Leadership in Industry 5.0: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda for Future Organizations
Keywords:
Industry 5.0, leadership; human-centric organization, human–AI collaboration, digital transformation, resilience, qualitative research.Abstract
This study aimed to explore how leadership is being redefined in the transition toward Industry 5.0 and to develop a research agenda for future organizations centered on human–technology collaboration, resilience, and sustainable value creation. This qualitative study used a systematic review-informed exploratory design based on semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders, digital transformation managers, human resource specialists, and innovation experts in Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive and theoretical sampling to ensure maximum variation in organizational sector, managerial experience, and exposure to advanced digital technologies. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached after 22 interviews. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or online, lasted between 45 and 80 minutes, and focused on leadership capabilities, ethical challenges, employee adaptation, human–AI collaboration, resilience, and future organizational requirements in Industry 5.0. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis with the support of NVivo software. The analysis generated four main categories: human-centric digital leadership, collaborative intelligence and human–AI decision-making, ethical and responsible technology governance, and resilience-oriented organizational transformation. The findings indicated that leadership in Industry 5.0 moves beyond technology adoption and requires leaders to protect human agency, redesign work around collaboration between people and intelligent systems, build ethical safeguards into technological decision-making, and create adaptive organizations capable of responding to uncertainty. Participants emphasized that future leaders must combine technological literacy with emotional intelligence, systems thinking, participatory decision-making, and sustainability-oriented strategic judgment. Leadership in Industry 5.0 represents a shift from efficiency-centered digital leadership toward a human-centered, ethically governed, and resilience-based leadership paradigm. The study contributes to leadership theory by proposing an integrated agenda for examining how leaders can balance automation and augmentation, innovation and responsibility, and digital acceleration and human well-being in future organizations.
References
Breque, M., De Nul, L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
Maddikunta, P. K. R., Pham, Q. V., Prabadevi, B., Deepa, N., Dev, K., Gadekallu, T. R., Ruby, R., & Liyanage, M. (2022). Industry 5.0: A survey on enabling technologies and potential applications. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 26, 100257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100257
Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A human-centric solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164371
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
