virtual leadership: an important leadership context

6
182 G.B. Schmidt Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context GORDON B. SCHMIDT Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne Inherent in the focal article of Lord and Dinh (2014) is the idea that for leadership context matters. Who is seen as a leader, how effective a leader is perceived to be, and how effective a leader actually is are all questions whose answers vary by the context in which leadership is taking place. One context that has become particularly vital is that of the virtual team, a team that has members who potentially span differ- ent organizations, time zones, geographic locations, and cultures with technology enabling communication and coordination between members (Huang, Kahai, & Jes- tice, 2010). Virtuality is a related concept, which is the degree to which a team exhibits those characteristics (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). A study by MCIWorldcom (2001) found that for companies with 500 or more employees, 61% of employees report- ing having been on a virtual team now or at some time in the past. A study in 2008, meanwhile, projected an 80% usage of vir- tual teams by companies with over 10,000 employees (i4cp, 2008). Virtual teams are a major part of how work is done in the world. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gordon B. Schmidt. E-mail: [email protected] Address: IPFW, OLS Neff 288D, Fort Wayne, IN 46805 With significant work being done in virtual teams there is inherently created a similar need for virtual leadership, those leaders that are in charge of managing virtual teams and virtual workers, helping them to be as productive as possible. Research has examined how leaders gen- erally impact virtual team behaviors (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gajendran & Joshi, 2012; Huang et al., 2010; Purvanova & Bono, 2009) as well as the general nature of leadership in virtual environments, termed ‘‘e-leadership’’ (Avolio & Kahai, 2003). Although this research base has helped us to understand virtual leadership, it is small compared to the amount of research on virtual teams as a whole and the prevalence rate of virtual teams in modern organizations. This commentary describes generally some of the major differences found between leadership in high virtuality teams compared to face-to-face teams, highlight- ing the significant impact of the virtual team context. This has significant impli- cations for all four principles discussed in Lord and Dinh, as the perceptions of lead- ers and actual leader effectiveness can be significantly impacted by the virtual team environment. Principle 1 focuses on how leadership is socially constructed and is influenced

Upload: gordon-b

Post on 13-Mar-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context

182 G.B. Schmidt

Virtual Leadership: An ImportantLeadership Context

GORDON B. SCHMIDTIndiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne

Inherent in the focal article of Lord andDinh (2014) is the idea that for leadershipcontext matters. Who is seen as a leader,how effective a leader is perceived to be,and how effective a leader actually is areall questions whose answers vary by thecontext in which leadership is taking place.One context that has become particularlyvital is that of the virtual team, a team thathas members who potentially span differ-ent organizations, time zones, geographiclocations, and cultures with technologyenabling communication and coordinationbetween members (Huang, Kahai, & Jes-tice, 2010). Virtuality is a related concept,which is the degree to which a teamexhibits those characteristics (Gibson &Gibbs, 2006). A study by MCIWorldcom(2001) found that for companies with 500 ormore employees, 61% of employees report-ing having been on a virtual team now orat some time in the past. A study in 2008,meanwhile, projected an 80% usage of vir-tual teams by companies with over 10,000employees (i4cp, 2008). Virtual teams area major part of how work is done in theworld.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Gordon B. Schmidt.E-mail: [email protected]

Address: IPFW, OLS Neff 288D, Fort Wayne, IN46805

With significant work being done invirtual teams there is inherently created asimilar need for virtual leadership, thoseleaders that are in charge of managingvirtual teams and virtual workers, helpingthem to be as productive as possible.Research has examined how leaders gen-erally impact virtual team behaviors (e.g.,Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gajendran & Joshi,2012; Huang et al., 2010; Purvanova &Bono, 2009) as well as the general natureof leadership in virtual environments,termed ‘‘e-leadership’’ (Avolio & Kahai,2003). Although this research base hashelped us to understand virtual leadership,it is small compared to the amount ofresearch on virtual teams as a whole andthe prevalence rate of virtual teams inmodern organizations.

This commentary describes generallysome of the major differences foundbetween leadership in high virtuality teamscompared to face-to-face teams, highlight-ing the significant impact of the virtualteam context. This has significant impli-cations for all four principles discussed inLord and Dinh, as the perceptions of lead-ers and actual leader effectiveness can besignificantly impacted by the virtual teamenvironment.

Principle 1 focuses on how leadershipis socially constructed and is influenced

Page 2: Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context

Virtual leadership: An important leadership context 183

by multiple individuals. Virtual teamsoffer a very different environment inwhich this process plays out due todifferent communication media used andpotentially different needs for leaders tofacilitate communication (Gajendran &Joshi, 2012; Hart & McLeod, 2003) andpersonal connections between team mem-bers (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007;Saphiere, 1996). The virtual team contextis a context that may have strong impact on‘‘who leads,’’ ‘‘why they lead,’’ and ‘‘howthey lead’’ (Lord & Dinh, 2014).

Principle 2 is about the significant impactof information processing on leadership.Virtual teams impact this because they offerdifferent medium by which information isprimarily presented (e.g., e-mail, phone,computer based programs) as well aslack some traditional means by whichfollowers gain information face to face,such as non verbal cues and tone of voice.Different information sources will havesignificant impacts on how the team andthe leader is perceived by team members.In fact, leaders might be more central toneeded information exchange, with Hochand Kozlowski (2012) finding that leadersproviding relevant information to teams hada stronger impact on team performance themore virtuality the team had.

Principle 3 focuses on how the effectsof leaders are often indirect, as it is oftenshown through the performance of follow-ers that can happen over time. It is stillrelatively unclear what leader behaviorslead to successful follower performancein a virtual team but existing work sug-gests that those behaviors might not be thesame as those in face-to-face teams, withbehaviors facilitating leader–member com-munication and member–member personalconnections having greater impact in virtualenvironments (Gajendran & Joshi, 2012;Malhotra et al., 2007; Saphiere, 1996).

The virtual team context is especiallyrelevant to Lord and Dinh’s Principle 4,‘‘looking backward and looking forwardare quite different processes’’ as changingtechnologies are and will be changingthe nature of virtual leadership. Leadership

research and theory has focused on lookingbackward for understanding how leadershipworks but virtual teams will often be usingnew and different information technologiesthat did not exist in the past. Online socialmedia is one area that potentially canhave a huge impact on how virtual leaderscommunicate with a team and how teammembers communicate with each other.

Also relevant is that the workforce ofthe future is likely to be very different fromthe workforce of the past. Computer-basedtechnologies that were new and difficult forworkers to understand in the past can betechnologies with which future generationsof workers have grown up and have greatcomfort. In fact many new younger peopleentering the workforce today are seen as‘‘digital natives,’’ those who have grownup with the computer and the Internetand thus feel perfectly comfortable usingthem as a major communication means(Bennet, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). The pastis especially not as relevant in the virtualteam context due to the rapid changing oftechnology.

Different Nature of Leadershipin Virtual Teams

The existing empirical work looking atvirtual leadership has found traditionalleadership factors often do not havethe same impact. Research by Goh andWasko (2012) looked at the impact ofleader member exchange (LMX) on memberperformance in the online game EverQuest,a multiplayer online computer game. Theyfound that LMX had no direct impact onplayer performance, its impact was fullymediated by the amount of resources aleader gave to a particular player. SoLMX only had an impact on resourceallocation by leaders rather than actualplayer performance. Research by Hoch andKozlowski (2012) that compared the impactof hierarchical leadership types (LMX,transformational leadership, and mentoring)in teams that varied in virtuality foundthat the impact of hierarchical leadershiptypes was attenuated by virtuality, with

Page 3: Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context

184 G.B. Schmidt

the variables having less impact the morevirtual the team was. Gajendran and Joshi(2012), meanwhile, found that althoughLMX had a positive impact on memberinfluence in team decision making, theeffect was strengthened significantly bycommunication frequency. A good LMXrelationship had a lessened impact whenthe actual contact between the leader andthe follower was more infrequent. Theyfound this joint effect was strengthened asteam dispersion by geographic location andtime zones was greater. Communicationfrequency between leader and follower isa variable that often comes up as morecrucially important in the virtual teamenvironment.

The impact of transformational leader-ship in virtual teams has received mixedresults. In the previously alluded to resultsof Hoch and Kozlowski (2012), the impactof transformational leadership on perfor-mance was attenuated by the degree ofvirtuality of the team, with teams higher invirtuality less impacted by transformationalleadership. Research by Hambley, O’Neill,and Kline (2007) manipulated whether avirtual team had a transformational or trans-actional leader and found no significantdifferent between the two groups. Researchby Purvanova and Bono (2009) found quitedifferent results. They had leaders lead botha virtual team and a face-to-face team andcompared the impact transformational lead-ership had on team performance. Theyfound, in contrast, that transformationalleadership behaviors had a greater impactin virtual teams compared to face-to-faceteams.

Although these results seem to be inconflict, there are two factors that helpexplain the very different results. The firstis communication frequency. Purvanovaand Bono (2009) examined the count oftransformational leadership behaviors whileHoch and Kozlowski (2012) examined over-all perceptions of transformational leader-ship. Purvanova and Bono (2009), thus, inpart are measuring the frequency of inter-action between leader and follower. Wemight think that perceived transformational

leadership is not as impactful in virtualteams as the actual amount of transfor-mational leadership behavior done by theleader.

The second factor that may be havingan impact here is the communication medi-ums used. Huang et al. (2010) examined theimpact of leaders’ transformational leader-ship and transactional leadership behaviorson task cohesion and perceptions of a coop-erative climate. They found that media rich-ness, the degree to which communicationtechnology used is an easy means to shareviewpoints and resolve differences (Daft& Lengel, 1986), had a major impact onthe influence of transformational and trans-actional leadership. When media richnesswas low, transactional leadership behav-iors improved task cohesion, and trans-formational leadership behaviors improvedperceptions of a cooperative team climate.However, when media richness was high,transactional leadership and transforma-tional leadership behaviors had no signifi-cant impact. Thus, the technology and howit facilitates team member communicationwith each other seems to have a majorimpact.

Communication frequency with a leaderis one factor significantly more important inthe virtual team environment. Making surecommunication systems are established andwell maintained is an often expressed rec-ommendation for virtual teams (Malhotraet al., 2007; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).Hoch and Kozlowski (2012) also found thatstructural supports have a greater impacton performance in virtual teams comparedto virtual teams. These structural supportsinclude the already mentioned communica-tion as well as supplying relevant informa-tion and having appropriate reward systems(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Leaders that cre-ate and sustain these structures for virtualteams greatly help team performance.

One other area that is often discussed buthas received relatively little empirical exam-ination is the value of leaders helping toincrease personal and informal interactionsbetween virtual team members. Qualitativework by Malhotra et al. (2007) found that

Page 4: Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context

Virtual leadership: An important leadership context 185

leaders in successful virtual teams encour-aged team members to share personal sto-ries. The personal stories were seen as ameans to better connect team members andget to know each other informally, whichis potentially easier in face-to-face teams.Saphiere (1996) found that, for global busi-ness teams, more productive teams engagedin more informal and personal ways com-pared to less productive teams. Strongerpersonal relationships are seen as one wayto make virtual teams more productive (Hart& McLeod, 2003).

So the existing research base in virtualleadership begins to suggest that virtualleadership has some significant differencesfrom face-to-face leadership. As argued byLord and Dinh, the context of leadershipmatters, with the virtual team environmentoffering a new and salient environmentthat we need to better understand in orderto more fully comprehend the nature ofmodern day business.

Looking to the Future in VirtualLeadership

As Lord and Dinh point out in their forthprinciple, we often look to the past intrying to predict the future despite thefact the past represents only one possibleoutcome and that the future may be verydifferent in nature. This can be seen inhow many of the existing articles on virtualteams look at the nature of virtual teamsthrough the lens of how things work in face-to-face formats. Virtual teams are lookedat as an ‘‘impoverished communicationenvironment’’ (Purvanova & Bono, 2009),which is more confusing (Thompson &Coovert, 2003) and can lead to feelingsof isolation (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).Although undoubtedly aspects of this are orcould be true in particular contexts, thereare two significant considerations from amore future oriented perspective that needto be taken into account by leaders.

The first is that significant technologyalready exists that helps to connect peopletogether through information technology,which could work to combat issues of

virtual teams having an ‘‘impoverishedcommunication environment’’ (Purvanova& Bono, 2009). One major categoryis online social media, Internet-basedapplications that allow their users to createand share a wide variety of content amongfellow users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).This group of technology allows the sharingonline through computers or cell phones awide range of content such as documents,pdfs, pictures, recorded or live video, audiorecordings, and diagrams. Multiple users ofthe program Google Docs can work on ashared document at once, making modifi-cations and potentially conversing throughbuilt-in chat functions. The live videoconferencing program Skype allows peopleto contact each other worldwide, and theprogram Google Hangouts allows up toeight users to video conference together atthe same time. Second Life and other virtualworld programs allow dozens, hundreds,or even thousands of users to interact in a3D virtual world through the use of virtualavatars. Facebook (2013) alone has 727million daily active users. These sites area significant way in which people commu-nicate with each other on a personal level.These sites can be used to facilitate virtualteam communication processes.

One major means they could be ben-eficial is in facilitating the personal andsocial connections that are seen as crucialto virtual team success (Hart & McLeod,2003; Malhotra et al., 2007; Saphiere,1996). Facebook, for one example, offersan easy means of sending private messagesto others, public, or semi public messagesto groups, and primarily public generalinformation about a user through profileinformation. This could help virtual teammembers to passively see this informationthrough profiles as well as interact directlythrough private messages. Virtual leaderscan helps these processes to happen byencouraging communication through suchsites or internal organizational networks,with companies such as IBM already hav-ing robust internal social networking sites(Stopfer & Gosling, 2013). Leaders can alsomake themselves available to virtual team

Page 5: Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context

186 G.B. Schmidt

members through these online social mediasites, which many virtual team membersare probably already using in their personallives. One recent study in fact found 60.1%of participants were connected with at leastone co worker and 25.6% were connectedwith their supervisor on a social media site(Weidner, Wynne, & O’Brien, 2012). Thus,in many cases there are existing links thatcould in fact be leveraged.

Social media sites also can benefit teamsby providing online environments that arehigh in media richness. Programs like Skypeand Second Life allow for individuals tocommunicate in online environments withlive audio and video. Skype also offerstext base chat that can be used whilelive video is streaming where additionalinformation and links can be shared. Thistechnology can offer rich environments withwhich virtual teams can interact. It is worthnoting that this is just the current stateof the technology. As time progresses wecan expect these programs to be moreefficient and of greater quality. It is notcompletely inconceivable that they maysomeday provide environments not justequal to but in fact superior to face-to-face environments for interactions withinparticular team contexts.

The last important consideration of thefuture to consider is that the passage oftime will impact how workforces react tobeing on a virtual team and using onlinecommunication technologies. Although inmuch of the early virtual team work (e.g.,Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Bell & Kozlowski,2002) we might think that virtual teammembers may not have had significantprevious experiences with computers oronline communication technologies beforebeing on a virtual team, this is unlikelyto be the case in the future. The youngergeneration of today are often seen as‘‘digital natives’’ (Bennet et al., 2008)who have grown up with computersand the Internet. Thus, communicatingonline through computers or cell phones isunlikely to be something new and differentto them, rather it is something with whichthey already have great experience. These

generational and experience differencesmight have a significant impact on howsuch future workers react to being onvirtual teams and using communicationtechnologies to interact with teammates.This will impact how leaders use thesetechnologies within virtual teams and howleaders can best facilitate communicationand coordination among team members.Leaders will ultimately need to prepare forthe workforce of the future rather than theworkforce of 10 years ago. Our theories andresearch of virtual teams should take thatinto account.

ReferencesAvolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the ‘‘E’’ to

e-leadership: How it may impact your leadership.Organizational Dynamics, 31, 325–338.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typologyof virtual teams: Implications for effective leader-ship. Group and Organization Management, 27,14–49.

Bennet, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘‘digitalnatives’’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5),775–786.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organization infor-mation requirements, media richness, and struc-tural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

Facebook. (2013). Key facts. Palo Alto, CA: Author.Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts.

Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovationin globally distributed teams: The role of LMX,communication frequency, and member influenceon team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,97, 1252–1261.

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking theconcept of virtuality: The effects of geographicdispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic struc-ture, and national diversity on team innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495.

Goh, S., & Wasko, M. (2012). The effects ofleader–member exchange on member perfor-mance in virtual world teams. Journal of theAssociation for Information Systems, 13, 861–885.

Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007).Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadershipstyle and communication medium on teaminteraction styles and outcomes. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Making Processes,103, 1–20.

Hart, R. K., & McLeod, P. L. (2003). Rethinking teambuilding in geographically dispersed teams: Onemessage at a time. Organizational Dynamics, 31,352–361.

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2012, December3). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,structural supports, and shared team leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance onlinepublication.

Page 6: Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context

Follower perceptions 187

Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (2010). The contin-gent effects of leadership on team collaboration invirtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,1098–1110.

I4cp. (2008, September 4). Virtual teams now a reality:Two out of three companies say they will relymore on virtual teams in the future. Retrieved fromhttp://www.i4cp.com/news/2008/09/04/virtual-teamsnow-a-reality

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of theworld, united! The challenges and opportunities ofsocial media. Business Horizon, 53, 59–68.

Lord, R. G., & Dinh, J. E. (2014). What have we learnedthat is critical in understanding leadership percep-tions and leader-performance relations? Industrialand Organizational Psychology: Perspectives onScience and Practice, 7(2), 158–177.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007).Leading virtual teams. Academy of ManagementPerspectives, 21, 60–70.

Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managingteam interpersonal processes through technology:A task–technology fit perspective. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89(6), 975–990.

MCIWorldcom. (2001). Meetings in America III:A study of the virtual workforce in 2001.

Retrieved from https://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.com/meetingsinamerica/pdf/MIA3.pdf

Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. B. (2009). Trans-formational leadership in context. Face-to-faceand virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20,343–357.

Saphiere, D. M. H. (1996). Productive behaviors ofglobal business teams. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 20(2), 227–259.

Stopfer, J. M., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Online socialnetworks in the work context. In D. Derks, &A. B. Bakker (Eds.), The psychology of digitalmedia at work (pp. 39–59). New York, NY:Routledge.

Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamworkonline: The effects of computer conferencing onperceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscus-sion accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,and Practice, 7, 135–151.

Weidner, N., Wynne, K., & O’Brien, K. (2012).Individual differences in workplace related useof Internet-based social networking sites. In G. B.Schmidt, & R. N. Landers (co-chairs), The impact ofsocial media on work. Symposium presented at the27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.