Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual framework integrates AI and human leadership skills, suggesting implications for organizations.
Purpose A framework for integrating human foundations with AI-enabled leadership development, positioning AI as an amplifier rather than a substitute. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on 84 peer-reviewed studies (Sacavém et al., forthcoming), this viewpoint prioritizes research: (a) focused on leadership development; (b) engaging with AI or digital coaching; and (c) drawing on cross-national samples. Findings Emotional intelligence, cultural intelligence, and systems thinking are irreducible human foundations; EI and cultural intelligence are developmentally interdependent: EI provides the substrate upon which cultural adaptability operates. AI accelerates development yet risks bias and deskilling. A four-level Hybrid Leadership Development Model is proposed. Research limitations/implications The model is conceptual and untested. Cross-cultural studies drawing on the World Values Survey are needed to test developmental sequencing across cultural contexts. Practical implications Organizations should audit human foundations before deploying AI, apply dual criteria for EI and human-AI collaboration, and measure skill, relational, and ethical outcomes. Social implications Leaders who integrate human judgement with AI fluency make fairer decisions across cultural contexts, creating humane and equitable organizations. Originality/value The first four-level hybrid leadership development framework, introducing Integration Skills as a distinct layer and Cultural Intelligence as a foundational construct alongside EI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Banerjee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: