Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context: Industrial and Organizational Psychology June 2014
Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context: Industrial and Organizational Psychology June 2014
Virtual Leadership: An Important Leadership Context: Industrial and Organizational Psychology June 2014
net/publication/261770186
CITATIONS READS
24 6,722
1 author:
Gordon Schmidt
Purdue University Fort Wayne
49 PUBLICATIONS 288 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The I-O Memes Lords: Memes and I-O Psychology View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Gordon Schmidt on 18 October 2017.
GORDON B. SCHMIDT
Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
Inherent in the focal article of Lord and With significant work being done in
Dinh (2014) is the idea that for leadership virtual teams there is inherently created a
context matters. Who is seen as a leader, similar need for virtual leadership, those
how effective a leader is perceived to be, leaders that are in charge of managing
and how effective a leader actually is are virtual teams and virtual workers, helping
all questions whose answers vary by the them to be as productive as possible.
context in which leadership is taking place. Research has examined how leaders gen-
One context that has become particularly erally impact virtual team behaviors (e.g.,
vital is that of the virtual team, a team that Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gajendran & Joshi,
has members who potentially span differ- 2012; Huang et al., 2010; Purvanova &
ent organizations, time zones, geographic Bono, 2009) as well as the general nature
locations, and cultures with technology of leadership in virtual environments,
enabling communication and coordination termed ‘‘e-leadership’’ (Avolio & Kahai,
between members (Huang, Kahai, & Jes- 2003). Although this research base has
tice, 2010). Virtuality is a related concept, helped us to understand virtual leadership,
which is the degree to which a team it is small compared to the amount of
exhibits those characteristics (Gibson & research on virtual teams as a whole and
Gibbs, 2006). A study by MCIWorldcom the prevalence rate of virtual teams in
(2001) found that for companies with 500 or modern organizations.
more employees, 61% of employees report- This commentary describes generally
ing having been on a virtual team now or some of the major differences found
at some time in the past. A study in 2008, between leadership in high virtuality teams
meanwhile, projected an 80% usage of vir- compared to face-to-face teams, highlight-
tual teams by companies with over 10,000 ing the significant impact of the virtual
employees (i4cp, 2008). Virtual teams are team context. This has significant impli-
a major part of how work is done in the cations for all four principles discussed in
world. Lord and Dinh, as the perceptions of lead-
ers and actual leader effectiveness can be
Correspondence concerning this article should be significantly impacted by the virtual team
addressed to Gordon B. Schmidt. environment.
E-mail: schmidtg@ipfw.edu
Address: IPFW, OLS Neff 288D, Fort Wayne, IN
Principle 1 focuses on how leadership
46805 is socially constructed and is influenced
Virtual leadership: An important leadership context 183
by multiple individuals. Virtual teams research and theory has focused on looking
offer a very different environment in backward for understanding how leadership
which this process plays out due to works but virtual teams will often be using
different communication media used and new and different information technologies
potentially different needs for leaders to that did not exist in the past. Online social
facilitate communication (Gajendran & media is one area that potentially can
Joshi, 2012; Hart & McLeod, 2003) and have a huge impact on how virtual leaders
personal connections between team mem- communicate with a team and how team
bers (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen, 2007; members communicate with each other.
Saphiere, 1996). The virtual team context Also relevant is that the workforce of
is a context that may have strong impact on the future is likely to be very different from
‘‘who leads,’’ ‘‘why they lead,’’ and ‘‘how the workforce of the past. Computer-based
they lead’’ (Lord & Dinh, 2014). technologies that were new and difficult for
Principle 2 is about the significant impact workers to understand in the past can be
of information processing on leadership. technologies with which future generations
Virtual teams impact this because they offer of workers have grown up and have great
different medium by which information is comfort. In fact many new younger people
primarily presented (e.g., e-mail, phone, entering the workforce today are seen as
computer based programs) as well as ‘‘digital natives,’’ those who have grown
lack some traditional means by which up with the computer and the Internet
followers gain information face to face, and thus feel perfectly comfortable using
such as non verbal cues and tone of voice. them as a major communication means
Different information sources will have (Bennet, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). The past
significant impacts on how the team and is especially not as relevant in the virtual
the leader is perceived by team members. team context due to the rapid changing of
In fact, leaders might be more central to technology.
needed information exchange, with Hoch
and Kozlowski (2012) finding that leaders
Different Nature of Leadership
providing relevant information to teams had
in Virtual Teams
a stronger impact on team performance the
more virtuality the team had. The existing empirical work looking at
Principle 3 focuses on how the effects virtual leadership has found traditional
of leaders are often indirect, as it is often leadership factors often do not have
shown through the performance of follow- the same impact. Research by Goh and
ers that can happen over time. It is still Wasko (2012) looked at the impact of
relatively unclear what leader behaviors leader member exchange (LMX) on member
lead to successful follower performance performance in the online game EverQuest,
in a virtual team but existing work sug- a multiplayer online computer game. They
gests that those behaviors might not be the found that LMX had no direct impact on
same as those in face-to-face teams, with player performance, its impact was fully
behaviors facilitating leader–member com- mediated by the amount of resources a
munication and member–member personal leader gave to a particular player. So
connections having greater impact in virtual LMX only had an impact on resource
environments (Gajendran & Joshi, 2012; allocation by leaders rather than actual
Malhotra et al., 2007; Saphiere, 1996). player performance. Research by Hoch and
The virtual team context is especially Kozlowski (2012) that compared the impact
relevant to Lord and Dinh’s Principle 4, of hierarchical leadership types (LMX,
‘‘looking backward and looking forward transformational leadership, and mentoring)
are quite different processes’’ as changing in teams that varied in virtuality found
technologies are and will be changing that the impact of hierarchical leadership
the nature of virtual leadership. Leadership types was attenuated by virtuality, with
184 G.B. Schmidt
the variables having less impact the more leadership is not as impactful in virtual
virtual the team was. Gajendran and Joshi teams as the actual amount of transfor-
(2012), meanwhile, found that although mational leadership behavior done by the
LMX had a positive impact on member leader.
influence in team decision making, the The second factor that may be having
effect was strengthened significantly by an impact here is the communication medi-
communication frequency. A good LMX ums used. Huang et al. (2010) examined the
relationship had a lessened impact when impact of leaders’ transformational leader-
the actual contact between the leader and ship and transactional leadership behaviors
the follower was more infrequent. They on task cohesion and perceptions of a coop-
found this joint effect was strengthened as erative climate. They found that media rich-
team dispersion by geographic location and ness, the degree to which communication
time zones was greater. Communication technology used is an easy means to share
frequency between leader and follower is viewpoints and resolve differences (Daft
a variable that often comes up as more & Lengel, 1986), had a major impact on
crucially important in the virtual team the influence of transformational and trans-
environment. actional leadership. When media richness
The impact of transformational leader- was low, transactional leadership behav-
ship in virtual teams has received mixed iors improved task cohesion, and trans-
results. In the previously alluded to results formational leadership behaviors improved
of Hoch and Kozlowski (2012), the impact perceptions of a cooperative team climate.
of transformational leadership on perfor- However, when media richness was high,
mance was attenuated by the degree of transactional leadership and transforma-
virtuality of the team, with teams higher in tional leadership behaviors had no signifi-
virtuality less impacted by transformational cant impact. Thus, the technology and how
leadership. Research by Hambley, O’Neill, it facilitates team member communication
and Kline (2007) manipulated whether a with each other seems to have a major
virtual team had a transformational or trans- impact.
actional leader and found no significant Communication frequency with a leader
different between the two groups. Research is one factor significantly more important in
by Purvanova and Bono (2009) found quite the virtual team environment. Making sure
different results. They had leaders lead both communication systems are established and
a virtual team and a face-to-face team and well maintained is an often expressed rec-
compared the impact transformational lead- ommendation for virtual teams (Malhotra
ership had on team performance. They et al., 2007; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).
found, in contrast, that transformational Hoch and Kozlowski (2012) also found that
leadership behaviors had a greater impact structural supports have a greater impact
in virtual teams compared to face-to-face on performance in virtual teams compared
teams. to virtual teams. These structural supports
Although these results seem to be in include the already mentioned communica-
conflict, there are two factors that help tion as well as supplying relevant informa-
explain the very different results. The first tion and having appropriate reward systems
is communication frequency. Purvanova (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Leaders that cre-
and Bono (2009) examined the count of ate and sustain these structures for virtual
transformational leadership behaviors while teams greatly help team performance.
Hoch and Kozlowski (2012) examined over- One other area that is often discussed but
all perceptions of transformational leader- has received relatively little empirical exam-
ship. Purvanova and Bono (2009), thus, in ination is the value of leaders helping to
part are measuring the frequency of inter- increase personal and informal interactions
action between leader and follower. We between virtual team members. Qualitative
might think that perceived transformational work by Malhotra et al. (2007) found that
Virtual leadership: An important leadership context 185
members through these online social media generational and experience differences
sites, which many virtual team members might have a significant impact on how
are probably already using in their personal such future workers react to being on
lives. One recent study in fact found 60.1% virtual teams and using communication
of participants were connected with at least technologies to interact with teammates.
one co worker and 25.6% were connected This will impact how leaders use these
with their supervisor on a social media site technologies within virtual teams and how
(Weidner, Wynne, & O’Brien, 2012). Thus, leaders can best facilitate communication
in many cases there are existing links that and coordination among team members.
could in fact be leveraged. Leaders will ultimately need to prepare for
Social media sites also can benefit teams the workforce of the future rather than the
by providing online environments that are workforce of 10 years ago. Our theories and
high in media richness. Programs like Skype research of virtual teams should take that
and Second Life allow for individuals to into account.
communicate in online environments with
live audio and video. Skype also offers References
text base chat that can be used while
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the ‘‘E’’ to
live video is streaming where additional e-leadership: How it may impact your leadership.
information and links can be shared. This Organizational Dynamics, 31, 325–338.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology
technology can offer rich environments with of virtual teams: Implications for effective leader-
which virtual teams can interact. It is worth ship. Group and Organization Management , 27 ,
noting that this is just the current state 14–49.
Bennet, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘‘digital
of the technology. As time progresses we natives’’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.
can expect these programs to be more British Journal of Educational Technology , 39(5),
efficient and of greater quality. It is not 775–786.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organization infor-
completely inconceivable that they may mation requirements, media richness, and struc-
someday provide environments not just tural design. Management Science , 32, 554–571.
equal to but in fact superior to face-to- Facebook. (2013). Key facts. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://
face environments for interactions within newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts.
particular team contexts. Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation
The last important consideration of the in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX,
communication frequency, and member influence
future to consider is that the passage of on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
time will impact how workforces react to 97 , 1252–1261.
being on a virtual team and using online Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the
concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic
communication technologies. Although in dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic struc-
much of the early virtual team work (e.g., ture, and national diversity on team innovation.
Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Bell & Kozlowski, Administrative Science Quarterly , 51, 451–495.
Goh, S., & Wasko, M. (2012). The effects of
2002) we might think that virtual team leader–member exchange on member perfor-
members may not have had significant mance in virtual world teams. Journal of the
previous experiences with computers or Association for Information Systems, 13, 861–885.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007).
online communication technologies before Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership
being on a virtual team, this is unlikely style and communication medium on team
to be the case in the future. The younger interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes,
generation of today are often seen as 103, 1–20.
‘‘digital natives’’ (Bennet et al., 2008) Hart, R. K., & McLeod, P. L. (2003). Rethinking team
who have grown up with computers building in geographically dispersed teams: One
message at a time. Organizational Dynamics, 31,
and the Internet. Thus, communicating 352–361.
online through computers or cell phones is Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2012, December
unlikely to be something new and different 3). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,
structural supports, and shared team leadership.
to them, rather it is something with which Journal of Applied Psychology . Advance online
they already have great experience. These publication.
Follower perceptions 187
Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (2010). The contin- Retrieved from https://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.
gent effects of leadership on team collaboration in com/meetingsinamerica/pdf/MIA3.pdf
virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior , 26, Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. B. (2009). Trans-
1098–1110. formational leadership in context. Face-to-face
I4cp. (2008, September 4). Virtual teams now a reality: and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly , 20 ,
Two out of three companies say they will rely 343–357.
more on virtual teams in the future. Retrieved from Saphiere, D. M. H. (1996). Productive behaviors of
http://www.i4cp.com/news/2008/09/04/virtual-tea global business teams. International Journal of
msnow-a-reality Intercultural Relations, 20 (2), 227–259.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the Stopfer, J. M., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Online social
world, united! The challenges and opportunities of networks in the work context. In D. Derks, &
social media. Business Horizon, 53, 59–68. A. B. Bakker (Eds.), The psychology of digital
Lord, R. G., & Dinh, J. E. (2014). What have we learned media at work (pp. 39–59). New York, NY:
that is critical in understanding leadership percep- Routledge.
tions and leader-performance relations? Industrial Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamwork
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on online: The effects of computer conferencing on
Science and Practice, 7 (2), 158–177. perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscus-
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). sion accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management and Practice , 7 , 135–151.
Weidner, N., Wynne, K., & O’Brien, K. (2012).
Perspectives, 21, 60–70.
Individual differences in workplace related use
Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing
of Internet-based social networking sites. In G. B.
team interpersonal processes through technology:
Schmidt, & R. N. Landers (co-chairs), The impact of
A task–technology fit perspective. Journal of
social media on work . Symposium presented at the
Applied Psychology , 89(6), 975–990.
27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
MCIWorldcom. (2001). Meetings in America III:
and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
A study of the virtual workforce in 2001.