DISRUPTION AND THE SOURCE OF LEADERSHIP – WHO LEADS THE LEADER; AUTHORITY, MEANING, AND MOTIVATION IN DISRUPTIVE ENVIRONMENTS

 Namah Vivek Puri

Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies, Bhavan’s Vivekananda College of Science Humanities and Commerce, Secunderabad, India

Correspondence: imvivek@rediffmail.com

Abstract

Leadership literature traditionally treats leaders as primary sources of direction, motivation, and ethical judgment. In the field of leadership and management, the challenge of any study is the absence of a single conclusive solution to a management problem. While much scholarship examines how leaders guide organisations through disruption, the author in this paper seeks a departure in approach and attempts to investigate a central idea that “While a leader leads people and organisations among the ongoing disruption, and he is aware of all the challenges and implications and the ethical dilemmas, but who leads him, where does he derive his motivation from while motivating the others? Leadership discourse assumes that leaders are autonomous sources of direction, meaning, and ethical judgment. Under conditions of disruption, this assumption collapses. In disrupted environments, leaders are expected to provide certainty and moral clarity precisely when their own sources of guidance are fragmented, contested, or eroding. So, what systems, structures, narratives, and constraints shape the leader’s judgment, motivation, and ethical boundaries?” Drawing on management and leadership scholarship on authority, sense-making, identity, and institutional legitimacy, the paper argues that leadership in disrupted environments is governed less by formal position and more by a constellation of non-hierarchical influences. These include internalised professional identity, self-actualisation, institutional value systems, peer legitimacy, moral frameworks, and socially constructed narratives of purpose and responsibility.

Using the mixed methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative data analysis and applying the grounded theory approach, based on both contemporary thought and ancient Indian wisdom, this paper analyses how authority and meaning are constructed and sustained at the level of the leader. It redefines leadership as a process rooted in consciousness, relationships, and institutions, rather than an autonomous exercise of control. The author identifies, codifies, and articulates specific sources of leadership capable of withstanding prolonged disruption to achieve and sustain competitive advantage.

Keywords: Disruption, Leadership, Management, Motivation

JEL: M10, M12, M53, M54

1. Introduction

Leadership in contemporary organisations is often exercised amid disruption, uncertainty, and ethical challenges. Factors such as rapid technological changes, unstable politics, volatile markets, and weakened institutions have changed how leaders work, making traditional ideas about predictability, steady authority, and judging success by outcomes less reliable. Much research has focused on how leaders manage teams and organisations under these tough conditions; however, there is less exploration of the crucial question of what guides leaders themselves when their usual sources of authority, meaning, and motivation start to weaken. This study addresses this issue by looking at leadership not just as an external role but as an internal process shaped by personal judgment, purpose, and ethical direction.

1.1. Intent

This study aims to uncover the core factors that influence how leaders make decisions in unpredictable situations. Instead of focusing only on leadership styles or their effects on followers, it will examine where leaders find their authority, sense of purpose, and motivation when formal rules and standard practices offer little direction. By focusing on what drives leaders themselves, rather than just how they direct others, this study intends to add a new perspective to leadership and management research.

1.2. Central Idea of the Research Study

While a leader leads people and organisations among the ongoing disruption, and he is aware of all the challenges and implications and the ethical dilemmas, but who leads him, where does he derive his motivation from while motivating the others? Leadership discourse assumes that leaders are autonomous sources of direction, meaning, and ethical judgment. Under conditions of disruption, this assumption collapses. In disrupted environments, leaders are expected to provide certainty and moral clarity precisely when their own sources of guidance are fragmented, contested, or eroding. So, what systems, structures, narratives, and constraints shape the leader’s judgment, motivation, and ethical boundaries?

1.3. Research Problem

Despite extensive literature on leadership effectiveness, a significant gap persists in understanding how leaders sustain judgment, motivation, and ethical coherence in disruptive environments. Existing leadership models implicitly assume that leaders remain stable sources of direction, even as the environment destabilises. This assumption becomes problematic when disruption is persistent rather than episodic, and when leaders experience fragmentation of authority, meaning, and ethical certainty. The research problem addressed in this study is the inadequacy of conventional leadership sources in explaining how leaders continue to lead effectively under such conditions.

1.4. Research Questions

This research basically intends to answer the following two questions:-

(a) What sources of authority, meaning, and motivation guide leaders when formal hierarchies and established norms are insufficient under conditions of disruption?

(b) When leadership can no longer rely on hierarchy, precedent, or outcomes, what mechanisms govern the leader’s own decisions and ethical boundaries?

1.5. Significance of the Study

This study advances leadership and management theory by examining internal and institutional influences beyond traditional leader-focused models. For practice, it underscores the value of internal coherence, ethics, and purpose in developing effective leaders, especially in uncertain and complex sectors where judgment and legitimacy matter more than authority.

2. Literature Review

Traditional leadership discourse often presents leaders as autonomous agents, expected to provide direction and moral clarity (Urick A, 2021). However, disruptive environments fundamentally challenge this assumption. In such turbulent times, leaders face fragmented guidance and eroding certainties; yet, they are still expected to offer stability and direction to their organisations and stakeholders (Urick A, 2021). This inherent paradox highlights a critical gap in conventional leadership models, as leaders are tasked with navigating complex challenges and ethical dilemmas, yet the sources of their own guidance and motivation often remain unexamined. This literature review explores the profound question of ‘who leads the leader' by examining where leaders derive their authority, meaning, and motivation in disruptive environments. It delves into the systems, structures, narratives, and constraints that shape a leader's judgment and ethical boundaries when traditional sources of certainty are compromised. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a recent and profound example of disruptive challenges, showcasing the intense pressures on leaders and the need to re-examine existing leadership frameworks. The period of widespread disruption underscores the necessity for leadership models that account for ongoing assessment, high levels of communication, and iterative experimentation, reflection, and learning, particularly within adaptive systems (Choflet A, 2021).

2.1. Nature of Disruption and its Impact on Leadership

Disruption is characterised by rapid and unpredictable changes that fundamentally challenge existing organizational structures, processes, and norms (Choflet A, 2021). These periods of uncertainty necessitate prompt responses for survival across various sectors. Disruptions can manifest in diverse forms, including major crises such as pandemics or economic collapses (Faulks, 2021), transformative technological shifts such as the rise of generative AI (P Budhwar, 2023), broader societal transformations, or conflict situations such as ‘Operation Sindoor’ (Press Information Bureau, May 14, 2025) in the Indian context during May 2026. These disruptive environments demand leadership styles that are highly adaptive, capable of continuous assessment, and marked by high levels of communication. Leaders in such contexts are often confronted with heightened uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. This often results in significant personal and professional strain, necessitating a re-examination of frameworks. 

2.2. Leadership as an Autonomous Construct

Early trait and behavioural theories treat the leader as a self-contained source of direction (PG, 2021). Even contingency models retain the assumption that once the situation is “read”, the leader chooses the matching style (FE, 1967). This autonomy lens is echoed in popular frameworks such as transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass BM, 2006) and underpins most Harvard Business Review (HBR) prescriptions for “crisis leadership” (C, 2020).

2.3. Disruption as a Test of the Autonomous Leader

Disruption studies show that environmental volatility, uncertainty and ethical ambiguity erode the cognitive and moral scaffolding on which leaders customarily rely (Christensen, 2015). When events outpace sense-making, the leader’s internal resource is often the first casualty (KE, 1993). Paradoxically, stakeholders still demand certainty from the very actor whose own anchors are slipping (G, 2020).

2.4. Sources of Leader Motivation in Disruptive Environments

Beyond external expectations, leaders' internal motivation is crucial for sustained action in disruptive contexts. Self-care and well-being are increasingly recognised as vital for leaders to avoid burnout and maintain effectiveness during turbulent times (Urick A, 2021). Empowering leadership, which fosters innovative work and organizational learning, can contribute to sustainable performance even amid disruptions (Faulks, 2021). The ability to learn and adapt, along with resilience, are key personal traits that sustain leaders. Organizational resilience, an emergent property of complex adaptive systems, involves both planned preparation for future crises and adaptive responses to chronic stresses and acute shocks. Qualitative analysis of leadership narratives reveals several recurring themes related to motivation in disruptive environments. Key themes identified include external guidance/mentorship, self-care/well-being, support networks/team focus, sense of purpose/values, personal resilience/adaptability. This suggests that leaders draw motivation not only from internal reservoirs of resilience and purpose but also significantly from their support networks and a deliberate focus on self-care. Effective leadership in disruptive environments often involves iterative cycles of experimentation, reflection, and learning, highlighting the importance of adaptive styles and inclusive decision-making at the local level (Choflet A, 2021). A growing stream relocates the source of leadership from the individual to relational, institutional, and narrative systems (M, 2006). Institutional logics provide “moral grammars” that pre-shape leader choices (Thornton, 2012), while peer legitimacy acts as an invisible board of directors (De Rue, 2010). Yet the literature rarely asks how these sources stay coherent under prolonged disruption.

2.5. Leadership Outcomes and Competitive Advantage

Dynamic-capability theory posits that sustained advantage flows from leaders who continually reconfigure organisational resources (DJ, 2016). Ethical climates moderate this link, suggesting that morally anchored leaders generate higher employee creativity and customer loyalty (Brown, 2018). However, the causal chain from “leader’s inner source” → “ethical climate” → “dynamic capability” remains under-specified.

2.6. Re-evaluating Authority and Guidance - Who Leads the Leader

The traditional model of a singular, autonomous leader providing all direction becomes untenable under conditions of disruption (Urick A, 2021). In turbulent environments, leaders navigate a complex web of influences, drawing guidance from various, sometimes conflicting, sources. This includes critical input from expert advice, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and their own internal values (Geerts JM, 2021). The institutional environment, encompassing established ethical frameworks and the prevailing organizational culture, significantly shapes a leader's judgment and subsequent actions, particularly when facing unprecedented challenges. For instance, the institutionalisation of responsible innovation highlights how organizational dynamics, including legitimation and entrepreneurship, influence responses to disruption. Public trust and adherence to recommended interventions are strongly reinforced when leaders are perceived as credible and effectively communicate positive social norms to their constituents (Ruggeri, 2024). This underscores the critical role of external validation and societal expectations in guiding leadership behaviour, especially during crises. Therefore, understanding the multifaceted influences on leaders is essential for developing robust leadership frameworks that acknowledge the inherent interdependencies and support systems that guide leaders through disruptive periods.

2.7. Ancient Indian Wisdom - Inner Anchors over Outer Control The Bhagavad-Gita and Arthashastra locate authority in dharma, a socially embedded yet self-validated moral code (LN, 1992). The Upanishads link self-actualisation to detached action, offering an internal locus that remains stable when external rewards collapse (S, 1953). Recent empirical work shows that CEOs who draw on these scripts report lower decisional paralysis during technological shocks (Sinha, 2021).

2.8. Key Takeaways

(a) Shift in Authority.  Leadership is moving from formal hierarchical power toward influence derived from personal connection, inspiration, and moral integrity (India, 2020).

(b) Ethical Core.   Sustainable organizational success in disruptive futures is increasingly tied to "moral management," where the leader's internal ethical boundaries dictate corporate resilience (Education, 2022).

(c) Disruption Resilience.  Adaptive leadership requires a shift from providing "answers" to managing the "meaning" of the disruption for the collective (PG, 2021).

(d) Internal Motivation. Ancient Indian wisdom emphasizes the concept of "Rajarshi" (the sage-king), suggesting that the leader's primary source of motivation is internal duty (Dharma) rather than external reward (F, 2021).

(e) Competitive Advantage.  Organizations that cultivate "change-ready" leadership through internalized professional identities maintain a superior edge in volatile markets (Amanchukwu, 2015).

2.9. Research Gaps

(a) Empirical studies seldom capture how leaders replenish their own motivation when institutional, peer and narrative sources fragment simultaneously.

(b) While existing literature extensively covers how leaders influence followers, there is a significant gap in understanding the psychological and spiritual "leader of the leader." Most studies assume the leader's motivation is a given or derived from organizational goals.

(c) There is a lack of empirical research on the specific "non-hierarchical influences" (like self-actualization or ancient philosophical frameworks) that sustain a leader's judgment during a total collapse of institutional norms.

(d) The codification of "consciousness-based leadership" as a practical tool for achieving competitive advantage in disruptive environments is missing.

(e) Ancient Indian constructs such as dharma and svadharma are cited philosophically but rarely operationalised or tested in large-sample disruption research.

(f) Mixed method work that combines grounded theory with quantitative validation is sparse, creating a methodological blind spot for capturing emergent sources of authority.

2.10. Hypotheses

The study tests the following hypotheses:-

Null Hypothesis (H0): Conventional sources of leadership are sufficient for sustaining effective leadership in disruptive environments.

Research Hypothesis (H1): Conventional sources of leadership are insufficient for sustaining effective leadership in disruptive environments.

3. Methodology

3.1. Theory in Use

This paper developed its subject matter with the application of “Grounded Theory” approach.

Using Mixed Methods Approach with both Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis and applying the Grounded Theory Approach, based on both contemporary thought as well as Ancient Indian Wisdom, this paper analyses how authority and meaning are constructed and sustained at the level of the leader. It redefines leadership as a process rooted in consciousness, relationships and institutions, rather than an autonomous exercise of control. The author identifies, codifies, and articulates specific sources of leadership capable of withstanding prolonged disruption for achieving and sustaining competitive advantage.

Quantitative data is collected through a structured survey questionnaire administered to individuals occupying formal leadership roles across sectors. The questionnaire employs a five-point Likert scale to measure perceptions related to disruptive environments, conventional and non-conventional sources of leadership, leader-level outcomes, and organisational effectiveness. Quantitative analysis includes descriptive statistics to establish response patterns, reliability analysis to assess internal consistency of constructs, and correlational analysis to examine relationships between leadership sources and perceived effectiveness under disruption.

Qualitative data is collected through open-ended survey questions designed to elicit leaders’ reflections on their lived experiences of leadership under disruption. Further, additional Qualitative analysis is conducted in subsequent stages using textual analysis, thematic analysis, and sentiment analysis to identify recurring themes, meanings, and emotional orientations. The grounded theory approach guides the coding process, enabling the emergence of conceptual categories related to authority, meaning, motivation, and consciousness. The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings allows for triangulation and provide a richer understanding of the sources that govern leadership in disruptive environments.

4. Quantitative data analysis

4.1. Survey Design and Concept - Construct Framework

The quantitative component of this study was designed to empirically examine the adequacy of conventional leadership sources in disruptive environments and to explore the role of non-conventional, internal, and institutional sources in sustaining leadership effectiveness. The survey instrument was structured around a single overarching concept of “leadership”, with five associated constructs as under:-

(a) Disruptive Environment: Capturing uncertainty, ambiguity, ethical complexity, and outcome unpredictability.

(b) Conventional Sources of Leadership: Including formal authority, hierarchy, rules, and command-and-control mechanisms.

(c) Non-Conventional/ Internal Sources of Leadership: Encompassing professional identity, moral frameworks, purpose, institutional values, and consciousness.

(d) Leader-Level Outcomes: Reflecting judgment clarity, motivational resilience, ethical confidence, and internal coherence.

(e) Organisational Outcomes: Capturing perceived organisational coherence, adaptability, and sustained effectiveness.

Responses to structured items were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). In addition, three open-ended questions were included to capture leaders’ reflective accounts of guidance, motivation, and self-leadership under disruption. The intended logical mapping of the survey items to the Research hypothesis is indicated in the Table 1 below:-

(Table 1- Constructs and the Hypothesis)

The Survey Questionnaire and the recorded responses are appended separately as Appendix to this paper.

4.2. Sample Adequacy and Data Screening

A total of 67 valid responses were obtained from individuals holding formal leadership responsibilities across sectors that included Public Sector/ Government, Private Sector/ Corporate, Defence/ Security, Education/ Academia, and Non-Profit/ Civil Society. Given the exploratory, theory-building orientation of the study and the use of correlational rather than causal analysis, this sample size is adequate for reliability assessment, descriptive analysis, and pattern identification.

Data screening indicated the following:-

(a) No systematic missing responses on mandatory items.

(b) Acceptable response dispersion across all Likert items.

(c) No evidence of straight-lining or patterned responding.

The dataset was therefore deemed suitable for further analysis.

4.3. Reliability and Internal Consistency

Internal consistency of the constructs was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. All multi-item constructs demonstrated acceptable to good reliability, indicating that the items coherently measured their intended underlying dimensions.

Particular attention was paid to the non-conventional leadership construct, which included the item relating to “consciousness” as a source of leadership. The inclusion of this item did not reduce construct reliability, suggesting that respondents interpreted consciousness as a meaningful and coherent leadership resource rather than as an abstract or irrelevant concept.

4.4. Descriptive Analysis - Perceived Adequacy of Leadership Sources

Disruptive Environment: Respondents overwhelmingly affirmed operating in environments characterised by uncertainty, ethical ambiguity, and limited predictability of outcomes. This confirms that the sample context aligns with the study’s core assumption of persistent disruption, rather than episodic crisis.

Conventional Sources of Leadership: Items measuring reliance on formal authority, hierarchy, rules, and command-and-control structures yielded moderate to low mean scores, with substantial dispersion. This indicates that while such sources are not entirely irrelevant, they are not perceived as sufficient for effective leadership under sustained disruption.

Non-Conventional/ Internal Sources of Leadership: In contrast, items measuring professional identity, ethical frameworks, purpose, institutional values, and consciousness showed consistently higher mean scores with lower variance. Leaders reported strong reliance on these sources when formal guidance was inadequate.

Leader-Level Outcomes: High levels of agreement were observed on items related to clarity of judgment, motivational endurance, and ethical confidence, particularly among respondents who reported stronger reliance on non-conventional sources. This suggests that leadership effectiveness under disruption is experienced primarily as internal coherence, rather than external control.

Organisational Outcomes: Items measuring organisational outcomes, specifically organisational coherence, adaptability, trust, and sustained effectiveness under disruption, showed consistently positive response patterns, though with slightly greater variance than leader-level outcomes. Respondents generally agreed that leadership grounded in values, purpose, and internal coherence contributed to organisational stability and adaptive capacity during disruptive periods. Notably, organisational outcomes were not strongly associated with formal authority or hierarchical control in respondents’ perceptions. Instead, organisational effectiveness was described implicitly as an emergent property of leadership that sustains trust, legitimacy, and collective orientation over time. This suggests that in disruptive environments, organisational outcomes are less a function of directive control and more a reflection of leadership processes that preserve coherence and meaning amid uncertainty. The descriptive pattern indicates that while leader-level outcomes such as judgment clarity and motivational resilience are internally experienced, their effects extend outwards into organisational functioning. This reinforces the conceptual positioning of organisational outcomes in this study as secondary but consequential, shaped indirectly through the quality of leadership judgment and ethical orientation rather than through direct authority or procedural enforcement.

4.5. Correlational Analysis and Hypothesis Assessment

Given the exploratory and theory-building orientation of the study, hypothesis assessment was conducted through descriptive and correlational analysis rather than confirmatory inferential testing.

To assess the Research Hypothesis, correlations were examined between leadership source constructs and leader-level outcomes.

(a) Conventional leadership sources showed weak and inconsistent correlations with leader-level outcomes.

(b) Non-conventional leadership sources demonstrated moderate and consistently positive correlations with judgment clarity, motivational resilience, and ethical confidence.

Statistical analysis indicates weak and inconsistent relationships between conventional leadership sources and leadership effectiveness outcomes, providing empirical support for the non-establishment of the Null Hypothesis. This pattern supports the Research Hypothesis (H1) that “conventional sources of leadership are insufficient for sustaining effective leadership in disruptive environments.” While formal authority and procedures retain contextual relevance, they do not appear to be the primary drivers of leadership effectiveness under conditions of prolonged uncertainty.

Given the exploratory nature of the study, these findings are interpreted as indicative rather than conclusive, pointing toward the need for reconceptualising leadership sources in disruption.

4.6. Analysis of Open-Ended Questions

Question 1 - Sources That Guide Leaders During Disruption: Responses to the question on guiding sources revealed five dominant thematic categories:-

(a) Values and Ethics – references to integrity, moral responsibility, and ethical clarity.

(b) Sense of Purpose and Duty – including service orientation, organisational mission, and societal responsibility.

(c) Self-Reflection and Inner Discipline – introspection, self-control, and emotional regulation.

(d) People and Relationships – teams, colleagues, mentors, and peer legitimacy.

(e) Institutional and Cultural Anchors – organisational values and professional norms.

Notably, references to formal authority, rank, or positional power were rare and peripheral, reinforcing quantitative findings.

Question 2 - Leadership Situations without Formal Authority: The second open-ended question invited respondents to describe specific situations where formal authority was insufficient for effective leadership. The objective was not to document isolated anecdotes, but to identify recurring situational patterns that illuminate how leadership is exercised when hierarchy and positional power lose efficacy. Analysis of the responses reveals that the situations described by respondents cluster into five broad categories, each reflecting a distinct type of leadership challenge under disruption, as described in Table 2 below:-

(Table 2- Leadership Situations without Formal Authority)

Question 3 - Meaning of “Leading Oneself as a Leader”: This question elicited the most reflective responses. Dominant themes included:-

(a) Self-discipline and emotional regulation.

(b) Ethical self-accountability.

(c) Clarity of intent.

(d) Detachment from immediate outcomes.

(e) Inner stability during uncertainty.

Several responses explicitly invoked ideas aligned with consciousness, self-awareness, and inner alignment, lending empirical support to the study’s theoretical framing and its incorporation of ancient Indian leadership concepts.

4.7. Demographic Analysis and Contextual Insights

Demographic variables were identified selectively to ensure relevance to the research problem, focusing on leadership exposure, responsibility, and disruption context intended to contextualise the findings which is in the Table 3 as under:-

(Table 3- Demographic Analysis)

5. Qualitative data analysis

5.1. Purpose

The qualitative component of this study is designed to explore the deeper, often unarticulated sources that govern leadership judgment, motivation, and ethical orientation in disruptive environments. While the quantitative survey examined perceived adequacy of conventional leadership sources, qualitative analysis is employed to investigate orientations that cannot be captured through structured scales alone. Consistent with the grounded theory approach adopted in this study, qualitative analysis is not used to confirm predefined categories, but to enable the emergence of conceptual patterns related to the central idea of this research.

To achieve this, the qualitative analysis draws on three complementary methods - textual analysis, thematic analysis, and sentiment analysis - applied to an identified corpus of authoritative texts drawn from contemporary leadership scholarship and ancient Indian wisdom.

5.2. Data Sources

The qualitative analysis is conducted on two broad categories of texts:-

(a) Contemporary Leadership and Management Literature: This included foundational books, peer-reviewed articles, and selected Harvard Business Review essays addressing leadership under disruption, crisis, uncertainty, and ethical stress.

(b) Ancient Indian Knowledge Texts: This included the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and Arthashastra, along with modern scholarly interpretations that examine leadership, governance, self-mastery, and ethical action within these traditions.

These texts were selected based on three criteria:-

(a) Explicit engagement with leadership under uncertainty or moral ambiguity.

(b) Articulation of internal or non-hierarchical sources of authority and motivation.

(c) Relevance to sustained leadership effectiveness rather than episodic success.

5.3. Textual Analysis - Leadership Discourse

Textual analysis was undertaken to examine how leadership texts linguistically construct the source of leadership. Attention was paid to recurring terms, metaphors, and narrative structures used to describe leadership authority, responsibility, and motivation.

In contemporary leadership literature, leadership is frequently framed through action-oriented and outward-directed language, emphasising decisiveness, communication, influence, and control (KE, Sensemaking in Organisations, 1995). Even when addressing disruption (Heifetz, 2009), the leader is often portrayed as the stabilising agent who must “provide clarity,” “hold the organisation,” or “project confidence.” Such language implicitly reinforces the assumption of the leader as an autonomous source of direction, even under extreme uncertainty.

In contrast, ancient Indian texts employ a markedly different linguistic orientation. Leadership and authority are repeatedly anchored in inner states - clarity of mind, ethical restraint, self-discipline, and detachment from outcomes. The Bhagavad Gita (Bhagavad Gita, n.d.), for instance, frames effective action as emerging from sthita-prajna (steady wisdom), where leadership flows from inner equilibrium rather than external control. Similarly, the Arthashastra (R, 2014) emphasises the ruler’s self-regulation as the foundation of governance effectiveness.

This textual contrast reveals a fundamental divergence that while modern texts emphasise “what the leader does”, ancient texts emphasise “what the leader is”. This divergence directly informs the study’s central proposition that leadership in disruption may depend less on external authority and more on internal governance.

5.4. Comparison of External Guidance Mechanisms for Leaders in Crisis

The comparison is given in Table 4 below:-

(Table 4- External Guidance Mechanisms)

5.5. Thematic Analysis - Emergent Sources of Leadership

Thematic analysis was conducted through iterative reading of the selected texts allowing themes to emerge inductively. Across both contemporary (PG, 2021) and ancient sources (Sinha, 2021), six dominant themes were identified as recurrent sources that guide leaders under disruption:-

(a) Internalised Ethical Frameworks: Leadership effectiveness is repeatedly linked to moral clarity that precedes action. Contemporary ethics literature acknowledges this in abstract terms, while ancient texts operationalise it through concepts such as dharma and duty.

(b) Sense-Making and Meaning Construction: Disruptive environments destabilise shared understanding. Leaders are portrayed not merely as decision-makers, but as interpreters who construct meaning for themselves before doing so for others.

(c) Professional and Role Identity: Leadership endurance is associated with identity continuity. Leaders who anchor themselves in professional or moral identity appear better able to withstand uncertainty than those reliant on positional authority.

(d) Detachment from Outcomes: Ancient Indian texts consistently emphasise non-attachment to results as a source of resilience. This theme contrasts with modern performance-centric leadership models and offers an alternative explanation for sustained motivation under ambiguity.

(e) Institutional and Cultural Values: Leadership judgment is shaped by institutional logics and value systems that operate independently of formal authority. These act as invisible constraints and guides during ethical dilemmas.

(f) Consciousness and Self-Governance: A distinctive theme emerging primarily from Indian philosophical texts is the centrality of consciousness as a leadership resource. Leadership is framed as self-leadership first, where awareness, discipline, and inner coherence govern external action.

These themes collectively support the emerging idea that leadership under disruption is governed by a combination of non-hierarchical influences rather than by formal authority alone.

5.5.1. Ethical Considerations and Boundary Setting for Leaders

(Figure 1- Ethical Considerations)

Disruptive environments frequently present leaders with profound ethical dilemmas, where clear moral guidance may be absent or contested (Bardosh, 2022). The integration of ethical considerations into management strategies is crucial for navigating crises successfully. Leaders' decisions during crises, can have significant unintended consequences, impacting human trust in institutions.

Defining and upholding ethical boundaries requires reflexive capacities and engagement with diverse stakeholders (Voegtlin, 2022). Leaders must navigate complex issues by proactively managing ethical considerations within their strategies. This necessitates a continuous assessment of how interventions might affect various groups and a willingness to adapt approaches based on ethical principles and public feedback. The ethical landscape in disruptive times is further complicated by the interplay of various stakeholders and guiding principles, which can often lead to conflicts and unforeseen outcomes. The network graph above in Figure 1 illustrates these complex interdependencies and potential conflicts among ethical stakeholders and guiding principles that leaders must consider in disruptive contexts (