Perceived Efficacy of Virtual Leadership in the Crisis of the COVID-19 Pandemic

  • Sanja Bizilj University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • Eva Boštjančič University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • Gregor Sočan University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia


As a crisis response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies quickly established virtual leadership systems and enabled employees to continue their work from home. This cross-sectional research addresses virtual leadership efficacy assessed by the leaders and by their employees. The findings suggest that leaders evaluate themselves significantly better than their employees, and their leadership efficacy mainly depends on their previous experience of working from home and ability to use communication technologies. This research contributes to the understanding of the factors that have the biggest influence on the belief in leadership efficacy in the context of a rapidly evolving system of remote work.

Author Biographies

Sanja Bizilj, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Sanja Bizilj is a PhD Student at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests cover virtual leadership, leadership efficacy, and cross-functional collaboration. Currently, she holds a senior leadership position at a global international company.

Eva Boštjančič, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Eva Boštjančič is a full professor in the field of psychology of work and organization at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. Her research interests focus on the problems of talent, cultural intelligence and management in an organizational environment, as well as resuming work after burnout or a long illness, etc. She also advises, conducts workshops, gives talks to employees in private and public sectors, and manages the website .

Gregor Sočan, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Gregor Sočan received his PhD degree from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Currently, he is an Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He teaches several courses on psychometrics and applied statistics. His research interests include psychometric methods (such as reliability estimation, test scoring, and measurement invariance) and applications of multivariate modelling methods, primarily in personality research and developmental psychology.


  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). Structural equation modelling in marketing research: Basic principles. In Bagozzi, R. P. (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 317–386). Blackwell Publishers.

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.

  • Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2009). Leadership self-efficacy scale: A new multidimensional instrument. TPM—Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16(1), 3–24.

  • Boin, A., & Hart, P. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544–553.

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.

  • Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. B. (2003). In the beginning: Introduction and framework. In C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1–13). Jossey-Bass.

  • Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. (2003). Influence at a distance: Leadership in global virtual teams. Advances in Global Leadership, 3, 303–340.

  • Eden, D., Ganzach, Y., Flumin-Granat, R., & Zigman, T. (2010). Augmenting means efficacy to boost performance: Two field experiments. Journal of Management, 36(3), 687–713.

  • Eden, D., & Sulimani, R. (2013). Pygmalion training made effective: Greater mastery through augmentation of self-efficacy and means efficacy. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Ed.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead 10th anniversary edition (pp. 337–358). Emerald Group Publishing.

  • Eisenberg, J., Post, C., & DiTomaso, N. (2019). Team dispersion and performance: The role of team communication and transformational leadership. Small Group Research, 50(3), 348–380.

  • Gibson, C. B., & Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 438–458.

  • Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.

  • Haase, J., Hoff, E. V., Hanel, P. H. P., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relation between creative self-efficacy and different creativity measurements. Creativity Research Journal, 30(1), 1–16.

  • Halverson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., Kazama, S. M., & Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacrificial behaviour in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioural and situational factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 263–275

  • Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.

  • Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403.

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

  • Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7–40.

  • Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.

  • McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & López-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 1–15.

  • Miao, C., Qian, S., & Ma, D. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 87–107.

  • Ministry of Health of the Republic of Slovenia, & National Institute of Public Health. (2020, March 12). Coronavirus disease COVID-19. Government Communication Office.

  • Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 131–149.

  • Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understand leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

  • R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Reference Index. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Roman, A. V., Van Wart, M., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S., & McCarthy, A. (2018). Defining E-leadership as competence in ICT-mediated communications: An exploratory assessment. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 853–866.

  • Rosenthal, U., Boin, A., & Comfort, L. K. (2001). Managing crises: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities. Charles C. Thomas.

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modelling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

  • Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

  • Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.

  • Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 793–825.

  • WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. (2020, March 11). World Health Organization.

  • Yaakobi, E. (2018). Different types of efficacy—what best predicts behaviour? Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 9(4), 381–384.

  • Yukl, G. (2016). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall.

  • Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339–351.

How to Cite
Bizilj, S., Boštjančič, E., & Sočan, G. (2021). Perceived Efficacy of Virtual Leadership in the Crisis of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Changing Societies & Personalities, 5(3), 389–404. doi:10.15826/csp.2021.5.3.141