**2. Impact of the Pandemic on Wellbeing and the Challenges Leaders Faced**

The onset of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic [3] introduced an exceptional and unique adaptive challenge for leaders around the world beginning in early 2020. Faced with an unprecedented event of a severe, acute respiratory disease that spread through contact with respiratory droplets produced by an infected person (refs. [4,5]) leaders across all levels of organizations, communities, regions, and governing bodies were abruptly called upon to navigate an adaptive challenge that encompassed managing the safety of their employees, constituents, communities, and followers. As the pandemic spread, wide-scale health orders at the governmental level encouraged physical restrictions including social distancing. World leaders, together with health authorities, needed to rapidly determine best practices for enforcing public safety, managing organizational adjustments, and the wellbeing of their employees. The pandemic response introduced new ways of working where physical distancing, wearing personal protective gear, and working remotely as much as possible became the new norm [6].

At the organizational level, the combination of remote working and prolonged periods of necessary social distancing from friends, often augmented by a need to be in quarantine due to being infected with COVID, the requisite 'bubbles' of isolation for infected individuals [7], caused high levels of stress among employees and employers. The physical landscape of many organizations across the world shifted to an online platform. Operating at a distance created unique challenges including developing new ways of working within which the balance of home life and organizational priorities became challenging. In addition to the blend of work and home living spaces, the pandemic introduced augmented challenges for employee wellbeing. Overall, wellbeing represents wellness. The Global Wellness Institute defines wellness as "the active pursuit of activities, choices and lifestyles that lead to a state of holistic health" [8].

Organizationally, higher levels of stress among employees and leaders resulted from their efforts to stay connected and engaged in a largely virtual and highly stressful environment caused by the disruption of their previously familiar working arrangements and the loss of the resources and activities previously enjoyed to nurture their wellness and wellbeing [9]. These challenges were especially visible among employees of various organizations working in direct contact with the general public. Within the healthcare systems, the burnout and feelings of being overwhelmed of front-line workers increased as a result of limited access to personal protective equipment [10,11]. Increased sources of stress negatively impacted the emotional, psychological, and mental wellness of employees [12,13]. Along with this, the factors of wellbeing that had contributed to pre-pandemic employee health, happiness, job satisfaction, and work–life balance [14] were fully distressed and imbalanced by the onset of the coronavirus.

## **3. Leadership Communications**

Another, perhaps more subtle, adaptation that began to take place with the onset and evolution of the coronavirus was the change in leadership communications. Within the messages issued from governments and local-level leaders and organizations, a concept of "care" emerged and led to recognizable results among constituents, followers, and employees. Leaders who communicated care were responding to the recognition that their constituents and followers were undergoing stress and reduced wellbeing.

Leaders increased their efforts to offer relief from stress as the pandemic continued [15]. While organizational activities included developing safe working policies and procedures for enabling employees to work as safely as possible with one another, leadership communications began to regularly include actionable steps for staying safe and facilitating modifications to traditional in-person working spaces by offering virtual work and flexible hours. Effective leadership communications in which a balance of shared personal experience along with supportive verbiage and pragmatism for collectively responsible health-oriented behaviors articulated by the leader seemed to nurture an affinity among stakeholders. In this time of crisis, this unique messaging seemed to encourage a regeneration of follower socio-emotional wellbeing among those whom they led. This was also visible in the communications offered by leaders in areas where more individuals engaged in shared activities of survival [16]. Their messages also advocated the importance of engaging in physical activity including online or live options in modified spaces and conditions [17]. This extended to the encouragement of socializing and going outdoors for walks in support of enabling wellness with guidelines for added safety. Leaders who expressed concern for the wellbeing of others established higher levels of relatability [18]. Similarly, while responses from leaders at global levels varied, in countries where communication was consistent and culturally informed, this created an affinity representing mutual trust between leadership and constituents [19].

Empathetic and relational leadership communications were observed at global and local levels. International examples included New Zealand Prime Minister Jacintha Arden and Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar among others. Arden was often described as caring and trustworthy, while exemplifying a rational approach with agility alongside of maintaining an empathetic communication style [20]. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar was characterized as building connectivity with his people through being 'human and personable' [21]. In Denmark, Prime Minister Mette Frederickson was observed as having taken decisive action which carried over to local level descriptions of political leaders expressing empathy and confidence in their constituents [22]. Altogether, leadership behaviors that promoted affinity and relatability, together with taking smart and rapid decisions to slow the spread of COVID, became widely shared as public examples of success. Kerrissey and Edmonson applauded the leadership of Arden and Adam Silver, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association (NBA), for their proactive decisions in response to the pandemic along with their empathy. As they wrote [23]:

Leadership in an uncertain, fast-moving crisis means making oneself available to feel what it is like to be in another's shoes—to lead with empathy ... . It will be incumbent on leaders to put themselves in another's suffering, to feel with empathy and think with intelligence, and then to use their position of authority to make a path forward for us all.

Within each of these examples where leaders were observed to have expressed a combination of empathy, nurturing, and relationship building in their leadership communications, their governance remained strong. Constituents and followers alike were provided direction in support of forward momentum and the rebalancing of individual and collective socio-emotional and organizational equilibriums. These efforts supported an expressed combination of personal experience, open communication about the crisis event, its progression, and necessary actions that offered realistic hope amidst ambiguity [24]. The result of this approach highlighted how care and action can be paired in a human-centric approach that is available to all leaders across all levels of organizations. Through a purposeful, blended approach, leaders demonstrated an ethic of care toward the wellbeing of others [25]. Leaders "acknowledged the personal and professional challenges that their employees and loved ones experience during a crisis" [26]. In doing so, their ability to engage and connect with their stakeholders increased. Empathetic communication from the space of care resulted in closer relations between leaders and their constituents and/or employees, and the perception that these leaders were managing the pandemic effectively. Both men and women leaders who were applauded employed care communication. Employing care communication has not been shown to have had a direct relationship with reduced COVID mortality but rather with the increased perception by constituents that leaders were on top of the pandemic.

Since care is typically associated with women's leadership, some studies attempted to measure whether women's care communications in fact did result in fewer COVID deaths. Sergent and Stajkovic found that states in the United States that were led by female governors did experience less COVID deaths [25]. The authors quoted a number of public statements of these female governors that illustrated their care for their citizens, such as "You do not have to go through this alone. Don't hesitate to reach out to me personally, to reach out to my family because they are in the same boat and experience the same situation" "You are our warriors, and we can't win this fight without you. Thank you ... for being the best self". On the other hand, based on a complex analysis of a number of variables, including cultural and political differences and number of women in Parliament, Windsor et al. concluded that there was no correlation between women leaders at the helm and reduced deaths [26]. They concluded that the presence of a woman head of state did not make a country fare better in reducing mortality during the pandemic unless the country also had the cultural values that supported female leadership. Both articles pointed out that the literature related to women's leadership predicted that women would manage disasters better than men because they typically institute better preparatory systems and build resilience to endure such disasters as part of their leadership mandates. However, both articles were written early in the pandemic so that their conclusions were preliminary. Further, these studies do not negate the importance of care communication in the leadership of both male and female leaders during the pandemic.

#### **4. The Significance of Care and Relations**

Although care has not been systematically included as a key behavior in all leadership theories and approaches, the ethics of care has become an increasingly highlighted concept in social, political, and economic discussions and theories. Care is considered as ontologically foundational and the core of all moral reasoning and action with its value deriving from being in an "active relationship and caring for concrete others in ways that result in enhancing the others' wellbeing" [27]. Held argued that the care of a child serves as an appropriate paradigm to think about the ethics of care [28]. Caring for a child emphasizes vulnerability, affective bonds, relations of mutual dependence, and obligation that underlie the ethics of care. Singh contended that care is not only relegated to the familial but underlies the economy and polity, which are relational systems [29]. Brazilian philosopher and theologian Leonardo Boff took the concept of care to the global level as he argued that:

Care is a way of being, that is, it is the key way through which the human-being structures itself and through which it interacts with others in the world. In other words, it is a way of being-in-the-world in which the relations that are established with all things are founded [30].

Noddings defined care as "a set of relational practices that foster mutual recognition and realization, growth, development, protection, empowerment, and human community, culture, and possibility" [31]. Care includes mutuality and obligation toward each other. It is a relational concept based on responsibility. Ciulla contended that "the job of a leader includes caring for others or taking responsibility for them ... especially in times of crisis." [32].

The crisis of the pandemic laid bare the necessity for leadership that includes care as an essential component. This necessity led some authors to reflect on the essential role of care in leadership in the post-pandemic world. Schultz, for one, structured a case study to investigate whether educators would continue their care-based leadership perfected during the pandemic into the future [33]. Basing her case on Noddings' definition of care quoted above, as well as Tronto's definition of care as "a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and repair our 'world' so that we can live in it as well as possible," Schultz [34] made it clear that care should be fundamental to the way people interact and should comprise the ethical foundation of all leadership.
