*3.3. Disruption Led to Reflection, Shifts in Perspective and New and Broader Ranges of Strategies*

These women leaders varied in their initial responses to the chaotic environment. Some reportedly pushed harder and faster in the same manner as pre-COVID-19, while others quickly pivoted to new leadership behaviors. The 2022 Achieving Styles Profiles of these leaders reflect these shifts. One critical change observed is a move from mostly relying on one to two preferred styles to more of the leaders relying on three or more styles, reflecting both adaptability and authenticity when engaging in leadership behaviors aligned with the situation at hand. More participants relied on one or two styles pre-pandemic than in 2022 (77% and 62%, respectively). Furthermore, in 2022, more participants relied on three or more styles (38%) than pre-pandemic (23%).

In addition to the broadened or wider profile, increased scores are seen most consistently across the instrumental achieving styles. Whereas pre-pandemic preferences skewed towards the direct domain (particularly power direct for 54%) and relational domain (contributory relational for 62%), 2022 scores skewed towards contributory relational (for 69%), social instrumental (for 23%), and entrusting instrumental (for 15%), in addition to power direct (23%). These preferences were noted through a ranking of scores (aka preference) for the styles and represent the highest score for an individual, and when rankings below the top-ranked preference fall within a 0.5 score, they are also considered a top score. In addition to the ranked scores of individual participants, the increases in the scores across participants in the scores for the styles are also of interest. The average scores on the instrumental styles increased by 0.34 for social instrument, 0.22 for personal instrumental, and 0.11 for entrusting instrumental. Notably, no increases were observed in direct styles, with an average decrease of 0.1 for intrinsic direct and competitive direct and no average change in power direct. This indicates that while participants can still access the style, given their greater range of styles, they do not tend to rely upon it solely. Instrumental leaders focus on themselves, their relationships and others in order to succeed. They serve as maximizers, deftly leveraging their own and everyone else's strengths.

However, as the pandemic carried on, nearly all participants paused, perhaps only briefly, and pivoted personally and professionally. Several were compelled to change their context, such as by changing jobs; others re-envisioned how their work environments needed to be. The participants often mentioned that setting boundaries or taking action for themselves or on behalf of their teams led to a greater focus and new perspectives on the role of leadership. What is consistently observed across this sample of women leaders is that their leadership behaviors were modified in response to their environments and with whom they interacted or led.

Interestingly, some referred to the intentionality of their pivot, whereas some were able to pinpoint their "aha" moment in identifying that they had adapted their leadership approach after reflection through the dialogue. One leader's description highlights a blend of the direct domain, with a focus on oneself as related to an awareness of and response to the external environment:

"I think that the pandemic really opened my eyes and helped me be a better leader. I was able to take feedback in a better manner once I overcame the shock of what the new job and responsibilities were. I began to ask more questions and be more aware of what I needed to do to be more successful."

Part of being a better leader meant not only reflecting on one's own responsibilities but also promoting and ensuring accountability for results. One participant describes this:

"At work, holding up everybody accountable for what they do and to work as a team, because you need everyone to work as a team if everything is to work smoothly and have a good workday."
