. Why, after such a traumatic and debilitating experience, would Jefferson want to pursue a career in government again? Harvard Business School Senior Lecturer Anthony Mayo explores Jefferson’s personal and professional journey from upstate New York to West Point to the Obama administration, how he faced adversity at several junctures in his life, and how resilience and vulnerability shaped his leadership style in the case, "Raymond Jefferson: Trial by Fire."

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

Aggressive cost cutting and rocky leadership changes have eroded the culture at Boeing, a company once admired for its engineering rigor, says Bill George. What will it take to repair the reputational damage wrought by years of crises involving its 737 MAX?

• 02 Jan 2024
• What Do You Think?

Do Boomerang CEOs Get a Bad Rap?

Several companies have brought back formerly successful CEOs in hopes of breathing new life into their organizations—with mixed results. But are we even measuring the boomerang CEOs' performance properly? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• Research & Ideas

10 Trends to Watch in 2024

Employees may seek new approaches to balance, even as leaders consider whether to bring more teams back to offices or make hybrid work even more flexible. These are just a few trends that Harvard Business School faculty members will be following during a year when staffing, climate, and inclusion will likely remain top of mind.

• 12 Dec 2023

Can Sustainability Drive Innovation at Ferrari?

When Ferrari, the Italian luxury sports car manufacturer, committed to achieving carbon neutrality and to electrifying a large part of its car fleet, investors and employees applauded the new strategy. But among the company’s suppliers, the reaction was mixed. Many were nervous about how this shift would affect their bottom lines. Professor Raffaella Sadun and Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna discuss how Ferrari collaborated with suppliers to work toward achieving the company’s goal. They also explore how sustainability can be a catalyst for innovation in the case, “Ferrari: Shifting to Carbon Neutrality.” This episode was recorded live December 4, 2023 in front of a remote studio audience in the Live Online Classroom at Harvard Business School.

• 05 Dec 2023

Lessons in Decision-Making: Confident People Aren't Always Correct (Except When They Are)

A study of 70,000 decisions by Thomas Graeber and Benjamin Enke finds that self-assurance doesn't necessarily reflect skill. Shrewd decision-making often comes down to how well a person understands the limits of their knowledge. How can managers identify and elevate their best decision-makers?

• 21 Nov 2023

The Beauty Industry: Products for a Healthy Glow or a Compact for Harm?

Many cosmetics and skincare companies present an image of social consciousness and transformative potential, while profiting from insecurity and excluding broad swaths of people. Geoffrey Jones examines the unsightly reality of the beauty industry.

• 14 Nov 2023

Do We Underestimate the Importance of Generosity in Leadership?

Management experts applaud leaders who are, among other things, determined, humble, and frugal, but rarely consider whether they are generous. However, executives who share their time, talent, and ideas often give rise to legendary organizations. Does generosity merit further consideration? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 24 Oct 2023

From P.T. Barnum to Mary Kay: Lessons From 5 Leaders Who Changed the World

What do Steve Jobs and Sarah Breedlove have in common? Through a series of case studies, Robert Simons explores the unique qualities of visionary leaders and what today's managers can learn from their journeys.

• 06 Oct 2023

Yes, You Can Radically Change Your Organization in One Week

Skip the committees and the multi-year roadmap. With the right conditions, leaders can confront even complex organizational problems in one week. Frances Frei and Anne Morriss explain how in their book Move Fast and Fix Things.

• 26 Sep 2023

The PGA Tour and LIV Golf Merger: Competition vs. Cooperation

On June 9, 2022, the first LIV Golf event teed off outside of London. The new tour offered players larger prizes, more flexibility, and ambitions to attract new fans to the sport. Immediately following the official start of that tournament, the PGA Tour announced that all 17 PGA Tour players participating in the LIV Golf event were suspended and ineligible to compete in PGA Tour events. Tensions between the two golf entities continued to rise, as more players “defected” to LIV. Eventually LIV Golf filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing the PGA Tour of anticompetitive practices, and the Department of Justice launched an investigation. Then, in a dramatic turn of events, LIV Golf and the PGA Tour announced that they were merging. Harvard Business School assistant professor Alexander MacKay discusses the competitive, antitrust, and regulatory issues at stake and whether or not the PGA Tour took the right actions in response to LIV Golf’s entry in his case, “LIV Golf.”

• 01 Aug 2023

As Leaders, Why Do We Continue to Reward A, While Hoping for B?

Companies often encourage the bad behavior that executives publicly rebuke—usually in pursuit of short-term performance. What keeps leaders from truly aligning incentives and goals? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 05 Jul 2023

What Kind of Leader Are You? How Three Action Orientations Can Help You Meet the Moment

Executives who confront new challenges with old formulas often fail. The best leaders tailor their approach, recalibrating their "action orientation" to address the problem at hand, says Ryan Raffaelli. He details three action orientations and how leaders can harness them.

How Are Middle Managers Falling Down Most Often on Employee Inclusion?

Companies are struggling to retain employees from underrepresented groups, many of whom don't feel heard in the workplace. What do managers need to do to build truly inclusive teams? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 14 Jun 2023

Every Company Should Have These Leaders—or Develop Them if They Don't

Companies need T-shaped leaders, those who can share knowledge across the organization while focusing on their business units, but they should be a mix of visionaries and tacticians. Hise Gibson breaks down the nuances of each leader and how companies can cultivate this talent among their ranks.

Four Steps to Building the Psychological Safety That High-Performing Teams Need

Struggling to spark strategic risk-taking and creative thinking? In the post-pandemic workplace, teams need psychological safety more than ever, and a new analysis by Amy Edmondson highlights the best ways to nurture it.

• 31 May 2023

From Prison Cell to Nike’s C-Suite: The Journey of Larry Miller

VIDEO: Before leading one of the world’s largest brands, Nike executive Larry Miller served time in prison for murder. In this interview, Miller shares how education helped him escape a life of crime and why employers should give the formerly incarcerated a second chance. Inspired by a Harvard Business School case study.

• 23 May 2023

The Entrepreneurial Journey of China’s First Private Mental Health Hospital

The city of Wenzhou in southeastern China is home to the country’s largest privately owned mental health hospital group, the Wenzhou Kangning Hospital Co, Ltd. It’s an example of the extraordinary entrepreneurship happening in China’s healthcare space. But after its successful initial public offering (IPO), how will the hospital grow in the future? Harvard Professor of China Studies William C. Kirby highlights the challenges of China’s mental health sector and the means company founder Guan Weili employed to address them in his case, Wenzhou Kangning Hospital: Changing Mental Healthcare in China.

• 09 May 2023

Can Robin Williams’ Son Help Other Families Heal Addiction and Depression?

Zak Pym Williams, son of comedian and actor Robin Williams, had seen how mental health challenges, such as addiction and depression, had affected past generations of his family. Williams was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a young adult and he wanted to break the cycle for his children. Although his children were still quite young, he began considering proactive strategies that could help his family’s mental health, and he wanted to share that knowledge with other families. But how can Williams help people actually take advantage of those mental health strategies and services? Professor Lauren Cohen discusses his case, “Weapons of Self Destruction: Zak Pym Williams and the Cultivation of Mental Wellness.”

• [email protected]
• +1 (602) 649-5530
• Submit your Article

Journal Of Business Leadership And Management

Issn no : 2995-620x.

The Journal of Business Leadership and Management is committed to advancing the understanding of effective leadership and management practices in the dynamic landscape of business. Our journal aims to provide a platform for academics, practitioners, researchers, and thought leaders to share insights, research findings, and strategies that contribute to informed decision-making and organizational success.

INDEXING BODIES

Ready to submit? Start a new submission or continue a submission in progress

Journal overview.

• Aims and scope

Editorial Policies

• Author's Guidelines
• Role of EIC
• Role of EBM

Aims And Scope

The Journal of Business Leadership and Management welcomes original research articles, reviews, case studies, and conceptual papers that delve into various facets of leadership and management. Our scope encompasses a wide range of topics related to business leadership and management, including but not limited to:

1. Leadership Theories And Styles:

Explorations of different leadership theories, models, and styles that influence organizational culture, employee engagement, and performance.

2. Strategic Management:

Research on strategic planning, formulation, implementation, and evaluation to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

3. Organizational Behavior:

Analyses of individual and group behavior within organizations, motivation, communication, teamwork, and conflict resolution.

4. Change Management:

Discussions on managing organizational change, innovation adoption, and transformational initiatives for long-term growth.

5. Entrepreneurship And Innovation:

Studies on fostering entrepreneurship, promoting innovation, and managing start-ups within the ever-evolving business landscape.

6. Human Resource Management:

Research on talent acquisition, development, retention, diversity and inclusion, and employee well-being.

7. Business Ethics And Corporate Social Responsibility:

Evaluations of ethical practices, corporate governance, and social responsibility initiatives that impact business decisions.

8. Global Business And Cross-Cultural Management:

Analyses of international business strategies, cross-cultural management challenges, and global market trends.

9. Leadership Development And Training:

Reviews of leadership development programs, training methodologies, and strategies for nurturing effective leaders.

Guinness Press adheres to a strong ethical foundation in scholarly publishing. Our commitment to ethical practices ensures the integrity of the publishing process. Our journals are dedicated to maintaining high standards of ethical behavior by authors, reviewers, and editors. Our editorial staff is well-trained to identify and address ethical concerns effectively.

Our editorial office diligently investigates ethical matters our readers raise in line with established procedures. The Editorial Board is responsible for addressing disputes related to the validity of research reported in published papers. In cases involving authorship disputes, data ownership, or author misconduct, we may engage external organizations, such as university ethics committees, for resolution. Authors are expected to respond to substantiated allegations as needed.

Publication Ethics

We uphold the highest ethical standards in publishing. Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification are strictly prohibited. Authors are required to submit original work, cite sources appropriately, and adhere to ethical guidelines.

Authorship and Acknowledgments

Authors should have contributed significantly to the research presented. All contributors should be acknowledged appropriately. Any potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

Copyright and Licensing

Authors retain the copyright of their work and grant us a license to publish. We publish under open-access licenses to ensure broad dissemination of knowledge while respecting author rights.

Open Access Policy

We support open-access publishing to make research freely accessible. Authors may choose open-access options, ensuring their work reaches a wider audience.

Data Sharing and Transparency

We encourage authors to share data and materials supporting their findings. Transparent reporting enhances reproducibility and credibility.

Corrections and Retractions

We are committed to rectifying errors promptly. Corrections and retractions will be issued as necessary.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise objectivity. Transparency is essential to maintain the integrity of the review process.

Appeals and Disputes

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Disputes are handled objectively and transparently, following established procedures.

Privacy and Confidentiality

We respect the privacy of authors, reviewers, and readers. Personal information is treated confidentially and used only for journal-related purposes.

Editorial Independence

Editors make decisions based on academic merit without influence from advertisers, funders, or other parties. Decisions are transparent and impartial.

Diversity and Inclusion

We are committed to diversity and inclusivity. We welcome submissions from all researchers, regardless of background, and ensure fair and unbiased treatment.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers must provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback. Confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities is maintained.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors and stakeholders may raise concerns through a formal appeals or complaints process. These concerns will be addressed promptly and objectively.

We value feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers. We are committed to ongoing improvements in our processes and the excellence of our publications.

These editorial policies ensure a transparent, ethical, and high-quality publication process. Authors, reviewers, and readers must familiarize themselves with these policies to ensure a smooth and ethical publishing experience.

Editorial Board

Co-Editors Ilaria Boncori – University of Essex, UK Kristin Williams – University of Eastern Finland, Finland and Dalhousie University, Canada

Associate Editors Malgorzata (Gosia) Ciesielska – Newcastle Business School, UK Daniel Ericsson – Linnæus University, Sweden Rima Hussein – Northumbria University, UK Tyron Love – University of Canterbury, New Zealand Jean-Luc Moriceau – Institut Mines-Telecom, France Saoirse O’Shea – Open University, UK Victoria Pagan – Newcastle University, UK Christina Schwabenland – University of Bedfordshire, UK Charlie Smith – University of Leicester, UK

Editorial Board Iiris Aaltio – Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland John Armitage – Winchester School of Art – University of Southampton, UK Bobby Banerjee – Cass Business School, London Jo Brewis – Department of People and Organizations, Open University Business School, Walton Hall, UK Peter Case – University of the West of England, UK Andrew Chan – City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Stewart Clegg – University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia Barbara Czarniawska – Gothenburg University, Sweden Christian De Cock – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Vincent Degot – Ecole Polytechnique, France Patricia A.L. Ehrensal – George Washington University, USA Mike Featherstone – Nottingham Trent University, UK John Forester – Cornell University, USA Silvia Gherardi – Università di Trento, Italy Pierre Guillet de Monthoux – Stockholm University, Sweden Michael Owen Jones – UCLA, USA Nina Kivinen – Åbo Akademi University, Finland Monika Kostera – The Jagiellonian University, Poland and Södertörn University, Sweden Thomas Taro Lennerfors – Uppsala University, Sweden Hugo Letiche – University of Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands Simon Lilley – University of Leicester, UK Stephen Linstead – University of York, UK Damian O’Doherty – University of Manchester, UK Yvon Pesqueux – Conservatoire National des Art et Métier , France Alf Rehn – Åbo Akademi University, Finland Ann Rippin – University of Bristol, UK Annette Risberg – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Dan Rose – University of Pennsylvania, USA Richard Rottenburg – University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Brian Rusted – University of Calgary, Canada Helen Schwartzman – Northwestern University, USA David Silverman – University of London, UK Dorothy E. Smith – Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada Antonio Strati – Università degli Studi di Trento, Italy John Van Maanen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA Robert Westwood – University of Queensland, Australia Julie Wolfram Cox – Monash University, Australia Steve Woolgar – University of Oxford, UK

Editorial Office John Doherty – [email protected]

Author`s Guidelines

Please read and follow these author guidelines carefully to ensure the submission process is as smooth as possible.

Manuscript Types Accepted

We accept various types of manuscripts, including:

Research Articles : Original research contributions.

Review Articles : Comprehensive reviews of specific topics.

Short Communications : Concise research findings.

Case Studies : In-depth analyses of specific cases.

Editorials : Invited commentaries from experts.

Letters to the Editor: Short, focused contributions.

Book Reviews : Reviews of recent publications in the field.

Manuscript Preparation

Formatting : Prepare your manuscript according to our journal's specific formatting guidelines.

Language : Manuscripts should be written 'English' and conform to proper grammar and style.

Title: Choose a clear, concise, and informative title that accurately represents the content of your paper.

Abstract : Include an abstract summarizing the objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions of your research.

Keywords : Provide a list of relevant keywords that capture the essence of your work.

Citations and References: Follow a recognized citation style (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the References section.

Submission Process

Online Submission : Submit your manuscript through our email address [email protected] .

Cover Letter : Include a cover letter with your submission, briefly outlining the significance and originality of your work.

Peer Review : All submissions undergo a rigorous peer-review process. Please be prepared to respond to reviewer comments and make necessary revisions.

Originality : Ensure your work is original and has not been published elsewhere.

Authorship : Clearly list all authors who have contributed substantially to the research.

Plagiarism : Avoid plagiarism by properly citing and referencing sources.

Authors retain the copyright to their work but are required to grant 'Guinness Press' a license to publish and distribute their work.

Publication Fees

Guinness Press may charge publication fees for production, editing, and distribution costs. These fees, if applicable, will be communicated upon acceptance.

Open Access

Guinness Press supports open-access publishing.

After Acceptance

Proofreading : Authors will receive galley proofs for final proofreading and corrections.

Publication : Once published, your work will be available on our website and, if applicable, in print.

Contact Information

For inquiries or assistance, please contact our editorial office at [email protected] . We are here to help you throughout the publication process.

Role Of EIC

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) is the leading role of the journal and makes major decisions for developing and promoting the journal. The EiC has considerable knowledge and expertise about the editorial activities of the journal, and is greatly involved in all key procedures of publication.

Ensuring Scholarly Excellence

The EiC is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the journal's scholarly reputation by ensuring that all published articles meet the highest standards of quality, accuracy, and academic rigor.

Editorial Policy Development

The EiC plays a pivotal role in the development and continuous refinement of the journal's editorial policies, including ethical guidelines, author guidelines, and peer review processes.

Engaging with the Research Community

The EiC should actively engage with the broader academic and research community, attending conferences, workshops, and events to promote the journal, attract submissions, and stay updated with emerging trends.

Stakeholder Communication

The EiC should facilitate effective communication between the editorial team, authors, reviewers, and readers to ensure transparent and efficient editorial processes.

Conflict Resolution

In situations where conflicts or disputes arise, the EiC should serve as a mediator to find amicable solutions that uphold the journal's integrity and reputation.

Editorial Innovation

Encouraging innovative approaches to publishing, such as multimedia content, interactive elements, and data visualization, can help enhance the journal's appeal and reach.

Mentoring and Development

The EiC can play a mentoring role for junior members of the editorial team, providing guidance, support, and opportunities for their professional growth.

Building Collaborations

The EiC can actively seek collaborations with institutions, organizations to foster knowledge exchange and cross-disciplinary research.

Suggests/Contributes Special and Themed Issues or Articles:

The Editor-in-Chief initiates and contributes to special issues, enhancing the journal's impact through curated topics and insightful articles that enrich the scholarly discourse.

Role Of EBM

The Editorial board is a panel of researchers with expertise in the relevant field. They are appointed by the publishers in consent with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Editorial board members are involved in:

Expert Peer Review:

Editorial Board Members diligently conduct rigorous peer reviews of submitted manuscripts, ensuring adherence to the journal's policies and scope. Their critical evaluations contribute to maintaining the scholarly excellence and credibility of the published content.

Curating Cutting-Edge Themes:

Editorial Board Members take the lead in curating compelling theme issues and hot topics that align with the journal's focus. By identifying trending subjects, they drive the exploration of new frontiers in research, fostering thought-provoking discussions among contributors and readers.

Engaging Authors and Contributing Expertise:

Editorial Board Members actively engage with the scholarly community by extending invitations to potential authors to submit their research. Additionally, they lead by example by contributing their own valuable insights through authored articles, enriching the journal's content with their expertise.

Expert Review Facilitation:

Editorial Board Members play a key role in identifying suitable peer reviewers with specialized knowledge in specific topics. Additionally, they offer valuable second opinions on papers when needed, ensuring thorough and comprehensive evaluations that uphold the journal's rigorous review standards.

Advocacy and Promotion:

Editorial Board Members actively champion the journal's visibility by promoting it among authors, readers, and subscribers. They also inspire their colleagues to contribute their research, thereby fostering a vibrant scholarly community that collectively advances the journal's impact and reach.

Strengthening Editorial Expertise:

Editorial Board Members contribute to the growth of the journal by identifying and suggesting accomplished scholars and experts as potential board members. Their recommendations enhance the journal's editorial team with diverse perspectives and expertise, enriching the overall quality of the publication.

Explore articles

• Vol 01, Issue 01
• Open access
• Most Citied

Examining Thermal Comfort Levels and Physical Performance in Malaysian Settings: A Simulation Chamber Experiment

Author(s): Che Mohammad Nizam, Ahmad Rasdan Ismail, Norlini Husshin

Article | Published Online: 06 Oct 2023 | Pages [1 - 8]

MALAYSIA CONSTRUCTION WORKER PERCEPTION ON HEAT STRESS AND ITS IMPACT ON WORK PERFORMANCE

Article | Published Online: 09 Oct 2023 | Pages [9 - 16]

THE ROLE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN PROMOTING ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Author(s): Dr. Mercy Tony

Article | Published Online: 09 Oct 2023 | Pages [17 - 25]

OPTIMIZING THE EFFICIENCY AND COST OF ENTERPRISE LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE: FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Author(s): Yunlin Chen

Article | Published Online: 09 Oct 2023 | Pages [26 - 46]

CLIMATE CHANGE VARIATION AND FARMER’S VIEWPOINT ON AGRICULTURE IN SEMI-ARID REGION

Author(s): A. S. Said, P. Jeevaragagam, S. Harun

Article | Published Online: 09 Oct 2023 | Pages [47 - 55]

UTILIZING NET PROMOTER SCORE TO ASSESS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND BRAND LOYALTY IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY OF THAILAND

Author(s): Nilubon Sivabrovornvatana

Article | Published Online: 09 Oct 2023 | Pages [56 - 66]

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE DECISION-MAKING OF ENTREPRENEURS IN EMERGING ECONOMIES

Article | Published Online: 09 Oct 2023 | Pages [67 - 73]

• Other Issues

A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON HOW DIGITALIZATION HAS EVOLVED ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Article | Published Online: 19 May 2023 | Views: 402 | Citations: 2

MORTGAGING PROPERTY UNDER FRENCH AND VIETNAMESE LEGISLATION: CONTRAST AND COMPARISON

Malaysia construction worker perception on heat stress and its impact on work performance, the effect of soil reinforcement on strength of the soil, submit your article.

Fill the below fields

Article Detail:

• --> Journal International Journal Of Empirical Research Methods Journal Of Business Leadership And Management Cultural Landscape Insights Current Integrative Engineering Sustainable Energy And Environment Review Recent Educational Research Pharmaceutical Breakthroughs Medical Spectrum Review Strategic Financial Review Advanced Chemistry Insights
• --> --> CHOOSE FILES --> No file Selected. --> Choose Files

Corresponding Authors Detail:

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Design

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

Data Collection

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

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

Figure 1 . Growth of articles on leadership and digitalization.

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

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

Figure 2 . Search strategy and selection criteria.

Data Analysis and Qualitative Coding

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

Dataset Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main Theoretical Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Macro Perspective of Analysis: Main Categories

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

The Relationship Between E-Leaders and Organizations

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

Table 2 . Main categories summary.

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

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

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

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

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

Organizations and Ethics

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

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

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

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

Leadership and Digital Tools: Insights From Social Movement Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Micro Level of Analysis: Main Categories

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

The Evolution of C-Level Roles

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

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

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

Leaders' Skills in the Digital Era

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

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

Communicating through digital media

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

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

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

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

High speed decision making

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

Managing disruptive change

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

Managing connectivity

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

The renaissance of technical skills

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

Developing leadership skills in the digital era

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

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

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

Leading Virtual Teams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward The Future: Research Directions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Contributions

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

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by:

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

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

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

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

What Makes a Great Leader?

• Linda A. Hill,
• Emily Tedards,
• Jason Wild,

Tomorrow’s leaders master three key roles — architect, bridger, and catalyst, or ABCs — to access the talent and tools they need to drive innovation and impact. As architects, they build the culture and capabilities for co-creation. As bridgers, they curate and enable networks of talent inside and outside their organizations to co-create. And as catalysts, they lead beyond their organizational boundaries to energize and activate co-creation across entire ecosystems. These ABCs require leaders to stop relying on formal authority as their source of power and shift to a style that enables diverse talent to collaborate, experiment, and learn together — a challenging yet essential personal transformation.

Mastering the ABCs of innovation at scale.

When Ajay Banga took over as CEO of Mastercard, in 2010, he knew that disruption of the payments industry was imminent. But rather than compete for market share within the 15% of global payments that were already electronic, he decided to focus the company’s growth on the 85% that were still made by cash and check transactions. For him, the financial inclusion of individuals and small businesses that lacked access to the formal financial system became both a business imperative and a societal responsibility. It called for new mindsets and behaviors around talent, clients, the market, technology, and government.

In our age of discontinuity, you need the ability to continually shift.

• Linda A. Hill is the Wallace Brett Donham Professor of Business Administration and faculty chair of the Leadership Initiativeat Harvard Business School, the author of Becoming a Manager , and a coauthor of Being the Boss and Collective Genius .
• Emily Tedards is a doctoral student in the Organizational Behavior unit at Harvard Business School and a fellow at Harvard Kennedy’s Reimagining the Economy initiative.
• Jason Wild advises executives of the C-suite globally after leading strategic partnerships and global innovation at Microsoft, IBM, and Salesforce.
• Karl Weber is a writer, an editor, and a publisher of books on business and social issues.

Partner Center

Research handbook of global leadership: Making a difference

Lena Zander (Ed.) Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, 2020, 428 pp. ISBN: 978-1782545347

• Book review
• Published: 04 June 2021
• Volume 52 , pages 1425–1428, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• B. Sebastian Reiche 1  

679 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Coviello, N., Kano, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 1151–1164.

Article   Google Scholar  

Drucker, P. F. 1999. Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77(2): 64–75.

Google Scholar  

Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. 2019. Microfoundations in international management research: The case of knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 50: 1594–1621.

Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. 2011. Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37: 1137–1177.

Reiche, B. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M. E., & Osland, J. S. 2017. Contextualizing leadership: A typology of global leadership roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 552–572.

Reiche, B. S., Mendenhall, M. E., Szkudlarek, B., & Osland, J. S. 2020. At the heart and beyond: What can global leadership researchers learn from perspectives on the Covid-19 pandemic? In J. S. Osland, B. Szkudlarek, M. E. Mendenhall, & B. S. Reiche (Eds.), Advances in global leadership : 261–282, vol. 13. Bingley.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of Management, 29: 883–902.

Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain

B. Sebastian Reiche

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Sebastian Reiche .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Reviewed by

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Reiche, B.S. Research handbook of global leadership: Making a difference. J Int Bus Stud 52 , 1425–1428 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00441-2

Download citation

Accepted : 28 December 2020

Published : 04 June 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00441-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Servant Leadership: a Systematic Literature Review and Network Analysis

Alice canavesi.

1 Business Economics, Carlo Cattaneo University (LIUC), Castellanza, Italy

Eliana Minelli

2 Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Associated Data

We ensure data transparency.

Not applicable.

Servant leadership is a form of moral-based leadership where leaders tend to prioritize the fulfillment of the needs of followers, namely employees, customers and other stakeholders, rather than satisfying their personal needs. Although the concept is not new among both academics and practitioners, it has received growing consideration in the last decade, due to the fact that it can positively affect a series of individual and organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In particular, the latest trend in literature has focused on the identification of the antecedents, mediating and moderating mechanisms at the basis of this relationship, as well as on the development of a common scale to measure the construct across diverse economic and cultural contexts. The purpose of this paper is to depict the evolution of the scientific literature that has developed on the concept, to identify the main criticalities and provide avenues for future research. A dynamic methodology called “Systematic Literature Network Analysis” has been applied, combining the Systematic Literature Review approach with the analysis of bibliographic networks.

Introduction

With the beginning of the twenty-first century, the moral nature of leaders has started to be considered not only necessary for the good of society but also essential for sustainable organizational success (Freeman et al., 2004 ; Gulati et al., 2010 ; Padilla et al., 2007 ), thus marking a considerable shift in research. As a consequence, moral leadership theories, such as transformational, ethical, authentic and servant leadership, have recently received considerable attention from the scientific community.

Servant leadership seems to be the most promising and most investigated over the last few years, especially due to the holistic approach and broad focus adopted compared to the other philosophies, as well as to its important role in affecting individual and team-level outcomes, such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, job performance and job satisfaction. Like most other leadership constructs, the definition and measurement of servant leadership were primarily developed in the United States. In particular, the term servant leadership was coined by Greenleaf in 1970 in his essay “The Servant as Leader" to describe an emerging style of leadership where leaders focused on followers’ personal growth and development, by treating them in an ethical way. The author asserted that the servant leader is “primus inter pares” or “first among equals”, meaning that his/her highest priority is service to others in order to fulfill their needs, rather than fulfilling his or her personal needs. Greenleaf’s conception was then refined by many other scholars, such as Ehrhart ( 2004 ), who claimed that servant leadership is one in which the leader goes beyond the financial success of the organization recognizing his or her moral responsibility towards subordinates, customers and the entire company’s community. The emphasis of the servant leadership philosophy has been placed over time on serving and creating value for multiple stakeholders, both internal and external to the organization. Liden et al. ( 2008 ) further stressed the fundamental leadership behaviours of servant leadership, such as behaving ethically, helping followers grow and succeed, empowering, emotional healing, conceptual skills and creating value for the community.

Research on servant leadership can be categorized into three main phases: a first phase focusing on its conceptual development, a second phase investigating the measures and testing the relationships with some fundamental outcomes via cross-sectional research, and a third phase aimed at understanding the antecedents, mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of servant leadership. The last “model development phase” is the most recent and has seen a proliferation of studies in the last twenty years. A significant contribution to provide an integrative theoretical framework has been recently made by Eva et al. ( 2019 ), who offered a clear conceptual distinction of servant leadership compared to other approaches, evaluated and assessed the most rigorous scales of the construct developed so far, and highlighted the most important antecedents, outcomes, moderating and mediating mechanisms identified in the literature.

The purpose of this research is to provide a further and complementary review of the literature on servant leadership through bibliometric methods, in order to assess the evolution of the field over time as well as the current state-of-art on the key trends and provide avenues for future research. In particular, the authors aim to identify:

• The structure of the field, the most consolidated research and its temporal and geographical evolution
• The most recurring theoretical underpinning and constructs
• The most cited articles representing milestones of the literature
• The most impactful authors and journals
• The disciplines and subject areas involved by the topic
• Research implications
• Future research directions

The structure of the paper is as follows. In the first section, the methodology adopted for the literature review and the steps taken in developing the research are presented. In the second section, the results of three different analyses are explained: namely, the paper citation network consisting in the connected components and the main path, the keywords analysis, and finally the global analysis with the basic statistics. In the third and final section, the main conclusions are drawn and questions to be addressed by future research are provided.

The paper is based on a two-step method, referred to as “Systematic Literature Network Analysis (SLNA)” (Colicchia & Strozzi, 2012 ): a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and a further analysis of the subset of relevant articles obtained through a bibliographic Network Analysis (NA): namely, the citation network analysis, the co-occurrence networks analysis and the basic statistics. The first qualitative assessment is mainly based on the researchers’ judgements as to the selection of keywords and leverages on an explanatory approach; while the bibliometric assessment provides more objective insights through quantitative and statistical evidence (Aliyev et al., 2018). In particular, bibliographic data analysed through bibliometric methods include the most impactful author names, journal titles, article titles, article keywords and article publication years (Block & Fisch, 2020). The aim is to “complement the traditional content-based literature reviews by extracting quantitative information from bibliographic networks and detect emerging topics, thus revealing the dynamic evolution of the scientific production of a discipline” (Strozzi et al., 2017 ). This dynamic analysis has proven to be effective in different research fields, as it highlights the literature development, identifies authors network and topic clusters, examines gaps and criticalities as well as presents further research directions. In contrast to narrative literature reviews, which aim to summarize the content of the studies of a particular research field, SLNA focuses on assessing the conceptual structure of the field and its development over time (e.g. how has the number of studies evolved, how have the topics evolved, how have the outlets evolved, etc.). It goes beyond a mere descriptive summary of prior literature, by leading a discussion of what we know and where we can go, and allows the measurement of the knowledge diffusion within and between disciplines, by identifying interdisciplinary links. Moreover, compared to traditional methods which lack a clear methodological approach, quantitative bibliographic studies make it possible to avoid the researchers’ selection bias by selecting clear keywords and exclusion / inclusion criteria and by adopting clear boundaries at every stage to ensure a systematic search of papers (Fetscherin & Heinrich, 2015; Block & Fisch, 2020), to the point that the process can be replicated at any time. Lastly, SLNA is characterized by a more up-to-date and broader scope (with regards, for instance, to the journals and publication years considered), thus minimizing the risk of producing an over-reflective and biased argument by the authors but rather leading to evidence-based conclusions.

Figure  1 clarifies all the steps of the methodology.

Systematic Literature Network Analysis (SLNA)

The reference database chosen for the development of the research was Scopus, due to its coverage, convenience, and in alignment with the current literature. According to Falagas et al. ( 2017 ) as well as to Block and Fisch (2020), Scopus includes a more expanded spectrum of journals and a faster and broader citation analysis compared to other research databases, such as Web of Science (WoS). This result has been confirmed by Chadegani et al. ( 2013 ), who assessed that Scopus covers a superior number of journals compared to WoS, even though it is limited to more recent articles, and by Bergman ( 2012 ), who demonstrated that Scopus also provides higher citation counts than Google Scholar and WoS. Moreover, compared to these two other databases, Adriaanse and Rensleigh ( 2013 ) proved that Scopus delivers the least inconsistencies regarding content verification and quality, such as author spelling and sequence, volume and issue number.

The key search criteria and final query were defined on the basis of the keywords used by scholars to address the concept of servant leadership, according to one reference paper among the main pillars of the literature: “Servant leadership: a systematic review and call for future research” (Eva et al., 2019 ) from which this paper mainly differs due to its quantitative citation-based methodology. The most common keywords in literature, also employed in this study, consist of: servant leadership, servant leader, service leadership, servant behaviour and servant organization . In order to develop a more comprehensive definition and consequently to obtain a more comprehensive sample on the topic, the search criteria were loosened to “servant leader*” OR “service leader*” to include both “servant leadership” and “servant leader(s)” OR “service leadership” and “service leader(s)”. Also, considering the different spelling between British English and American English, both terms “behaviour” and “behaviour” were included. As the literature on leadership is very broad, the terms above were limited to three streams of search in the section “Article title” to include only articles that were strictly related and focused on the topic, and not dealing with it in a marginal way, but also to obtain a moderate number of papers to conduct the analysis. This systematic literature review is most suitable when the number of papers is not too limited nor too big. The authors tried to conduct a broader search stream also including keywords and abstracts, but it resulted not applicable: it provided several thousand results and the content of papers obtained was in most cases out of scope. Since the focus of the research was servant leadership from a human resource and organizational perspective, areas were investigated individually to assess whether they were pertinent or not with the topic. On the basis of this analysis, it was possible to include: Business, Social sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Psychology, Arts and Humanities, Decision sciences, Environmental science and Multidisciplinary. Papers written in languages other than English were excluded. With regards to the time span, the year in which the study was conducted (2020) was eliminated in order to consider only papers of concluded years. Finally, the search was limited to articles and conference papers, as they contain very clear citations and make it possible to achieve ideal results. See Table ​ Table1 1 for the final specification of the query.

Query final specification

This procedure allowed us to obtain a subset of 357 papers published between 1984 and 2019, which were then analysed using VOSViewer (Van Eck et al., 2010 ; Waltman et al., 2010 ) and Pajek software (de Nooy et al., 2011) to identify the main citation path emerging from the citation network and also key concepts and trends emerging from the co-occurrence network. Afterwards, the basic statistics of the whole subset of papers were examined in order to provide some general insights: the temporal and geographical evolution of the literature, the subject areas involved, the ranking of the 10 most cited papers and the most influential authors and journals. The findings of these analyses are reported in the following sections.

Citation Network Analysis

The initial procedure of the network analysis was aimed at identifying the main article clusters emerging from the citation network by using the VOS Clustering analysis (Van Eck et al., 2010 ; Waltman et al., 2010 ). “A citation network is a network where the nodes are papers and the links are citations. The arrows go from cited to citing papers representing the flow of knowledge.” (Strozzi et al., 2017 ). For the identification of the connected component, the minimum threshold of 0 was maintained in order not to exclude recent papers and less relevant authors. The largest connected component (a set of nodes connected by links) consisted of 291 items connected to each other, with 85 different clusters. No other significant connected components emerged from the literature. Figure  2 presents the network obtained with VOSviewer, where nodes are weighted by the citations and coloured with both a cluster and year overlay.

Citation network analysis (size = citation, color = cluster)

The following procedure of the network analysis consisted in implementing the key route algorithm (main path) of the network, using Pajek: a program providing powerful visualization tools. The objective was to identify the nodes that cite or have been cited the most, thus representing the most consolidated research in the field. This was possible by conducting the betweenness centrality analysis of a vertex, which is “the proportion of all geodesics between pairs of other vertices that include this vertex” (de Nooy et al., 2011, p. 131). The betweenness centrality analysis allows to focus on the importance of a node in the communication between any node pair in the network, to identify those playing a central role in information flows and being responsible for the system vulnerability (i.e. vertexes lying on many of the shortest paths between other vertexes). Figure  3 shows the flow of knowledge over time, with the network of the 25 essential articles, intensively cited and referring to other papers, labelled by Pajek with the name of the first author and the year of publication. It is clear how the research structure has changed over time: from 1996 to 2012 it developed linearly, while from 2012 on it has started to articulate towards different directions often interconnected to each other. One possible interpretation of this pattern is the following: originally, the novelty of the subject led to a straight evolution of the field over time, afterwards, once the topic gained ground and different research trends emerged, referencing papers and literature reviews started to come out.

Main path of articles from citation network

Based on the previous analysis, the most relevant papers were studied not only to identify the key concepts expressed by the single paper but most importantly to understand the evolution of the field over time. The analysis of the main path allowed for pinpointing trends and variations that would not be very visible in the general set of papers. The main findings, which are the result of a quantitative analysis and have not been selected by the authors according to a discretionary criterion, are reported in the following section with the aim of depicting a landscape of the scientific literature on the concept of servant leadership.

Main Path Analysis

The most recent paper dealing with servant leadership is the one by Yang et al. ( 2019 ), which builds on self-determination theory to investigate, through an empirical study conducted in the Chinese banking sector, how servant leadership affects employee creativity. The authors used a survey based on five-point Likert scales to assess that there is a positive relationship between servant leadership and employee creativity, mediated by follower psychological empowerment and moderated by work-family conflict. This paper can be considered as a pillar of the literature as it gathers the contributions of several articles, including a paper by the same author written two years before. Yang et al. ( 2017 ) previously provided evidence on other mechanisms influencing the relationship between servant leadership and creativity both at the individual and team level: employees’ efficacy beliefs, as a mediator, and team power distance, as a moderator. With regards to work-family balance, a similar study conducted by Tang et al. ( 2016 ) demonstrated that servant leadership is negatively related to employees’ work-to-family conflict (WFC) and positively related to work-to-family positive spillovers (WFPS), with the moderator role of reduced emotional exhaustion in both relationships and the mediator role of enhanced personal learning in the relationship between servant leadership and WFPS. Hoch et al. ( 2018 ) compared servant leadership and other moral-based forms of leadership (authentic leadership and ethical leadership) with transformational leadership, to assess whether they were able to explain incremental variance with respect to a series of relevant organizational outcomes. Servant leadership emerged as the only positive leadership style adding incremental variance to that explained by transformational leadership, thus being of significant utility. Previously, Van Dierendonck et al. ( 2014 ) leveraged on two experimental studies and one field study to differentiate servant leadership from transformational leadership in the way they affect organizational commitment and work engagement, as the former is mediated by follower need satisfaction while the latter by perceived leadership effectiveness. Hsiao et al. ( 2015 ) systematically integrated the three levels of organization, employee and customer to demonstrate that leaders displaying servant behaviours stimulate customer value co-creation (CVC) with the key mediating roles of positive psychological capital (PPC) and service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs). Newman et al. ( 2017 ) found that at the basis of the link between servant leadership and followers’ OCBs, there are also the mediating mechanism of leader-member exchange (LMX) and the moderating mechanism of leader proactive personality. Chiniara and Bentein ( 2016 ) previously provided other mediating mechanisms between servant leadership and individual performance outcomes such as OCBs and task performance: namely the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs of employees (autonomy, competence and relatedness). Ozyilmaz and Cicek ( 2015 ) tested the positive effects of servant leadership on OCBs and on job satisfaction, assessing that this second relationship is partially mediated by psychological climate. Hunter et al. ( 2013 ) further investigated both the direct effects generated by servant leaders at the individual level, such as decreased turnover intentions and disengagement, and the indirect effects generated at the team level, such as decreased turnover intentions, helping and sales behaviour through the mediation of service climate. Moreover, they investigated the basis for individuals enacting this mode of leadership and found that leader agreeableness represents a positive antecedent of servant leadership, while extraversion a negative one. Executive characteristics of servant leaders were also tested by Peterson et al. ( 2012 ) , who assessed that narcissism is negatively related to servant leadership while founder status (i.e. founder or non-founder) is positively related to servant leadership; both effects are partially mediated by the chief executive officer identification in the organization. Sun ( 2013 ) further concentrated on the identity of servant leaders, by explaining the psychological factors, both cognitive and behavioural, that constitute it. Neubert et al. ( 2016 ) tested servant leadership effects in hospitals, accumulating evidence that there is a positive relationship with both nurse and patient satisfaction, moderated by organizational structure. Similarly, Chen et al. ( 2015 ) explored how managers’ servant leadership affect the performance of frontline service employees’, such as hairdressers, through the partial mediation of self-efficacy and group identification. In relation to these performance behaviours, they also found that servant leadership explains additional variance above and beyond transformational leadership. Liden et al. ( 2014 ) developed a model to test servant leadership in restaurants and stores. Specifically, they demonstrated that servant leaders propagate servant leadership behaviours among employees, such as increased job performance, creativity and customer service behaviours as well as decreased turnover intentions, by establishing a serving culture at the unit level (e.g. store) and fostering employee identification with the unit. Liden et al. ( 2015 ) contributed to the literature by providing the shortest-to-date 7-item scale (SL-7) measure of global servant leadership, starting from a previous 28-item scale (SL-28) developed in 2008, and tested it across three empirical independent studies. Besides the topic of employee creativity already investigated in literature, Yoshida et al. ( 2014 ) ascertained the effects of servant leadership on individual relational identification and collective prototypicality, which, in turn, fosters team innovation. Antecedents of servant leadership discussed above have been examined by other scholars, such as Hu and Liden ( 2011 ), who identified team-level goal, process clarity and team servant leadership as three mechanisms affecting team potency, performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. The authors also emphasized the role of servant leaders in moderating the link between team-level goal and process clarity with team potency. Similar outcomes were found a year before by Walumbwa et al. ( 2010 ), whose analyses revealed that the relationship between servant leadership and OCBs is partially mediated by commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate and service climate. Hale and Fields ( 2007 ) leveraged on three servant leadership dimensions introduced by Greenleaf (1977), namely service, humility and vision, to point out cultural differences affecting the way servant leadership is perceived in different countries. Specifically, they found that countries with a higher level of power distance and collectivism experience servant leadership behaviours less frequently. They also assessed that, when great value is placed on uncertainty avoidance, vision has a significant stronger relationship with leadership effectiveness. Previously, Dennis and Bocarnea ( 2005 ) developed and tested a scale aimed at measuring five out of the seven servant leadership constructs based on Patterson’s theory: agapao love (which means to love in a social or moral way), humanity, vision, trust and empowerment. This theoretical development was drawn on a literature review by Russell ( 2001 ), who provided an overview of the current individual and organizational values associated with servant leadership, deepening their role in three main attributes: trust, appreciation of others and empowerment. A sequential, upward-spiralling model based on the variables of vision, influence, credibility, trust and service was formerly developed by Farling et al. ( 1999 ) to explain how these variables relate one to another in defining the concept at the basis of servant leadership. This paper represented an evolution of two former analyses. The first one consists in a servant leadership model developed by Buchen ( 1998 ) within the context of higher education and based on five main dimensions: identity (the direction of ego and image), empowering (the sharing of power with collaborators), reciprocity (a relationship of mutual dependency between leaders and followers), commitment (the absolute devotion to academic discipline) and finally future (the alignment between faculty and institution). The second is a reflection paper on Greenleaf’s definition of servant leadership by Spears ( 1996 ), which, on the one hand, emphasizes the primary goal of serving the greater needs of others and, on the other hand, draws the evolution of the topic from its genesis (1970) to the current time (2019).

At first, from the mid 1990’s to the late 2000’s, research was mainly qualitative and moved towards the development of a theoretical framework of servant leadership, as well as of various scales aimed at measuring the main dimensions of the construct. The last stream of research from 2010 to 2020, instead, suggests the authors’ orientation for a quantitative approach based on surveys, experimental and field studies to investigate the antecedents, mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of servant leadership. Recently, some qualitative studies have emerged again on the topic; however, very few scholars are taking advantage of mixed methods combining the quantitative and qualitative approach.

From a theoretical perspective, the attempt of the present paper was also that of identifying meaningful constructs, underpinnings and framework used in the most consolidated literature on servant leadership, even if not explicitly mentioned by single studies. All papers, except one, were built on the basis of the servant leadership theory, often in combination with theories on other leadership styles, such as transformational, or on antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators of servant leadership, such as LMX theory. Moreover, the majority of paper explicitly employed more than one theoretical basis. The most recurring theory (6 out of 25 papers) was the social exchange theory, which was defined by Blau (1964) as “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (p. 91) and is based on the central premise that the exchange of social and material resources is a fundamental form of human interaction. Motivational theories were also found several times (6 papers), with different sub-theories, such as goal-setting theory, motivational language theory and intrinsic motivation theory, emphasizing various factors that can foster personal or followers’ motivation. The most important among these motivational theories came out to be the self-determination theory’s (SDT) basic psychological needs, which consists in an empirically-based theory of human behavior and personality development aimed at identifying the social-contextual aspects that promote or prevent motivation based on the satisfaction of basic psychological needs such as competence, relatedness and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017, pag. 3). The social learning theory (SLT), then evolved in the social cognitive theory (SCT), also emerged to be fundamental (5 papers), positing that learning occurs within a social context through the combination of individual experience, social interaction and environmental factors. Finally, the least recurring theory was the social identity theory (2 papers), which is a social psychological theory examining the role of self and identity in group and intergroup dynamics (Hogg, 2016).

Co-word Network Analysis (Keywords Analysis: VOS Clustering)

A second type of analysis, focused on the authors’ keywords, was carried out in VOSviewer on the basis of the co-occurrence network. Co-occurrence analysis assumes that the article keywords chosen by various authors represent an adequate description of the content or of the relationship that the paper establishes between investigated problems (Strozzi et al., 2017 ). The aim of the analysis was to frame the development of the research trends over time: if many co-occurrences can be identified around a term, this is likely to represent a specific research pattern of the discipline. An occurrence threshold of 8 was used, with the goal of ensuring clusters’ consistency in terms of content and dimension. A set of the 17 most relevant keywords divided into 3 different clusters was obtained, as shown in Fig.  4 .

Co-occurrence author keywords network (size = total link strength, color = cluster)

The network’s nodes correspond to the keywords of the 357 papers’ authors and their link weights to how many times the words appear in the papers. Three colors (red, blue and green) differentiate the keywords belonging to one cluster from other clusters’ keywords, while the dimension of the node stands for the total link strength.

In the following section, the keywords clusters are examined in order to address the most relevant research patterns in the literature. Hence, the topics below have been discussed on the basis of the output of a quantitative analysis, aimed at addressing the most used keywords in the literature and identifying research trajectories within each cluster.

Cluster 1: Servant Leadership, Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Leadership Development, Scale Development, Trust

Servant leadership is one of the most recently investigated and adopted approaches belonging to the branch of moral leadership theories. As such, it has been studied in parallel with other similar leadership styles, such as transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is a positive form of leadership developed by Burns in 1978 as an ongoing process where “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation beyond self-interest to serve collective interests”. This concept was then expanded by Bass ( 1985 ) and applied to organizations as a guideline for leaders to make followers perform beyond expectations. From a theoretical standpoint, a significant overlap between servant leadership and transformational leadership has been assessed by scholars, especially in terms of vision, influence, credibility, trust and service shown by leaders, to the point that servant leadership has often been considered as a form of transformational leadership (Farling et al., 1999 ). Trust, in particular, has been addressed in both leadership styles as central to relationship: an important factor in the interdependence existing between leaders and followers, consisting in four distinct dimensions: competence, openness, concern and reliability. Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to define the major variables involved in the servant-leader follower transformational model. On the other hand, research has tried to identify and address the main differences, or better nuances, between the two leadership approaches: while servant leadership focuses more on supporting and developing individuals within an institution, transformational leadership emphasizes the role of leaders in inspiring followers to work towards a common goal (Allen et al., 2016 ).

In 2010s, another stream of literature has focused on the development of a reliable and multidimensional scale to measure various aspects of servant leadership. Examples include the 6-item Servant Leadership Behavior scale (Sendjaya et al., 2019 ) to measure servant leadership behaviors in a leader, or the Executive Servant Leadership Scale (Reed et al., 2011 ) to measure executive servant leadership across different organizational contexts.

Cluster 2: Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Public Sector, China

Several empirical studies have analyzed the relationship between servant leadership and different organizational outcomes, both at the individual and collective level, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, different mediating and moderating mechanisms as well as various antecedents of this type of relationship have been investigated. For instance, Kauppila et al. ( 2018 ) demonstrated that HR manager servant leadership positively influences organizational employees’ overall justice perception, which in turn enhances organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Moreover, they found that high leadership self-efficacy fosters a line manager’s effectiveness to emulate servant leadership behaviors from HR managers and use these behaviors to advance positive justice perceptions among their followers.

Since the general concept of leadership and the specific concept of servant leadership were developed in the US and in western societies, a consistent research stream has examined the generalizability of servant leadership constructs in completely different cultural contexts, such as China. US society is indeed highly individualistic, short-term oriented and characterized by low-power distance, meaning that relationships are expected to be participatory, democratic and consultative, while Chinese society is permeated by a collectivist culture, long-term goals and high-power distance, therefore based on the expectation that power is distributed unequally. Also, most of these studies were conducted in the public sector, where servant leadership has proven to be very effective in fostering many positive organizational outcomes. Liu et al. ( 2015 ) partially confirmed the generalizability of servant leadership constructs from Western society to China and also found a positive relationship between supervisors’ servant leadership and the public service motivation.

Cluster 3: Organizational Culture, Humans, Human, Adult, Male, Female, Article

Organizations across different fields and geographical contexts need to understand the role of a leadership that is responsive to a “service mission” in driving the company’s evolution and success. Effective servant leadership practices are “humane oriented”; they are implemented when managers or leaders invest in human resources to create a social exchange relationship with employees that makes them feel valued and repay the organization through positive outcomes (Karatepe et al., 2019 ). As a consequence, employees’ commitment and creativity are stimulated and organizational citizenship and prosocial behaviors are fostered, leading to an increase in organizational performance. For instance, Zhou and Miao ( 2014 ) found that servant leadership positively influences employees’ commitment through perceived organizational support as a mediator.

In this framework, culture, and particularly organizational culture, is strictly connected to the leadership style adopted within a company. On the one hand, servant leadership is more likely to apply in contexts characterized by specific cultural values such as paternalism, collectivism and low-power distance. On the other hand, servant leadership can be adopted to create a new organizational culture based on trust, fairness and high-quality leader–follower relationships (Lee et al., 2019 ).

Leadership attitudes also vary according to gender, as some studies reported that, relative to their counterparts, leading females are more likely to display behaviors of altruistic calling, emotional healing and organizational stewardship (Beck, 2014) and to hold service and altruistic value (De Rubio & Kiser, 2015); therefore, they more often behave as servant leaders.

Keywords Temporal Analysis

From a temporal standpoint, VOSviewer offers a graphic representation that allows us to identify the most recent keywords and therefore the core topics currently discussed in literature.

Figure  5 , overlay visualization, displays the ultimate research trends by coloring them in yellow, in contrast with the oldest, colored in blue. It is possible to infer that the concept of servant leadership has been recently discussed in relation to some important outcomes, such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction, to which it is linked by evidence. The effectiveness of this leadership style represented in several organizational contexts has encouraged the development of specific leadership practices, such as training or interventions, aimed at fostering the servant leadership behaviors. At present, most empirical studies have focused on the public sector, as it is often characterized by front-line employees who imitate servant leaders’ behaviors displayed by their managers, thus promoting the quality of relationships with end-customers and providing significant benefits to the whole organization. In this framework, the influence of organizational culture is still relevant, as it determines the way servant leadership is built by leaders and perceived by followers, along with its effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes. In fact, according to the cultural climate, servant leadership may relate to both individual and organizational outcomes through different mediating and moderating mechanisms.

Overlay visualization

Global Analysis: Basic Statistics

In the “analyze search results” section of Scopus, it is possible to gain some general insights into the whole subset of 357 papers used for the purpose of this literature review.

Figure  6 shows how the topic of servant leadership dates back to the mid 1980s but started receiving significant attention only with the beginning of the new millennium. Particularly, it experienced exponential growth from 2007 to 2019. This corresponds to the period when the first scales for the measurement of servant leadership were developed allowing the conduction of several empirical studies across various organizational contexts.

Documents by year

From a geographical standpoint, it is possible to observe in Fig.  7 how the trend has interested primarily the United States (40.8%), where theories of servant leadership first originated, and China in the second place (13.8%), where the western construct of servant leadership was tested to assess its reliability and validity across cultures. Several cultural differences have indeed been assessed between the United States and the Chinese culture; for instance, China is a long-term and collectivist country committed to work loyalty and respect, while the United States are more individualistic and oriented to short-term business relationships. The topic has then spread in most Anglo-Saxon countries, such as Australia (7.7%), United Kingdom (7.4%), South Africa (5.8%) and Canada (4.5%), probably fostered by their use of a common language and their cultural and historical ties. The countries of Netherlands, Hong Kong, Spain and Turkey represent altogether the remaining 19.9%.

Documents by country or territory

Servant leadership is a versatile and multidisciplinary topic, as it can be applied to a variety of contexts that also fall outside that of the typical corporation. Figure  8 shows how, besides Business, Management and Accounting (38.7%), the subject areas of Social Sciences (25.3%) Psychology (11.1%) and Arts and Humanities (7.9%) are also significantly involved in the literature. This can be explained by the fact that, rather than organizations, at the core of servant leadership are humans: specifically, leaders and their followers.

Documents by subject area

Figure  9 shows the contribution of the most impactful journals over time. The Leadership and Organization Development Journal with 22 articles out of 63, is the leading in the field and has grown exponentially from 2015. The journal of Business Ethics, with its 15 articles, has also been very influential for contributions to servant leadership research in the last decade. Other articles focusing on servant leadership have been published in Leadership Quarterly (10), International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (8), and Leadership Organization Development Journal (8), which are also the longest-running in time.

Documents per year by source

With regards to the scholars who significantly contributed to the academic research on servant leadership (Fig.  10 ), some are based in the United States, where leadership theories have originated and are still widely investigated; the remaining part are based in Europe and Australia but have worked for important American journals and communities, such as Greenleaf center for servant leadership. The most important contribution comes from van Dierendonck (2014, 2019), who has an expertise in leadership and leadership development at Erasmus University (Rotterdam, Holland) and is the associate editor of the International Journal of Servant Leadership, published by Gonzaga University (Washington, United States) in collaboration with the Spears Center for Servant-Leadership. Two other influential authors are Liden et al. ( 2008 , 2014 , 2015 ) and Sendjaya et al. ( 2008 , 2019 ), who have been writing for some of the most important journals in the field, such as Leadership quarterly, Journal of business ethics and Leadership and organizational development journal, which were also highlighted by the previous analysis (Fig.  9 ). The remaining scholars, Winston and Fields ( 2015 ), Eva (2019), Ruiz-Palomino (2018), Bande (2015), Barbuto and Wheeler ( 2006 ), Cooper (2014) and Jaramillo (2009, 2015), have to be mentioned as they also provided considerable contribution to research, as proved by the number of citations of their works.

Documents by author

Figure  11 shows the output of an analysis performed in order to identify recent breakthrough papers that have provided a significant contribution to the topic and have received considerable attention from the scientific community. The ten most cited papers have been identified by extracting all 357 papers from the Scopus database and ranking them according to the overall number of citations of the last 5 years, divided by 5 (average value of citation per year). This reduced time span has been chosen instead of the time-length of the whole dataset in order to avoid the biased result of obtaining the oldest papers as the most cited, due to the fact that they would have received a greater number of citations over time. The article with the highest number of citations is the one by Liden et al. ( 2008 ) who developed and validated a multidimensional measure of 28 items measuring 9 essential dimensions of servant leadership. This scale has been widely applied to test the construct validity in various organizational contexts in recent time, together with its shortened version of 7 item developed by Wayne et al. in 2015. The remaining most cited articles can be divided in three groups, according to the research streams. One stream has focused on the clarification of the construct and the servant leadership theories in organizations, including scale development and validation. A second stream has been investigating the mediating and moderating mechanisms through which servant leadership leads to a series of behavioral, attitudinal and performance outcomes, both at the individual and collective level. Finally, a third stream has compared servant leadership to other moral-based leadership styles, such as transformational, ethical and authentic leaderships in terms of focus and their associations with a wide range of organizationally relevant measures. All the most cited papers are part of the biggest component shown in Fig.  2 ; moreover, four out of the ten papers are included in the main path, while the remaining six are not. Being written by more than one authors, these impactful papers are the result of a significant investigation conducted on the topic by more scholars. Altogether, the articles suggest that the most consistent trend in literature is moving towards the measurement of servant leadership across various cultural and organizational contexts, at both the individual and collective levels (organization, employee, customer, etc.). This has been possible through the clarification of the common constructs composing servant leadership and the development of a scale able to test them across different organizations and organizational levels.

Ranking of the ten most cited papers in the last 5 years (mean value of citation per year)

This paper represents an attempt to rationalize the content of research developed in the context of servant leadership. The limitations of the study are mainly related to the adopted methodology. First of all, it consists in a literature review based on a citation network analysis, which may not be fully representative of a paper’s qualitative contribution to the body of knowledge, especially because VOSviewer shows only a part of the whole subset. Moreover, citations could be biased because scholars often tend to cite the most relevant articles in the literature, driven by their reputation and popularity. However, these limitations can be overcome due to the fact that the purpose of the current study is to depict an evolutionary path of the topic, rather than investigate in-depth the contribution of single papers.

The growing body of empirical studies on servant leadership, analyzed for the purpose of the analysis, has allowed to identify some consolidated streams of research and some areas of the literature deserving further investigation. First of all, there is evidence that servant leadership can foster employees’ positive outcomes, with different antecedents and through various mediating and moderating mechanisms. These outcomes have been found at the individual, team and organizational level and are of various types: behavioral, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and proactive behavior (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016 ; Newman et al., 2017 ; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015 ; Walumbwa et al., 2010 ) attitudinal, such as engagement and job satisfaction (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016 ; Hunter et al., 2013 ; Kauppila et al., 2018 ; Van Dierendonck et al., 2014 ) and performance, such as customer value co-creation and team performance (Hsiao et al., 2015 ; Hu & Liden, 2011 ). Moreover, servant leadership has been found to be of significant utility in explaining incremental variance above and beyond transformational, ethical and authentic leadership, with regards to these organizationally relevant criterion measures (Hoch et al., 2018 ). For this reason, scholars have addressed their attention to this leadership approach and several companies are moving towards the adoption of an organizational climate based on service, ethics and healthy work relationships that could significantly contribute to the organizational success (Eva et al., 2019 ). This aspect makes servant leadership attractive for both future research and usage. Also, in the analyses of the present study (main path, keywords clusters, global statistics), no significant criticism of servant leadership, from both an empirical and theoretical level, has emerged; the development of minor critical examinations has always started from a prior enhancement of the construct and its positive outcomes. It has to be considered, however, that the unquestioned positive praise of servant leadership may be due to the so called “Matthew effect”: the fact that those papers offering a promising perspective of servant leadership, which have previously been successful, are more likely to be cited again and again (Bol et al., 2018 ).

Although a positive interpretation of servant leadership prevails in the literature, the authors of the present study went beyond the outputs of the main analyses to identify in the literature some potential drawbacks associated with the adoption of this practice within organizations (Palumbo, 2015 ). First of all, it has to be considered that the servant leadership approach takes time to build, as it requires strong interpersonal relationships engaging the emotional, relational and ethical dimension of followers, in which both the leader and the followers play a vital role in maintaining them over time. Plus, the servant leadership style may not be suitable for all organizations, especially those characterized by a fast-changing environment where decisions have to be made quickly, due to the fact that they would require a fast top-down approach, rather than bottom-up. Another risk is losing sight of the purpose of the organization and ultimate goals in favour of people development: the servant leader is in fact devoted to the individual employee and their growth rather than to the organization. This could have negative effects on the organizational effectiveness. On the other hand, a successful company performance is not always due to a visionary leader who establishes a climate of service, as this represents a common misperception of the business world: the halo effect (i.e. the tendency to make specific inferences on the basis of a general impression).

Lastly, too much healing and empathy shown by the leader may turn into merely protective behaviour towards followers, which would discourage them from adopting a proactive role and promptly dealing with critical issues within the organization. This would challenge the prevailing arguments of the literature of servant leadership by producing a disabling environment that disempowers employees and leads to a situation of dependency on the leader (Palumbo, 2015 ). To prevent this possible counterintuitive consequence, servant leaders should act as role models and lead by example, ensuring at the same time that followers have the right degree of autonomy and responsibility. In light of these considerations, the conceptualization of servant leadership should be revisited to contemplate its side-effects, in terms of followers’ behaviour, leader–follower relationships and organizational outcomes, to prevent the impoverishment of the overall organizational effectiveness predicted by some studies (Andersen, 2009 ; Palumbo, 2015 ; Liu, 2019 ; Chenwei et al., 2021 , Wu et al., 2021 ).

In particular, the authors of the present study have leveraged on a critical assessment of the outputs of the main analyses of the literature on servant leadership to identify some research areas that have not been examined in detail and deserve further investigation:

• servant leaders’ system of beliefs and values (i.e. ethics) as well as other antecedents, that may significantly affect followers’ and organizational performance;
• other mediating or moderating mechanisms (i.e. contextual discriminants) influencing the relationship between servant leadership and positive outcomes, both at the individual and organizational level;
• servant leadership behaviours displayed by followers, that are useful to promote customers’ satisfaction, especially in the service sector;
• the utility of servant leadership in contexts where it has not yet been evaluated, such as technology, to test its validity across industries;
• longitudinal, multi-level studies confirming the effectiveness and generalizability of the most recent scale of global servant leadership assessment (SL-7) across culturally diverse countries (other than the US and China, as suggested by this literature review), according to well-known frameworks such as Hofstede’s
• critical theoretical and empirical investigation of the potential shortcomings of servant leadership often neglected by scholars, to challenge the current positive interpretation of the topic and advance the scientific knowledge

Additionally, on the basis of the authors’ considerations, the role of servant leadership, compared to other types of leadership, may be investigated within the institutional framework (e.g. public services and administration, where it has shown to be very effective) and companies’ organizational change management.

Conclusions and Managerial Implications

Due to its holistic approach, broad focus and important role in affecting both individual and team-level outcomes, servant leadership has seen a proliferation of studies in the last 20 years. In response to this research trend, the aim of this paper was threefold. First of all, the recent evolution of the field was depicted through the identification of the main articles cluster that has been cited the most, thus representing the consolidated literature. Second, the development of the research trends over time was framed on the basis of the co-occurrence of authors’ keywords. Third, by conducting analyses on the main subset of papers, the authors presented some general insights on the topic, such as its temporal and geographical development, the main contexts where it has been studied and applied, the most cited papers providing a significant contribution to the field and the most influential journals and authors. The results of the analyses conducted in the present study indicate that the interpretation of servant leadership prevailing in literature is positive, due to the promising attitudinal, behavioural and performance outcomes that it can produce on followers.

Nevertheless, scholars should examine the potential drawbacks of servant leadership, assess its validity across industries, as well as identify the best scenario where it can be implemented. From a practical standpoint, managers should consider the importance of promoting servant leadership in employment settings, to develop specific skills and ultimately improve an organizational climate of empowerment. The servant leadership approach may be particularly effective in the post covid-19 scenario and / or in contexts characterized by a high degree of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA). In these environments, leaders struggle to make all decisions, thus requiring the proactiveness and motivational orientation of all employees, which have been identified as important mediators to positive followers’ outcomes in the servant leadership research (Eva et al., 2019 ). Specifically, further considerations are needed in relation to the potential role of this leadership practice in empowering and supporting followers, as well as in giving them the right degree of autonomy and responsibility to take on new challenges and act on behalf of the company when pressured by the external environment.

Data Availability

Code availability, declarations.

We have no conflict of interest or competing interest to disclose.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Alice Canavesi, Email: ti.cuil@isevanaca .

Eliana Minelli, Email: ti.cuil@illenime .

• Adriaanse LS, Rensleigh C. Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library. 2013; 31 (6):727–744. doi: 10.1108/EL-12-2011-0174. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen GP, Moore WM, Moser LN, Neill KK, Sambamoorthi U, Bell HS. The role of Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership in Academic Pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2016; 80 (7):113. doi: 10.5688/ajpe807113. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersen J. When a servant-leader comes knocking … Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2009; 30 :4–15. doi: 10.1108/01437730910927070. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbuto JE, Jr, Wheeler DW. Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management. 2006; 31 (3):300–326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergman EML. Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2012; 38 (6):370–379. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bol T, Vaan M, Rijt A. The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018; 115 (19):201719557. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchen IH. Servant leadership: A model for future faculty and future institutions. Journal of Leadership Studies. 1998; 5 (1):125–134. doi: 10.1177/107179199800500111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus MM, Farhadi H, Fooladi M, Farhadi M, Ebrahim NA. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science. 2013; 9 (5):18–26. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen CY, Chen CHV, Li CI. The influence of leader's spiritual values of servant leadership on employee motivational autonomy and eudaemonic well-being. Journal of Religion and Health. 2013; 52 :418–438. doi: 10.1007/s10943-011-9479-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Z, Zhu J, Zhou M. How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015; 100 (2):511–521. doi: 10.1037/a0038036. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chenwei L, Whee LH, Johnson RE, Szu-Han L. Serving you depletes me? A leader-centric examination of servant leadership behaviors. Journal of Management. 2021; 47 (5):1185–1218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiniara M, Bentein K. Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (1):124. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chughtai AA. Servant leadership and follower outcomes: Mediating effects of organizational identification and psychological safety. The Journal of Psychology. 2016; 150 (7):866–880. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1170657. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colicchia C, Strozzi F. Supply chain risk management: A new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management. 2012; 17 (4):403–418. doi: 10.1108/13598541211246558. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dennis RS, Bocarnea M. Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2005; 26 (7):600–615. doi: 10.1108/01437730510633692. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehrhart MG. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology. 2004; 57 (1):61–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eva N, Robin M, Sendjaya S, vanDierendonck D, Liden RC. Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. Leadership Quarterly. 2019; 30 (1):111. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, Life Sciences Forum. 2017; 22 :338–342. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farling ML, Stone AG, Winston BE. Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies. 1999; 6 (1–2):49–72. doi: 10.1177/107179199900600104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RE, Wicks AC, Parmar B. Stakeholder theory and "the corporate objective revisited". Organization Science. 2004; 15 (3):364–369. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0066. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gulati R, Nohria N, Wohlgezogen F. Roaring out of recession. Harvard Business Review. 2010; 88 :62–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hale JR, Fields DL. Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. SAGE Publications. 2007; 3 (4):397–417. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoch JE, Bommer WH, Dulebohn JH, Wu D. Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management. 2018; 44 (2):501–529. doi: 10.1177/0149206316665461. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiao C, Lee YH, Chen WJ. The effect of servant leadership on customer value co-creation: A cross-level analysis of key mediating roles. Tourism Management. 2015; 49 :45–57. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu J, Liden RC. Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011; 96 (4):851. doi: 10.1037/a0022465. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter EM, Neubert MJ, Perry SJ, Witt LA, Penney LM, Weinberger E. Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadership Quarterly. 2013; 24 (2):316. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jesson J, Matheson L, Lacey FM. Doing your literature Review: Traditional and systematic techniques. SAGE Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang K, Chuang C, Chiao Y. Developing collective customer knowledge and service climate: The interaction between service-oriented high-performance work systems and service leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015; 100 (4):1089. doi: 10.1037/apl0000005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karatepe OM, Ozturk A, Kim TT. Servant leadership, organisational trust, and bank employee outcomes. The Service Industries Journal. 2019; 39 (2):86–108. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1464559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kauppila, O. P., Ehrnrooth, M., Makela, K., Smale, A., Sumelius, J., & Vuorenmaa, H. (2018). Serving to help and helping to serve: Employee reactions to HR Manager Servant Leadership. Academy of Management.
• Lee A, Lyubovnikova J, Amy WT, Knight C. Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2019; 93 (1):1–44. doi: 10.1111/joop.12265. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Zhao H, Henderson D. Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly. 2008; 19 (2):161. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Liao C, Meuser JD. Servant Leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2014; 57 (5):1434. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Meuser JD, Hu J, Wu J, Liao C. Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. Leadership Quarterly. 2015; 26 (2):254. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H. Just the servant: An intersectional critique of servant leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 156 :1099–1112. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3633-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu B, Hu W, Cheng Y. From the west to the east: Validating servant leadership in the Chinese public sector. Public Personnel Management. 2015; 44 (1):25–45. doi: 10.1177/0091026014555995. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neubert MJ, Kacmar KM, Carlson DS, Chonko LB, Roberts JA. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008; 93 (6):1220. doi: 10.1037/a0012695. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neubert MJ, Hunter EM, Tolentino RC. A servant leader and their stakeholders: When does organizational structure enhance a leader's influence? Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (6):896. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman A, Schwarz G, Cooper B, Sendjaya S. How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality: JBE JBE. Journal of Business Ethics. 2017; 145 (1):49–62. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozyilmaz A, Cicek SS. How does servant leadership affect employee attitudes, behaviors, and psychological climates in a for-profit organizational context? Journal of Management and Organization. 2015; 21 (3):263–290. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.80. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Padilla A, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly. 2007; 18 (3):176. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palumbo R. Challenging servant leadership in the nonprofit sector: The side effects of servant leadership. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership. 2015; 6 (2):81–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parris DL, Peachey JW. A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts: JBE JBE. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013; 113 (3):377–393. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson SJ, Galvin BM, Lange D. CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology. 2012; 65 (3):565. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed LL, Vidaver-cohen D, Colwell SR. A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 101 (3):415–434. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0729-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Herrero M, van Dierendonck D, De Rivas S, Moreno-Jiménez B. Servant leadership and goal attainment through meaningful life and vitality: A diary study. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2019; 20 (2):499–521. doi: 10.1007/s10902-017-9954-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell RF. The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2001; 22 (2):76–84. doi: 10.1108/01437730110382631. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sendjaya S, Sarros JC, Santora JC. Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. The Journal of Management Studies. 2008; 45 (2):402. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sendjaya S, Nathan E, Butar IB, Robin M, Castles S. SLBS-6: Validation of a short form of the servant leadership behavior scale. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 156 (4):941–956. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3594-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spears L. Reflections on robert K. greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 1996; 17 (7):33–35. doi: 10.1108/01437739610148367. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone GA, Russell RF, Patterson K. Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2004; 25 (4):349–361. doi: 10.1108/01437730410538671. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strozzi F, Colicchia C, Creazza A, Noè C. Literature review on the ‘smart factory’ concept using bibliometric tools. International Journal of Production Research. 2017; 55 :6572–6591. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1326643. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun PYT. The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. Leadership Quarterly. 2013; 24 (4):544. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang G, Kwan HK, Zhang D, Zhu Z. Work-family effects of servant leadership: The roles of emotional exhaustion and personal learning: JBE JBE. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 137 (2):285–297. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Dierendonck D, Stam D, Boersma P, de Windt N, Alkema J. Same difference? exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly. 2014; 25 (3):544. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Eck NJ, Waltman L, Noyons ECM, Butter RK. Automatic term identification for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010; 82 (3):581–596. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0173-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waltman L, Van Eck NJ, Noyons CM. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics. 2010; 4 (4):629–635. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA, Oke A. Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95 (3):517. doi: 10.1037/a0018867. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winston B, Fields D. Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2015; 36 (4):413–434. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0135. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J, Liden RC, Liao C, Wayne SJ. Does manager servant leadership lead to follower serving behaviors? It depends on follower self-interest. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2021; 106 :152–167. doi: 10.1037/apl0000500. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang Y-F. Studies of transformational leadership in consumer service: Leadership trust and the mediating-moderating role of cooperative conflict management. Psychological Reports. 2012; 110 (1):315–337. doi: 10.2466/01.07.21.PR0.110.1.315-337. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang J, Liu H, Gu J. A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity: The roles of self-efficacy and power distance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2017; 38 (5):610–629. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2015-0229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang J, Gu J, Liu H. Servant leadership and employee creativity: The roles of psychological empowerment and work–family conflict. Current Psychology. 2019; 38 (5):1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida DT, Sendjaya S, Hirst G, Cooper B. Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research. 2014; 67 (7):1395. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou Y, Miao Q. Servant leadership and affective commitment in the Chinese public sector: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Psychology Reports. 2014; 115 (2):381–395. doi: 10.2466/01.21.PR0.115c23z4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

2022 Impact Factor

• About   Publication Information Subscriptions Permissions Advertising Journal Rankings Best Article Award Press Releases
• Resources   Access Options Submission Guidelines Reviewer Guidelines Sample Articles Paper Calls Contact Us Submit & Review  
• Browse   Current Issue All Issues Featured Latest Topics Videos

California Management Review

California Management Review is a premier academic management journal published at UC Berkeley

CMR INSIGHTS

Are we asking too much leadership from leaders.

by Herman Vantrappen and Frederic Wirtz

Image Credit | Nick Fewings

Leaders do not have an easy time. In the assumption that the headlines in the management literature are a reliable guide, leaders are expected not only to be brilliant but also servant, humble, transformational, vulnerable, authentic, emotionally intelligent, empathetic, unlocked and connecting – at the least. 1-9 That is a tall order, even for those who are labelled superhuman.

Related CMR Articles

“Transformational Leader or Narcissist? How Grandiose Narcissists Can Create and Destroy Organizations and Institutions” by Charles A. O’Reilly & Jennifer A. Chatman

Fortunately, leaders may not need to take all those exhortations too serious, or certainly not too literal. To begin with, some scholars warn of the shaky grounds of several leadership constructs. For example, Katja Einola et al. point to authentic leadership theory as an example of a “dysfunctional family of positive leadership theories celebrating good qualities in a leader linked with good outcomes and positive follower ‘effects’ almost by definition.” 10 They add that leadership studies should “raise the bar for what academic knowledge work is and better distinguish it from pseudoscience, pop-management, consulting, and entertainment.” Ouch!

Other scholars are adding precautions about the potentially detrimental effects of certain leader behaviors both for the leaders themselves and for the organizations they lead. For example, Joanna Lin et al. point to leader emotional exhaustion resulting from transformational leader behavior. 11 Charles O’Reilly et al. warn of the substantial overlaps of transformational leadership with grandiose narcissism. 12

Still other scholars emphasize that leadership skills are context-specific. For example, Raffaella Sadun emphasizes that the most effective leaders have social skills that are specific to their company and industry. 13 Nitin Nohria points out that charisma often is a liability, yet charismatic leaders can be especially useful at entrepreneurial startups and in corporate turnarounds. 14 Jasmin Hu et al. indicate that humble leaders are effective only when their level of humility matches to what team members expect. 15

The above tells us two things, whether we are a leader or a follower. First, the pertinence of a particular leader behavior depends on the situation. Second, we should temper our expectations of the effect of that behavior. But even then, the question remains: Are we demanding too much from leaders? The answer is nuanced: No, we cannot demand too much; but the real question is how we could lessen the need for those demands to emerge in the first place.

Reading the definitions of those leader behaviors, it would be hard to argue we are demanding too much. Just consider the following examples:

• Servant leaders “place the needs of their subordinates before their own needs and center their efforts on helping subordinates grow.” 1
• Humble leaders “are willing to admit it when they make a mistake, they recognize and acknowledge the skills of those they lead, and they continuously seek out opportunities to become better.” 16
• Vulnerable leaders “intentionally open themselves up to the potential of emotional harm while taking action (when possible) to create a positive outcome.” 4
• Emotionally intelligent leaders “are conscious about and responsive to their emotions, possessing the ability to harness and control them in order to deal with people effectively and make the best decisions.” 17
• Empathetic leaders “genuinely care for people, validate their feelings, and are willing to offer support.” 7
• Connecting leaders “concurrently contend with identities, actions, emotions of a leader and a follower.” 9

While these demands on leaders are pertinent, they are also taxing in terms of time and energy. To solve the quandary, we should look for ways to lessen the need for those demands to emerge in the first place. On many occasions, leaders at the top are led to activate the afore-mentioned behaviors because doubts, disagreements, tensions, trade-offs and eventually conflicts by and between people in the field are allowed to escalate. These frictions may emerge and escalate to the top for all kinds of reasons but they often land there due to organizational design faults: Some designs are intrinsically frictional; others lack mechanisms to resolve friction at origin. Precluding these design faults requires craftsmanship in organization design.

Let us take a stylized example. Laura is the commercial manager in charge of the Brazil region at Widget Inc. As sales this year are going more slowly than planned, she is desperately trying to win a specific new client. To have any chance of winning, she must be able to offer a special off-catalogue product. So she turns to Lucas, the global manager in charge of the product line concerned, who unfortunately has to tell her that the manufacturing plant is fully booked for the next six months, leaving no capacity for the mandatory testing of the special product for her client in Brazil. Tension rises, and the issue escalates to their respective bosses, the EVP Regions and the EVP Products. Unfortunately, these two do not manage to agree on a solution either. Even worse, the incident degenerates into an acrimonious confrontation at the company’s next executive team meeting, where the two blame each other for a chronic lack of flexibility.

The originally operational issue thus lands with a thick thud on the CEO’s desk. After suppressing a deep sigh, she activates various leader behaviors. She is empathetic (“I sense how strongly you both feel about this important matter …”), servant (“I don’t blame you for bringing this to my attention …”), humble (“I realize I should have put in place a way of preventing issues like this …”), vulnerable (“In fact, I once struggled myself with a similar issue …”), and more…

The CEO may be doing all the right things at that moment, but could she have been spared the onus of dealing with the originally operational friction if only the company’s organization had been designed differently? Widget Inc.’s organization architecture features two equally-weighted primary verticals, i.e., “region” and “product”, both having full P&L responsibility, hence competing with each other directly for resources, decision power and attention. While there is no general rule that such an architecture must not be chosen, in general it tends to be an intrinsically frictional design.

The general message for leaders is: When you seek remedies for pain points in your organization, do not count on leader behavior only, but check also for architectural design faults or ambiguities. Here are three examples, each linked to a variable that defines an organization’s architecture.

1. The primary vertical

Small mono-product and mono-market companies tend to have a function-based architecture (e.g., product development, purchasing, production, sales, distribution, after-sales). At large companies, that architecture can be intrinsically frictional. For example, if you are in the business of developing, constructing and maintaining power plants worldwide, the business development people, when they make a bid, might be tempted to foresee low maintenance costs so as to increase their chances of winning the bid. Alas, if the bid is won, the maintenance division will bear the brunt. Such operational tension is inherent to this type of business, but you do not want that tension to constantly manifest itself at the C-suite level. Therefore, consider having “region” rather than “function” as primary vertical and then setting up a function-based organization within each region. 18

2. The corporate parent

Each of a company’s business entities has specific objectives, challenges and priorities. Imagine your company has a mix of large businesses operating in its mature home market and small ventures in promising overseas markets. The latter may be keen to tap into the talent and knowledge that reside in the former, while the former may be reluctant to lend to the latter. Obviously, you do not want every such request and refusal to be elevated to the C-suite level. A global knowledge management and talent mobility system could solve the problem, and you might expect the businesses, out of enlightened self-interest, to set it up among themselves. Alas, that is unlikely to happen, as the benefits are contingent on participation by all businesses. Therefore, consider having a corporate function kick-start the initiative. 19

3. Lateral coordination

Imagine that your organization architecture consists of business entities focused on “product” and others on “customer segment”. Even though these entities by design are relatively self-contained, “product” and “customer segment” still need to coordinate daily on operational matters, such as defining product specs, setting price levels, launching commercial campaigns, etc. Hence you decide to create a matrix, with sales managers reporting both to a product line manager and a customer segment manager. And you expect these matrixed sales managers to make the best possible trade-offs between the partially diverging interests of their two bosses. Alas, a matrix between two verticals with P&L responsibility tends to be intrinsically frictional. 20 The matrixed manager’s anxiety about role conflict and their bosses’ fear of power loss may create festering conflicts escalating to the C-suite level. Therefore, in this case, consider a soft-wired coordination mechanism (such as a periodic joint planning cycle) instead of a hard-wired matrix. 

There are many other examples of organization design faults or ambiguities, not only related to organizational architecture but also to governance, business processes, company culture, people and systems. Admittedly, the perfect organization design does not exist – tension and friction are a fact of corporate life. And we could hardly demand too much authenticity, emotional intelligence, empathy and other commendable behaviors from our leaders, as described at start. But there is an issue when senior leaders are compelled to activate these behaviors to resolve internal conflicts that should not have escalated to the top of the organization. By identifying and removing glaring design faults and ambiguities about roles, we can help lessen the emergence and escalation of such conflicts, and consequently reduce the opportunity cost of senior leaders devoting energy and time to resolving stoppable conflicts. Senior leaders had better focus on genuine people issues, external stakeholders, and the organization’s strategic choices.

References

R.C. Liden, S.J. Wayne, H. Zhao and D. Henderson, “Servant Leadership: Development of a Multidimensional Measure and Multi-Level Assessment,” The Leadership Quarterly 19, no. 2 (2008): 161-177..

E.H. Schein and P.A. Schein, “Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust,” 2nd ed. (Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2018).

B.M. Bass, “Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations” (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985).

J. Morgan, “Leading with Vulnerability: Unlock Your Greatest Superpower to Transform Yourself, Your Team, and Your Organization” (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2023).

B. George, “Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value” (New York: Jossey-Bass, 2004).

D. Goleman, “The Emotionally Intelligent Leader” (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2019).

O. Valadon, “What We Get Wrong About Empathic Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 17, 2023.

H. Le Gentil, “The Unlocked Leader: Dare to Free Your Own Voice, Lead with Empathy, and Shine Your Light in the World” (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2023).

“The Connecting Leader: Serving Concurrently as a Leader and a Follower,” ed. Z. Jaser (Charlotte: IAP, 2021).

K. Einola and M. Alvesson, “The Perils of Authentic Leadership Theory,” Leadership 17, no. 4 (2021): 483-490.

J. Lin, B.A. Scott and F.K. Matta, “The Dark Side of Transformational Leader Behaviors for Leaders Themselves: A Conservation of Resources Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal 62, no. 5 (2019): 1556-1582.

C.A. O’Reilly and J.A. Chatman, “Transformational Leader or Narcissist? How Grandiose Narcissists Can Create and Destroy Organizations and Institutions,” California Management Review 62, no. 3 (2020): 5-27.

R. Sadun, “The Myth of the Brilliant, Charismatic Leader,” Harvard Business Review, Nov. 23, 2022.s

N. Nohria, “When Charismatic CEOs Are an Asset — and When They’re a Liability,” Harvard Business Review, Dec. 1, 2023.

J. Hu, B. Erdogan, K. Jiang and T.N. Bauer, “Research: When Being a Humble Leader Backfires,” Harvard Business Review, April 4, 2018.

T.K. Kelemen, S.H. Matthews, M.J. Matthews and S.E. Henry, “Essential Advice for Leaders from a Decade of Research on Humble Leadership,” LSE Business Review, Jan. 17, 2023.

S.T.A. Phipps, L.C. Prieto and E.N. Ndinguri, “Emotional Intelligence: Is It Necessary for Leader Development?” Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics 11, no.1 (2014): 73-89.

H. Vantrappen and F. Wirtz, “When to Change Your Company’s P&L Responsibilities,” Harvard Business Review, April 14, 2022.

H. Vantrappen and F. Wirtz, “How To Get a Corporate Parent That Is Better For Business,” California Management Review, March 5, 2024.

J. Wolf and W.G. Egelhoff, “An Empirical Evaluation of Conflict in MNC Matrix Structure Firms,” International Business Review 22, no. 3 (2013): 591-601.

Recommended

Current issue.

Volume 66, Issue 2 Winter 2024

Recent CMR Articles

The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders

The Business Value of Gamification

Hope and Grit: How Human-Centered Product Design Enhanced Student Mental Health

Four Forms That Fit Most Organizations

Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility

Berkeley-Haas's Premier Management Journal

Published at Berkeley Haas for more than sixty years, California Management Review seeks to share knowledge that challenges convention and shows a better way of doing business.

Polish Opposition Lawmaker's Phone Was Hacked While Party Was in Power, Paper Reports

Polish Opposition Lawmaker's Phone Was Hacked While Party Was in Power, Paper Reports

FILE PHOTO: Poland's Law and Justice (PiS) party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski speaks during a press conference at the party's headquarters in Warsaw, Poland, January 3, 2024. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel/File Photo

WARSAW (Reuters) - A lawmaker from Poland's former ruling party is among 31 people prosecutors have summoned because they were victims of phone hacking while the party was in power, Gazeta Wyborcza daily reported on Friday.

A Polish parliamentary commission has been investigating accusations the Law and Justice (PiS) party illegally hacked the phones of targets including political opponents.

Initial reports of Pegasus spyware misuse focused on political opponents of the former Law and Justice (PiS) government. However, reports that PiS's own members were affected during its eight years in office, which ended in December, could further strain an opposition racked by infighting over its record in government.

Gazeta Wyborcza quoted Przemyslaw Nowak, spokesperson for the National Prosecutor's Office, as saying that Marek Suski, a senior PiS member close to party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, was among the 31 people summoned.

Nowak could not immediately be reached for comment outside office hours. Suski did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The PiS press office was unavailable to comment.

Poland's new pro-European coalition government has prioritised uncovering the truth about what it says was misuse of Pegasus spyware, saying they are holding to account those linked to PiS that it accuses of wrongdoing.

Photos You Should See - April 2024

Justice Minister Adam Bodnar has said 578 people were targeted with Pegasus in Poland and that all cases will be analysed to see if the use of the spyware developed by Israel-based NSO Group was justified.

According to recent media reports, the range of people subject to phone surveillance under PiS went well beyond their political opponents, including its own lawmakers and even members of the armed forces.

News website Onet reported this month that among those to receive summoning letters were two female soldiers, Karolina Marchlewska and Joanna Jalocha, who had reported sexual harassment by their superiors in the military police.

Onet also reported that retired general Waldemar Skrzypczak had been summoned as a witness by prosecutors concerning Pegasus.

Reuters was unable to contact Marchlewska and Jalocha. Skrzypczak told Reuters by telephone that he had received a letter from prosecutors but that it did not specify that he was being summoned as a witness in relation to the Pegasus probe.

(Reporting by Alan Charlish; Editing by Josie Kao)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Join the Conversation

Tags: Poland , crime , Europe

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

RFK Jr.: By the Numbers

Laura Mannweiler April 26, 2024

Biden’s Student Loan Chief to Step Down

Lauren Camera April 26, 2024

What to Know: Bird Flu Virus in Milk

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder April 26, 2024

Inflation a Stubborn Foe for the Fed

Tim Smart April 26, 2024

The Curse of the Modern Vice President

‘A Rule for the Ages’

Lauren Camera April 25, 2024