In the wake of the publication of ministerial survey results, much of the public conversation has once again centred on personalities: who is popular, who is trusted, who appears decisive. Such moments often prompt commentary about leaders - yet they may offer a more valuable opportunity to reflect on leadership itself. From the perspective of organisational psychology, leadership is not simply about who occupies a role, but about how influence is exercised, relationships are managed and responsibility is carried over time.
Having spent nearly 30 years working across education, social development and applied psychology - and having held leadership roles at an early age - I have come to see leadership as a practice rather than a performance. Research in work and organisational psychology consistently suggests that effective leadership is less about visibility or authority and more about psychological insight, ethical consistency and the capacity to navigate complexity (Northouse, 2022).
Leadership today unfolds in demanding contexts. Educational institutions, social services and public organisations operate under sustained pressure: Limited resources, rising expectations and increasingly complex human needs. In such environments, leadership that relies solely on control or transactional exchange may prove insufficient. Instead, leadership appears to require a relational and psychologically informed approach - one that recognises motivation, emotion and organisational culture as central factors rather than peripheral concerns.
One capability frequently associated with effective leadership is self-awareness. Leaders who understand their own values, emotional responses and limitations may be better positioned to respond thoughtfully rather than reactively. Emotional intelligence, for example, has been linked to trust, engagement and team effectiveness, particularly in people-centred sectors (Goleman, 1998). From experience, this capacity is rarely accidental; it is developed through reflection, feedback and sustained professional practice.
Early in my leadership journey, while working within a multidisciplinary educational setting undergoing significant restructuring, I was tasked with leading change under considerable time pressure. At the time, my focus leaned heavily towards efficiency, compliance and delivery. What became apparent, however, was that resistance within the team did not necessarily reflect opposition to change itself. Rather, it seemed rooted in uncertainty, loss of professional identity and concerns about autonomy. Organisational psychology reminds us that change is as much an emotional process as it is a technical one (Schein & Schein, 2017). Progress emerged only when space was created for genuine dialogue and meaning-making - a lesson that has informed my leadership approach ever since.
Another dimension often highlighted in both research and practice is clarity of purpose. While leaders cannot eliminate uncertainty - something that recent public surveys subtly remind us - they may be able to reduce anxiety by communicating intentions clearly and consistently. Studies grounded in self-determination theory suggest that individuals are more likely to remain engaged when they experience autonomy, competence and relatedness in their work (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Leadership, in this sense, involves aligning organisational goals with shared values rather than relying solely on positional authority.
This principle was reinforced later in my career when I led a small team responsible for employee wellbeing across multiple institutions. The remit was ambitious, yet the structural limitations were undeniable. When a significant systemic issue arose that could not be resolved quickly, the temptation to offer reassurance without substance was strong. Instead, I chose transparency - outlining both what could be addressed immediately and what required longer-term advocacy. Although this approach initially generated discomfort, it appeared to strengthen trust over time. Research suggests that ethical consistency and honesty play a central role in sustaining credibility and commitment (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Adaptability also appears increasingly central to effective leadership. Traditional hierarchical models, which emphasise control and predictability, may struggle in environments characterised by rapid change and distributed expertise. As an organisational psychologist, I have repeatedly observed that leadership tends to be most effective when it acknowledges that insight and competence exist throughout an organisation, not solely at the top.
Equally important is ethical leadership. In education and social sectors, leadership decisions often carry significant human consequences. Ethical leadership therefore extends beyond compliance or optics; it involves an active commitment to fairness, dignity and psychological safety. When leaders model ethical behaviour consistently, they contribute to cultures where trust and accountability are more likely to flourish (Northouse, 2022).
Finally, leadership sustainability deserves attention. The psychological demands placed on leaders are substantial, particularly in roles that require holding others through uncertainty and change. Research increasingly highlights the importance of boundaries, reflective practice and professional support for leaders themselves (Schein & Schein, 2017). Leaders who neglect their own wellbeing may unintentionally normalise unsustainable expectations within their organisations.
In light of current public discourse, it may be worth suggesting that Malta does not necessarily need to speak more about leaders. It may benefit from deeper conversations about leadership - as a psychological, ethical and relational practice. Leadership that endures is rarely loud. It is steady, informed and grounded in an understanding of people as well as systems.
Dr Katya De Giovanni is a warranted Organisational Psychologist and Member of Parliament