Leading across boundaries: adaptive leadership and employee well-being in Thailand’s hybrid workplace

The global shift towards hybrid work reshaped organisational structures and leadership practices. Hybrid work models pose challenges for leaders, such as sustaining employee engagement, safeguarding well-being, and preserving professional identity (Detjen & Webber, 2023; Wörtler, Van Yperen, & Barelds, 2022). These shifts require leadership approaches that go beyond traditional command-and-control models, demanding greater adaptability, cultural awareness and responsiveness (Gavalas, 2024). Recent scholarship highlights that post-pandemic organisations must cultivate adaptive, trust-centred and culturally responsive leadership to manage distributed teams and sustain employee well-being in hybrid contexts (Das & Pattanayak, 2023; Sharma & Aggarwal, 2024).

Adaptive leadership has emerged as a promising framework defined by its flexibility, situational awareness and responsiveness to changing conditions (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Torres, Reeves, & Love, 2015). Its emphasis on problem-solving in uncertain contexts makes it particularly relevant to managing dispersed teams and evolving technologies (Chu, You, Wassick, & Agarwal, 2015; Raisch & Fomina, 2022). Beyond flexibility, adaptive leadership operates at a systemic level – mobilising people to tackle complex, value-laden challenges and to learn collectively through change (Heifetz et al., 2009).

Despite its growing relevance, research on adaptive leadership remains limited in culturally rich contexts, particularly in Asian settings where collectivist values, respect for hierarchy and humane orientation strongly influence leadership behaviours (Schmitt, 2024; Vora & Kainzbauer, 2020). Most leadership studies reflect Western assumptions of autonomy and egalitarianism, offering limited insight into how adaptive processes unfold within hierarchical, relationship-based societies such as Thailand (Selvarajah et al., 2013). In Thailand, leadership is often enacted through hierarchical yet relationally driven practices that prioritise harmony, respect (kreng jai), a culturally embedded interpersonal norm that combines respect, deference and emotional sensitivity, guiding individuals to avoid imposing on others or causing discomfort, and emotional sensitivity (Selvarajah et al., 2013). Communication tends to be indirect and high context, with trust built gradually through personal familiarity, reliability and consistency rather than through formal processes.

Thai leaders are expected to demonstrate compassion and moral integrity, aligning with the country’s humane-oriented cultural values (Adams & Vernon, 2008). These relational expectations strongly shape how leaders engage employees in hybrid settings, where face-to-face interaction is reduced and relationship maintenance must be intentionally reinforced through digital means. Although remote work became widespread in Thailand only after COVID-19, many organisations have since adopted hybrid models that blend traditional in-office supervision with flexible work arrangements, reflecting an ongoing negotiation between control and trust (Suengkamolpisut & Singhatong, 2024). This interplay of cultural norms and leadership demands becomes even more complex in hybrid environments, where blurred work–life boundaries, caregiving responsibilities and shifting flexibility expectations require leaders to adapt in ways that are both contextually and culturally sensitive (Hanzis & Hallo, 2024; Jain & Ovais, 2025). Hybrid leadership in Thailand therefore involves reconciling traditional authority with emerging needs for trust, collaboration and open communication – dimensions central to employee well-being and organisational cohesion (Vora & Kainzbauer, 2020).

Addressing this gap, the present study uses a qualitative research design to explore how adaptive leadership practices influence employee well-being in Thai hybrid workplaces. Through thematic analysis of 25 in-depth interviews, the study examines how culturally informed leadership behaviours foster engagement, trust, psychological safety and professional identity in a hybrid context. By integrating adaptive leadership with Thailand’s collectivist and humane-oriented cultural values, this study contextualises how system-level adaptation interacts with cultural expectations to sustain well-being and belonging in hybrid organisations. Drawing on insights from leadership theory, organisational behaviour and cultural dimensions, the research provides both theoretical and practical contributions for leaders managing hybrid workforces in culturally embedded environments.

Adaptive leadership is a dynamic, context-sensitive approach that emphasises a leader’s capacity to navigate complex, uncertain and rapidly changing environments (Makowski, 2023; Obolensky, 2017; Torres et al., 2015). Unlike traditional models it prioritises flexibility, responsiveness and proactive problem-solving, enabling leaders to address the evolving challenges of hybrid work.

Heifetz et al. (2009) conceptualised adaptive leadership as a framework to help organisations and individuals adjust to shifting conditions and emerging demands. In hybrid work environments, this approach is particularly critical, as leaders must balance the need for structure with the demand for flexibility – providing clear direction while allowing employees the autonomy to manage their work in ways that fit individual needs (Scortzaru et al., 2024; Yozi & Mbokota, 2024). Achieving this balance fosters a shared sense of community and belonging among employees, whether working remotely or on-site (Dalessandro & Lovell, 2024; Tanaka, Davidson, & Craig, 2018).

Adaptive leadership’s focus on cultural awareness makes it particularly relevant in diverse contexts. In many Asian cultures, collective well-being and mutual respect take precedence over individual achievement (Wong & Liem, 2023). Leaders who align strategies with such cultural expectations create inclusive practices that resonate with employee values and motivations (Azevedo & Jugdev, 2022; Lei, 2025; Vora & Kainzbauer, 2020).

Hybrid work – blending remote and in-office arrangements – offers flexibility but introduces challenges requiring new leadership responses Employees face blurred work–life boundaries, isolation and difficulties maintaining professional identity (Arthi & Gita, 2024; Lundqvist, Wallo, & Reineholm, 2023; Ohlson & Goel, 2022; Vyas, 2022). From the managerial perspective, ensuring consistent productivity, effective communication and a sense of team cohesion is challenging when teams are physically dispersed. Managers must adapt traditional oversight and support mechanisms to accommodate asynchronous communication, varying work schedules and reduced face-to-face interaction (Jhala & Menon, 2021). Thus, hybrid work presents both opportunities and risks – providing autonomy while intensifying the need for adaptive leadership to safeguard employee well-being and performance.

Effective hybrid leadership relies on continuous, transparent and authentic communication to prevent team fragmentation (Costa & Costa, 2024). In Thailand – where community, harmony and interpersonal relationships are valued – leaders must adapt communication styles to strengthen both well-being and professional identity (Jin, Li, Ma, & Qin, 2024; Sorndee, Siengthai, & Swierczek, 2017). The emotional intelligence (EI) framework highlights the value of leaders demonstrating empathy, self-regulation and emotional awareness – particularly in unpredictable work contexts (Goleman, 2021). Leaders with high EI are better equipped to safeguard employees’ mental and emotional health, cultivating a work environment that promotes resilience, well-being and sustained engagement. This is especially critical in hybrid settings, where employees often face unique emotional challenges, including feelings of isolation and disconnection from colleagues (Hopkins & Figaro, 2021).

A strong professional identity is fundamental to employee engagement and job satisfaction (Palumbo, 2020). In hybrid work contexts, traditional markers of identity – such as consistent office presence and informal daily interactions – are often diminished, increasing the risk of isolation and disconnection from the organisational culture. Such detachment can undermine employees’ sense of belonging and commitment (Dalessandro & Lovell, 2024). Leadership plays a pivotal role in counteracting this erosion by fostering frequent interpersonal connections, encouraging open communication and reinforcing alignment with the organisation’s mission and values (Mazzei, Ravazzani, Butera, Conti, & Fisichella, 2023). Through deliberate actions, leaders can ensure that employees, despite physical separation, remain engaged and feel valued members of the organisational community.

In Thailand, where cultural norms traditionally emphasise clear distinctions between professional and personal roles, leadership plays an important role in safeguarding work–life balance in hybrid contexts (Vyas, 2022). Adaptive leadership that is attuned to cultural differences and culturally specific needs can address diverse stressors, fostering a supportive climate that prioritises psychological safety and overall well-being (Aleem, Sufyan, Ameer, & Mustak, 2023; Singh, 2023). Practical interventions – such as regular check-ins, flexible scheduling and transparent communication – can help mitigate isolation and enhance job satisfaction, both of which are essential for productivity in hybrid work arrangements (Ateeq, 2022; Dale, Wilson, & Tucker, 2024). Recent studies show that flexibility in work location affects not only work–life balance but also perceptions of fairness and trust in leadership. When employees are granted autonomy over where they work, their trust and engagement increase, reinforcing that adaptive leadership in hybrid contexts must combine cultural sensitivity with transparent decision-making (Kim, Misra, & Phillips, 2023). Leadership approaches that reflect Thailand’s cultural landscape are crucial for cultivating a resilient, inclusive and engaged workforce in the evolving hybrid paradigm (Heifetz et al., 2009; Torres et al., 2015; Yozi & Mbokota, 2024).

Trust is a cornerstone of effective leadership in hybrid environments, yet building and sustaining it is challenging in physically dispersed teams (Alam et al., 2024). Heavy reliance on digital tools, while necessary, can impede relationship-building and lead to misunderstandings, reinforcing the need for leaders to adopt intentional strategies that promote transparency and openness (Kumar & Kularajasingam, 2025).

In adaptive leadership practice, consistent, proactive communication and flexibility in organisational policies are vital (Yozi & Mbokota, 2024). Relaxing rigid rules – such as inflexible vacation policies or fixed schedules – signals a trust-based leadership approach that fosters loyalty and accountability (Fulmer & Ostroff, 2017). Such strategies not only enhance employee commitment but also strengthen organisational adaptability to the distinctions of hybrid work, ultimately boosting both well-being and performance (Aldianto, Anggadwita, Permatasari, Mirzanti, & Williamson, 2021).

In Thailand, where respect for hierarchy and group harmony are deeply ingrained, building trust requires culturally sensitive approaches that include clear feedback channels and collaborative norms (Brooks, 2015; McEwen, 2022). Leaders who integrate these practices are better positioned to maintain organisational resilience and employee satisfaction in hybrid settings (Sharma & Aggarwal, 2024).

Adaptive leadership, as conceptualised by Heifetz et al. (2009), is a flexible, context-sensitive approach that enables organisations and individuals to navigate continuous change and uncertainty. This style is defined by responsiveness, proactive problem-solving and the capacity to address complex, evolving challenges. In hybrid work contexts – where employee needs and challenges vary by location, personal circumstances and job role – adaptive leadership is essential for ensuring that diverse needs are recognised and met (Yozi & Mbokota, 2024).

In such settings, adaptive leaders must manage geographically dispersed and socially diverse teams, balancing autonomy with cohesion. Leaders who demonstrate clear communication, empathy and transparency are better equipped to guide these transitions effectively. These competencies foster environments in which employees feel supported, valued and connected – factors critical for sustaining well-being and professional identity (Caniëls, 2023; Goryunova & Jenkins, 2023; Hopkins & Figaro, 2021; Kreutzer, Neugebauer, & Pattloch, 2017).

While trust and psychological safety are important for hybrid working success, they are not core elements of adaptive leadership itself. Rather, adaptive leadership focuses on mobilising people to tackle difficult, value-laden challenges and to learn through the discomfort that accompanies change (Heifetz et al., 2009). Leaders thus create conditions for open dialogue and protect marginalised voices to encourage shared learning (Hopkins & Figaro, 2021). Psychological safety may emerge as an outcome of effective adaptive leadership but should not be regarded as its cornerstone. Integrating adaptive with transformational, ethical and servant leadership further improves well-being and collaboration (Das & Pattanayak, 2023).

Most Asian cultures prioritise group benefits over individual gains, and a sense of belonging to the group is a central element of personal identity. Thailand exemplifies this value of collectivism, placing strong emphasis on group harmony, loyalty and the subordination of individual needs to the collective good (Vora & Kainzbauer, 2020). Such values encourage team cohesion over assertiveness, creating an environment where employee well-being is supported and valued (Ackaradejruangsri, Mumi, Rattanapituk, & Pakhunwanich, 2023).

In addition to collectivism, the Thai cultural context is marked by a strong humane orientation, where leaders are expected to demonstrate compassion, empathy and genuine concern for employees’ holistic well-being (Adams & Vernon, 2008). Communication and trust-building in Thai organisations are typically relationship-centred and high-context, where harmony and emotional sensitivity (kreng jai, a socio-emotional norm encompassing respect, deference and consideration for others’ feelings to avoid causing inconvenience or discomfort) guide interactions. This emphasis on humane leadership aligns with modern workforce expectations, where employees increasingly seek work environments that prioritise mental health, emotional support and trust (Pansini, Buonomo, & Benevene, 2024; Pereira, 2025).

Other significant cultural dimensions in Thailand include high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012). These values shape perceptions of leadership, particularly in hybrid work settings where traditional hierarchical structures may be challenged by demands for flexibility and adaptability. Thai leaders are often expected to maintain a careful balance between authority and approachability – upholding respect for hierarchy while also promoting collective well-being and open communication (Hilderbrand, 2016). During Thailand’s recent transition towards hybrid and remote work, leaders have had to adapt these relational norms to virtual settings, maintaining trust and harmony despite physical distance.

In hybrid contexts, this balance is critical, as leaders must sustain cohesion and well-being while adapting to remote communication and shifting work norms. This study builds on these cultural insights to examine how adaptive leadership influences employee well-being and professional identity within Thai hybrid workplaces.

Taken together, the literature highlights adaptive leadership as a culturally responsive approach capable of addressing the challenges of hybrid work – such as sustaining employee engagement, maintaining professional identity and promoting well-being – while aligning with Thailand’s collectivist and hierarchical cultural norms. However, despite the increasing scholarly attention to adaptive leadership and hybrid work independently, there is a lack of research examining their intersection within culturally embedded contexts such as Thailand. Existing studies rarely consider how cultural dimensions, including collectivism, humane orientation and respect for hierarchy, shape the way adaptive leadership is enacted and experienced in hybrid workplaces.

Moreover, prior research has tended to frame adaptive leadership mainly in terms of flexibility or leader responsiveness (Sott & Bender, 2025; Torres et al., 2015). Yet, at its core, adaptive leadership is system-level process that mobilises people to question assumptions and adapt collectively (Heifetz et al., 2009). Although trust, psychological safety and well-being are not inherent elements of adaptive leadership, they often emerge as outcomes of leaders’ ability to manage this adaptive tension constructively. Understanding these dynamics requires a culturally grounded lens rather than extending the theory itself.

This gap is significant because hybrid work challenges – such as sustaining engagement, psychological safety and professional identity – are influenced not only by organisational practices but also by deeply rooted cultural expectations. Addressing this gap requires an approach that captures employees’ lived experiences and reveals the nuanced interplay between leadership practices and cultural norms:

Sub-questions elaborated further through the thematic findings and supported by participant demographics in Table 1 as follows:

To address these questions, the study adopts a qualitative research design that enables an in-depth, contextually grounded exploration of employee perspectives. This approach is particularly suited to uncovering the complex interplay between leadership behaviours, cultural norms and employee experiences in hybrid work settings. The following section details the methodological framework, including participant selection, data collection and analysis procedures, to ensure transparency, rigour and credibility in the research process.

This study adopts a qualitative research design, using thematic analysis to examine how adaptive leadership influences employee well-being and professional identity in Thai hybrid work environments. A qualitative approach is well suited to capturing the depth, complexity and cultural nuances of participants’ lived experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2016).

Thematic analysis, following Braun & Clarke (2006) six-phase framework, was selected for its flexibility in identifying, analysing and reporting patterns in qualitative data. This method enabled a rich, nuanced understanding of how adaptive leadership operates within culturally embedded hybrid workplaces.

The study involved 25 participants drawn from a range of industries, job levels and professional backgrounds in Thai organisations operating hybrid work models (see Table 1). Purposive sampling was used to capture variation in industry, tenure and role to ensure breadth of perspectives and enhance transferability (Campbell et al., 2020).

Data collection involved individual semi-structured interviews, conducted either in person or via video conferencing, based on participant preference and logistical feasibility. This format provided a balance between guided exploration and open dialogue, allowing the researcher to probe deeply while enabling participants to express their perspectives freely (Kvale, 2009). Interview topics included challenges and opportunities in maintaining well-being, perceptions of leadership support, the influence of Thai cultural values on leadership effectiveness and strategies for preserving professional identity. Interviews lasted 60–90 min, were audio-recorded with informed consent and subsequently transcribed verbatim. All transcripts were anonymised to protect participant confidentiality.

Data analysis followed Braun & Clarke (2006) six-phase framework: familiarisation with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and producing the final report. NVivo software was used throughout to support systematic coding and organisation. The first phase involved repeated reading of all Thai transcripts by the first author to develop a holistic understanding of participants’ experiences. During this stage, analytic memos were written to capture early impressions related to flexibility, trust, empathy, communication and professional growth – patterns that later informed the coding structure.

In the second phase, the authors conducted line-by-line coding to identify meaningful units across the data set. Codes captured recurring ideas such as leadership empathy, balancing work and family responsibilities, experiences of psychological safety, trust in leaders, communication openness and perceived cultural sensitivity. To enhance dependability, a bilingual co-researcher independently cross-checked approximately 20% of transcripts, comparing coding decisions and resolving discrepancies through discussion.

Once initial codes were established, related codes were collated into potential themes. This third phase involved grouping conceptually similar codes into broader thematic clusters aligned with the study’s research questions (see Table 2), such as adaptive leadership practices, professional identity, cultural influences, and well-being mechanisms. The fourth phase involved reviewing these preliminary themes for coherence. Themes were examined against both the coded extracts and the full data set to ensure they were internally consistent and clearly differentiated from each other. Particular attention was given to overlapping areas – such as cultural sensitivity and communication – across Themes 1–3, which were refined collaboratively to avoid redundancy.

In the next phase, each theme and sub-theme was defined and named. This involved clarifying the scope and analytical focus of each theme, detailing how it related to the research questions and how it reflected the adaptive leadership framework guiding the study. Definitions emphasised the collective, system-level nature of adaptive leadership practices and their interaction with Thai cultural norms.

Lastly, in producing the report, representative Thai–English quotations were selected for each theme to preserve participant voice and contextual authenticity. These quotations illustrated the lived experiences underlying the analysis and ensured cultural nuance was accurately conveyed. The themes were then integrated with existing leadership and cultural theory to develop the interpretative framework (Figure 1), which shows how adaptive leadership shapes employee well-being and professional identity through trust-building, communication, EI and cultural sensitivity.

For language and translation procedures, all interviews were conducted in Thai by two bilingual Thai–English researchers experienced in qualitative interviewing. Transcripts were completed verbatim in Thai and translated into English by a professional translator familiar with organisational terminology. To ensure conceptual accuracy, back-translation and cross-checking were performed. A bilingual co-author verified key expressions – particularly culturally specific terms such as kreng jai (deference), nam jai (generosity of spirit) and references to hierarchy – to preserve meaning and nuance. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was achieved, ensuring linguistic fidelity and cultural integrity.

Trustworthiness was ensured through multiple, interrelated strategies to enhance the study’s rigor and credibility (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Credibility was enhanced through prolonged engagement with the data, iterative coding and member checking, in which participants reviewed transcripts and interpretations for accuracy (Morse, 2015). Transferability was supported by providing thick context-rich descriptions of the organisational settings, participant characteristics and cultural context, enabling readers to assess the applicability and relevance of findings to other environments. Transferability was supported by providing thick, context-rich descriptions of organisational settings, participant characteristics and cultural context, enabling readers to judge applicability to other environments. Dependability was addressed through a transparent audit trail documenting key methodological decisions, code refinements and theme development to allow replicability (Shenton, 2004).

Lastly, confirmability was strengthened by maintaining a reflexive journal to identify and mitigate researcher bias, ensuring that interpretations were grounded in participants’ accounts (Berger, 2015). To address potential power differentials and social desirability bias – particularly relevant in Thai hierarchical contexts – interviews were conducted by researchers with no organisational or supervisory relationship to participants, and neutral, open-ended questioning was used to minimise impression-management. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and would not affect their professional standing, supporting candid disclosure. Collectively, these procedures enhanced the credibility, dependability and confirmability of the findings.

The following section presents the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the analysis, offering detailed, data-driven insights into the dynamics of adaptive leadership, employee well-being and professional identity in Thai hybrid workplaces.

Thematic analysis of 25 interviews with employees from diverse Thai organisations operating hybrid work models identified four interrelated themes:

1. adaptive leadership and employee well-being;

2. adaptive leadership and professional identity;

3. adaptive leadership and well-being in hybrid workplaces; and

4. trust and communication in hybrid workplaces.

These themes, derived through systematic coding, are organised into sub-themes directly aligned with the central RQ and four sub-questions.

Table 2 summarises the thematic structure, showing how each research question corresponds to the key themes, sub-themes, representative participant excerpts and frequency counts.

Figure 1 presents the integrative conceptual framework. Together, these visuals provide an overview of the study’s analytical outcomes and guide the thematic presentation that follows.

Theme 1 examines how adaptive leadership practices influence employee well-being in hybrid work settings through flexibility, proactive communication and cultural sensitivity. Participants described these as collective leadership processes that supported connection, stability and balance between professional and personal roles.

Participants described flexibility as a cornerstone of supportive leadership, one hospitality sector employee shared:

Several employees added that this sense of discretion created a calmer atmosphere for the entire team, reinforcing mutual understanding among colleagues. Flexibility therefore contributed not only to individual balance but also to collective morale.

Frequent, transparent communication was also central to participants’ sense of connection and inclusion. One telecommunications worker explained:

Employees associated such communication with reassurance and the confidence that their contributions were visible despite physical distance. This reduced the sense of isolation often experienced in hybrid arrangements.

Many participants felt that leaders who acknowledged Thai collectivist values and family priorities enhanced their overall satisfaction. As one retail sector participant noted:

Others described similar experiences, noting that empathetic gestures from leaders strengthened emotional connection and long-term loyalty.

These findings show that adaptive leadership practices – flexibility, open communication and cultural sensitivity – collectively promote balance, belonging and trust. Cultural sensitivity operates within the framework as both a leadership practice and a cultural influence.

Theme 2 explores how adaptive leadership supports the formation, reinforcement of professional identity in hybrid environments through personalised engagement, developmental opportunities and culturally attuned leadership. Hybrid work often disrupts traditional signals of identity – such as visible contribution and daily social interaction. Participants described how adaptive leaders helped them maintain confidence and belonging by offering guidance, growth opportunities and culturally sensitive recognition.

Participants emphasised that regular, individual communication and development opportunities from leaders helped sustain professional confidence. A healthcare employee shared:

Others explained that these interactions created visibility within the organisation, reinforcing a sense of legitimacy and purpose despite reduced physical presence. Employees also valued leaders who entrusted them with new challenges that reflected confidence in their abilities.

Participants viewed such opportunities as collective investment rather than personal favour, linking their own development to the organisation’s wider adaptability.

Participants highlighted that leadership effectiveness depended on understanding Thai norms of respect and harmony. A consulting-industry employee noted:

Acknowledging hierarchy while maintaining approachability helped employees feel respected and secure in their positions within the collective system. This culturally responsive behaviour maintained stability in professional self-concept, reinforcing identity through relational trust rather than constant oversight.

Some participants described their professional identity as adaptive, shaped by ongoing leadership responses to changing work demands. For instance, a hospitality sector employee shared:

Employees saw identity as a shared process of adjustment and learning, co-constructed through dialogue and ongoing leadership feedback.

Theme 2 demonstrates that adaptive leadership strengthens professional identity by maintaining visibility, supporting development and reinforcing cultural respect within collective work structures – addressing RQ2 and RQ4, while reflecting the influence of Thai cultural norms on these leadership practices.

While Theme 1 addressed the broader dimensions of employee well-being, Theme 3 focuses on specific mechanisms psychological safety, empathetic leadership, flexibility workload management and cultural sensitivity – through which adaptive leaders foster resilience and collective balance. Participants described how leaders’ EI and sensitivity to Thai cultural values reduced feelings of isolation and strengthened trust.

Many employees emphasised the importance of leaders who fostered an environment in which they felt secure to raise concerns or request help. A telecommunications employee explained:

Participants linked these interactions with greater confidence to share difficulties or mistakes, describing them as a team-wide practice rather than a private favour.

Flexibility was repeatedly described as a buffer against the blurred boundaries of hybrid work. One retail participant explained:

Employees perceived this flexibility as a collective norm that supported productivity while reducing stress, reinforcing the sense of mutual accountability within teams.

Leaders who recognised and responded to the emotional strain of hybrid work were perceived as particularly effective in maintaining well-being. A consulting sector participant shared:

Participants consistently associated empathy with being valued as part of a caring organisational community rather than as isolated workers.

Participants emphasised that well-being initiatives were more effective when leaders demonstrated awareness of Thai cultural expectations. A hospitality employee said:

Cultural sensitivity shaped how flexibility, empathy and communication were interpreted, reinforcing harmony and trust within the collective.

Theme 3 shows that adaptive leadership fosters employee well-being through integrated practices – psychological safety, balanced flexibility, empathy and cultural awareness – that strengthen both individual resilience and team cohesion. These findings address RQ1 and RQ3, illustrating how culturally informed leadership processes sustain well-being in Thai hybrid workplaces.

Theme 4 examines how trust-building and open communication, shaped by Thai cultural values, underpin adaptive leadership effectiveness in sustaining well-being and professional identity in hybrid workplaces. Across all interviews, trust and communication emerged as cross-cutting enablers of employee connection and performance. Participants emphasised that consistent, transparent communication promoted inclusion and reduced uncertainty, while trust enabled autonomy and strengthened commitment.

Participants described trust in their leaders as essential for feeling secure and valued in hybrid work. A telecommunications employee explained:

Employees repeatedly associated trust with empowerment and reduced anxiety. It was viewed not as a personal trait but as a shared norm across the team that enabled independence and accountability.

Regular, clear communication was seen as critical to maintaining engagement and psychological safety. A retail employee stated:

Participants described these interactions as reassurance that leadership was attentive and accessible. Proactive communication also reinforced team cohesion and helped sustain motivation.

Several participants acknowledged that online communication posed challenges for rapport and emotional connection. A consulting participant observed:

This highlights how digital interactions can disrupt the relational warmth valued in Thai workplaces, making trust harder to maintain when cues of respect or empathy are lost.

In Thai organisations, trust extends beyond task reliability to encompass interpersonal harmony and well-being. An oil and gas employee shared:

Trust was therefore framed as both an ethical and cultural expectation, reinforcing the leader’s responsibility to balance authority with compassion.

Overall, the findings show that trust and communication operated as interdependent mechanisms of adaptive leadership, shaping employee engagement, cohesion and belonging in Thai hybrid workplaces.

This study examined how adaptive leadership functions in Thai hybrid workplaces, revealing its collective and culturally embedded mechanisms for sustaining well-being and professional identity. Across all four themes, adaptive leadership operated as a system-level process of mobilisation, consistent with Heifetz et al. (2009), who define it as enabling people to tackle complex challenges and thrive. Rather than tailoring responses to individual needs, leaders mobilised employees through shared flexibility, communication, trust and cultural awareness, aligning organisational goals with relational expectations and collective well-being.

Themes 1 and 3 demonstrate that adaptive leadership sustains employee well-being through collective coordination, empathy and flexibility. Leaders established shared norms that encouraged openness and accountability, enabling teams to navigate hybrid challenges collaboratively. In this process, psychological safety and trust emerged as outcomes of adaptive leadership – reflecting Thailand’s relational culture, where care, moral responsibility and shared obligation underpin both performance and belonging.

These findings refine earlier perspectives (Vyas, 2022; Costa & Costa, 2024) by showing that flexibility and communication take on distinct meaning within Thailand’s collectivist, humane-oriented culture, where leaders maintain authority while demonstrating empathy. The emphasis on kreng jai and family responsibility illustrates how adaptive leadership is enacted through relational attentiveness and moral accountability consistent with Thai organisational life.

In this context, system-level adaptive leadership supports employee well-being by aligning collective adaptation, cultural values and trust-based communication, addressing RQ1–RQ3 and forming the conceptual foundation for subsequent themes. This interpretation further aligns with Sott and Bender (2025), who conceptualise adaptive leadership as a systemic, resilience-oriented process that integrates emotional and cognitive intelligence to manage complexity in changing environments.

In Thai hybrid organisations, flexibility functioned not as an individual concession but as a strategic adaptation mechanism balancing productivity with social harmony. Suengkamolpisut and Singhatong (2024) similarly found that supportive leadership, transparent communication and flexible work policies strengthen reciprocal trust between employees and employers, thereby enhancing engagement and organisational commitment. Together, these findings show that adaptive leadership sustains collective well-being when embedded in relational trust and cultural respect.

Theme 2 demonstrates that adaptive leadership sustains professional identity through relational engagement, recognition and shared development rather than individualised coaching. Leaders mobilised employees’ learning and readiness for change as part of a collective adaptive process, ensuring that professional recognition and competence remained visible in hybrid environments.

This finding refines Palumbo (2020) and Mazzei et al. (2023) by showing that professional identity is co-constructed within adaptive systems, emerging through collective dialogue and mutual validation. Within Thailand’s high-power-distance and collectivist context, leadership that balances authority and empathy sustains identity while preserving group cohesion (Dorfman et al., 2012).

The results also extend cross-cultural leadership research by illustrating that adaptive leadership is culturally mediated. Thai leaders integrate kreng jai (consideration) and nam jai (generosity of spirit) into everyday communication and guidance, reinforcing harmony and respect as mechanisms for maintaining professional identity. In this sense, adaptive leadership bridges institutional demands with cultural morality, enabling continuity of identity amid structural transformation and technological change.

Across all themes, EI and empathy emerged as central enablers of adaptive leadership. Leaders’ emotional awareness fostered motivation and reduced anxiety across distributed teams, supporting Goleman (2021) and Hopkins and Figaro (2021), who emphasise empathy as vital for leadership in complex, non-traditional contexts.

However, this study refines the literature by showing that EI in Thailand is collectively enacted – expressed through group sensitivity, respectful dialogue and moral attentiveness rather than individual charisma. This culturally grounded empathy aligns with Thailand’s humane orientation and supports Sott and Bender (2025) in viewing adaptive leadership as an emotionally intelligent, system-level mobilisation process.

Through this lens, emotionally intelligent adaptive leadership promotes both psychological safety and organisational learning, allowing teams to respond collectively to uncertainty while preserving cultural harmony and shared purpose

Theme 4 highlights trust and communication form the relational infrastructure of adaptive leadership. Leaders’ consistent and transparent communication reduced ambiguity, while culturally embedded trust sustained employees’ confidence and professional continuity. These findings extend Al Dilby and Farmanesh (2023) and Edmondson (1999) by revealing how, in Thailand’s relational and high-context culture, communication functions as an ethical practice that nurtures both task clarity and social connection (Sorndee et al., 2017; Dorfman et al., 2012).

Cultural sensitivity mediates how adaptive leadership practices influence employee outcomes. In Thai organisations, trust is grounded in sincerity and moral integrity rather than procedural transparency, indicating that leadership legitimacy depends as much on ethical intent as on technical competence. This finding aligns with Suengkamolpisut and Singhatong (2024), who show that transparent communication and supportive leadership foster reciprocal trust and collective resilience in Thai hybrid workplaces. It also echoes Kim et al. (2023) who found that employees’ trust and engagement increase when they are granted agency in work location decisions. Extending their insights to a collectivist, high-context culture, the present study illustrates that in Thailand, trust is not transactional but rooted in moral reciprocity and relational care.

Together, these insights reveal that adaptive leadership succeeds when communication and trust are enacted through culturally resonant values of empathy, respect and relational continuity, ensuring sustained engagement and cohesion in hybrid organisations.

This study provides empirical insight into how adaptive leadership influences employee well-being and professional identity in hybrid work environments, with a particular focus on the Thai cultural context. The findings show that adaptive leadership – characterised by flexibility, proactive communication and cultural sensitivity – helps address hybrid work challenges such as isolation, blurred work–life boundaries and diminished interpersonal trust. When leadership practices align with employees’ psychological needs and cultural values, they enhance engagement, resilience and organisational cohesion.

Rather than advancing adaptive leadership theory, this study applies its principles as an interpretive lens to explain how leadership practices – integrating adaptive leadership, trust and communication and intercultural awareness – collectively improve hybrid work experiences in Thailand. In doing so, the study identifies a conceptual gap for future adaptive leadership research concerning individual-level dynamics such as trust, psychological safety and culturally embedded interpretations of leadership.

From a practical standpoint, the study offers guidance for organisations to design leadership approaches that are both adaptive and culturally responsive. These include enabling flexible work arrangements, fostering transparent and relational communication and embedding cultural awareness in leadership development. Such practices not only promote employee well-being and professional identity but also contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being; SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth) by supporting sustainable, inclusive and humane work systems.

The originality of this research lies in its qualitative, context-specific exploration of leadership in hybrid Thai organisations. By revealing how collectivism, respect for hierarchy and humane orientation shape adaptive and relational leadership practices, this study deepens understanding of leadership enactment in high-context, relationship-driven cultures. Lastly, this research opens new directions for inquiry. Future studies could use comparative or longitudinal designs across sectors and cultures, incorporate leader perspectives alongside employee narratives and examine how digital infrastructure and organisational culture interact with leadership adaptation over time.

This research paper has not received any financial support from any organization or funding body. Furthermore, no artificial intelligence tools were used at any point during the research process, analysis or manuscript development.