e leadership case study and the impact of (un)faithful appropriation of technology

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, e-leadership and teleworking in times of covid-19 and beyond: what we know and where do we go.

• 1 School of Management and Business, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia
• 2 School of Business and Management Sciences, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
• 3 Department of Business Studies, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan

Suddenly, COVID-19 has changed the world and the way people work. Companies had to accelerate something they knew was imminent in the future, but not immediate and extremely humongous. This situation poses a huge challenge for companies to survive and thrive in this complex business environment and for employees, who must adapt to this new way of working. An effective e-leadership, which promotes companies’ adaptability, is needed. This study investigates the existing knowledge on teleworking and e-leadership; and analyzes the supposed challenges. The literature review shows that companies with effective e-leadership can view teleworking as an opportunity. It is advantageous for not only companies’ productivity but also the environment and people who work remotely. However, a traditional or no leadership can result in some risks. Thriving in remote work environments implies that managers must adjust the companies’ structure, making them less hierarchical, and developing new abilities to establish a strong and trustworthy relationship with their employees to maintain their competitiveness, while retaining a genuine concern for their employees’ well-being. Similarly, successful e-leadership must be able to consolidate and lead effective virtual teams to accomplish organizational goals. This study contributes to the literature and leaders during the pandemic.

Introduction

In the past few months, telework or working from home has experienced rapid growth owing to the pandemic, leading to significant changes in work methods. İt refers to a flexible working method that is not limited by time, location, type of communication technology, and the use of information. The successful implementation of this requires technology, social, and organizational support specifically in the form of e-leadership practices where the emergence of digital technology and Internet services has facilitated the progress of teleworking. The current pandemic (COVID-19) has generated a massive and sudden change in how companies operate. After the outbreak of COVID-19, social distancing, which means a deliberate physical space between individuals, has been adopted as a sound prevention method ( Prin and Bartels, 2020 ) and thus necessitated remote working. In this context, information and communication technologies (ICTs) allow employees to work anytime and almost everywhere ( Müller and Niessen, 2019 ). Moreover, teleworking was imminent, but the pandemic has made it a compulsion. It is speculated that this new global work norm would continue even after the pandemic is overcome. This change has deeply impacted not only how organizations operate but also the relationship between employees and employers. Thus, in this new work environment with possible risks (see Bouziri et al., 2020 ; Lambert et al., 2020 ), opportunities, and flexible work arrangements, leadership practices cannot be the same. Leadership practices must adapt to new remote or virtual conditions for effective leadership and sustainable performance. This is why Bennis (2009) on his famous book “on becoming a leader” argued that leaders are not born they are made. Leaders should transform themselves to achieve organizational goals by engaging teleworkers who enjoy a fruitful virtual work environment and allow them to thrive in their work. Undoubtedly, leadership in this new labor reality will be decisive for organizations to survive and grow. As nature has demonstrated and this can be applied to companies, if companies do not respond to crises and adapt to the new conditions, they are likely to disappear. Based on a literature review (from 2000 to 2020), this study investigates the existing knowledge about teleworking and e-leadership and pre- and post-COVID-19 risks and opportunities for organizations. Between March and July 2020, we carried out this literature review, looking for scientific publications on telework and e-Leadership in academic journals-databases (Web of Sciences, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SciELO). The literature search was carried out using the following keywords and combinations between them: Telework, e-leadership, telecommuting and e-leadership, virtual environments, virtual work, virtual teams, telework and COVID-19. Non-recent articles were excluded unless they were quite relevant. The body of the retrieved literature was reviewed and organized for presentation in this document. From more than one hundred articles, we identified and synthesized the findings and contributions of about 80 academic publications, specifically peer-reviewed articles.

The present study revolves around understanding the association between teleworking, leadership and e-leadership that represents the emergence of leadership in the e-environment context where the work is mediated by information technologies, high complexity and a changing working environment that makes imperative for leaders to change their practices, attitude, and behavior for long term organizational sustainability. In order to better comprehend the above phenomena, this study is structured as follows. In section “Teleworking and the Emergence of COVID-19,” we discuss the opportunities and risks with teleworking with the emergence of COVID-19. Section “Management, Leadership and Telework Environments” deals with understanding the management and leadership in the environment of teleworking. In section “E-leadership and its Conceptualization,” we discuss the phenomenon of e-leadership and its conceptualization. In section “E-leadership, Teleworking and Virtual Teams,” the association among e-leadership, teleworking and virtual teams is analyzed. Finally, in section “Conclusion and Propositions for Further Studies,” we put forth some propositions for further studies.

Teleworking and the Emergence of COVID-19

In the past decades, companies have evolved according to new conditions of the work environment, such as globalization, fierce competition, new demographic structures, and increasing development of ICTs ( Wojcak et al., 2016 ). The transition from the industrial era to a digitalized business environment led to a shift from a mechanistic perspective to a more organic perspective, where organizations embrace flexible structures ( Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ). After 2000s, work has been increasingly detached from on-site ( Felstead and Henseke, 2017 ) to facilitate the workforce and to provide better services to the customers. Therefore, teleworking was steadily growing globally in several sectors. Among these sectors, service industry encompasses the highest overall percentage of workforce who work remotely (17%), followed by health care industry (12%), finances and insurance industry (10%), manufacturing sector (8.5%), and education industry (7.5%) ( He et al., 2020 ). Teleworking is always debated because of the blurring boundaries regarding non-work and work, personal, and social effects of not being physically present at a job, and the risks and benefits of flexible working hours. Under traditional conditions (e.g., before COVID-19), teleworking was needed temporarily ( Allen et al., 2015 ). However, in this current pandemic situation, most of the employees around the world are full time away from the office and working from home. Thus, this pandemic has suddenly changed how people work and it is not yet very clear how long we have to continue working from home in different countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) officially announced the outbreak of coronavirus disease on March 11, 2020, as a pandemic and suggested preventive measures to contain its spread. Telework was an important measure suggested by World Health Organization (2020) and successfully implemented by organizations and governments around the world. Thus, since March 2020, more than 3.5 billion individuals have been confined to their homes, which meant that several millions were teleworking ( Bouziri et al., 2020 ). This teleworking may lead to social or professional isolation, which is referred to as the missing of the everyday social aspect of work because employees are physically away from other workmates, hence leading to not being actively participating in information sharing and co-learning. This feeling of professional isolation adversely affects job performance ( Golden et al., 2008 ) because employees do not have their supervisor and colleagues’ support in problem solving as they would if they were physically present at work. In this context, the role of e-leadership lies in facilitating the work conditions and keeping employees motivated toward achieving the desired goals. This situation calls for a different type of leadership, known as e-leadership, which entails the development of distinct abilities to improve organizational functioning in virtual and remote work environments ( Roman et al., 2019 ).

Before the COVID-19, teleworking was steadily growing globally across many sectors. The pandemic accelerated this process and now companies must operate with employees having to work in places different from the traditional workplace through teleworking. In fact, teleworking was popular even before the pandemic ( He et al., 2020 ) and the infrastructure for teleworking already existed. Hence, the adoption of this working style has been relatively easy for several companies ( Béland et al., 2020 ). Tietze and Musson (2005) asserted that the future of work will be “flexible, mobile, temporary and mediated by technology” (p. 1331), that is, by teleworking. Telework, telecommuting, or working remotely is a wide-ranging concept that covers any paid work performed from a distance in any place different from the physical presence in the organization where employees meet organizational objectives through ICTs, sometimes managing their own time under less direct supervision ( Wojcak et al., 2016 ). These employees usually work remotely with autonomy for at least a few days of their labor time ( Nayani et al., 2018 ). However, Bentley (2014) highlighted the importance of delimiting the notion of telework to avoid confusion with employees who work for companies from outside, such as those who work in call centers or as freelance employees.

Opportunities of Teleworking

Teleworking has some potential advantages. Empirical studies have found favorable outcomes of teleworking such as job performance, job satisfaction, lesser work-family imbalance, reduced rates of stress, and lesser turnover intentions ( Kossek et al., 2006 ; Fonner and Roloff, 2010 ; Coenen and Kok, 2014 ; Vega et al., 2015 ). Likewise, Othman et al. (2009) demonstrated the positive effect of teleworking on employees’ work-life balance. Additionally, Azarbouyeh and Naini (2014) stated that teleworking is effective in enhancing the quality of life, whereas, Kazekami (2020) found that teleworking improves employees’ happiness and work satisfaction. However, the benefits are evident where the employees find managerial, peer, and technological support. This support helps reduce any potential negative impacts arising from social isolation, mitigate the work-family conflict, and reduce the stress ( Bentley, 2014 ).

Teleworking can also influence on the reputation and corporate image because green companies are concerned about the environment. Currently, heavy traffic and air contamination are some of the most relevant global issues ( Giovanis, 2018 ). Teleworking is a viable short and long-term solution to improve the quality of air mainly in urban areas while improving the quality of life ( Giovanis, 2018 ). Consequently, the world will witness less contamination because employees do not have to use daily transport, thus saving time and money. Interestingly, the term “telecommuting” was used for the first time in the 1970s to relieve traffic and reduce pollution through flexible and better work-life balance ( Nilles, 1998 ). Another advantage of a highly complex work environment is that companies have access to specialized expertise, regardless of the team members’ location, which allows companies to find more creative solutions to this complex global work environment ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ). Similarly, digitalization, new communication tools, and more availability and speed of information increase the efficiency and process of standardization ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). For employees, teleworking offers more flexibility to deal with family matters because they can work anywhere and anytime, thus improving the family atmosphere ( Fedakova and Ištoňová, 2017 ), and the autonomy to manage time allows them to harmonize their personal and work duties ( Wojcak et al., 2016 ). Hence, it increases job opportunities for women and employees with disability ( Morgan, 2004 ).

Furthermore, work autonomy through free choice to directly influence one’s working time, place, and methods is associated with higher productivity ( Pavlova, 2019 ). Moreover, in their meta-analysis of 46 studies Gajendran and Harrison (2007) showed that telecommuting lowers turnover intentions and stress. The absence of an immediate supervisor and a less formal working atmosphere reduces the work stress for employees. Moreover, teleworking helps employees create their own rhythm of work and prevents distractions from other employees ( Kłopotek, 2017 ). Additionally, it decreases the individual and organizational burdens of absenteeism because it allows employees to fulfill their work obligations even in times when there is trouble reaching the office, allowing employees to fulfill their duties ( Nakrošienė et al., 2019 ). Indeed, these advantages contribute to greater organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and well-being.

Risks of Teleworking

Some risks posed by teleworking must be considered, namely, social isolation from work teams ( Pyoria, 2011 ). Social isolation leads to employees being disconnected from the working environment leading to lower performance and gradual demotivation ( Wojcak et al., 2016 ; Fedakova and Ištoňová, 2017 ). Long-term isolation has adverse effects on employees’ performance and increases turnover intention, family-work and work-family conflict ( Golden et al., 2008 ). In work-to-family conflict individuals are hindered to meet role demands in their private life because of work demands while in the family-to-work conflict, they can be hindered to meet their private roles because of home demands. Their study also empirically revealed that volition, perceived work pressure and perceived home pressure are all relevant for understanding employees’ work-to-home conflict rather than home-to-work conflict and work-home practices to be beneficial employees should not feel pressure to either use or not use offered practices ( Delanoeije and Verbruggen, 2019 ). Furthermore, as Cooper and Kurland (2002) indicate teleworking reduces the learning benefits that people enjoy when working in the same workplace. Moreover, teleworking requires greater organizational skills ( Kłopotek, 2017 ); it is suitable for only self-organized people who are successful in time allocation. On the one hand, teleworking can lead to anxiety among employees about the possible shrinking of career prospects owing to reduced visibility ( Maruyama and Tietze, 2012 ), and unfortunately the advantages of teleworking come at the cost of intensified work. Therefore, a commonly cited concern of managers regarding teleworking is the possibility of decreased job performance. In other words, the lack of trust in employees’ ability and willingness to perform at the same level compared with what they could attain if they were to work with their manager in the same place ( Kaplan et al., 2018 ). Digital environments have some common problems, such as email/data overload, employees’ alienation, weak social relationships, poor accountability in teams, low trust, insufficient technological skills, and an inability to influence change based on commitment ( Van Wart et al., 2019 ).

Finally, telework raise ethical concerns for e-leaders, such as exploitation of employees with work and information overload that overlap with domestic and work settings, resulting in an intrusion into employees’ personal life ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ; Gálvez et al., 2020 ). Although teleworking gives individuals greater autonomy in terms of time and space, the simultaneous use of different normative control mechanisms under the guise of autonomy leads to work intensification and extra burden to employees. This obscure control mechanism results in greater self-regulation and promotes greater work efforts from employees ( Bathini and Kandathil, 2019 ). Moreover, individuals who are grateful for the flexibility provided by teleworking make greater effort and achieve higher performance, ending up with a higher sacrifice than with traditional working methods ( Putnam et al., 2014 ). Table 1 shows the main reported findings of opportunities and risks of teleworking.

Table 1. Opportunities and risks of teleworking.

Management, Leadership and Telework Environments

Leadership has several definitions; however, generally leadership can be defined as an influence process to achieve organizational goals. In the traditional work environment, this influence is exerted by not only formal leaders but also employees without formal authority (informal leadership). In teleworking, the influence of formal leaders is more obvious. They must influence to build effective and functional virtual teams to reach organizational goals. Before analyzing the concept of leadership in virtual environments, this study makes the following propositions supported in the literature on leadership: (1) there is no leader without followers; (2) one can be considered a leader only when people recognize him or her as such; (3) leadership can be considered an interactive process of social influence and it is based on relationships; and (4) as a result of effective leadership, employees make their best effort to accomplish organizational goals. Hence, in addition to the formal authority, leaders must develop the ability to influence others to get work done.

Beyond the polemic and the unfinished debate about whether leadership and management should be conceived as the same construct ( Mintzberg, 2009 ) or distinct ( Kotterman, 2006 ), in teleworking the role between one and the other appears more distinct than in traditional workplaces. Teleworking brings more challenges for leaders than managers. In other words, teleworking is more feasible and even improves the efficiency of the traditional role of management (i.e., planning, budgeting, control and establishing administrative procedures) than exerting effective leadership (i.e., influence others to achieve organizational goals) through electronic devices. According to Nayani et al. (2018) , both leadership and management are equally important in teleworking. However, adapting traditional leadership practices to a technologically mediated environment is more complicated ( Pulley and Sessa, 2001 ). A distributed workforce must be led by adopting new and more complex methods in communication, performance management, training, and relationship building ( Flood, 2019 ).

From the management perspective, teleworking can be favored by flatter and more decentralized structures ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). The increase in connectivity within the companies in addition to information availability contributes to diminishing hierarchies and organizational boundaries, leading to companies working by projects more than traditional activities and thus, employees participate in the creation of value for the companies ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). Owing to information availability, the power of the company tends to be more distributed and less centralized, involving employees in the decision-making process. This participative decision-making helps leaders analyze and prioritize relevant information from the large amount of available data, respond faster and more innovatively for better decision making ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). Darics (2020) highlighted that in a remote work environment, management and leadership functions are combined and managers must manage performance and implement solutions when needed and create and maintain a team identity by establishing and sharing a vision, corporate values, and organizational goals into a trusting working environment. Moreover, in teleworking, considering a reduction in the social and interpersonal distance, leaders should be more democratic with access to information and willing to keep an open communication ( Montgomery et al., 2016 ). In this context, the adaptive structuration theory ( DeSanctis and Poole, 1994 ) suggests that many organizational phenomena including organizational leadership transform when interacting with Advanced Information Technologies (AITs). From this approach, AITs mediate leadership influence and create an integrated mechanism of leadership and management. In fact, from a management perspective, AITs can have various purposes, including sharing information, planning, record keeping, or data analysis. From a leadership perspective, effective leaders at e-leadership positions are successful when they can use various AITs to achieve greater performance, enhance employees’ job satisfaction while reducing the rates of turnover ( Montgomery et al., 2016 ).

E-Leadership and Its Conceptualization

Electronic or e-leadership is not just an extension of traditional leadership but also implies a crucial change in how leaders and followers relate to each other within the organizations and with stakeholders ( Avolio and Kahai, 2003 ), making it imperative for leaders to change their practices ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ). Kahai et al. (2013) asserted that scholars should go beyond traditional leadership theories to explain the role of leaders and leadership in remote work environments. E-leadership implies the development of distinct abilities to improve organizational functioning in virtual work environments ( Roman et al., 2019 ). For e-leaders, the known social skills, such as the characteristics of effective face-to-face communication may not be enough to lead in virtual environments, where these characteristics must be complemented with the skills to manage various virtual communications platforms. However, Liu et al. (2020) asserted that many propositions used in generic leadership theories can be applied to e-leadership. This premise should be tested to build a genuine theory of e-leadership. Dulebohn and Hoch (2017) highlighted the need for developing a new theory and conducting empirical research to help organizations in designing, structuring, and managing virtual teams.

Cortellazzo et al. (2019) state that there is no shared approach to study and theorize about this phenomenon. However, because e-leadership is a multidimensional phenomenon, it should be studied from different disciplines, avoiding fragmented knowledge, and from different levels of analysis: macro (e-leadership and organization) and micro (e-leader’s skills and leading virtual teams). Thus, as asserted by Liu et al. (2020) , e-leadership is an important trend not only for the rapid progress in technology and its application during the pandemic but also presents a challenge for companies to adopt the technology, that is, to benefit from its advantages. These authors stated that if this process is not well addressed by leaders and used only to impose mandates, e-leadership could increase alienation and chaos. Up to now, hybrid teleworking (work from home few days a week) appears to provide the best balance between remote work flexibility and benefits of working face to face with management and coworkers. However, more evidence is needed ( Bentley, 2014 ). Supporting this view, a study conducted in Australia on teleworking, productivity results showed that employees preferred a maximum of 1–3 days away from the office as the most feasible telework arrangement ( Bosua et al., 2017 ).

Some years ago, e-leadership was described as an ineludible challenge for companies ( Esguerra and Contreras, 2016 ). The “quiet revolution,” as named by Avolio and Kahai (2003) , occurred to companies much earlier. Being prepared for virtual work environments was a priority to respond to a globalized world immersed in the digital era. Now during the pandemic and onward, it is crucial for business survival. Thus, e-leadership will be a relevant challenge that companies must face for success and sustainability. E-leadership is an irreversible trend that is here to stay.

Leadership as a field of study has largely focused on organizations where employees are working on site. Studies on leadership and teleworkers are scarce. Avolio et al. (2014) stated that the study of e-leadership is in the early stage of development. Van Wart et al. (2019) asserted that the study on how the current digital revolution is changing the relationship between leaders and followers has been modest. Interestingly, though, from 2001 to date, there are 102 published articles related to e-leadership in the Web of Science Core Collection. Of these, only 32 papers included the term e-leadership in their title. In their seminal work, Avolio et al. (2000) defined e-leadership “as a social influence process mediated by AIT to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations” (p.617). Similarly, Al-jedaibi (2001) explained e-leadership as the kind of leadership in the e-environment context where work is mediated by information technologies, especially the Internet. However, the leader is not necessarily a “tech guru.” He or she only should know how to benefit from high technology and lead efficiently through technology. Gurr (2004) also focused on e-leadership and claimed that technology-mediated environments require unique leaders who are good at coping with complexity. They should establish a suitable social climate with sustained communication and can demonstrate exemplary interpersonal skills through related technology. Recently, Cortellazzo et al. (2019) stated that in spite of the advances, there is no well-established and consensual definition of e-leadership.

Cowan (2014) proposed that effective e-leadership should be characterized by building trust with each member of the team and establishing a virtual “presence” preventing distance from becoming a barrier. Similarly, e-leaders should address the teams’ social-emotional needs and their members and promote healthy teams through interactions. E-leaders should develop effective communication skills, that is, select a suitable communication tool, provide relevant and contextual communication considering possible cultural differences, provide positive feedback to the teams, and recognize their performance. Nayani et al. (2018) asserted that besides high levels of instrumental support and competent communication, leaders should promote trust using motivational language. More recently, Roman et al. (2019) asserted that effective e-leaders should communicate clearly, promote adequate social interactions, know how to use the technological media, be able to build responsible teams, inspire change, and develop trust virtually. Van Wart et al. (2019) defined e-leadership as “…the effective use and blending electronic and traditional methods of communication. It implies an awareness of current ICTs, selective adoption of new ICTs for oneself and the organization, and technical competence in using those ICTs selected.” (p.83). According to the authors, effective e-leadership is not only use of ICTs but also implies that when this media offers the best advantages, select the most appropriate one, based on the needs, using face-to-face communication channels where more appropriate, integrating distance and non-distance methods, according to the purposes.

Van Wart et al. (2019) conceptualized e-leadership as the effective use and blending of electronic and traditional methods of communication and proposed the definition of e-leadership through the following competencies that should be empirically tested: (1) Communication skills (communication clarity, avoidance of miscommunication, management of communication flow), (2) Social skills (leaders’ support), (3) Team building skills (encompassing team motivation, team accountability, and team member recognition), (4) Change management skill (covering change techniques), (5) Technological skills (correct use of relevant ICTs, blending traditional and virtual methods, technological knowledge, and technological security) and (6) Trustworthiness (sense of trust, honesty, consistency, follow-through, fairness, integrity, work-life balance, and support of diversity).

In virtual or remote work environments, leaders should demonstrate a more inclusive leadership style ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). For e-leaders, the social skills, such as the characteristics of effective face-to-face communication, may not suffice to lead in virtual environments ( Roman et al., 2019 ). Cortellazzo et al. (2019) highlighted that e-leaders should develop a communication where employees feel free to present their ideas, allowing them to participate in the decision-making process and encourage autonomy, collaboration, and responsibility, and promoting a positive organizational environment with their leadership. In this new work environment, information is more visible and easier to share, allowing employees to be more independent in their work. Thus, companies not only benefit from employees’ good performance but reduce the need to supervise them ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ).

In this regard, Roman et al. (2019) defined e-communication as the ability to communicate properly through ICTs, avoiding errors or excesses that affect good performance. This ability is marked by the use of an appropriate tone, providing clear messages to employees through the right communication media. These authors also suggested that this process involves technical issues, such as selecting the best method to communicate considering the richness of the tool, the receiver’s preferences, and decide upon the use of synchronous or asynchronous methods. With regard to the use of synchronous or asynchronous methods, both temporary forms of communication offer advantages. For example, asynchronous communication allows a continuous flow of information ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ). Additionally, Cortellazzo et al. (2019) highlighted the importance of maintaining clear norms of communication, having regular interaction with the teams, providing positive feedback, avoiding ambiguous messages, and conducting good supervision of each member’s contribution. In contrast, deficient communication from leaders may lead to unknown situations, leaving employees with a feeling of helplessness ( Wojcak et al., 2016 ). The e-social environment is the second important property of e-leadership ( Roman et al., 2019 ), that is, creating a positive work atmosphere with a sense of connectedness with the group to increase communication and collaboration through digital communication methods. Through e-social characteristics of e-leadership, isolation among team members can be successfully prevented ( Walther and Bazarova, 2008 ). Furthermore, the e-change property refers to the e-leaders’ capability of making noteworthy changes required for adaptation of AITs. While the e-team property of e-leadership is about a leader’s capabilities in creating accountable, satisfied, and efficient teams in virtual business environments, e-technological skills are also important e-leadership properties. It is the competency of an e-leader to be aware of novel technologies, being able to keep up with relevant technological developments, and embracing high-level cyber security ( Roman et al., 2019 ).

Finally, another important characteristic of e-leadership is the capacity to innovate. E-leaders should be able to identify the need for change and promote innovation in their organizations and teams ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). However, e-leaders must be careful that these continuous changes do not disrupt the company’s focus and its mission. Therefore, these leaders should be flexible, innovative, have clarity about the organization’s goals ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). Table 2 presents the main issues related to e-leadership.

Table 2. Main issues about e-leadership.

E-Leadership, Teleworking and Virtual Teams

As mentioned before, teleworking is a new form of work organization that gained ground in most organizations around the world due to the pandemic, increasing distance in the interpersonal relations in the work environment. This way of working offers huge opportunities to companies, but a huge challenge to leaders who have to lead an environment of boundaryless work through technology. This challenge implies that both leaders and followers develop technical competencies to facilitate the monitoring, coordination, and alignment of work through novel technology-supported structures, in order to diminish barriers ( Alfehaid and Mohamed, 2019 ). For this purpose, e-leaders have to be competent with the latest ICTs ( Groysberg, 2014 ) E-leaders not only have the responsibility to adopt internet-based computer technologies in their organizations but also have to create awareness regarding these technologies to make teleworking possible and convenient ( Van Wart et al., 2019 ).

To take advantage of the possibilities that teleworking offers, companies cannot be led in the same way as has been done traditionally. De Vries et al. (2019) indicates that hierarchical forms of leadership are less suitable in virtual work environments. Traditional leadership is supported in social influence mechanisms. However, in virtual environments this influence is mediated by computer technologies producing changes in behaviors, emotions, thoughts, and performance of workers ( Van Wart et al., 2019 ). In remote work settings, e-leaders cannot be oriented to organize fragmented tasks; they have to be close to their employees reducing the negative impact that produces the physical and psychological distances ( Stokols et al., 2009 ). Similarly, Maciel et al. (2017) stated that effective e-leadership encourages the performance in teleworking by minimizing the distance between the organization and its employees and brings the organization and its customers closer with the help of high technology. To reach that, e-leaders have to develop trust in their relationships, allowing greater exchange of ideas; they encourage information flow, and generate creative solutions ( Avolio et al., 2014 ). Likewise, findings of Panteli et al. (2019) showed that e-leaders boost employees’ work engagement through effective use of resources and their attitude of development, support, and nourishment. These properties are helpful in contexts characterized by greater geographic distance, diversity, some ambiguity, and unfamiliarity with remote working. Moreover, through the delegation and the effective provision of feedback, e-leaders develop and support their spatially dispersed and sometimes, socially distanced employees. As Kahai et al. (2013) suggest e-leaders with their behaviors can relieve the potential problems of teleworking such as the greater physical and social distance that makes social interactions difficult. Even though in the related literature most of the researchers are focused on the importance of e-leaders to provide emotional and technological support to their employees ( Friedman and Westring, 2015 ; Bentley et al., 2016 ), some noteworthy studies are focused on the need to provide ergonomics support to the employee’s home office which, in turn, has been related to talent retention of teleworkers ( Eversole et al., 2012 ; Allen et al., 2015 ).

Virtual team is an attendant concept of e-leadership ( DasGupta, 2011 ). An important challenge for e-leaders is to build effective, autonomous, interdependent ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ), and committed virtual teams ( Politis, 2014 ) for which trust is crucial. Virtual teams include members who are geographically dispersed but working together in an interdependent task through electronic means with low face-to-face interaction ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ). Diverse virtual teams have the challenge of coordinating tasks across different locations, time zones, and cultures ( Siebdrat et al., 2014 ). In fact, managing a distributed workforce creates heightened leadership challenges ( Hoegl and Muethel, 2016 ). The inclusion of digital media in the companies, affects their design of work and the way employees work together in effective virtual teams ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). Because of the pandemic, e-leadership is required more than face-to-face leadership. However, in the future, virtual teams would persist due to the opportunities they offer. Regardless of the leadership style, similar to in person, leaders of virtual teams should articulate and communicate the vision with passion, shaping a culture based on organizational values; however, the method is still unclear. Even in developed countries, there is a lack of knowledge of e-leadership skills needed to address successful virtual teams in complex work processes ( Liu et al., 2020 ). Thus, how e-leaders can build effective virtual teams is a relevant challenge to the leadership field.

Leading virtual teams effectively offer enormous competitive advantages for the companies. The possibility of building effective teams consisting of people with different experiences, from diverse cultures and knowledge of different fields, regardless of the time and distance, is enormous. Nayani et al. (2018) explained that although distributed workers are diverse, they share common work characteristics of temporospatial distance from coworkers, managers, and leaders. A virtual environment provides opportunities to interact and establish connections with people around the world ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). Malhotra et al. (2007) claimed that this possibility allows thinking globally and acting locally, showing the creative capacity of such a virtual team. However, because the national culture impacts leadership ( Dorfman and House, 2004 ), the geographical dispersion and cultural diversity between team members can be a barrier to building trust within the teams ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ). Indeed, the physical distance and cultural diversity threaten trust building among the team members, affecting their commitment and cohesion ( Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014 ). In this regard, e-leaders should develop intercultural competences to communicate adequately with team members and build trust through interrelationship. A virtual team leader should develop cross-cultural skills to understand different cultures, their similarities, and differences ( Schwarzmüller et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, there is a need for further research on the impact of culture on e-leadership ( Cowan, 2014 ). Under effective e-leadership, such diversity in the teams increases the members’ innovative behavior and will influence the companies’ innovation. In this regard, more than traditional leaders, e-leaders should lead diversity if they must leverage the advantage offered by virtual teams. In this regard, Gupta and Pathak (2018) asserted that team members’ heterogeneity promotes creativity and innovation through a combination of various perspectives to achieve an objective. Another important challenge for e-leaders is to recruit, retain, reward, and motivate globally talented employees to maintain their competitive advantage in the globalized world ( Avolio et al., 2014 ).

Similar to traditional teams, leading a virtual team requires leadership and management skills. As Nayani et al. (2018) asserted, organizations should ensure occupational safety and health of teleworkers through appropriate management (i.e., systems, procedures, and practices) and effective leadership practices. However, there is a paucity of research in this field and its results are fragmented. Leading virtual teams has an additional challenge because leaders should ensure that each team member is committed to the project and gives the best according to his or her expertise ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ). Recently, Schwarzmüller et al. (2018) highlighted that e-leaders should develop tolerance to the ambiguity and be creative in establishing the organizational structures and processes that assure that all members of virtual teams are working for the shared objective. Supporting this view, Darics (2020) claimed that e-leaders have two important roles: (1) managing performance and implementing novel solutions to work-related problems, and (2) creating and maintaining group identity by establishing a shared mission, vision, values, and goals. Thus, Malhotra et al. (2007) proposed six leadership practices to have successful virtual teams: (1) establish and maintain the thrust through technology; (2) appreciate and understand the diversity; (3) manage the work-life cycle well through meetings; (4) monitor progress of teamwork; (5) enhance the visibility of the team members (within and outside of the team), and (6) allow individual members to avail of the benefits from the teamwork.

Jones and O’shea (2004) stated that the hierarchical leadership approaches in e-teams have limitations in terms of providing flexibility to group members during the process of collaboration. In virtual environments, e-leaders should distribute the leadership well within the teams. This allows teams to shape their own leadership style and promote the collective development of leadership ( Gupta and Pathak, 2018 ). However, sharing leadership does not exclude the formal leader figure but assumes that any member can lead the team, follow up, and make the best decision for the team ( Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ). Through shared leadership, not just the team leader but also team members take responsibility and assume authority to consider both their own spheres of work and the entire project ( Hoegl and Muethel, 2016 ). Shared leadership promotes team members’ identification within the group and initiates action flows for goal achievement. However, for shared leadership, the leader should realize and appreciate members’ potential and willingness to assume the responsibility of a few leadership duties ( Hoegl and Muethel, 2016 ). Finally, communication in virtual teams is more complex than in traditional teams that use face-to-face communication. In most virtual teams, e-leaders should communicate and work asynchronously through AITs. Hence, time and space separation in virtual teams create important challenges for leaders by demanding extra leadership competencies in ensuring and promoting organizational management ( Fan et al., 2014 ). Given that the coordination of virtual teams for task accomplishment, responsibility, and knowledge sharing is done through telecommunication technologies, sometimes there may be distortion in information interpretation leading to misunderstandings and employee demotivation. Thus, e-leaders should be highly competent in their verbal communications to motivate their employees ( Fan et al., 2014 ). Virtual team leaders should avoid employees’ feeling of isolation and promote team cohesion. This implies adequate establishment of norms of collaboration, knowledge sharing, recognition, and rewarding the teams and their members ( Malhotra et al., 2007 ) to be “present” socially and emotionally ( Cowan, 2014 ).

Conclusion and Propositions for Further Studies

The pandemic has increased the need to augment our knowledge on how to lead effectively and build highly functional virtual teams. Despite being recognized much earlier, there is limited knowledge on e-leadership and no theory specific to such leadership. It is unclear whether the current knowledge on leadership can be applied to e-leadership. Similarly, results from various studies on the effectiveness of e-leadership and its effects on employees have been inconclusive. There is some consensus that leaders should consider giving the opportunity to some employees to telework when the job or the task can be done out of the workplace and to avail of the benefits of this mode of work. Thus, as a result of applied research, it is imperative to create profiles of eligibility to telework. In other words, people who can leverage the advantage of working remotely must establish different levels of attendance based on the work or task (e.g., once a week, some days a week, or full-time).

The revised literature highlighted the importance of achieving a better understanding of the effects of teleworking on employees’ well-being and organizational performance. Currently, due to the pandemic, there is a huge global interest in studying this topic from the perspective of both practitioners and researchers. It is needed to conduct studies that rigorously examined teleworking and e-leadership and the reasons for success and even for the failures to learn more about how to manage this new way to work. However, there is a paucity of knowledge on the outcomes of such a method of work, and its results have been inconclusive. For example, Narayanan et al. (2017) mentioned that companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo, and Best Buy reduced the hours of teleworking and asked workers to return to the traditional workplace. Case studies are needed to understand these failed experiences.

Finally, one of the main weaknesses in the studies of teleworking and e-leadership is their methodology, small samples are not representative, and robust theoretical foundations are scarce. It is important to improve methodological rigor for acquiring reliable and valid data. More than descriptive or correlational studies are necessary. More experimental and quasi-experimental studies are needed as well as more longitudinal studies and mixed methods for better comprehension of the phenomena.

Due to the availability of a global workforce, it is important to conduct cross-cultural studies and analyze the role of e-leadership and cultural differences. As Narayanan et al. (2017) suggested, research should be conducted on psychology and sociology and topics such as social isolation, group, and team behavior and management practices in teleworking. How to promote trust through organizational culture and leadership should be examined. At the individual level, research on psychology should be conducted to understand the personality, qualities, skills, and cognitive needs of those employees who are more suitable to work remotely and conduct financial research for the cost-benefit analysis of teleworking. Liu et al. (2020) and Cortellazzo et al. (2019) suggested that a theory of e-leadership, sharing approaches, and theorizing about this phenomenon is needed. Finally, based on Nayani et al. (2018) , the teleworkers’ health is another promising line of research that should be developed through robust conceptual frameworks and rigorous methods.

In sum, from the theoretical perspective, further studies should help to build a theory of e-leadership that is common for all researchers in this topic. In this way, findings around the world can be contrasted, which will contribute to building a solid body of knowledge of how to lead in virtual environments. These studies will help also e-leaders to develop their intercultural competencies to lead in global environments. Likewise, the methodology of empirical studies should be strengthened to conduct research in controlled settings (research in a laboratory) making relevant contributions that explain how to successfully lead in virtual environments. In fact, the body of knowledge that will continue to be built in the next years will allow to identify and test the competencies that need to be developed by e-leaders in order to be effective as leaders and efficient as managers in this new way of work, which apparently will be kept to varying degrees once the pandemic is overcome. As a result of these studies, leaders can be trained and human resource managers can be guided in order to increase organizational performance while improving the employees’ well-being in a healthy work environment.

Author Contributions

FC was engaged in the investigation, literature search and selection, writing original draft, preparation, and finishing the last version. EB was involved in investigation, literature search and selection, contribution to the original draft, and contribution to the last version. GA was engaged in investigation, literature search and selection, contribution to the original draft, and contribution to the last version. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for financial assistance for proofreading service provided by the Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.

Alfehaid, L., and Mohamed, E. E. (2019). Understanding the influence of E-leadership on Virtual Team Performance Empirical Study. Int. J. Bus. Appl. Soc. Sci. 5, 21–36. doi: 10.33642/ijbass.v5n10p3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-jedaibi, H. K. (2001). Determining how information technology is changing the role of leadership in virtual organization. Wisconsin: The Graduate College University Of Wisconsin-Stout.

Google Scholar

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., and Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 16, 40–68. doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Avolio, B. J., and Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the “E” to E-Leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organiz. Dynamics 31, 325–338. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00133-X

Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., and Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Leaders. Quart. 11, 615–668. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., and Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leaders. Quart. 25, 105–131. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003

Azarbouyeh, A., and Naini, S. (2014). A study on the effect of teleworking on quality of work life. Manage. Sci. Lett. 4, 1063–1068. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2014.5.027

Bathini, D. R., and Kandathil, G. M. (2019). An orchestrated negotiated exchange: Trading home-based telework for intensified work. J. Bus. Ethics 154, 411–423. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3449-y

Béland, L. P., Brodeur, A., and Wright, T. (2020). “The short-term economic consequences of Covid-19: exposure to disease, remote work and government response,” in IZA Institute of labor economics Discussion Papers, No. 13159 , (Bonn: IZA Institute of labor economics).

Bennis, W. G. (2009). On becoming a leader. New York: Basic Books.

Bentley, T. (2014). How can organisations realize the positive benefits of ‘anywhere working’? Hum. Resour. Magaz. 2014, 8–11.

Bentley, T., Teo, S., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., and Gloet, M. (2016). The role of organizational support in teleworker wellbeing: a socio-technical systems approach. Appl. Ergonom. 52, 207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019

Bosua, R., Kurnia, S., Gloet, M., and Moza, A. (2017). “Telework Impact on Productivity and Well-Being,” in Social Inclusion and Usability of ICT-Enabled Services , eds J. Choudrie, S. Kurnia, and P. Tsatsou (New York: Routledge), 201. doi: 10.4324/9781315677316

Bouziri, H., Smith, D. R., Descatha, A., Dab, W., and Jean, K. (2020). Working from home in the time of Covid-19: how to best preserve occupational health? Occupat. Environ. Med. 77, 509–510. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2020-106599

Coenen, M., and Kok, R. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: the role of telework and flexible work schedules. Eur. Manage. J. 32, 564–576. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.003

Cooper, C. D., and Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 511–532. doi: 10.1002/job.145

Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., and Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review. Front. Psychol. 10:1938. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938

Cowan, L. D. (2014). E-Leadership: Leading in a virtual environment-guiding principle for nurse leaders. Nurs. Econom. 32, 312–322.

Darics, E. (2020). E-leadership or “How to be boss in Instant Messaging?”. The role of nonverbal communication. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 57, 3–29. doi: 10.1177/2329488416685068

DasGupta, P. (2011). Literature review: e-Leadership. Emerg. Leaders. Journeys 4, 1–36. doi: 10.1109/tmag.2013.2278570

De Vries, H., Tummers, L., and Bekkers, V. (2019). The benefits of teleworking in the public sector: reality or rhetoric? Rev. Public Person. Administr. 39, 570–593. doi: 10.1177/0734371X18760124

Delanoeije, J., and Verbruggen, M. (2019). The Use of Work-Home Practices and Work-Home Conflict: Examining the Role of Volition and Perceived Pressure in a Multi-Method Study. Front. Psychol. 10:2362. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02362

DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organiz. Sci. 5, 121–147. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.2.121

Dorfman, P., and House, R. (2004). “Cultural influences on organizational leadership,” in Cultural leadership and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies , eds R. House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, and V. Gupta (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 51–73.

Dulebohn, J. H., and Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 27, 569–574. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004

Esguerra, G. A., and Contreras, F. (2016). Liderazgo electrónico, un reto ineludible para las organizaciones de hoy. Estudios Gerenciales 32, 262–268. doi: 10.1016/j.estger.2016.08.003

Eversole, B. A., Venneberg, D. L., and Crowder, C. L. (2012). Creating a flexible organizational culture to attract and retain talented workers across generations. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 14, 607–625. doi: 10.1177/1523422312455612

Fan, K. T., Chen, Y. H., Wang, C. W., and Chen, M. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual teams: Motivating language perspective. Indust. Manage. Data Syst. 114, 421–437. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-07-2013-0294

Fedakova, D., and Ištoňová, L. (2017). Slovak IT-employees and new ways of working: impact on work-family borders and work-family balance. Ceskoslovenska Psychol. 61, 68–83.

Felstead, A., and Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work−life balance. N. Technol. Work Employ. 32, 195–212. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12097

Flood, F. (2019). “Leadership in the remote, freelance, and virtual workforce era,” in Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance , ed. A. Farazmand (Lake Frederick, VA: Springer), 1–5. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3825-1

Fonner, K. L., and Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 38, 336–361. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2010.513998

Friedman, S. D., and Westring, A. (2015). Empowering individuals to integrate work and life: insights for management development. J. Manage. Dev. 34, 299–315. doi: 10.1108/JMD-11-2012-0144

Gajendran, R. S., and Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1524. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

Gálvez, A., Tirado, F., and Alcaraz, J. M. (2020). “Oh! Teleworking!”. Regimes of engagement and the lived experience of female Spanish teleworkers. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 29, 180–192. doi: 10.1111/beer.12240

Giovanis, E. (2018). The relationship between teleworking, traffic and air pollution. Atmospher. Poll. Res. 9, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.apr.2017.06.004

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., and Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1412. doi: 10.1037/a0012722

Groysberg, B. (2014). The seven skills you need to thrive in the C-suite. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review.

Gupta, S., and Pathak, G. S. (2018). Virtual team experiences in an emerging economy: a qualitative study. J. Organiz. Change Manage. 31, 778–794. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-04-2017-0108

Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, Leadership in Education and E−leadership. Discour. Stud. Cult. Polit. Educ. 25, 113–124. doi: 10.1080/0159630042000178518

He, S., Lai, D., Mott, S., Little, A., Grock, A., Haas, M. R., et al. (2020). Remote e-work and distance learning for academic medicine: best practices and opportunities for the future. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 12, 256–263. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-20-00242.1

Hoch, J. E., and Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 390–403. doi: 10.1037/a0030264

Hoegl, M., and Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: A practitioners’ guide. Proj. Manage. J. 47, 7–12. doi: 10.1002/pmj.21564

Jones, N., and O’shea, J. (2004). Challenging hierarchies: The impact of e-learning. Higher Educ. 48, 379–395. doi: 10.1023/b:high.0000035560.32573.d0

Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. (2013). “Effects of transformational leadership and media on collaboration and performance in virtual teams,” in Leadership in Virtual Groups: Looking Back and Charting Paths Forward. Symposium Conducted at the Meetings of the Academy of Management , eds N. S. Hill and N. M. Lorinkova (Orlando, FL: Academy of Management).

Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., and Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust in allowing telework: comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. J. Bus. Psychol. 33, 365–382. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9498-5

Kazekami, S. (2020). Mechanisms to improve labor productivity by performing telework. Telecommun Policy 44:101868. doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101868

Kłopotek, M. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of remote working from the perspective of young employees. Organiz. Manage. 4, 39–49. doi: 10.29119/1899-6116.2017.40.3

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., and Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. J. Vocat. Behav. 68, 347–367. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002

Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What’s the difference? J. Qual. Particip. 29, 13–17.

Lambert, A., Cayouette-Remblière, J., Guéraut, É, Le Roux, G., Bonvalet, C., Girard, V., et al. (2020). How the COVID-19 epidemic changed working conditions in France. Popul. Societ. 579, 1–4.

Liu, C., Van Wart, M., Kim, S., Wang, X., McCarthy, A., and Ready, D. (2020). The effects of national cultures on two technologically advanced countries: The case of e−leadership in South Korea and the United States. Aus. J. Public Administ. 79, 298–329. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12433

Maciel, A. G., Carraro, N. C., de Sousa, M. A. B., and Sanches, A. C. (2017). An alise do teletrabalho no Brasil. Rev. Gesta þ o Empresarial 1, 20–33.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., and Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 21, 60–70. doi: 10.5465/amp.2007.24286164

Maruyama, T., and Tietze, S. (2012). From anxiety to assurance: Concerns and outcomes of telework. Person. Rev. 41, 450–469. doi: 10.1108/00483481211229375

Mintzberg, H. (2009). The best leadership is good management. Bloomberg Business week: Online Magazine. Available Online at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-08-06/the-best-leadership-is-good-management (accessed August 06, 2009)

Montgomery, V. A., Roman, A., and Pierce, S. (2016). The rise and effect of virtual modalities and functions on organizational leadership: Tracing conceptual boundaries along the e-management and e-leadership continuum. Transyl. Rev. Administ. Sci. 12, 102–122.

Morgan, R. E. (2004). Teleworking: An assessment of the benefits and challenges. Eur. Bus. Rev. 16, 344–357. doi: 10.1108/09555340410699613

Müller, T., and Niessen, C. (2019). Self−leadership in the context of part−time teleworking. J. Organiz. Behav. 40, 883–898. doi: 10.1002/job.2371

Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., and Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home: Characteristics and outcomes of telework. Int. J. Manpower. 40, 87–101. doi: 10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0172

Narayanan, L., Menon, S., Plaisent, M., and Bernard, P. (2017). Telecommuting: The work anywhere, anyplace, anytime organization in the 21st century. J. Market. Manage. 8, 47–54.

Nayani, R. J., Nielsen, K., Daniels, K., Donaldson-Feilder, E. J., and Lewis, R. C. (2018). Out of sight and out of mind? A literature review of occupational safety and health leadership and management of distributed workers. Work Stress 32, 124–146. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1390797

Nilles, J. M. (1998). Making Telecommuting Happen: A guide for telemanagers and telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Othman, N., Yusef, S. A. M., and Osman, W. R. S. (2009). A conflict between professional vs. domestic life? Understanding the use of ICT in teleworking for balance in work and family units. Comp. Infor. Sci. 2, 3–15.

Panteli, N., Yalabik, Z. Y., and Rapti, A. (2019). Fostering work engagement in geographically-dispersed and asynchronous virtual teams. Infor. Technol. People. 32, 2–17. doi: 10.1108/ITP-04-2017-0133

Pavlova, O. (2019). The impact of flexible working arrangements on competitive advantages of organization. Vilnius Univ. Open Ser. 2019, 55–61. doi: 10.15388/OpenSeries.2019.18404

Politis, J. (2014). “The effect of e-leadership on organisational trust and commitment of virtual teams,” in European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance , (Reading: Academic Conferences International Limited), 254.

Prin, M., and Bartels, K. (2020). Social distancing: Implications for the operating room in the face of COVID-19. Can. J. Anaesthes. 67, 789–797. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01651-2

Pulley, M. L., and Sessa, V. I. (2001). E−leadership: tackling complex challenges. Indust. Commer. Training 33, 225–229. doi: 10.1108/00197850110405379

Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., and Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Hum. Relat. 67, 413–440. doi: 10.1177/0018726713495704

Pyoria, P. (2011). Managing telework: risk, fears and rules. Manage. Res. Rev. 34, 386–399. doi: 10.1108/01409171111117843

Roman, A. V., Van Wart, M., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S., and McCarthy, A. (2019). Defining e−leadership as competence in ICT−mediated communications: An exploratory assessment. Public Administ. Rev. 79, 853–866. doi: 10.1111/puar.12980

Schwarzmüller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D., and Welpe, I. M. (2018). How does the digital transformation affect organizations? Key themes of change in work design and leadership. Manage. Revue 29, 114–138. doi: 10.5771/0935-9915-2018-2-114

Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., and Ernst, H. (2014). Subjective distance and team collaboration in distributed teams. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 31, 765–779. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12122

Stokols, D., Mishra, S., Gould-Runnerstrom, M., and Hipp, J. (2009). Psychology in an age of ecological crisis: From personal angst to collective action. Am. Psychol. 64, 181–193. doi: 10.1037/a0014717

Tietze, S., and Musson, G. (2005). Recasting the home-work relationship: A case of mutual adjustment? Organiz. Stud. 26, 1331–1352. doi: 10.1177/0170840605054619

Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., and Liu, C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: identifying the elements of e-leadership. Int. Rev. Administ. Sci. 85, 80–97. doi: 10.1177/0020852316681446

Vega, R. P., Anderson, A. J., and Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A within-person examination of the effects of telework. J. Bus. Psychol. 30, 313–323. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4

Walther, J. B., and Bazarova, N. N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Commun. Res. 35, 622–645. doi: 10.1177/0093650208321783

Wojcak, E., Bajzikova, L., Sajgalikova, H., and Polakova, M. (2016). How to achieve sustainable efficiency with teleworkers: Leadership model in telework. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 229, 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.111

World Health Organization (WHO) (2020). Getting your workplace ready for COVID-19: How COVID-19 spreads. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available online at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331584 (accessed March 19, 2020).

Keywords : e-leadership, teleworking, COVID-19, virtual teams, remote work environments

Citation: Contreras F, Baykal E and Abid G (2020) E-Leadership and Teleworking in Times of COVID-19 and Beyond: What We Know and Where Do We Go. Front. Psychol. 11:590271. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590271

Received: 31 July 2020; Accepted: 17 November 2020; Published: 11 December 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Contreras, Baykal and Abid. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Francoise Contreras, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Socio-Economic Systems in the Post-Pandemic World: Design Thinking, Strategic Planning, Management, and Public Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The “Way” Toward E-leadership: Some Evidence From the Field

Teresina torre.

1 Department of Economics and Business Studies, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

Daria Sarti

2 Department of Economics and Management, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Recently, leadership literature has faced the challenge of dealing with a growing pervasive diffusion of information and communication technologies that are deeply changing relationships among workers. Consequently, leadership is continuing to develop through the support of these technologies. This emerging phenomenon has been labeled e-leadership, and it has been studied with the objective of understanding the differences it exhibits from traditional leadership. Our research seeks to examine whether enterprises, which use leadership as an important “tool” to manage workers as effectively as possible, are conscious of this evolution, whether their behavior is supportive of the related needs, and how they are organizing themselves to face the problems and opportunities arising in this new context. The present study involved 15 Italian companies. Through in-depth interviews based on face-to-face meetings using a semi-structured questionnaire with enterprises’ representatives, we explored the extent of these changes. We developed the analysis across two points in time in order to verify if a change was observable with regard to the way these enterprises considered and managed e-leadership. It was also possible to enhance the role of the technologies themselves in leadership, which in the same period has seen a rapid evolution toward mobile and social developments. Our results help to illuminate that, on the one hand, awareness with regard to e-leadership has increased and, on the other hand, the pervasiveness of technologies is playing a relevant role in the change of leadership together with renewed attention toward soft competencies. We identify four different typologies of e-leadership, which summarize different ways of conceptualizing it, and indicate their main features. We should add that this topic is becoming extremely relevant because of the critical crises organizations are now facing (such as the COVID-19 emergency we are experiencing at the present time) and the urgency of adopting e-instruments, which seem now to be the main path to managing the present situation and the aftermath it inevitably will have. Despite this research being carried out before such an event has happened, we believe that its results may further enrich the current lively debate.

Introduction

Leadership is a classic topic in the field of management and plays an important role in organizational behavior studies ( Bodega, 2002 ; Knights and Willmott, 2007 ; Slocum and Hellriegel, 2007 ). It can be defined briefly as the process by which a person exerts his/her influence over another individual or group to achieve a common goal, with this influence being exercised in an effective way. In fact, effectiveness is the most important condition of successful leadership within this context ( House et al., 1999 ; Northouse, 2007 ).

In recent decades, the pervasive characteristics of information and communication technologies (ITCs) have changed the way enterprises organize themselves. More specifically, they have permeated the relationship between leaders and followers with an ever-increasing intensity. Therefore, as other authors have suggested ( Avolio et al., 2000 ; Avolio and Kahai, 2003a , b ; Dasgupta, 2011 ; Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ), leadership is currently developing through the “intermediation” of new ICTs, the presence and usage of which call for a change in the way leadership is practiced. These technologies include the internet, the intranet, e-mail, instant messaging, video conferencing systems, groupware systems, text messages, blogs, document sharing, smart apps, and social media ( Avolio et al., 2001 ; Kissler, 2001 ; Zaccaro and Bader, 2003 ; Darics, 2020 ), all of which are now widespread in almost every working context ( Cardon et al., 2019 ; Roman et al., 2019 ).

From the academic point of view, even if the call for the study of the relationship between technology and leadership was initiated quite a long time ago ( Avolio et al., 2001 ), the discussion on how leadership has been affected by the digital revolution has so far not been adequately developed, as it would be reasonable to expect ( Van Wart et al., 2019 ). Indeed, while the practice of e-leadership is expanding enormously ( Van Wart et al., 2016 ) and inevitably, either due to the technology itself or the role leadership is expected to play in organizations, the academic Contribution To The Field is still limited ( Avolio et al., 2014 ; Oh and Chua, 2018 ; Roman et al., 2019 ). In recent years different constructs such as ‘digital leadership’ have been included in the debate and considered as synonymous for e-leadership ( Hüsing et al., 2013 ; Roman et al., 2019 ). Whilst the term e-leadership started to become popular from the early 2000s, the term ‘digital leadership’ is a relatively recent one in the domain investigating the relationship between leadership and new technology at work. Indeed, according to our research carried out on Web of Science (WOS), 67 academic works out of the total 89 papers produced in the last twenty years, were published in the period 2016-2020.

More in-depth analysis is required to reduce the gap between the practices in various organizations and the empirical and theoretical studies on such practices ( Liu et al., 2018 ).

Following the current debate (e.g., Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ; Uhlin and Crevani, 2019 ), our research contributes to the literature on the relationship between leadership and technology at work. Specifically, it aims at facilitating comprehension of the phenomenon of e-leadership and its definition, starting from how enterprises are aware of the change that is taking place, how they approach it, and how this process is unfolding. Consequently, it points to the importance of understanding if and how organizations are preparing themselves to face problems and opportunities that may arise in this new scenario.

In order to pursue our goal, this paper is organized in the following manner. In the second section, we discuss the theoretical framework on which the research is based. We start from the classic definition of leadership, its main features, and its importance; then, the evolution toward so-called e-leadership is described, focusing on the role played by technologies and the related implications. In this part of the paper, specific attention is devoted to virtual teams, the most appropriate context through which to examine how leadership is exercised, to study how the ongoing change is, at the same time, driven and pulled by technologies, and to determine how people participate (or are pushed to participate) in this process. The third part presents the research design: the research questions are introduced, the method is presented, and the sample is described. Representatives from a group of Italian enterprises, chosen based on their interest in the topic, were interviewed at two different times to assess their experience, analyze the changes observed between the two points in time we examined the topic in our enterprises, and understand their view regarding e-leadership. The following section synthesizes the most relevant aspects of the empirical research. First, we underline the ongoing evolution; then, different situations and behaviors in the selected companies are identified and used to support our proposal of an interpretive scheme of the phenomenon, which can be used to classify different steps toward a full and mature e-leadership.

Finally, some suggestions regarding how e-leadership can be characterized are discussed, limitations and some considerations for helpful future research activities are proposed.

Theoretical Framework

It has been acknowledged that leadership represents an important phenomenon in social contexts in general and, of course, in organizations in particular. In this section, we summarize its principal features and its development.

The Evolution of Leadership and Its Relationship With Technologies

In one of the seminal papers on this topic, Avolio et al. (2000) started with the idea that advanced information technologies (AITs)—identified as information technologies with higher levels of basic characteristics and properties of technologies while serving a complementary role to traditional technology—are enabling a new way of working. As research has indicated, leadership is affected by technological change such that the new construct of leadership is more accurately expressed as “leadership in a connected world” ( Johnson, 1998 ), a world where information is disseminated and increases quickly, where time and space are no longer limitations, and where different ways of communicating are continuously developing. In such a context, leadership—which essentially concerns relationships—is transforming. This is occurring first of all because:

• • communication uses more and more technological tools;
• • information is shared through new technologies, which condition the process of collection, storage, analysis, interpretation, and diffusion of information itself;
• • it develops networks that go beyond traditional organizational boundaries, creating new and unexpected relationships.

As a result of these considerations, it has been suggested that “this change requires a significant adaptation on the part of leadership in organizations […], where work is mediated by AITs” ( Avolio et al., 2000 , p. 615). It has also been underlined that research on leadership must address the new problems arising in the organizational context.

Expanding on this point, Avolio et al. explained that AITs include any tools or techniques capable of promoting multiparty participation through an advanced system of information and knowledge management. Therefore, the authors state (and this is crucial in our perspective) that the effects of technologies are conditioned more by the way they are managed by users rather than by the characteristics of the technology itself ( Avolio et al., 2001 ). The adaptive structuration theory (AST)—which was proposed in the 1990s and grounded on Giddens’ structuration theory—develops a model that emphasizes the social dimension in the interaction between people and AITs. This particular model is based on the fact that a clear idea of the process of organizational development requires the co-evolution of agents and technology ( DeSanctis and Poole, 1994 ; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001 ; Jones and Karsten, 2008 ).

Therefore, while technological change affects the behavior of people, their way of thinking, and their engagement ( Wellman et al., 1996 ), organizational structures, including leadership, which is recognized as one of the most important organizational factors, transforms as a result of the interaction with AITs ( Avolio and Kahai, 2003b ).

From the individual perspective and according to the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) ( Venkatesh et al., 2003 , 2016 ), the decision to use a new technology by a worker depends on the intention to use it that he/she has in organizational contexts. This intention is influenced by four key factors and four moderators (including two individual variables, which are age and gender, and two other personal elements, defined as experience and voluntariness of use). The first of the four factors is performance expectancy , which refers to how a person thinks that using a particular technological support will help to improve his/her performance. The second is effort expectancy , which is derived from the perception of a person about the complexity or the ease of usage of the technological support. The third is social influence , indicating the degree to which an individual perceives the opinions of others as important for his/her decision in adopting the new system—and, evidently, the point of view of the leader has an important effect. The fourth is related to the facilitating conditions that are defined as the extent to which a person thinks that the organizational and technical infrastructure can support the use of the system. This perception of support depends in large part on the effort, enacted by organizations, to facilitate the shift toward innovative ways of working, pledging any possible support (e.g., infrastructure and services), and favoring the new leadership “way.”

A leader - who presents herself or himself as an innovator in the use of technology and consequently, creates a positive climate and favorable operational conditions with technology (becoming the advocate to the IT department for any need from one of her/his colleagues about the simple and appropriate usage of available tools) - could easily become an e-leader ( Van Wart et al., 2019 ). In this sense, for example, Neufeld et al. (2007) have demonstrated that charismatic leadership has a positive impact on all organizational factors, which are the facilitating conditions of the UTAUT.

If this is the direction in which organizations have to go, human resource (HR) management also has to evolve. Indeed, it has to follow this change and support the new organizational behaviors arising from it, offering support in understanding how to act within this new context and which competencies are requested ( Lengnick-Hall and Moritz, 2003 ; Bergum, 2009 ; Parry and Tyson, 2011 ). It is also crucial to face the potential “disrupting” role of ICT in HR functions, selecting the right set of new technological tools ( Sivathanu and Pillai, 2018 ) and becoming a valuable supporter of the leadership transformation.

Definition of E-leadership

Recently, the practice of leadership in the virtual realm has become an important part of the daily work of managers. The use of new forms of communication technologies together with the geographical expansion of the activities of firms has increased the need to lead people via digital channels ( Darics, 2020 ). Responding to these changes, organizational scholars have introduced the concept of “e-leadership” to refer to those leaders who conduct many of the processes of leadership largely though electronic channels ( Zaccaro and Bader, 2003 ).

Even if it is a relatively recent phenomenon, e-leadership has become a promising research field of interest and it was a prevailing topic until five years ago. A search for literature on this topic was carried out in the Web of Science (WOS) databank for the past two decades, that is from January 2000 to June 2020. We identified English language published studies including the term “e-leadership” in the title. We found 29 articles, 16 proceeding papers - 8 of which were presented in the last 5 years - 3 editorial material, 2 early access papers, 2 meeting abstracts, and 2 reviews. As we were only interested in original full papers, we excluded literature reviews, comments, abstracts, letters, and editorials. One paper from conference proceedings was excluded because a full journal paper on the same study was obtained in the selection procedure. Eight academic articles, 3 proceedings, and 1 early access paper were excluded from our analysis because their theoretical domain was specifically focused on the educational sector and the relationship between students and teachers in the learning process in educational research. Also 2 proceeding papers and 2 articles were excluded because e-leadership was related to issues not specifically focused on the employee-leader relationship but rather on business strategy, commercialization, and customer attraction. In the end, one proceeding paper was excluded because it dealt with e-leadership applied to e-governance at an institutional level. This search process resulted in 19 articles, 10 proceedings, and 1 early access paper in the field of our interest.

Most of the resulting articles stressed the fact that the topic of the interaction of leaders with followers via ICTs had received limited scholarly attention (see, for example, Roman et al., 2019 ; Van Wart et al., 2019 ). Two provided original speculation on the concept and its definition ( Avolio et al., 2000 ; Van Wart et al., 2017 ) which were also later referred to by works in the field (e.g., Liu et al., 2020 ). Other scholars further attempted to operationalize the definition of e-leadership considering it as a competence or a set of competencies (e.g., Jones et al., 2017 ; Roman et al., 2019 ; Van Wart et al., 2019 ) also investigating it in specific sectors, such as public administration (e.g., Bergum, 2015 ) or the navy ( Ch et al., 2020 ).

Quite a good proportion of the studies were also concerned with analyzing e-leadership in relation to the challenge of managing virtual teams ( Cascio and Shurygailo, 2002 ; Zaccaro and Bader, 2003 ; Chang and Lee, 2013 ; Fan et al., 2014 ; Politis, 2014 ; Ibañez-Cubillas and Miranda Pinto, 2019 ).

The first and most often cited definition of e-leadership has been proposed by Avolio et al. (2000) , who also initiated the debate on the topic. In their work, they state that “past leadership research has not focused on issues confronting the leadership in organizations where work is mediated by AIT” (p. 615) and introduce the expression “e-leadership” with the aim—as they write—“to incorporate the new and emergent context for examining leadership” (p. 617). Following in this direction, they recommend that e-leadership be conceptualized as “a social influence process mediated by AITs to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations” (p. 619).

Nearly fifteen years after this seminal study, Avolio et al. (2014) indicated that their original definition of e-leadership may benefit from placing greater emphasis on the importance of the context. Accordingly, they proposed a new version, wherein “e-leadership is defined as a social influence process embedded in both proximal and distal contexts mediated by AITs that can produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and performance” ( Avolio et al., 2014 , p. 107). In this second description of the term, they emphasize that technologies operate at two different levels, including: (i) the proximal level, referring to the context which is the closest to the leader and the follower, and (ii) the distal level, which concerns the entire organizational environment and culture.

Therefore, based on this stream of research, leadership appears to be a process of influence mediated by technologies and specifically embedded in the context to which it refers, enlarging its horizon beyond any proximity, which is no longer necessary due to the effects of distance technology.

Liu et al. (2020) summarize the evolution in the definition of e-leadership by focusing on the scope of technology inclusiveness. They start from a “narrow definition” of the scope that is limited to ICTs only, and in which e-leadership is related to the simple use and blending of electronic and traditional methods of communication. The next step refers to the “broad definition” of e-leadership, which includes both ICTs and AITs, and which considers the use of these technologies as a means of support for the organizational processes of knowledge management and decision-making. In the end, in the “grand definition” they provide, Liu et al. further enlarge the scope of the technological inclusiveness by incorporating AITs as evolving organizational structures. Therefore, e-leadership is thereby considered as virtual communication, knowledge management, and the evolution of the system itself because of technology, leading to a “total leadership system” where a continuous interplay and reciprocal influence exists between leadership and technology.

Another complementary view has been offered by Avolio and Kahai (2003a , b) , who describe e-leadership as “a fundamental change in the way leaders and followers relate to each other within organizations and between organizations” (2003, p. 50). Their account is focused on the relationships among individuals that continue to be the central element in displays of leadership, but as Avolio and Kahai point out, the expected relationships between people working together are completely transformed by AITs. This particular point is argued coherently along with results emerging from other studies on e-leadership. This change produced by technologies calls for alternative styles from those typical of the so-called traditional leadership, which is facilitated by de visu communication based on codes of non-verbal communication and physical presence.

There are some implications of these ideas that have to be considered. The first is the need to develop and manage different communications skills, both in terms of talking and listening. The second is connection to the tools, the level of confidence in their usage, and the capability to finalize the content of the message through the chosen tool. In more detail, the former conditions the latter with respect to the intense usage and development of the tool itself, but the usage of a specific tool also conditions the development of appropriate communication skills, in an evolutionary process of mutual transformation, which reinforces both factors ( Avolio et al., 2014 ).

Van Wart et al. (2019) have more recently proposed a definition of e-leadership which they refer to as a “concrete” and suitable concept for empirical research. Indeed, in doing so, they underline that leaders have to use and blend traditional and innovative tools and styles depending on the different situations that they are in. Furthermore, they have responsibility for the adoption of technologies from their own side as well as that of their colleagues, as suggested by UTAUT with regard to the dimensions of social influence and facilitating conditions. In this line, they suggest that e-leadership is “the effective way and blending of electronic and traditional methods of communication. It implies awareness of current ICTs, selective adoption of new ICTs for oneself, and the organization and technical competence in using those ICTs selected” ( Van Wart et al., 2019 , p. 83).

Following these previous suggestions, in this paper, we consider e-leadership to be:

• • a multidimensional concept characterized by both an individual and an organizational focus and by the capability to concentrate on both the general vision and the details;
• • implies, as usual, a social process through which a leader influences a follower (therefore confirming its constitutional intrinsic nature);
• • mediated by technologies, the role of which is increasing (and so remarking on the inevitable evolution all of us are experiencing in any working and non-working context);
• • a process involving the management of both electronic and traditional methods of communication in an effective and adaptive way (underlying both the coexistence of the two relationships levels and the need for preserving the human dimension), keeping in mind that e-leadership is part of the broader domain of the science and practice of leadership, and that it has to be examined coherently.

As a consequence of the definitions of e-leadership so far considered, effective e-leaders should be individuals who are competent in virtual environments, aware of current ICT tools, capable of choosing them in an appropriate manner, and possess the technical competencies to adopt and use the ICTs selected ( Van Wart et al., 2019 ). They, as well as their own basic communication skills, social skills, team skills, change management skills, and trust building skills, are fundamental to effective e-leadership. In the end, e-leaders should also know how to integrate traditional communication media (e.g., face-to-face communication) with ICTs (e.g., e-mail or videoconferencing). As suggested by Darics (2020) , leading people via digital channels requires the combination of various leadership and management functions. Therefore, leaders facing new technologies have to: (1) identify effective working solutions and management processes; and (2) manage people by creating and maintaining the identity of a team by promoting the organizational mission, vision, and values. These two activities are also defined, respectively, as e-management and e-leadership ( Roman et al., 2019 ). This particular conception draws back to the relationship between leadership and management, which are fundamental and related constructs long debated among scholars engaged in these fields (see, for example, Grint, 2005 ). For the purpose of this work, we consider them to be interrelated insofar as leadership is to be considered as “an integral part of (or embedded in) managerial work” ( Larsson and Lundholm, 2010 , p. 163), which is to say that managing is part of what a leader does when translating leadership visions into day-to-day operations ( Norlyk, 2012 ).

In this perspective, it seems that the traditional debate on contingent leadership effectiveness, according to which leadership style is based on the following two main orientations highlighted by the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale: a relationship-oriented leader, and a task-oriented leader ( Fiedler, 1964 ), can offer an interesting perspective of analysis. We suggest that the first orientation be better described as tasks-technology orientation , while the socio-relational orientation maintains its relevance aimed at promoting mutual trust. We maintain that for the “new way toward leadership,” this taxonomy is still effective, albeit with some soft terminological “adjustments” made. Moreover, in order to overcome the challenge of e-leadership, people in organizations are invited to make sense together of the challenges that they face and participate in leadership at every level. It is our opinion the greatest task involved in implementing an effective e-leadership is to create a culture that allows all the voices of leadership to be heard. It should also be emphasized that, according to these considerations, e-leadership appears as a system working at the organizational level and not simply individually performed.

Virtual Teams and E-leadership

Technological changes have introduced an increase in “virtual” ways of working, as well as in the number of so-called virtual teams in organizations ( Hertel et al., 2005 ; Nydegger and Nydegger, 2010 ). Indeed, the use of the adjective “virtual” to qualify certain teams emphasizes their strong (and often exclusive) dependence on technology. In other words, web communication and mobile technology—both necessary to reduce physical distance among workers involved in the same team—and individual performance in different places and times are all elements describing the features of a “new” team, in contrast to the traditional workgroup characterized by people “physically” interacting with each other ( Avolio et al., 2014 ).

Zigurs (2002) considers a virtual team to be “a collection of individuals who are geographically and/or organizationally dispersed and who collaborate via communication and information technologies in order to accomplish a specific goal” (p. 343). According to Duarte and Snyder (2006) , virtual teams “work without any physical limitation. They normally use collaborative technologies to cut costs and to improve communication and decision timing” ( Jones and Karsten, 2008 ). Accordingly, two necessary conditions for an appropriate definition of a virtual team emerges as follows: (1) the relevance of technologies in facilitating working together; and (2) the distance among the members of the group ( Snellman, 2014 ).

As the role of technologies has already been defined, the question of “distance” calls for a brief analysis. It is indeed considered by many scholars to be one of the basic constituents of virtual teams. For example, Cascio and Shurygailo (2002) proposed a classification of virtual teams based on the location of (one or more) people and on the number of managers involved (one or more), identifying four kinds of work organization, underlining the peculiarity of managing scattered groups, and emphasizing the importance of communication and trust.

Communication is deeply involved in the process of change that the new way of organizing teams produces ( Fan et al., 2014 ). While some scholars point to evidence of the increasing risks of widespread incomprehension among people in the virtual world ( Kayworth and Leindner, 2000 ; Purvanova and Bono, 2009 ), others analyze the different typologies of communication (depending on whether it is more related to the assigned task or to the relationships among colleagues), thereby concluding that task orientation is essential to reinforcing personal relationships in the new technological context ( Hart and McLeod, 2002 ). This has an important implication, as Brunelle (2013) suggests: organizations have to be careful in the selection of supervisors working in such a context, because—as previously demonstrated ( Brunelle, 2009 )—specific characteristics are required to enact leadership in the present time. Brunelle points to the capability to balance distance and face-to-face relationships (understanding when it is necessary to privilege direct contact even if more expensive) and the ability to manage individuality and group membership.

Communication is also at the basis of trust. Trust is necessary to manage a team ( Lewicki and Bunker, 1996 ), and, in the case of a virtual team, it is even more important to be mutual among coworkers in order to be effective. It is not by chance that this aspect represents one of the most studied topics in the field. For example, Cordery et al. (2009) have suggested that trust directly influences the performance of a team and invites leaders to take special care of this particular aspect. Moreover, empirical studies have shown that teams with a high level of trust are able to organize themselves better and become productive more quickly ( Cascio and Shurygailo, 2002 ). Therefore, leaders—or, better, e-leaders—have to encourage the creation and strengthening of reciprocal trust ( Praveen and Prashant, 2013 ) through the careful usage of any tools at their disposal ( Merriman et al., 2007 ).

Empirical Research

Research questions.

Starting from the above framework, with this study we seek to verify whether and how leadership is evolving toward a new approach with respect to the change in technologies and their usage.

Following our definition of e-leadership, we clarify its distinguishing features and organizational orientation toward a supportive attitude to its diffusion as the new inevitable form that leadership has to assume.

In detail, we seek to answer the following questions:

• (i) how do the introduction and diffusion of new technologies influence the leadership system?
• (ii) how can leadership foster the usage of new technologies from the perspective of co-evolution and mutual influence?
• (iii) which new competencies are necessary for e-leaders?
• (iv) what are the roles of the HR and ICT departments in this context?

Case Study Methodology

The empirical data for this study were collected by applying a multiple case study approach ( Cunningham, 1997 ; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007 ; Yin, 2017 ). There were two reasons to support the decision to adopt this methodology: (1) the research scope (understanding the evolution of leadership ), and (2) the research content (the features of this evolution). Regarding the research scope, the case study methodology is consistent with research questions based on “how” and “why” (or the relationship between these two types of questions). Qualitative research is appropriate when the emphasis is on the development of a conceptual framework and the identification of critical factors and other key variables ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Mayan, 2016 ). Thus, regarding the research content, direct contact is essential to understand various elements related to the behavior of people. Multiple cases also allow for the development of a more generalizable and robust theory than a single case ( Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007 ; Dezi et al., 2018 ).

The research was conducted according to the guidelines and suggestions for qualitative methodologies provided in the literature ( Yin, 2017 ). Information was gathered through in-depth interviews based on face-to-face meetings using a semi-structured questionnaire submitted in advance to the recipients, which allowed for comparisons across the selected companies, as suggested by Mayan (2016) .

The research was carried out during the period of September 2019–January 2020. With the intent to implement a longitudinal approach, we reconsidered and verified the primary and secondary information collected during the first phase of the exploratory research on this topic, which was conducted in 2015 with the same 15 companies. At that time, we met with some (three or four) representatives of each enterprise, who were selected for participation with the help of the HR department among those professionals who were informed about the issues of the analysis, as well as those who were “potential e-leaders.” Each interview lasted 30–40 min to obtain an appropriate level of knowledge of the relevant situations; the contents were recorded, transcribed, analyzed, and then used to develop the idea of an evolving approach toward e-leadership. In the second phase, we met with two representatives, one belonging to the HR department and one to the ICT department, with the interviews lasting for approximately 20 min. When necessary, we carried out follow-up correspondence with the firm’s respondents via e-mail and telephone. In addition to the primary data from the interviews, secondary data from documents (such as business publications, corporate presentations, internet-based information, and newspapers) were gathered. We triangulated these data with the primary data, analyzed the results and their coherence, and reinforced the knowledge of each company. The data were analyzed following the protocols for qualitative data analysis. We guaranteed anonymity to our companies, which were classified with numbers from 1 to 15 for the analysis.

Case Selection

From the methodological point of view, the research project was organized through a convenience sample of case studies ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Yin, 2017 ). As first, we needed to discuss the topic in-depth with the interested interviewees, so some availability was considered to be necessary as a prerequisite for consideration. For this reason, we prioritized companies with managers attending thematic workshops specifically concerned with new organizational challenges, such as e-leadership, as an index of specific awareness ( Conner and Ulrich, 1996 ; Caldwell, 2003 ; Nadiv et al., 2017 ). Then, specific criteria for composing the sample were followed, which included: (i) the sector; (ii) the technological consistency; (iii) the dimensions (according to the European definition of small, medium, and large companies); and (iv) the territorial dispersion (indicated by the number of sites and their location, national or international).

Moreover, we decided to limit our analysis to Liguria, a region in northwest Italy, since its socio-economical context was well known by the authors, and it was a territorially limited context so that companies operating there are subject to similar contingencies. A group of 15 Italian enterprises were involved in our analysis, and Table 1 presents the profiles of the involved companies.

Profiles of involved enterprises.

Main Findings

The principal results are reported below. First, we discuss the situations described by the respondents, with the aim of examining whether debate about and practices of e-leadership were present in our enterprises and to identify evidence of a change between the two points in time. Then, we describe an original proposal to identify some typologies of the e-leadership, which represent different configurations as well as a possible path toward an effective and mature e-leadership. More specifically, four typologies are suggested based on the two leader’s orientations identified in the literature to define leadership styles herein being introduced: the tasks-technology orientation and the socio-relational orientation . A short description of each typology is offered with regard to suggestions arising from the experiences of our companies.

Changes in Enterprises Toward E-leadership

Between the two points in time at which e-leadership had been analyzed through interviews with representatives of the organizations involved in the project, some changes were observed. These can be grouped into two main categories.

The first category concerns the knowledge and pervasiveness of the phenomenon . When we first approached companies for our research, it was almost always necessary to clarify what we meant by e-leadership so as to help the firms’ representatives focus and organize their ideas and experiences; this is because the concept was a novelty for them. This was true even in cases where the concept was at least known and, in some cases, tentatively practiced (albeit without any minimal formalization) according to the narrative description offered in our interviews. For example, one manager (belonging to company 11) declared, “Of course my leadership is changing … I’m trying to understand how to lead and maintain strong relationships with my co-workers at a distance, using tools and apps we have at our disposal in a creative way. I’m trying, but I’m not sure that I’m doing the best job.” Another respondent (belonging to company 13) asserted, “It is evident that technologies are changing the way we work and interact—I notice that—but I am not aware of what is going on, and I do not see which implications it will have.”

When we approached companies at the more recent point in time, it was evident that there was greater awareness of the construct of e-leadership in many of the companies that had ripened in the interim. Almost all the companies exhibited a good amount of knowledge of the phenomenon, which was also pushed by promotions devoted to the practice as inspired by public events (including conferences and training occasions), and we observed an increased attention to the internal debate about how to implement this “practice” in the management of people. In fact, the majority declared that it would be necessary to prioritize e-leadership as a condition for work in their teams. This was suggested by respondents belonging to companies 9 and 15. With regard to case 15, both the IT manager and the HR manager agreed that there was a need to cooperate in order to help supervisors to reinforce their leadership in the new working conditions. Interviewees of company 15, belonging to the two departments, admitted that there were some difficulties in cooperating one with the other in the same direction, depending on the different cultural approaches they had. However, they were conscious that it was important to help managers to continue playing their role now mediated by technology.

The second category of differences highlighted in the period of examination were related to the dimensions of technology and organizational culture . The development of technology, first and foremost with regard to the larger portability of tools and the expansion of connectivity opportunities in response to the ubiquity condition, has fostered a more natural approach to the different communication ways it enables. At the same time, the perception of the presence of leaders has been prioritized, also in distant conditions, who can now be closer to their co-workers. This technological shift is influencing every company, even if those with a limited attitude toward change did not seem to progress as rapidly as they could. In these cases, however, it emerged that the cultural dimension of resistance to change, related to the status quo defense, plays a more relevant role than the impressive acceleration observed in technological tools, the diffusion of which belonged more to the personal attitude of a single worker than to the organizational orientation. This situation of “resistance” was evident in companies 1, 3, 5, and 12, thus confirming the importance played by the leaders’ social influence on the attitudes of co-workers toward this process of change, as suggested by the UTAUT. In these companies, respondents reported a lack of confidence in the new way of managing co-workers along with difficulties in using the new tools. For example, the HR manager of company 3 declared, “I think that it is possible to do better using new ICTs, and I try to support who wants to do it… but in my company, the general attitude is not favorable. The dominant idea is that e-leadership is a technological question … Little attention is devoted to understanding if and how tools are really useful. The consequence is that only technology-friendly managers are developing new strategies.”

In contrast to such perspectives, the relationship between e-leadership presence and new technology implementation in companies 8 and 15 seemed to be stronger than it was some years earlier, perhaps due to the fact that they had been fostering a search to find appropriate solutions. This was the shared opinion reported by the ICT and HR managers, who expressed some satisfaction with their cooperation and underlined how they had worked on the culture in their respective enterprises.

Proposal for a Developmental Path Toward E-leadership

The analysis of the contents of the interviews led to the identification of four typologies of e-leadership. We based these on the two key dimensions of technology-task orientation and relational and managerial orientation , which we still consider to be a useful way of defining leadership features in the new ongoing context. These types are synthetized in Table 2 and described in the following section.

Our proposal of typologies of e-leadership.

When E-leadership Is Not Yet Present

In five of the analyzed companies, the presence of e-leadership was excluded as reported by the companies’ representatives. These included cases 1, 2, 3, 5, and 12. However, from the first to the second step of the research, it was found that the number of cases that were not oriented to the use of e-leadership had decreased (cases 7 and 13 had adapted to e-leadership).

Even if there was some general awareness that the increasing pressure arising from the wide diffusion of new technologies would lead even these companies, probably in the near future, to reconsider their organizational systems of leadership, it seemed that they were not looking to accelerate the process. In other words, while technologies were recognized as having an important and relevant impact—none of our interviewees denied this fact—they did not yet represent, at least for these five companies, the basis of a new way to manage and inspire co-workers, and were even less likely to be thought of as a new channel through which leadership could be exercised. Such measures were to be implemented “if and when it is strictly necessary,” as the ICT managers of company 3 and 5 reported in unison, indicating that the underlying difficulties in positive implications of some tools were becoming evident.

The preference for a traditional approach that prioritized direct and visual relationships was clear in these companies. This approach hinged upon the centrality of the headquarters, from which everything emanated, and from which people and projects were managed. As reported by the manager of company 5, this perspective was “the consequence of a strong and traditional corporate culture, developed in some cases around manufacturing activities where the leader works together with his/her team in realizing prototypes and organizing their large production, and which does not consider other ways of establishing relationships as concretely or effectively possible.” In other cases, such as that of the services enterprise company 12, the dominant idea was that “working face-to-face facilitates direct and continuous communication. Trust is built up over time and is essentially based on the figure of the leader and his/her recognized professional competencies; co-workers observe the skills of the leader and learn with their eyes.” Innovative tools were increasingly used but without a clear strategic orientation finalized to improve working conditions and activities, so that until that point, they had been classified as “second best.” Workers were requested to report and confront each other in person, as this was the preferred approach. As the HR manager of company 3 indicated, “Nothing is better than seeing people, so as to understand how things are going…”

Thus, it is evident that in these conditions, specific skills for e-leadership were not necessarily encouraged but were rather accepted as unavoidable. Indeed, both the ICT and HR managers of company 5 argued, with different and opposite expectations (positive for the first and negative for the second), that “it is only a question of time…” In this way, we can classify this last typology as “not yet.,” wishing to underline that e-leadership is expected to become a reality to face.

When E-leadership Is Rooted in the ICT Department

In some of the other cases we observed—exactly four out of the fifteen analyzed, and precisely cases 4, 6, 10, and 14—the respondents indicated that the concept of e-leadership was well in place and was immediately associated with the ICT department. The introduction of new technologies and their intensive usage represented the basis for the digital transformation in organizations, and served as a major premise in the argument for a more diverse way of changing work organization and implementing teams.

In these organizations, the “first” e-leader was the Chief Digital Officer (CDO), an organizational role in which one works directly in connection with the Chief Executive Officer to express relevant interests and build an appropriate organizational commitment toward this process of change. The CDO was in charge of supporting the diffusion of technologies into the company to enable supervisors to become e-leaders, which means that such an individual must be a technology expert and therefore he/she helps others to use the relevant tools and strengthen their expertise.

Pushed by the CEO toward this organizational development and suggested to become its promoter- the ICT department has to change its approach; traditionally, it has closed in on itself and focused exclusively on the technical perspective, but it is now called on to promote the disruptive change produced by the new digital technologies and to make them interesting for people; individuals within this sphere must support the interests of workers and supervisors. Then, a strong commitment, together with more flexibility and creativity, are necessary to take advantage of these changes and to promote a different way of performing in organizations.

According to this perspective, the e-leader is a person who makes use of ICTs to create relationships, promote communication, and accelerate every process in which he/she is involved. This is the reason why ICT departments have to anticipate this expected situation and recruit young generations of workers into new and unknown ways of managing teams and developing work; this often involves following the diffusions of social media and finalizing them into new ways of sharing in work. Interviewees of companies 4 and 6 described this approach by using the same words, suggesting that “e-leadership means first of all a strong technology orientation,” with the HR manager adding, “… but this has to be useful to improve relationships so as to achieve better common goals.” In the same direction, respondents of company 10 indicated that “our technological mastery—we work in a high-tech sector—has to be evident internally as well; e-leadership begins for us by showing the potentialities of new technologies and documenting how fruitful they are, and these facts are always surprising for line managers… to become leaders is their choice, but building their e-leadership depends on our effort.”

The “Undeclared” E-leadership

In three of the fifteen cases analyzed (precisely 7 and 11, which in the first phase displayed some ignorance of the phenomenon, as well as 13), it was evident that e-leadership was carried out, but it had never been formally introduced and was even less officialized by the headquarters. In these enterprises—usually organized with a number of geographically dispersed sites and with relevant problems of coordination among the different activities developed within those sites—the necessity of frequent meetings and vis à vis encounters stood in contrast to the concrete possibility of organizing them because of the costs incurred and the time taken away from other productive activities.

Hence, integrating working activities through virtual meetings and cultivating attention, friendship, and confidence in ICTs became a natural way of organizing work. Managers in different areas of the company had reportedly begun to interact with their colleagues spontaneously through technologies, by using virtual conference tools, learning to manage distant co-workers, promoting the habit of new ways of working together, using new supports (including apps and social media), introducing a cultural change in their own attitudes and behaviors as well those of co-workers, maintaining a strong focus on the content of the relationships, and considering technologies as a useful support and not a priority.

In this view, the role of the e-leader stood out naturally due to the managers responding to their own need, to which the ICT and HR departments offered some help. The first department can support in the development of technical aspects, the second can intervene in order to support the improvement of those soft competencies needed in mediated contexts to facilitate positive relationships with colleagues in this process of change. As the interviewee of case 11 declared, “we see that e-leadership is inevitably increasing in relevance in our company…we have always cared about leadership as an overriding dimension of managerial work, and we have struggled in understanding that it is changing, but now we care for it in the new form it is taking.” Also, from company 13, we received a clear message “it has been a surprise for us to see that we practice e-leadership without knowing it… for the future, we think that it is not necessary to formalize it, but it is important to help those who think that it is better in this way.”

E-leadership and Virtual Teams

Some enterprises in our analysis, namely companies 8, 9, and 15, were explicitly involved in the direction of establishing an effective and diffused e-leadership. Assertions such as “this is an important issue for our organization” were frequently expressed by the representatives of the cases we include in this typology.

For these companies, e-leadership did not simply entail the mastery of technologies, nor was it considered to be a privileged field for the ICT department, even if a diffused friendship with tools and the suitable ways of using them was a feature of such leadership. As an interviewee belonging to company 9 reported, “it is by now impossible to think that work in our enterprise can be managed without orientation toward e-leadership, and what this means for us is that traditional and innovative paths are followed according to the situation.” Another respondent of company 15 added, “we are interested in supporting the focus on goals, so any way is okay; experiencing new tools so as to guarantee a strong relationship with co-workers has become normal.”

In these contexts, e-leaders are managers engaged in different specific organizational areas; they are required to take on a “new” job, possessing the basic and fundamental features of a traditional leader but also exhibiting a particular level of attention devoted to distance implications and to the changes in relationships resulting from distance. At the same time, he/she has to understand the opportunities and potentialities of technologies, be comfortable with them, and act positively with respect to the perception of usefulness in work and on the confidence of colleagues with technology. Such leaders must also demonstrate an ease of usage of technology while following the suggestions advanced by highly skilled colleagues in the area of technology who introduce emerging tools from their daily experiences. E-leaders must be open to discussing opportunities for their usage given that they can improve work and relationships.

The e-leader is also required to develop new ways of communicating with colleagues by using new tools and shaping communication content in terms of new styles and paces. In other words, using technologies, and specifically collaborative technologies—especially those that are increasingly widespread—makes it easier to work together. The relevance of the role of an e-leader is particularly strong when teams are composed of people living in different places, whereby video conferences, e-mails, and instant messages represent the normal way to communicate. Thus, ensuring engagement and commitment from all the members of the group is the first task for an e-leader, who has to build a positive relational climate and reciprocal trust in conditions where distance can make relationships even more difficult (depending, for example, on differences in time zones, possibilities of misunderstanding, and non-verbal communication, just to mention some barriers). On these requirements, an interviewee belonging to company 15 said “it has been a necessary and great commitment on the part of the entire organization to support this new orientation. It has to become evident that the conditions supporting e-leadership have to be at the organizational level, in other words the organization has to focus on them.”

Within this context, the constructs of “control” and “delegation” change their profile and content; this is because in a distance relationship, everything has to be well defined and clarified, and the preferential way to manage becomes the assignment of goals. Accordingly, another respondent of company 8 underlined that “control is no longer possible as a continuous activity; goals have to be verified, while delegation represents a new and effective task for managers.”

In a certain manner, in these situations, e-leadership is considered unavoidable. For this reason, the conscious choice is to anticipate its evolution and facilitate the transition toward its full realization. Therefore, e-leadership is encouraged in such companies, and it is generally supported by the CEO, so that the role played by managers will ensure that these features are officialized and that the required competencies are developed by training and other practices, thereby foreseeing the consequences that this new way of managing people may have on the business.

Some Answers to Our Questions

Based on the evidence that emerged from interviews and the resulting description of the four typologies of e-leadership herein reported, answers to the four research questions can now be produced. These answers are summarized in Table 3 .

The different features of the four typologies of e-leadership.

Very briefly, we can observe that new technologies, which are increasingly used to make leadership more effective, play a relevant role in influencing it and acting as a facilitator, also increasing its strength. At the same time, the new way of practicing leadership makes it evident that technologies offer useful support in enlarging and reinforcing relationships within teams; underlying this notion, there is the idea that leadership itself asks for support and points to the search for new opportunities. Regarding competencies, a true e-leader has a clear vision of his/her role in blending traditional and innovative skills, both are necessary to promote team development in a balanced way according to the maturity level of the co-workers in the usage of technological tools. Finally, HR and ICT department support is key to making leadership stronger, both in terms of organizational orientation and within the direct and personal dimension.

Is E-Leadership a Real Perspective? First Conclusion

The aim of this work was to understand if e-leadership was present or not in Italian enterprises. If so, the task was then to determine where it was “located” in the company, how it developed, and how it was supported; if not, the reason for its absence was to be determined. On this basis, we proposed a framework to clarify “a possible way toward e-leadership” by identifying the operational indications for enterprises interested in establishing whether e-leadership is appropriate for their specific strategies and working conditions.

More specifically, we answered the questions introduced earlier on how the introduction and diffusion of new technologies influenced the organizational leadership system, and, further, how it can advance the usage of new technologies within the perspective of co-evolution and mutual influence, as indicated by the UTAUT.

The importance of the topic with respect to the concrete functioning of organizations justifies a specific interest in the subject, the relevance of which is expected to increase in the life of enterprises. Therefore, managerial implications could be developed to support managers, HR departments, and ICT departments involved in this transformation. We were also interested in considering the implications at the theoretical level that can contribute to the debate on this issue, which continues to attract the interest of scholars in the managerial field.

The general question at the basis of this paper—that is, can e-leadership be considered a real concern and practice in enterprises, and if so, how it is configured—requires an articulated answer.

The first piece of evidence, based on the experiences of the enterprises involved in the analysis, shows that e-leadership cannot be “not present”; its absence seems destined to disappear. From the first to the second phase, the number of companies inserted in the group labeled as “e-leadership not yet present” was reduced. Therefore, it seems evident that this was due to the increase in the pervasiveness of technologies as well as to their diffusion in working life, so that they have necessarily invaded the space of the relationships, which is exactly where leadership is practiced.

Even where e-leadership is not clearly identified and fostered, it insinuates itself, dragged along by the different styles suggested by easy and interactive technology, and is slowly but unavoidably introduced by workers who individually use them, or by an organizational orientation pushing for digital change. Then, it begins to be practiced and is later formalized. In those companies where e-leadership was considered positively and was supported to the extent to which it became diffusely used, e-leadership emerged as a strong reinforcement of the new way to work in organizations, embedding and steering technological change.

In these conditions, it seems that the leader becomes another “figure” solely because of the different context he/she works in, as Hüsing et al. (2013 , 2015) have explicitly suggested. This leader’s profile evolves according to the different contexts in which she/he works and to the respective degrees of alignment with the evolution. On the one hand, the social and relational dimension of the organizations (including leadership) are changing by adapting to technologies, and, on the other hand, the social processes (including, of course, leadership) are facilitating confidence with technology.

According to the descriptions we obtained during our interviews, the main features of the emerging e-leadership can be summarized in terms of the following five points. In other words, e-leadership is exemplified by:

• • the comprehension of the opportunities offered by ICTs (and not a deep technical expertise) as the basis of an e-leader’s professionalism, so that the UTAUT variable of social influence is reinforced;
• • the aptitude toward communication and interpersonal relationships remaining essential, thereby confirming what Van Wart et al. (2019) have suggested: both these dimensions have to be managed in more difficult conditions to avoid the risk of ineffectiveness in comparison with their expression in traditional leadership;
• • the orientation toward change, which allows the e-leader to promote a different culture that is accepted easily by digital natives but with more difficulty by the other generations of workers, to whom an innovative and ad hoc approach must be proffered;
• • the capability to take on risks and to decide quickly, in a fast-moving context;
• • the acceptance of a different way of establishing his/her role as a more constitutive skill; this means that the role of the leader is “conquered on the field” in accordance with the demonstrated ability to manage, and it is always less related to the formal position held in the hierarchical line.

In the ideal scenario, a leader is more of a “facilitator” than a “guide,” more of a manager with a different equilibrium—one who is able to effectively blend resources and behaviors—than simply an “attractive boss.” Similarly, team members are less like disciples and more like collaborators. Accordingly, the role of the leader exhibits a change due to the presence of more interactive technologies, the characteristics of which act so deeply on the nature of leadership itself. However, this change is also highly firm specific, embedded within that cultural background and those organizational choices that could help or hamper it. In this perspective, a specific role is played by the UTAUT facilitating conditions, which successfully summarize the organization dimension in the e-leadership process.

In conclusion, the relevance of e-leadership in the concrete functioning of organizations (and its implications on the theoretical level that have yet to be fully developed, as the persistent interest of scholars proves to be done) have been confirmed.

Limits of the Research and Future Development

The present study has some limitations. The number of the enterprises which have been involved is the first; their location, essentially the Ligurian area, is the second. If the explorative purpose of the analysis justifies the qualitative approach, which allows for the discernment and understanding of soft nuances and weak differences in the enterprises, the limited number of respondents does not help to construct a complete idea of the situation of e-leadership in companies in general.

Moreover, in the second phase, the participants were not the protagonists of the phenomenon we were analyzing, but they were instead the supporters. Even if they belonged to the two most crucial departments for its development, they were expected to stay in second line with respect to the practice of leadership, and they could only propose their points of view with regard to it.

For future research, a deeper understanding of the phenomenon calls for a survey proposed to managers with responsibilities for teams, focusing on their direct experience and the possible support they receive from the HR and ICT departments. Furthermore, more attention to the steps for a possible evolution toward a “full” e-leadership is needed, in addition to a focus on the connection with progressive technological enrichment (both on the quantitative hand—with more devices—and on qualitative hand—in terms of the flexibility and adaptability of devices and apps), because this would illuminate the mutual relationship between the human and technical sides.

Finally, a more detailed lengthwise study could help in examining the evolution of the phenomenon, confirming its relevance, and defining it more accurately.

This study gave us the chance to understand the emerging complexity of the field, which is increasingly dense and diverse in scope. Despite prior citations claiming a dearth of scholarly attention on the topic of e-leadership, we acknowledge the importance of other scholarly publications, in the excluded set of publications, also paying attention to the topic of leaders’ interaction with followers via ICTs. Because of this, we suggest a future research focused on reviewing different constructs which are similar to the one of e-leadership and which are mostly used as synonymous (e.g., digital leadership).

By way of a conclusion, the new circumstances we are experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic represent a more significant and drastic change in working situations than we could have previously imagined, from which it may be difficult to emerge as if nothing has happened. We are therefore committed to continue this work on e-leadership. It has indeed become an inevitable dimension in working relationships during smart work intensification, even if at an unconscious level by those supervisors who, in this phase, have had to bring out the best in their co-workers by learning and experimenting with e-leadership practices and discovering which of these approaches and organizational conditions make it most effective.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

Although both the authors share the final responsibility for the contents of the manuscript, sections: “The Evolution of Leadership and Its Relationship With Technology”, “Virtual Teams and E-leadership”, “Is E-leadership a Real Perspective? First Conclusion”, and “Main Findings” were written by TT. “Definition of E-leadership” and “Limits of the Research and Future Development” were written by DS. Both the authors co-wrote the sections: “Introduction”, “Empirical Research”, and “Some Answer to Our Questions”. Both authors were also involved in interpreting the data and drafting/critically revising the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank the representatives of the enterprises, who agreed to discuss these topics with us. We hope that they received helpful suggestions for their working experience. We would also like to thank Luca Solari, Marialaura Frigotto, and the other participants of the XI En Attendant meeting held at the Link Campus University (Rome) on December 12 and 13, 2019 for the useful comments provided on a first version of this manuscript.

• Avolio B. J., Kahai S. (2003a). Adding the E to E-leadership: how it may impact your leadership. Organiz. Dynamics 31 325–338. 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00133-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B. J., Kahai S. (2003b). “ Placing the “E” in e-leadership: Minor tweak or fundamental change ,” in The future of leadership development , eds Murphy S. E., Riggio R. E. (New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 75–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B. J., Kahai S., Dodge G. E. (2000). E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadership Quart. 11 615–668. 10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B. J., Kahai S., Dumdum R., Sivasubramaniam N. (2001). “ Virtual teams: Implications for e-leadership and team development ,” in Applied in psychology. How people evaluate others in organizations , ed. London M. (New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 337–358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B. J., Sosik J. J., Kahai S. S., Baker B. (2014). E-Leadership: Re-Examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leadership Quart. 25 105–131. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergum S. (2009). Management of Teleworkers – Managerial Communication at a Distance. Finland: Turku School of Economics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergum S. (2015). “ Characteristics and Variations in e-Leadership in a Public Organization a Situational Perspective and a Longitudinal Study ,” in International Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance (p. 50) , (United Kingdam: Academic Conferences International Limited; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Bodega D. (2002). Le forme della leadership. Milano: ETAS libri. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunelle E. (2009). E-Leadership. L’art De Gérer Les Distances Psychologiques. Gestion 34 10–20. 10.3917/riges.342.0010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunelle E. (2013). Leadership and mobile working: the impact of distance on the superior-subordinate relationship and the moderating effects of leadership style. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldwell R. (2003). Models of change agency: a fourfold classification. Br. J. Manage. 14 131–142. 10.1111/1467-8551.00270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cardon P. W., Huang Y., Power G. (2019). Leadership Communication on Internal Digital Platforms, Emotional Capital, and Corporate Performance: The Case for Leader-Centric Listening. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 21 1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cascio W. F., Shurygailo S. (2002). E-Leadership and Virtual teams. Organiz. Dynamics 31 362–376. 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00130-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang W. L., Lee C. Y. (2013). Virtual team e-leadership: the effects of leadership style and conflict management mode on the online learning performance of students in a business-planning course . Br. J. Educ. Technol. 44 , 986–999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ch R. P. R., Herrera L. R., Daza G. A., Bravo V. G., Vaca H. P. (2020). “ E-leadership Using WhatsApp, A Challenge for Navy Organizations: An Empirical Study ,” in Developments and Advances in Defense and Security , eds Rocha A., Guarda T. (Singapore: Springer; ), 171–181. 10.1007/978-981-13-9155-2_15 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conner J., Ulrich D. (1996). Human resource roles: Creating value, not rhetoric. People Strat. 19 38–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cordery J., Soo C., Kirkman B., Rosen B., Mathieu J. (2009). Leading Parallel Global Virtual Teams: Lessons from Alcoa. Organiz. Dynamics 38 204–216. 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortellazzo L., Bruni E., Zampieri R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1938 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham J. B. (1997). Case study principles for different types of cases. Qual. Quant. 31 401–423. 10.1023/A:1004254420302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darics E. (2020). E-leadership or “How to be boss in Instant Messaging?” The role of nonverbal communication. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 57 3–29. 10.1177/2329488416685068 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dasgupta P. (2011). Literature review: E-leadership. Emerg. Leadership J. 4 1–36. 10.1109/tmag.2013.2278570 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeSanctis G., Poole M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advances Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organiz. Sci. 5 121–147. 10.1287/orsc.5.2.121 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dezi L., Santoro G., Gabteni H., Pellicelli A. C. (2018). The role of big data in shaping ambidextrous business process management. Bus. Process Manage. J. 24 1163–1175. 10.1108/BPMJ-07-2017-0215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duarte D. L., Snyder N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 532–550. 10.2307/258557 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt K. M., Graebner M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manage. J. 50 25–32. 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan K. T., Chen Y. H., Wang C. W., Chen M. (2014). E-Leadership Effectiveness in Virtual Teams: Motivating Language Perspective. Industr. Manage. Data Sys. 114 421–437. 10.1108/IMDS-07-2013-0294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiedler F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1 149–190. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grint K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of ‘leadership’. Hum. Relations 58 1467–1494. 10.1177/0018726705061314 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart R. K., McLeod P. L. (2002). Rethinking Team Building in Geographically Dispersed Teams: One Message at a Time. Organiz. Dynamics 31 352–361. 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00131-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertel G., Geister S., Konradt U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Hum. Res. Manage. Rev. 15 69–95. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J., Hanges P. J., Javodan M., Dorfman P. W., Gupta V. (1999). Culture, Leadership and Organization: Project Globe. London: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hüsing T., Korte W. B., Dashia E. (2015). “ E-skills and E-leadership skills 2020. Trends and forecasts for the European ICT professional and digital leadership labour market ,”. Empirica Working Paper (Bonn: EMPIRICA; ). 1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hüsing T., Korte W. B., Fonstad N., Lanvin B., Welsum D., Cattaneo G., et al. (2013). E-Leadership: E-Skills for Competitiveness and Innovation Vision, Roadmap and Foresight Scenarios. Final Report. Brussels: European Commission. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibañez-Cubillas P., Miranda Pinto M. (2019). Una exploración del e-liderazgo en comunidades virtuales de práctica. EDMETIC Revista de Educación Mediática 8 73–90. 10.21071/edmetic.v8i2.12138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. (1998). Leadership in a connected world. Futurist 32 : 15 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones M. R., Karsten H. (2008). Giddens’s Structuration Theory and Information System Research. MIS Quart. 32 127–157. 10.2307/25148831 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones M., Massiah P., Sounderraj M. (2017). “ E-Leadership: Operationalising an Empirical Research Agenda for Future Theoretical Generation and Assessment ,” in ECMLG 2017 13th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance: ECMLG 2017 (p. 201) , (United Kingdam: Academic Conferences and publishing limited; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Kayworth T., Leindner D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. Eur. Manage. J. 18 183–194. 10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00090-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kissler G. D. (2001). E-Leadership. Organiz. Dynamics 30 121–133. 10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00047-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knights D., Willmott H. (2007). Introducing Organizational Behavior and Management. London: Thomson Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Larsson M., Lundholm S. E. (2010). Leadership as work-embedded influence: A micro-discursive analysis of an everyday interaction in a bank. Leadership 6 159–184. 10.1177/1742715010363208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lengnick-Hall M., Moritz S. (2003). The Impact of e-HR on the Human Resource Management Function. J. Labor Res. 24 365–379. 10.1007/s12122-003-1001-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewicki R. J., Bunker B. B. (1996). “ Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships ,” in Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research , eds Kramer R. M., Tyler T. R. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; ), 114–139. 10.4135/9781452243610.n7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu C., Ready D., Roman A., Van Wart M., Wang X., McCarthy A., et al. (2018). E-leadership: an empirical study of organizational leaders’ virtual communication adoption. Leadership Organiz. Dev. J. 39 826–843. 10.1108/lodj-10-2017-0297 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu C., Van Wart M., Kim S., Wang X., McCarthy A., Ready D. (2020). The effects of national cultures on two technologically advanced countries: The case of e−leadership in South Korea and the United States. Aus. J. Public Admin. 79 298–329. 10.1111/1467-8500.12433 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayan M. (2016). Essential of qualitative inquiry. New York: Routledge, 10.4324/9781315429250 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriman K. K., Schmidt S. M., Dunlap-Hinkler D. (2007). Profiling virtual employees: The impact of managing virtually. J. Leadership Organiz. Stud. 14 6–15. 10.1177/1071791907304244 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadiv R., Raz A., Kuna S. (2017). What a difference a role makes: Occupational and organizational characteristics related to the HR strategic role among human resource managers. Empl. Relations 39 1131–1147. 10.1108/ER-08-2016-0160 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neufeld D. J., Dong L., Higgins C. (2007). Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology. Eur. J. Inform. Sys. 16 494–510. 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000682 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norlyk B. (2012). “ Genres at the top: Leadership, management and genre ,” in Researching discourse in business genres: Cases and corpora , eds Dieltjens S., Groot E., Gillaerts P. (New York, NY: Peter Lang; ), 97–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Northouse P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice , 4th Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nydegger L., Nydegger R. (2010). Challenges in Managing Virtual Teams. J. Bus. Econom. Res. 8 69–82. 10.19030/jber.v8i3.690 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh S. P., Chua Y. P. (2018). An explorative review of e-leadership studies. Int. Online J. Educ. Leadership 2 4–20. 10.22452/iojel.vol2no1.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orlikowski W. J., Iacono C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inform. Syst. Res. 12 121–134. 10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parry E., Tyson S. (2011). Desired goals and actual outcomes of e-HRM. Hum. Res. Manage. J. 21 335–354. 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00149 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Politis J. (2014). “ The effect of e-leadership on organisational trust and commitment of virtual teams ,” in European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance (p. 254) , (United Kingdam: Academic Conferences International Limited; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Praveen P., Prashant P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Inform. Manage. 50 144–153. 10.1016/j.im.2012.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purvanova R. K., Bono J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. Leadership Quart. 20 343–357. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roman A. V., Van Wart M., Wang X., Liu C., Kim S., McCarthy A. (2019). Defining e−leadership as competence in ICT−mediated communications: an exploratory assessment. Public Admin. Rev. 79 853–866. 10.1111/puar.12980 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sivathanu B., Pillai R. (2018). Smart HR 4.0–how industry 4.0 is disrupting HR. Hum. Res. Manage. Int. Digest 26 7–11. 10.1108/HRMID-04-2018-0059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slocum J. W., Jr., Hellriegel D. (2007). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior. Ohio: Columbus. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snellman C. L. (2014). Virtual Teams: Opportunities and Challenges for e-Leaders. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 110 1251–1261. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.972 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uhlin A., Crevani L. (2019). “ Is e-leadership development enlightening?: Handling fragmentation by making leadership algorithmic ,” in Enlightening the future, 35th EGOS Colloquium, Sub-theme 28: Leadership Development for a Post-truth, Post-human and Post-organizational World (Edinburgh: Mälardalen University; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Wart M., Roman A., Pierce S. (2016). The rise and effect of virtual modalities and functions on organizational leadership: tracing conceptual boundaries along the e-management and e-leadership continuum. Transylvanian Rev. Admin. Sci. 12 102–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Wart M., Roman A., Wang X., Liu C. (2017). Integrating ICT adoption issues into e-leadership. Theory. Telematics Inform. 34 527–537. 10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Wart M., Roman A., Wang X., Liu C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: identifying the elements of e-leadership. Int. Rev. Admin. Sci. 85 80–97. 10.1177/0020852316681446 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Quart. 27 425–478. 10.2307/30036540 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venkatesh V., Thong J. Y., Xu X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. J. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 17 328–376. 10.17705/1jais.00428 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wellman B., Salaff J., Dimitrova D., Garton L., Gulia M., Haythomthwaite C. (1996). Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community. Annu. Rev. Soc. 22 213–238. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. New York, NY: Sage publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zaccaro S. J., Bader P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams: Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organiz. Dynamics 31 377–387. 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00129-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zigurs I. (2002). Leadership in Virtual Teams: Oxymoron or Opportunity? Organiz. Dynamics 31 339–351. 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00132-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Information Systems Theory pp 25–39 Cite as

Psychological Ownership and the Individual Appropriation of Technology

• James Gaskin 4 &
• Kalle Lyytinen 4  
• First Online: 01 January 2011

2679 Accesses

7 Citations

Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS,volume 29)

We use information technology to accomplish a significant portion of our daily tasks. The way individuals choose to use technology varies as much as the outcomes of their usage. Appropriation – the way that people choose or learn to use technology – has been explored at a group level to explain group behaviors and performance. Although appropriation antecedents and outcomes have been investigated in many studies, none has attempted to explain the motivations or factors influencing the individual appropriation of technology; nor has extant research discovered the impacts resulting from individual appropriation. In this exploratory chapter, we inquire within this gap by arguing that appropriation and psychological ownership are theoretically equivalent. This new theoretical connection suggests potentially significant antecedents for individual appropriation, which have been overlooked. The desirable consequences of psychological ownership (e.g., competency, security, satisfaction) are proposed to apply to the individual appropriation of technology.

• Psychological ownership
• IT Appropriation
• Technology-use

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution .

Buying options

• DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9707-4_2
• Chapter length: 15 pages
• Instant PDF download
• Readable on all devices
• Own it forever
• Exclusive offer for individuals only
• Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
• ISBN: 978-1-4419-9707-4
• Instant EPUB and PDF download
• ISBN: 978-1-4614-2970-8
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide See shipping information .
• ISBN: 978-1-4419-9706-7

Abbreviations

Information systems

Information technology

Agarwal, R., Tanniru, M., & Wilemon, D. (1997). Assimilating information technology innovations: Strategies and moderating influences. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44 (4), 347–358.

CrossRef   Google Scholar  

Barone, M. J., Shimp, T. A., & Sprott, D. E. (1999). Product ownership as a moderator of self-congruity effects. Marketing Letters, 10 (1), 75–86.

Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29 (3), 493–524.

Google Scholar  

Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for ownership. The Journal of Psychology, 128 (4), 365–380.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–168.

Blythe, M. A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A. F., & Wright, P. C. (2004). Funology: From usability to enjoyment . New York: Springer.

Braun, E. (1998). Technology in context: Technology assessment for managers . New York: Routledge.

Carroll, J. (2004). Completing design in use: Closing the appropriation cycle. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems, Paper 44, Turku, Finland.

Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8 (4), 342–367.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 189–211.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982–1003.

Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security’s direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18 (4), 323–349.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 (1), 105–115.

Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22 (1), 113–120.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation . New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . New York: Springer.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5 (2), 121–147.

Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be . London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Dreyfus, H. L., Dreyfus, S. E., & Athanasiou, T. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer . New York: Free Press.

Druskat, V. U., & Kubzansky, P. E. (1995). Measuring the psychological sense of ownership in the workplace. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.

Farquhar, P. H. (2000). Brand waves: Building momentum throughout the ownership cycle. Marketing Management, 9 (2), 14–21.

Fidock, J., & Carroll, J. (2006). The model of technology appropriation: A lens for understanding systems integration in a Defence context. Paper presented at the ACIS 2006 Proceedings, Paper 88, Adelaide, Australia.

Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 6 (1), 49–65.

Furby, L. (1980). The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Political Psychology, 2 (1), 30–42.

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2), 299–307.

Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jacobs, D. (1981). Toward a theory of mobility and behavior in organizations: An inquiry into the consequences of some relationships between individual performance and organizational success. The American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3), 684–707.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology . New York: Henry Holt and Company, Macmillan.

Johnson, B. M., & Rice, R. E. (1987). Managing organizational innovation: The evolution from word processing to office information systems . New York: Columbia University Press.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (3), 376–407.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations . New York: Wiley.

Ke, W., Wang, X., & Wei, K. (2008). User motivation to explore enterprise system features: An exploratory study of its organizational antecedents and consequences. Paper presented at the ICIS 2008 Proceedings, Paper 41, Paris, France.

Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. The Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 88–101.

Kline, L., & France, C. J. (1899). The psychology of mine. Pedagogical Seminary and Genetic Psychology, 6 (4), 421–470.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17 (5), 251–267.

Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., Nelson, K., & Ba, S. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24 (4), 569–600.

Nass, C., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E., & Fogg, B. (1997). Computers are social actors: A review of current research. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 137–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3 (3), 398–427.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1999). Technologies-in-practice: An enacted lens for studying technology in organizations . Cambridge: Sloan School of Management/Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11 (4), 404–428.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2 (2), 143–169.

Passman, R. (1977). Providing attachment objects to facilitate learning and reduce distress: Effects of mothers and security blankets. Developmental Psychology, 13 (1), 25–28.

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7 (1), 84–107.

Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 121–144.

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1989). Use of group decision support systems as an appropriation process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on Information Systems, Hawaii (pp. 149–157).

Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37 (2), 257–268.

Testa, M. (2001). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and effort in the service environment. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 135 (2), 226–236.

Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5 (1), 98–118.

van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28 (4), 695–704.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17 (1), 215–285.

Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (4), 439–459.

Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group Organization Management, 20 (2), 210–226.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425–478.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66 (5), 297–333.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (3), 443–446.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Systems, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7235, USA

James Gaskin & Kalle Lyytinen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Gaskin .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales, SA2 8PP, United Kingdom

Yogesh K. Dwivedi

IMD, Ch. de Bellerive 23, Lausanne, 1001, Switzerland

Michael R. Wade

Principia College, Maybeck Place 1, Elsah, 62028, Illinois, USA

Scott L. Schneberger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Gaskin, J., Lyytinen, K. (2012). Psychological Ownership and the Individual Appropriation of Technology. In: Dwivedi, Y., Wade, M., Schneberger, S. (eds) Information Systems Theory. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 29. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9707-4_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9707-4_2

Published : 04 August 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-9706-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-9707-4

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative