This article critically examines the intersection of leadership theory and practice through the lens of crisis

management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using secondary data and a real-world leadership case drawn

from the portfolio management sector, it analyzes how leaders mobilized transformational leadership principles,

emotional intelligence, process innovation, and strategic communication to navigate volatile and uncertain

conditions. The discussion highlights the adaptive leadership behaviors that emerged when theoretical models

proved insufficient for rapidly evolving challenges, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)

disruptions.

Keywords-Crisis leadership; transformational leadership; emotional intelligence; experiential learning; adaptive

strategy; COVID-19 response; portfolio management; SME resilience

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a profound disruption in organizational life, challenging leaders to navigate

uncertainty, emotional strain, and operational volatility. Across industries, managers were thrust into high-stakes

environments that demanded rapid adaptation, empathetic engagement, and strategic improvisation. These

conditions exposed a persistent gap between leadership theory and practice, particularly in how conceptual

models address the emotional, communicative, and innovative demands of crisis contexts. Traditional leadership

frameworks, such as transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995), and

“holding behaviors,” including empathy, presence, and emotional containment, are more effective than

charismatic messaging during a crisis. Similarly, the OECD (2021) highlights how SMEs adopted agile

innovation strategies that diverged from conventional change management. Yet, much of this literature remains

fragmented, with limited integration between theoretical critique and practitioner insight. This article contributes

to that integration by examining how leadership theories were applied, adapted, and challenged during the

COVID-19 crisis, using secondary data and a documented case from a portfolio management team. The case

illustrates how emotional intelligence, agile innovation, and sensemaking communication became central to

effective leadership, often in ways that stretched or reinterpreted existing models.

The article proceeds in five parts. First, it reviews key leadership frameworks relevant to crisis contexts,

highlighting their conceptual strengths and limitations. Second, it outlines the methodology, including the use of

Leadership during a crisis demands a synthesis of strategic agility, emotional intelligence, and communicative

clarity. While numerous frameworks offer conceptual tools for understanding these demands, their application

in volatile environments often reveals limitations. This literature review examines four dominant theories:

transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, process innovation, and organizational communication,

highlighting their relevance, critiques, and evolving interpretations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Transformational leadership, as articulated by Bass (1985), emphasizes four key dimensions: idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. It has long been associated

19, transformational leadership required recalibration. Leaders had to balance vision with vulnerability, and

inspiration with emotional support, an intersection not fully addressed in traditional formulations.

Emotional intelligence (EI), popularized by Goleman (1995) and refined by Mayer & Salovey (1997),

encompasses self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. EI has gained traction as a

predictor of leadership effectiveness, particularly in emotionally charged environments (Cherniss, 2010). During

the pandemic, EI emerged as a core competency. Leaders were tasked with managing not only operational

disruption but also the psychological well-being of their teams. Ogunyemi et al. (2023) found that strategic HR

practitioners with high EI were more likely to fulfill psychological contracts and retain talent during a crisis.

Similarly, Anvari et al. (2023) reported that EI training improved team cohesion and reduced burnout. Despite

value creation (Davenport, 1993). In stable environments, it follows structured methodologies such as Six Sigma

or Lean. However, crisis conditions demand improvisational agility, rapid pivots, decentralized decision-making,

and digital transformation. The OECD (2021) documented how SMEs adopted agile innovation strategies to

survive COVID-19 disruptions, often bypassing formal change models. These findings challenge traditional

assumptions about innovation as a planned, linear process. Instead, innovation under duress was reactive,

emotionally driven, and context-dependent. Scholars such as Pisano (2015) advocate for “adaptive innovation”

frameworks that accommodate uncertainty and emotional complexity. Yet, leadership literature has been slow to

integrate these perspectives, leaving a gap in how managers are trained to lead innovation in crisis.

Organizational communication plays a pivotal role in crisis leadership. Weick’s (1995) sensemaking theory

posits that individuals construct meaning through communication, especially in ambiguous situations. Daft &

directive to interpretive, from transactional to relational. Yet, many leadership models still treat communication

as a technical skill rather than a strategic and emotional process. This literature review establishes the theoretical

foundation for the case narrative and the bridging strategies that follow. It highlights the need for leadership

models that are not only conceptually robust but also emotionally attuned and contextually flexible.

To illustrate how these leadership frameworks converged and diverged in real-world crisis conditions, Table 1

provides a comparative analysis of their core principles, pandemic applications, limitations, and adaptive

reinterpretations.

Table 1 – Comparative Analysis of Leadership Frameworks in Crisis

Note. Table developed by the author based on the synthesized literature.

Building on the comparative insights presented in Table 1, Figure 1 introduces a conceptual framework that

integrates these theories into a context-sensitive model of crisis leadership.

Note. Figure created by the author to illustrate the integrated leadership framework.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the integration of transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, process

innovation, and organizational communication creates a context-sensitive leadership framework suitable for

crisis environments. This conceptual model builds upon the comparative insights presented in Table 1, where

each framework demonstrated unique strengths yet required integration for sustained organizational adaptability.

The diagram illustrates how the interplay between emotional and cognitive competencies enhances leadership

from reactive communication to proactive sensemaking, emphasizing emotional intelligence, agility, and

psychological safety. This progressive shift in leadership dynamics underscores the importance of adaptive

communication and emotional intelligence as continuous processes rather than isolated responses, setting the

stage for the subsequent discussion on how these behaviors were institutionalized within the organization’s

culture.

Operationally, the team faced significant constraints. Traditional workflows, dependent on in-person

collaboration and hierarchical approvals, proved inefficient. In response, the team adopted agile methods,

decentralized decision-making, and digital tools to maintain momentum. Project timelines were restructured,

and client engagement strategies were reimagined to accommodate virtual formats. These changes reflected the

The shift to remote work disrupted established communication norms. In-person meetings were replaced by

asynchronous messaging, video calls, and collaborative platforms. Leaders had to convey urgency, empathy, and

clarity without physical presence, a challenge that demanded new communicative competencies. Drawing on

Weick’s (1995) sensemaking theory, communication became a mechanism for constructing shared meaning amid

chaos. Messages were crafted to acknowledge uncertainty while reinforcing purpose and cohesion. The leader’s

approach reflected Daft & Lengel’s (1986) media richness theory, selecting communication channels based on

emotional nuance and immediacy. Gartner (2020) reported that emotionally resonant communication increased

trust in remote teams, a finding affirmed by the team’s experience. Strategic use of narrative, tone, and timing

helped maintain alignment and morale, even as external conditions remained unstable. This case narrative

The COVID-19 crisis revealed a persistent gap between leadership theory and practice. While conceptual models

provided useful scaffolding, their application required significant adaptation in the face of emotional strain,

operational disruption, and communicative ambiguity. This section proposes four strategies for bridging that gap,

each grounded in secondary data and informed by the case narrative presented earlier.

Management education often privileges abstract models over experiential insight. Yet, as the pandemic

demonstrated, leaders must be prepared to navigate complexity, ambiguity, and emotional volatility, conditions

that cannot be fully captured through theory alone. Incorporating lived experience into leadership development

can enhance relevance and resilience. Experiential learning methods such as scenario-based simulations,

reflective journaling, and practitioner case studies should be embedded alongside theoretical instruction. AACSB

pipelines. Leadership development programs should include structured EI assessments, coaching modules, and

feedback loops. Korn Ferry’s research suggests that emotionally intelligent leaders outperform their peers across

industries, particularly in volatile environments. Reframing EI as a strategic asset, rather than a personal trait,

can help organizations cultivate more resilient and responsive leadership cultures.

Traditional change management models often assume stability, predictability, and linear progression. Crisis

conditions demand agile, iterative approaches to innovation, ones that accommodate emotional complexity, rapid

decision-making, and decentralized authority. The OECD (2021) recommends agile innovation frameworks for

SMEs, noting that digitalization and improvisation were key to survival during COVID-19. Pisano (2015)

similarly advocates for “adaptive innovation,” which emphasizes learning, experimentation, and tolerance for

sensemaking, using language to construct shared understanding, emotional alignment, and strategic clarity.

Weick’s (1995) sensemaking theory and Daft & Lengel’s (1986) media richness model offer valuable insights,

but they must be updated to reflect digital and remote contexts. Gartner (2020) found that emotionally resonant

messaging increased trust in virtual teams, while IABC (2021) emphasized the need for strategic communication

competencies in leadership development. Training should include narrative framing, tone modulation, and

channel selection based on emotional nuance. Leaders must learn to communicate not just information, but

meaning, especially when uncertainty prevails. These reframing positions communication as a strategic

leadership function, essential to cohesion, morale, and adaptive capacity.

Future research should build on the theoretical integrations identified in this study by exploring how

behaviors.” Such research would offer a deeper understanding of the temporal dynamics of leadership adaptation

and resilience.

Further research should also investigate how emotional intelligence influences the connection between

innovation and team cohesion in high-pressure portfolio environments. The results in this paper indicate that

emotionally intelligent communication builds trust and improves decision quality, but there is limited empirical

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a crucible for leadership, exposing the limitations of static models and

underscoring the need for adaptive, emotionally intelligent, and context-sensitive approaches. While frameworks

such as transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, process innovation, and organizational

communication provided conceptual scaffolding, their practical application required reinterpretation under

conditions of uncertainty, emotional strain, and operational disruption. This article has argued for a more

integrative model of leadership, one that bridges theory and practice through experiential learning, emotional

leaders not just to manage complexity, but to humanize it. Management education should prioritize reflective

practice, scenario-based learning, and emotional intelligence as core components of curricula. Organizations

must invest in leadership pipelines that cultivate agility, empathy, and communicative clarity. Future research

should explore how experiential knowledge can be systematically integrated into leadership education and how

adaptive competencies can be assessed and developed across diverse organizational contexts. Comparative

studies across sectors, cultures, and crisis types could further illuminate the conditions under which theory

translates effectively into practice. Ultimately, bridging theory and practice is not a matter of simplification; it is

a commitment to complexity. It requires leaders who can interpret frameworks, respond to context, and lead with

both strategic clarity and emotional depth. As the world continues to face disruption, such leadership will not

only be relevant but essential.