Post-COVID Educational Leadership: Emerging Models and Styles for a New Era

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4822673/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Post-COVID Educational Leadership: Emerging Models and Styles for a New Era

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4822673/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

A compelling vision, goals to go along with it, and a suitable plan for implementation, observation, and review are all necessary components of modern educational leadership, which is widely regarded as essential for boosting an institution's effectiveness and acting as a catalyst for change and innovative strategy. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the delivery of educational services, highlighting weaknesses in the leadership theory behind schools and universities. The majority of institutes' adoption of suitable crisis management strategies to swiftly adapt to a new reality and effectively address upcoming difficulties at both the administrative and instructional levels was mostly responsible for these failures. Despite the idea of crisis management having been successfully applied in various types of crises and extensively developed theoretically, there is a notable lack of empirical research in this area, indicating that the field of educational leadership has not given it consistent attention. This study bridges the research gap by employing the PRISMA methodology to build a systematic review of scholarly articles published during 2019 and 2022. Following the unstable leader, the paper discusses the challenges faced, the crisis management strategies employed, and the personality attributes most commonly associated with effective crisis leadership during the COVID-19 time frame.

COVID-19

Educational Leadership

Crisis Management

Emerging Models

Systematic Review

When it came to the worldwide health crisis, most individuals were unprepared for the onset of COVID-19 since it was entirely unfamiliar to them (Guardiola, 2024). It affected many societal issues, including people's opinions, habits, and capacity to manage work and personal obligations. Out of all these socio-economic activities, the education system took the most burden (Kayyali, 2020). The decision of whether to keep offering on-campus face-to-face instruction or temporarily halt it presented a serious challenge to the administration and leadership of educational institutions (Jain, 2020). When COVID-19 first emerged, universities, especially those in developing nations, mostly used in-person instruction to provide education. In flipped classroom settings and the heuristic teaching approach, technology was used sparingly and carefully (Burke & Dempsey, 2021).

Lockdowns were imposed in developing nations for specified periods that were then regularly extended (Chatzipanagiotou & Katsarou, 2023). With very few exceptions, colleges first decided to use whatever tools they could find to continue teaching, including homework, online courses, and audio/video recording devices. Universities have embraced online learning over time and have modified their curricula, pedagogies, and evaluation procedures accordingly (Ahmad, Zia, Ahmad & Salam, 2023). However, they faced strong opposition from parents and students, especially when it came to the calibre of the lecture delivery techniques (Fayed & Cummings, 2021). In this regard, leadership has been pointed out as central to crisis management and as requiring adaptive and transformative modes of leadership (ibid. 2021). Thus, in the context of schools, leadership becomes essential not only for the tangible intervention in the situation but for the subsequent restoration process as well (Brion & Kiral, 2021). Moreover, the literature shows how crisis management is both related to and influenced by contexts such as socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts of school operations. This research seeks to identify the moderating role of contextual factors on crisis management initiatives and leadership actions in schools (Viczko, 2021).

There is evidence from the literature in the context of the recovery phase that points out that modifications and shifts in post-crisis transformation must be strategic and involve several stakeholders, including educators, administrators, parents, and policymakers. Thus, contributing to the trends identified above, this systematic review aims to suggest practical strategies. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive overview of crisis management and school leadership in disruptive times, with a particular focus on the recovery of educational institutions in the post-COVID-19 era. By critically examining existing studies, we aim to inform and guide future research, policy development, and practical interventions to ensure the resilience and adaptability of educational institutions in the face of unforeseen challenges.

Study Protocol

This systematic review of available literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Takkouche & Norman, 2011).

2.1 Studies Selection

This systematic review aimed to summarise scientific evidence of post-COVID-19 educational leadership. The central question guiding this review was: What are the emerging models for post-COVID educational leadership? During the identification of the articles, duplicates were removed by exporting them to EndNote Basic (ENDNOTE 2015). Subsequently, the studies were chosen in two stages. Reviewer 1 evaluated titles and abstracts in duplicate separately throughout phase 1 to find studies that qualified. However, the reviewers gave their approval before any research was chosen. When necessary, a second reviewer was invited to help resolve any disagreements through group discussion. Therefore, abstracts and titles mentioning two things were considered acceptable: (1) the Educational leadership model; and (2) in the post-COVID era. To determine whether the publications had the relevant data for the systematic review, the articles were fully examined during the second evaluation step.

2.1.1 Inclusion Criteria

Studies published from 2019 onwards to ensure the focus is on post-COVID studies.
Studies published in the English language.
Studies specifically focus on educational leadership models and styles that emerged or evolved due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, and reputable reports from educational organisations.
Studies from diverse geographical regions to provide a global perspective on post-COVID educational leadership.

2.1.2 Exclusion Criteria

Research conducted before 2019 does not address changes or developments influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Articles not written in English to maintain consistency in language and accessibility.
Studies that do not specifically address educational leadership models or styles, such as those focusing solely on student outcomes or unrelated educational policies.
Case reports, systematic reviews, and blogs will not be included.
Duplicate studies or those with similar findings to ensure a wide range of insights and avoid repetitive content.

A Microsoft® Excel Spreadsheet was used to extract and store data and records (Microsoft Inc. Redmond Wash. USA).

2.2 Search Strategy

A systematic search was done for the relevant literature on the following four databases to retrieve relevant studies: Scopus: ("Post-COVID" OR "Post-pandemic") AND ("Educational Leadership" OR "Leadership in Education" OR "Educational Administration") AND ("Emerging Models" OR "New Styles" OR "Innovative Approaches"), Web of Science: TS=("Post-COVID" OR "Post-pandemic") AND TS=("Educational Leadership" OR "Leadership in Education" OR "Educational Administration") AND TS=("Emerging Models" OR "New Styles" OR "Innovative Approaches"), Google Scholar: "Post-COVID" OR "Post-pandemic" AND "Educational Leadership" OR "Leadership in Education" OR "Educational Administration" AND "Emerging Models" OR "New Styles" OR "Innovative Approaches", JSTOR: ("Post-COVID" OR "Post-pandemic") AND ("Educational Leadership" OR "Leadership in Education" OR "Educational Administration") AND ("Emerging Models" OR "New Styles" OR "Innovative Approaches"). Databases were also searched for published systematic reviews or ongoing systematic reviews on the same topic. Relevant studies were retrieved and stored on ENDNOTE to discard the repeated results.

2.3 Data Collection

Data were separately extracted by the same reviewer from the chosen articles. Title, authors, source, methodology, sample size, educational context, and country of study were noted for each included study.

2.3.1 Assessment of Risk Bias

Data extractions were conducted using a standard form and the full-text articles were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria. Publications were given scores on a low, medium, or high scale as a methodological quality indicator based on several variables such as reporting bias, performance, and selection. The inclusion and randomisation criterion descriptions were used to score preference for selection. Allocation concealment and descriptions of a control arm were taken into consideration when evaluating performance bias. Biased reporting, industrial sponsorship, partial data management, and selective reporting received different rankings. During several teleconferences, the topics of eligibility, limitations, and reporting uniformity were covered. A second author considered gaps in the reviewer’s scores before selecting a study.

3.1 Search Results

Six different databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, JSTOR, EconLit, and Cochrane Library) were searched to collect articles. A total of 723 studies were retrieved and entered into the endnote software in which 493 duplicates were removed. A total of 230 studies were screened, of which 159 studies were excluded because these studies were not relevant to our topic. 71 different studies were sought for retrieval, of which 27 were not retrieved. A total of 44 studies were assessed for eligibility, which 2 studies were excluded because these were in-progress studies and did not provide complete data. In the end, a total of 42 studies were included in this study (see Fig. 1 below).

3.2 Risk of Assessment Bias

A risk of bias assessment was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Out of 42 studies, 14 studies were found to have low-risk bias, 27 had moderate-risk bias, and 1 study had high-risk bias. In some studies, a portion of their methodological flaw is the way they chose their controls. Furthermore, no study disclosed the blinding of controls and participants concerning exposure, which may have led to measurement bias (see Table 2). GRADEpro GDT indicated that the studies that were part of this systematic review had low quality of evidence. The inclusion of observational studies, which increases the risk of bias because it is unable to randomise the exposure and the inconsistent nature of the research, were the main causes of the low quality of the evidence.

Table 2

Risk of bias assessment in the studies included in the systematic review using the Newcastle - Ottawa Scale for case-control studies
Study	Selection				Comparability	Exposure
Study	1.	2.	3.	4.	1.	1.	2.	3.
(11)	★	★			★★	★		★
(12)	★	★			★	★	★
(13)	★	★				★	★	★
(14)	★	★	★		★★	★	★	★
(15)	★	★			★★	★	★	★
(16)	★	★			★	★	★	★
(17)	★	★			★★		★	★
(18)	★	★		★	★★	★	★	★
(19)	★	★	★		★		★	★
(20)	★	★			★★	★	★	★
(21)	★	★					★
(22)	★	★				★	★	★
(23)	★	★	★		★★	★	★	★
(24)	★	★	★		★	★	★
(25)	★	★				★	★
(26)	★	★			★★	★	★	★
(27)	★	★			★	★	★	★
(28)	★	★		★		★	★	★
(29)	★	★	★		★★	★	★	★
(30)	★	★			★★	★	★	★
(31)	★	★		★	★	★	★	★
(32)	★	★				★	★	★
(33)	★	★	★			★	★	★
(34)	★	★	★			★	★	★
(35)	★	★				★	★	★
(36)	★	★			★★	★	★	★
(37)	★	★			★	★	★	★
(8)	★	★		★			★	★
(38)	★	★	★		★★		★	★
(39)	★	★			★★		★	★
(40)	★	★		★	★		★	★
(41)	★	★			★★	★	★	★
(42)	★	★	★		★★	★	★	★
(43)	★	★	★		★★	★	★	★
(44)	★	★			★		★
(45, 46)	★	★			★	★	★	★
(46)	★	★			★★		★	★
(47)	★	★	★		★★	★	★
(48)	★	★			★★	★
(49)	★	★		★	★	★	★
(50)	★	★			★★	★	★
(51)	★	★	★		★		★	★
^{Rating scale: 7 to 9 stars = low risk of bias; 4 to 6 stars = moderate risk of bias; 0 to 3 stars = high risk of bias}

3.3 Characteristics of Included Studies

The major findings of the 42 empirical studies on educational leadership that were gathered for this review between 2019 and 2022 are covered in this section to adequately address our initial research questions. Based on our inclusion criteria, 34 papers (81%) were published as articles in prestigious international journals related to educational management and leadership, and only eight of them (19%) comprised the theme of doctoral theses. These studies made up the vast majority of the studies that we chose for our review. Regarding the geographic context of the studies of this review, 16 (38.1%) were done in North or South America, followed by 10 (23.8%) and eight (19%) studies that were conducted in European and Asian school contexts, respectively. Africa and Oceania are underrepresented in our sample, with one study (2.4%) and two studies (4.8%), respectively, while five studies (11.9%) concentrate on international schools located in various parts of the world. Lastly, regarding the educational level considered in the studies, 15 studies (35.7%) focused on both primary and secondary education, while 11 studies (26.2%) and 10 studies (23.8%) exclusively addressed the settings of primary and secondary education. Every empirical study in our sample uses a qualitative research design, primarily using semi-structured interviews to collect data. Inductive theme analysis is used to identify important topics related to crisis management and leadership in schools, which are based on the real-world experiences of school principals during COVID-19.

Table 3

Characteristics of studies included in this review
“No	Study Citation	Study Type	Methodology of the study	Sample Size	The study was based on	Country of the study
1.	(11)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on a questionnaire-based survey	32 school principals	Higher secondary education	Malaysia
2.	(12)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on a questionnaire-based survey	316 school principals	Secondary and primary education	Sweden
3.	(13)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on a questionnaire-based survey	57 school principals	Secondary and primary education	Philippines
4.	(14)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was using a multiple-case design based on rigorous interviews	Not mentioned	Secondary, primary, and higher education	United States and India
5.	(15)	Journal article	Small-scale qualitative study and was based on interviews	12 school principals	Secondary and primary education	United Kingdom
6.	(16)	Journal article	Implementation of qualitative study and was based on SWOT analysis and interviews	7 school leaders	Only primary education	Jamaica
7.	(17)	Dissertation	Exploratory qualitative case study and was based on interviews	12 school principals	Only secondary education	United States
8.	(18)	Dissertation	Qualitative study and was based on electronic survey questionnaire and structured interviews	15 (questionnaire) 10 school principals (interview)	Secondary and primary education	United States
9.	(19)	Dissertation	Qualitative phenomenological study and was based on interviews	11 International School Heads (ISH)	English-medium NGO international schools	around the globe
10.	(20)	Journal article	Qualitative research projects and was based on interviews	66 school principals	Only primary education	United Kingdom
11.	(21)	Journal article	Qualitative case study and was based on interviews	30 K-12 leaders	primary education	United States
12.	(22)	Journal article	Phenomenological qualitative study and was based on interviews	12 school principals	primary education	Philippines
13.	(23)	Journal article	Qualitative study based on a survey questionnaire	93 teachers and 5 school principals	Secondary and primary education	North Cyprus
14.	(24)	Journal article	Qualitative case study and was based on interviews	11 school principals	primary education	Canada
15.	(25)	Dissertation	Qualitative study and was based on semi-structured interviews	11 school principals	primary education	United States
16.	(26)	Journal article	Qualitative case study and was based on semi-structured interviews	8 superintendents	public mainstream education	United States
17.	(27)	Dissertation	Phenomenological qualitative study and was based on interviews	14 high school principals	Only secondary education	United States
18.	(28)	Journal article	Quantitative study and was based on a survey questionnaire	27 school principals	Only secondary education	Philippines
19.	(29)	Journal article	Phenomenological qualitative study and was based on interviews	93 school principals	Secondary and primary education	Turkey
20.	(30)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on project management reports and interviews	6 school principals	Only secondary education	Italy
21.	(31)	Journal article	Phenomenological qualitative study and was based on semi-structured interviews	17 teachers and 2 school principals	Only primary education	Indonesia
22.	(32)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on interviews	10 school principals	Secondary and primary education	United States
23.	(33)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on interviews	11 school principals and 2 faculty heads	Secondary and primary education	around the globe
24.	(34)	Journal article	Qualitative case study and was based on semi-structured interviews	15 school principals	Secondary and primary education	Turkey
25.	(35)	Journal article	Qualitative case study and was based on semi-structured interviews	2 school principals and 8 teachers	Only special education	Japan
26.	(36)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on interviews	15 school principals	Only primary education	Norway
27.	(37)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on semi-structured interviews and survey questionnaires	10 school principals	Only secondary education	S. Africa
28.	(8)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on semi-structured interviews	55 school principals from 43 school organisations around the world	Only secondary education	International Schools, United States and China
29.	(38)	Dissertation	Qualitative study and was based on semi-structured interviews	9 school principals	Secondary and primary education	around the globe
30.	(39)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on semi-structured interviews	8 school principals	Secondary and primary education	India
31.	(40)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based semi-structured interviews and note-taking	Not mentioned	Secondary and primary education	Philippines
32.	(41)	Journal article	Pilot qualitative study and was based semi-structured interviews	17 school principals	Only secondary education	Canada
33.	(42)	Journal article	Quantitative study and was based on a survey questionnaire	204 school principals	Only primary education	Spain
34.	(43)	Dissertation	Quantitative study and was based on autobiographical data from case studies	4 school principals	primary and secondary education	United States
35.	(44)	Dissertation	The qualitative multi-case study was based on a survey questionnaire and interviews	6 school principals	Private primary education	United States
36.	(45)	Journal article	Qualitative study was based on structured interviews	9 school principals	secondary and primary education	United States
37.	(46)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on interviews	5000 school principals working in special education	Only special education	Canada
38.	(47)	Journal article	A qualitative study and was based on a questionnaire with open-ended questions	57 school principals	primary and secondary education	Greece
39.	(48)	Journal article	Qualitative study and was based on interviews	18 school principals	secondary education	New-Zealand
40.	(49)	Journal article	Quantitative study and was based on a survey questionnaire	30 school principals	K-12 education	United States
41.	(50)	Journal article	Mixed methods study and was based on a survey questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions	251 school principals, heads, and managers	primary and secondary education	Austria
42.	(51)	Journal article	Case study	1 school principal	secondary education	United States”

4.1 Major Challenges in the COVID Era for Educational Leaders

Out of the 42 included studies in this systematic review, 21 (or 50%) provide evidence regarding the major challenges faced by educational leaders during the COVID-19 era that require priority and immediate action to ensure the continued provision of educational services and to lead properly. The issues that have been identified are divided into three main categories: (a) logistical difficulties brought on by the absence of technical tools, infrastructure, finance, and effective planning in schools, which make it difficult for administrators to assess the true impact of the pandemic on day-to-day operations by handling conflicting information and implementing a successful response plan; (b) grading practices, student accomplishment and engagement, and compelling individuals across the educational community to adopt new perspectives to preserve instructors' and students' self-esteem and mental health in the event of a virtual classroom crisis; (c) the provision of training to help educators navigate these unusual educational situations with confidence; this includes giving educators the chance to hone new abilities and adopt fresh perspectives on designing and implementing online learning.

4.1.1 Insufficient Equipment and Infrastructure

Due to COVID-19's strict regulations regarding social distancing and isolation from others, school communities were forced to quickly switch to online learning. This forced the school leaders to deal with several equipment and infrastructure deficiencies, which made it difficult for them to effectively organise the continuous provision of educational services for all students worldwide. According to leaders in Adams's (2018) and Cann's (2020) studies, a lack of technology to support students' education made it more difficult for them to find ways to make sure that educational activities continued remotely and satisfactorily. However, their efforts were not entirely successful, as only a small percentage of leaders went above and beyond to inspire their teachers to create better online content, use different communication platforms when appropriate, and collaborate with other teachers. Comparable results were obtained from two related studies conducted in the educational environments of the US (8) and Turkey (34), respectively. In the former case, school administrators provided further details about the technical challenges they encountered under the following conditions. First, in the administration and utilisation of virtual online learning environments for communication and teaching. Second, the standard of the institutions' internet infrastructure brought to light issues with Wi-Fi access and insufficient bandwidth in homes with several students. In the study by Zhao (2020), where 63% of US institution leaders identified a shortage of technological resources coupled with a dearth of online education training for teachers and a preponderance of student inequities as major factors that exacerbated the instructional expertise during the COVID period, underscored the vital significance of technological platforms for the successful execution of online learning actions throughout the global pandemic period.

4.1.2 Insufficient Funding

Insufficient financing has been identified as a significant barrier to effective crisis leadership in schools across the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary cause of school leaders' resourcefulness and search for alternate sources of funding to provide staff training on online platform usage and socio-emotional planning in the context of online learning was, as illustrated by Brion and Kiral (2021), a lack of funding resources. As experienced by leaders leading institutions in the financially impoverished context of the Philippines, school leaders' agony for essential sufficient funding sources to be spent on smooth operating procedures and the purchasing of the required technological infrastructure is elegantly stressed (Bowles, Reeves, Patrick & Key, 2021). The study found that Greek educational administrators cited the lack of financial and administrative independence of their institutions as a significant barrier that prevented the implementation of an improved crisis management strategy (Harahap, Hermanu, Sugiharti & Lombok, 2022). Ahlstrom et al. (2020) demonstrated this issues with improperly sized classrooms, inadequate building maintenance, outdated technology, inadequate supplies, or even a shortage of auxiliary staff. In two studies (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021; Wortham & Forgety Grimm, 2022), school administrators in private schools also mentioned significant financial difficulties, which they attributed to a decline in income and collecting fees during COVID-19. The decisions made by school administrators about staff layoffs and salary reductions that resulted in a decline in overall wellness and professional motivation were significantly impacted by this.

4.1.3 Lack of a Crisis Plan Regarding the COVID Pandemic

The initial phases of the pandemic brought with it daily challenges such as ambiguity, inconsistency, vigilance, and crisis strategy, which required principals to perform multiple tasks and be ready to respond to and filter newly incoming information, adapt their approaches to leadership accordingly (Brion & Kiral, 2021), and react to changing orders and directives provided to the media via central platforms without providing any prior warning to educational institutions. The contextual ambiguity related to the pandemic time was challenging, as stated by educational leaders in a study (Beauchamp, Hulme, Clarke, Hamilton & Harvey, 2021). This demand for quick action, organising, making choices, and insight in several domains forced principals to adopt more directive leadership styles. Educational leaders in Turkey (Erol & Altunay, 2022) noted a similar lack of scenario planning and an inability to handle challenges in the event of health pandemics as documented, which compelled them to rely on temporary fixes in the majority of cases to maintain school operations in this unsettling environment. To reduce the spread of misleading information and confusion, increase support for the students at the institution, and enforce clearly defined policies and procedures at the school level, these strategies typically involved the implementation of social networks and messaging apps (like WhatsApp) (Mchunu, 2022). They also typically involved efforts to strengthen collaboration with the local health agencies to stabilise the cultural environment of the educational institution.

The reviewed studies revealed that educational leaders were unprepared to face the uncertainty that accompanied the pandemic period's lockdown period. Most of them expressed sensations of fear, hesitation, and uncertainty because they lacked a clear crisis plan (Kaiser, 2020). They all expressed the same level of frustration with state agencies' ambiguous guidance and subsequent lack of planning, which forced them to beg for stronger guidelines, greater education opportunities, and additional human resources to help them make decisions regarding the safety of their students and to lessen the additional workload placed on teachers. While the majority acknowledged that they were unable to predict the future, that they felt completely powerless, and that they "needed clearer knowledge and direction from their supervisors about the leadership of the situation," they persisted in trying to take charge of the situation and inspire school staff members by outlining a plan that would enable the school as an institution to retain agency in handling the crisis (Kusumi, Tominaga, Nagasawa & Fujii, 2023). Educational leaders had to produce an innovative approach to enacting policies during the COVID-19 pandemic because there was no crisis plan in place and there was a strong emphasis on the intersection of health and education. This forced them (Bradbury, Braun, Duncan, Harmey, Levy & Moss, 2023) to act quickly, prioritise the welfare of the children, make moral and ethical decisions in reaction to outside directives, and work within resource constraints and local priorities. School leaders were forced to manage instead of leading the institution virtually as a result of the accumulating bureaucracy work that negatively affected their ability to manage their time and collaborate with others, which is crucial when managing an unanticipated crisis like the pandemic of COVID (Chitpin & Karoui, 2022).

4.2 Academic Challenges

Adams et al. (2018) provide the finest summary of some of the major issues surrounding the online COVID-instigated teaching approach that schools have firmly adopted to guarantee the continuous provision of their educational programmes; (a) The inability to access online resources (Alarcon, 2021); (b) Insufficient proficiency in information and communication technologies (ICTs); (c) insufficient self-control to allow students to learn at home; and (d) monitoring the development and learning status of students. The adjustment to distance education was found to be significantly hampered by issues with the structure and execution of the process of learning online. These issues were further explained by (Erol & Altunay, 2022) being linked to: “the efficient tracking of students' progress toward the established annual teaching objectives while learning in virtual platforms; the appropriate assessment of the effectiveness of online courses given the short course duration, the substantial number of students, the low student participation, connection issues, students' young ages, and the lack of parental support; and the constant re-arrangement of the online curriculum to guarantee students' continuity with what they are learning.” Erol & Altunay (2022) also found that students' lack of concentration, focus, and refusal to actively participate in educational activities were caused by poor handling of instruction time in distance education, which was caused by teachers' lack of expertise and inexperience with the use of initiatives and the absence of devices for delivering courses within a virtual context. Additionally, students' limited chances for real interaction with other students and the instructor present in virtual sessions contributed to their lack of engagement. Brion & Kiral (2021) draw attention to the difficulties associated with creating and implementing lesson plans in virtual environments as well as the disorganised and inconsistently arranged content on online platforms that hinders convenient and user-friendly access, particularly for primary and special education students, as well as their parents.

4.2.1 Psychological Well-being of Educational Leaders

The majority of educational leaders were burdened with the additional task of providing psychological assistance to members of the educational institution due to fear and anxious management sparked by the virus spread and the "ambiguity regarding what could occur even the same day (Spyropoulou & Koutroukis, 2021)." This was referred to as "an insidious type of burnout" that was difficult to overcome and adversely affected the well-being of leaders. Educational leaders notably highlight the detrimental effects that this ongoing psychological strain from living under perpetual uncertainty about the education system during the COVID-19 era might have if it is not well addressed (Ahlstrom, Leo, Norqvist & Isling, 2020). In order to address the open threats to school resiliency, it was thought necessary to foster a culture of collective trust and a positive school climate. This involved working to allay staff and families' fears and anxieties about physically attending open schools while lacking official knowledge about how the virus operates and adjusting to a new reality created by recommendations and restrictions that led to a new state of school normalcy. As the primary providers of psychological assistance for students at their institution throughout the pandemic, educational leaders came to realise that they needed to communicate about their feelings of worry and anxiety according to Workman et al. (2022). By setting aside time to address their socio-emotional and psychological requirements as well as emotions, they defused parents' concerns and supported students through their financial and health-related struggles, acting as a cheerleader and coach to their faculty and staff. To allay parents' concerns, achieve a stable organisation, and accomplish critical goals during times of crisis (Lien, Khan & Eid, 2023), they invested in developing strong interpersonal relationships and a sense of collective trust between principals and staff. They also demonstrated an empathetic stance toward students and staff through meaningful and sympathetic communication and interaction (Thornton, 2021), and they made repeated efforts to reduce feelings of alienation and isolation among staff members involved in the execution of COVID-19 online education. They also supported teacher-student relationships, provided and sustained their motivation, and maintained school-community communication channels (Erol & Altunay, 2022).

4.3 Crisis Leadership Approaches by Institutions during the Pandemic

34 research studies (80.95%) identified the key educational institution's crisis leadership practices and responses that educational leaders worldwide most frequently employed at different stages of the COVID pandemic. These studies are further organised into three categories, namely Pre-crisis, Crisis, and Post-crisis school leadership practices, which are based on Coomb's (2013) crisis management lifecycle:

4.3.1 Pre-crisis Leadership

In the early stages of a crisis, sensemaking, a crisis management strategy meant to arrive at a common comprehension of the nature, features, implications, and potential scope and impact of a developing threat, have been emphasized as a crucial component that can influence important planning and decision-making (Boin, Kuipers & Overdijk, 2013). Botbyl (2022) elaborates on the importance of sensemaking as a necessary step that gradually leads to proactive team resilience enactment at school. They do this by drawing on data from eleven international school principals who describe the process they went through during the COVID-19 years (Shonkoff, 2020). These principals describe the following: (a) the psychological shift in leadership that was necessary to cope with the early severity of the pandemic crisis, the continual complexity and uncertainties that unfolded, and ultimately the need to survive; (b) school leaders' realisation of their own as well as their staff members' capacities in building a strong resilient team; (c) a re-examination of previous leadership practices and values while seeking to find ways to mitigate the virus in their school community; (d) a progressive adoption of responsive enactment enabling their teams to come up with ideas and be enabled to make a difference; (e) the creation of a restoring and collective synergy that enabled numerous principals and their teams to persevere in times of significant disruption and change.

According to the accounts provided by educational leaders in Thornton et al. (2021), the school community was better prepared and had adequate planning thanks to the prompt identification of the health crisis. This included setting up staff professional development opportunities, holding trial online learning days, and making sure that all students had access to digital devices. Banerjee et al. (2022) have provided additional evidence that highlights the degree to which institution leadership's sensemaking ability to correctly interpret the discrepancies and complexities posed by changing policies determined their decision-making actions in different educational environments and their ability to effectively convey their decisions in gaining the commitment and confidence that stakeholders have in the school community. Additionally, in Coquyt 's (2021) study, educational leaders were able to demonstrate "nimbleness in leadership" during the difficult circumstances of COVID by effectively utilising organisational sensemaking, which involved interpreting the environment in and through conversations with educational leaders (Fedele, Iacuzzi & Garlatti, 2021). These leaders were also able to recognise and react to multiple critical circumstances without significant input from other people, and they were able to radically adjust to current organisational frameworks and routines through the appropriate use of crisis-coping techniques (ibid. 2021). Betancur (2022) claims that situational awareness—that is, fully appreciating the scope of the crisis—was a crucial component of school crisis leadership, impacting how educational leaders formulated their new roles, implemented equity practices, and depended on moral leadership ethics and values to make decisions.

4.3.2 Crisis Leadership Practices

The findings in this section describe the novel management practices that educational leaders compelled to implement in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis and validate the body of current research on crisis management concerning the adaptation, modification, or extension of typical leadership positions and duties that it entails (Coombs, 2013). Cahapay (2021) explains, school principals' views about educational leadership during times of crisis were frequently changed along with their daily management practices' adaptability, moving from a set of standard practices to an active method for making adjustments, as necessary.

Overall empirical data show that school administrators used a two-pronged strategy to manage the school crisis during the pandemic years by taking on new responsibilities (Pollack, 2020) such as, firstly, “to ensure school safety; and secondly, set the stage for future education by gaining a thorough understanding of COVID based on the most accurate and current information available on the illness.” In line with Pollack (2020), this role required school principals to take proactive measures to reduce inequities in access to virtual learning, manage the physical distance between students and staff, establish effective communication strategies, motivate staff, build trust, and be an active data mobiliser and policy interpreter of the fresh regulations and rules released on every day with little to no warning. While most educational leaders acknowledged that they were not fully trained or ready for a pandemic, they still prioritised the safety (Kusumi, Tominaga, Nagasawa & Fujii, 2023) and well-being of their students in how they responded. They emphasized the need to improve certain classroom safety measures like class size and the availability of essential resources, as well as the establishment of pandemic management committees made up of key players to increase safety preparation in educational institutions (Respus, 2022). They also mentioned the importance of promoting disinfection processes by making necessary equipment and chemicals available (Kavrayıcı & Kesim, 2021) and even considering installing air conditioners and ventilation systems during the early stages of a health emergency (Karimi, 2021).

Expanding their responsibilities as an instructional leader to include being a digital leader by assisting parents, teachers, and students in making the switch to a new educational model. To guarantee that students have access to remote online education, school administrators have solely concentrated on providing high-quality distance education that is methodically planned, based on a modified curriculum, and depends on collaboration with the larger school community (Anunciar, Bacolod, Abadiano & Deocares, 2020). They supported their teachers in managing the processes of distance education, boosting their morale and motivation by closely observing both online and offline education practices. They also paid extraordinary attention to the preparation and coordination of the courses, as well as the management of learning procedures. Online preparedness, social media management, and online management of projects also regarded as essential leadership management competencies (Karimi, 2021).

4.3.3 Post-Crisis Leadership Practices

The reviewed studies provide limited evidence regarding the degree to which educational leaders seized upon the global pandemic crisis as only one opportunity for introspective reflection on their shortcomings and modified their strategies to effectively manage dystopic events in the future. The COVID pandemic helped superintendents in Coqui’s (2021) study hone their capacity for problem-solving and critical thinking while also trying to increase their capacity for adaptation in making decisions and improving communication with all parties involved by being more open and routinely seeking input from stakeholders. The pandemic era forced educational leaders in a remote small town in Central Jamaica to hone their communication skills through training in order to improve and re-establish school-community relations after the crisis (Bent-Cunningham & Mauzard, 2021). In a similar vein, educational leaders discussed in the study by Banerjee et al. (2022) were observed to re-evaluate and reorganise their original concepts and strategies, substituting them with innovative approaches and procedures to enhance school-level operations and address mental health issues that the pandemic had exacerbated in their educational institutions during the rehabilitation stage.

Nonetheless, in Kusumi et al.'s (2023) study, risk management was primarily implemented in targeted institutions following reopening in two steps of the implementation of established precautions and maximising risk-reduction actions when guidelines could not be applied. Risk management has permeated adaptable practices by educational leaders throughout the COVID pandemic. The researchers claim that in the former scenario, all educational practices evolved to require and incorporate regulations from local and federal governments in an effort to mitigate risks. These regulations forbade specific educational endeavours as preventive measures, thereby limiting the possibility of creating lessons that were specifically customised for each student. In the latter instance, school administrators urged nearby educators to try to reduce danger and provide the best education possible for children, even when they encountered challenges in fully implementing preventive measures.

4.4 Institutional Crisis of Leadership Style in the COVID Pandemic

To address our research question, which leadership style was most successfully practiced in the crisis-responding strategy plan that the institution's administrators employed during the COVID-19 pandemic, data from eleven studies (26.19%) in our study population were sufficient. Collaborative or teamwork and distributed leadership emerged as the two most common approaches, according to the replies from educational leaders.

By demonstrating resourcefulness in making quick decisions, recognising opportunities, acting, adjusting to situations, handling data, and using resources to evaluate situations, academic leaders with a distributed leadership style were able to identify coming crisis indicators and organise their responsive approach. They also demonstrated confidence in their capacity to navigate the system fluidly and make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic (Alarcon, 2021). Educational leaders felt that assigning tasks to others inside the institution was essential because they were unable to ensure that all school-wide procedures and protocols were handled and conducted in a high-quality manner during the pandemic era unless they were organised, conducted, and monitored (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021; Workman, Bogans & Glover, 2022). The adoption of intervention strategies to support students' academic progress within a positive school climate was made possible by distributive leadership, wherein subject matter experts in online learning techniques were assigned to mentor less experienced teachers in preparation for the shift (Harahap, Hermanu & Sugiharti, 2022). As a result of distributed leadership's ability to assign accountability and maintain some continuity of decision-making within already-existing networks inside educational institutions, community resilience has been observed to arise (Wortham & Forgety Grimm, 2022). For all of the aforementioned reasons, educational leaders in various educational contexts made a concerted effort to uphold it by depending on staff members' commitment and ability to interact with students in an effective manner despite the overall lack of supervision (Bowles, Reeves, Patrick & Key, 2021). However, at times, the limitations placed on interpersonal interaction by technology compelled them to advocate for a more "directive" decision-making authority (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff & Altman, 2009).

During the pandemic, educational leaders equally preferred collaborative leadership, which often coexists with a distributed leadership style and emphasizes a sense of "us-ness" (Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2020) and a goal of working for the common benefit of staff, students, and parents. The educational leaders according to Thornton (2021), came to the realisation that managing the school during this crisis required showing their trust in their staff. They also recognised that fostering a sense of community within the school was critical to improving student outcomes (Sutherland, 2017). As part of their crisis management strategy, a study delegated leadership to staff members, engaged the community, participated in community networks, and kept families updated on the lockdown measures taken by the schools (Stern, 2014). Research indicates that when leaders led the institution in a mutually beneficial, equitable, motivational, participative, inclusive, harmonic, and collaborative way, each member of staff felt accountable for resolving conflicts and fulfilling their new responsibilities to get through the crisis (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). However, it took a great deal of accountability to decide how the institution should handle the crisis, and a collective crisis leadership reaction based on collaborative networking allowed leaders to effectively respond to the particular difficulties presented by the global outbreak and by the solitary nature of the statewide lockdown (Pearson & Mitroff, 2019; Lien, Khan & Eid, 2023). Therefore, leaders' leadership became more complicated due to greater stakes and less room for error.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the operations of educational institutions and interrupted normalcy in a way that unveiled and magnified the challenges of educational leadership. The present systematic review paper reviewed 42 empirical studies that capture the crisis leadership of school principals during the pandemic. It seemed that some of the hardest skills were the phenomena of insufficient infrastructure and technology, inadequate funding, and poor crisis readiness. The strategies for crisis leadership determined were the use of adaptive decision-making, ensuring safe and inviting schooling, building and enhancing resilience and collaboration in schooling, ensuring communication in schooling, and addressing the socio-psychological concerns of the school community. These findings stress the need for a pragmatic approach for the improvement of crisis management skills together with the need for the enhancement of educational governance reforms.

Author Contribution

S.K and H.K, both, wrote the main manuscript text and S.K prepared the reference list. Both authors reviewed the paper.

Data Availability

The authors declare that supplementary data are available on request.

Adams, D. (2018). Mastering theories of educational leadership and management. University of Malaya Press.
Adams, D., Cheah, K. S., Thien, L. M., & Md Yusoff, N. N. (2024). Leading schools through the COVID-19 crisis in a South-East Asian country. Management in Education, 38(2), 72–8.
Ahmad, B., Zia, S., Ahmad, U., & Salam, M. (2023). Management and leadership in higher educational institutions: The new normal (post-COVID-19) and future scenario. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 107(107), 193–211.
Ahlstrom, B., Leo, U., Norqvist, L., & Isling, P. P. (2020). School leadership as (un) usual. Insights from principals in Sweden during a pandemic. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(2), 35–41.
Alarcon, M. B. (2021). Crisis leadership during COVID-19 pandemic of public school heads in Malasiqui District, Pangasinan. Pangasinan (August 1, 2021).
Banerjee-Batist, R., Gajjar, K., Saxena, P., Smetana, J. B., & Muduli, A. (2022). Leadership response to COVID-19: A comparative analysis of the education sector in USA and India. Human Resource Development International, 25(3), 321–41.
Beauchamp, G., Hulme, M., Clarke, L., Hamilton, L., & Harvey, J. A. (2021). ‘People miss people’: A study of school leadership and management in the four nations of the United Kingdom in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 375–92.
Betancur, D. A. (2022). Examining the roles of secondary school leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic: Vital elements in serving Hispanic/Latinx students. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 79–91.
Botbyl, D. (2022). International school heads’ experiences enacting resilient teams during covid-19. Wilkes University.
Bowles, E., Reeves, S., Patrick, J., & Key, M. (2021). Educational leadership amidst a sustained global health crisis: Perceived challenges of four school leaders in a metropolitan area leading schools through the COVID-19 pandemic. Northern Kentucky University.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bradbury, A., Braun, A., Duncan, S., Harmey, S., & Levy, R., & Moss, G. (2023). Crisis policy enactment: Primary school leaders’ responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in England. Journal of Education Policy, 38(5), 761–81.
Brion, C., & Kiral, B. (2021). COVID-19 crisis challenges and management strategies of educational leaders in America. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 8(4), 170–83.
Burke, J., & Dempsey, M. (2021). Wellbeing in post-Covid schools: Primary school leaders’ reimagining of the future.
Cahapay, M. B. (2021). The phenomenon of leading without guidebook: Educational leadership practices of Philippine school principals in virulent COVID-19 times. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management.
Cann, R. (2020). Advice for principals on how to support teacher wellbeing during the Covid-19 lockdown. The Education Hub. Available online: https://theeducationhub.org.nz/ (accessed on 20 September 2020).
Chatzipanagiotou, P., & Katsarou, E. (2023). Crisis management, school leadership in disruptive times and the recovery of schools in the post COVID-19 era: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(2), 118.
Chitpin, S., & Karoui, O. (2022). Educational decision-making during COVID-19 in Ontario: Lessons for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies, 3(2), 122–42.
Coombs, W. T. (2013). Applied crisis communication and crisis management: Cases and exercises. Sage Publications.
Coquyt, M. (2021). Self-evaluation of educational leadership practices during COVID-19. The Interactive Journal of Global Leadership and Learning, 2(1), 3.
Erol, E., & Altunay, E. (2022). School principals’ opinions on the schooling in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 7(2), 395–433.
Fayed, I., & Cummings, J. (2021). Teaching in the post COVID-19 era. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/101007/978-3-030-74088-7.
Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The Coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
Fedele, P., Iacuzzi, S., & Garlatti, A. (2021). One size does not fit all: Schools’ responses to the Covid-19 crisis. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(11–12), 943 – 51.
Fletcher, J., & Nicholas, K. (2016). What can school principals do to support students and their learning during and after natural disasters? Educational Review, 68(3), 358–74.
Gainey, B. S. (2009). Crisis management's new role in educational settings. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(6), 267–74.
Guardiola, M.-A. (Ed.). (2024). Educational leadership and the impact of AI in the post-Covid era in Catalonia. Conference Proceedings The Future of Education 2024.
Harahap, S., Hermanu, D. H., & Sugiharti, T. (2022). Lombok teachers and principals building resilience in facing earthquakes and Covid-19 pandemic. Education Quarterly Reviews, 5(2).
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2020). Professional capital after the pandemic: Revisiting and revising classic understandings of teachers' work. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 327 – 36.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2020). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Routledge.
Jain, G. (2020). Emerging trends of education during & post COVID 19: A new challenge. Solid State Technology, 63(1s), 796–806.
Kaiser, R. B. (2020). Leading in an unprecedented global crisis: The heightened importance of versatility. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 72(3), 135.
Karimi, H., (2021) Researching school leadership in the time of Covid-19. New Vistas 7(1), 14–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.36828/newvistas.98
Kayyali, M. (2020). Post COVID-19: New era for higher education systems. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 8(2), 131–45.
Kavrayıcı, C., & Kesim, E. (2021). School management during the Covid-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 27(1), 1005–60.
Kim, J. (2020). Learning and teaching online during Covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in an early childhood education practicum. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(2), 145–58.
Kusumi, Y., Tominaga, M., Nagasawa, H., & Fujii, A. (2023). One school’s management of students with intellectual disabilities during the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan: A study based on interviews with teachers. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 27(2), 354–69.
Lien, C. M., Khan, S., & Eid, J. (2023). School principals’ experiences and learning from the Covid-19 pandemic in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(5), 775–90.
Lo Moro, G., Sinigaglia, T., Bert, F., Savatteri, A., Gualano, M. R., & Siliquini, R. (2020). Reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: Overview and rapid systematic review of guidelines and recommendations on preventive measures and the management of cases. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 8839.
Mayer, B. W., Moss, J., & Dale, K. (2008). Disaster and preparedness: Lessons from Hurricane Rita. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), 14–23.
McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (Eds.). (2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education. Frontiers Media SA.
Mchunu, B. S. (2022). Cases of principal leadership responses in a volatile, uncertain and complex school environment. Psychosocial, Educational, and Economic Impacts of COVID-19. IntechOpen.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group, T. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–9.
Panunciar, D. M., Bacolod, M. M., Abadiano, M. N., & Deocares, M. S. (2020). Emerging school leadership amidst Covid-19 pandemic. Psychology and Education, 57(9), 5935–63.
Pearson, C. M., & Mitroff, I. I. (2019). From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for crisis management. Risk Management. Routledge, 185 – 96.
Pollock, K. (2020). School leaders’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic: A two-pronged approach. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(3), 38.
Shonkoff, J. P. (2020). Stress, resilience, and the role of science: Responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 20.
Singhal, N. (2021). Leading in a VUCA world: Lessons from Covid-19. IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 18(2).
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2010). The business of school leadership: A practical guide for managing the business dimension of schools. Aust Council for Ed Research.
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership & Management, 32(1), 57–71.
Spyropoulou, E., & Koutroukis, T. (2021). Managing open school units amid COVID-19 pandemic through the experiences of Greek principals. Implications for current and future policies in public education. Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 70.
Stern, E. (2013). Preparing: The sixth task of crisis leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 51–6.
Stern, E. (2014). Designing crisis management training and exercises for strategic leaders. Försvarshögskolan (FHS).
Striepe, M., & Cunningham, C. (2022). Understanding educational leadership during times of crises: A scoping review. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(2), 133–47.
Sutherland, I. E. (2017). Learning and growing: Trust, leadership, and response to crisis. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 2–17.
Takkouche, B., & Norman, G. (2011). PRISMA statement. Epidemiology, 22(1), 128.
Thornton, K. (2021). Leading through COVID-19: New Zealand secondary principals describe their reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 393–409.
Urick, A., Carpenter, B. W., & Eckert, J. (Eds.). (2021). Confronting COVID: Crisis leadership, turbulence, and self-care. Frontiers in Education. Frontiers Media SA.
Viczko, M., & Li, J. (2021). Global perspectives on educational improvement in post-covid-19. Beijing International Review of Education, 3(2), 125–9.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–17.
Whitla, M. (2004). Crisis management and the school community. Acer Press.
Workman, J. B., Bogans, A. M., & Glover, M. N. (2022). Leadership processes during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for leadership preparation and training. Augusta University.
Wortham, D. G., & Forgety Grimm, L. (2022). School interrupted: Recovering learning losses related to COVID-19. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 25(2), 124–35.
Yates, A., Starkey, L., Egerton, B., & Flueggen, F. (2021). High school students’ experience of online learning during Covid-19: The influence of technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 59–73.
Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1), 29–33.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
09 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
22 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
21 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Aug, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
05 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
05 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
05 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
29 Jul, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Post-COVID Educational Leadership: Emerging Models and Styles for a New Era

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. INTRODUCTION

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Studies Selection

2.1.1 Inclusion Criteria

2.1.2 Exclusion Criteria

2.2 Search Strategy

2.3 Data Collection

2.3.1 Assessment of Risk Bias

3. RESULTS

3.1 Search Results

3.2 Risk of Assessment Bias

3.3 Characteristics of Included Studies

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Major Challenges in the COVID Era for Educational Leaders

4.1.1 Insufficient Equipment and Infrastructure

4.1.2 Insufficient Funding

4.1.3 Lack of a Crisis Plan Regarding the COVID Pandemic

4.2 Academic Challenges

4.2.1 Psychological Well-being of Educational Leaders

4.3 Crisis Leadership Approaches by Institutions during the Pandemic

4.3.1 Pre-crisis Leadership

4.3.2 Crisis Leadership Practices

4.3.3 Post-Crisis Leadership Practices

4.4 Institutional Crisis of Leadership Style in the COVID Pandemic

5. CONCLUSION

Declarations

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1