Carina Beckerman EXPLORING THE PHENOMENON OF LEADERSHIP AND STRESS IN PERMANENT VIRTUAL TEAMS IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS Challenges and Possibilities Project Number 120046 AFA Försäkring 2015-11-30
Carina Beckerman
EXPLORING THE PHENOMENON OF LEADERSHIP
AND STRESS IN PERMANENT VIRTUAL TEAMS IN
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
Challenges and Possibilities
Project Number 120046 AFA Försäkring 2015-11-30
2
PREFACE
The purpose of this study has been to explore the relationship between e-leadership
and stress in a public sector organization implementing permanent virtual teams.
Behind this research there is an assumption that virtual teams might lower levels of
stress because of less travel and more remote participation in what takes place at the
head-office. To implement virtual teams has been suggested as a “green” way to work
among people interested of “sustainability”. This research has been conducted with
questionnaires and interviews among e-leaders at SEA, The Swedish Enforcement
Authority. The questions asked have been if stress exists, and if it does why and what
causes it. The e-leaders have also been asked to identify what they perceive as good
and bad with virtual teams. The empirical data has been analyzed within a framework
of theories about leadership and stress, virtual teams and leadership and e-leadership
and stress. This study shows that stress is a major challenge in virtual teams. Of forty
e-leaders in this study 84 percent feel stress. And travelling has increased instead of
decreasing. The core in the stress reaction is that the e-leaders are never where they
feel that they should be and that is a frustrating experience. In relation to other
studies this study is critical towards implementing virtual teams without extensive
preparations and a clear idea about why the organization wants to work virtually. The
results in this study also raise further questions such as how virtual a leader can or
should be? And are virtual teams really an improvement in an organizational setting.
This research is highly relevant since more and more organizations implement and
work in virtual teams. In the near future it is also believed that e-leadership will be the
routine rather than the exception in our thinking about what constitutes organizational
leadership.
This research project has been sponsored by AFA Försäkring.
Thank you!
Stockholm November 2015
Carina Beckerman
3
A SUMMERY
The purpose of this research has been to explore the relationship between e-leadership
and stress in permanent virtual teams in public sector organizations. In SEA, the
organization that is picked as a case in this study, there are 120 teams and 40 of them
are virtual. In every virtual team there are 1-9 offices and 5-25 team members
included. This research shows that stress is definitely a major challenge in virtual
teams. Over 80 % of the e-leaders feel stress. It is stress that is related to virtuality and
not caused by other factors in the organization. The core in the stress-reaction among the e-leaders is a feeling of that they are ‘never where they should be’. Also virtual teams have been introduced in an effort to be ‘green’ and decrease travelling but instead travelling has increased among virtual leaders.
In this project factors that cause stress are divided into organizational and leadership
factors.
Organizational factors that cause stress are lack of administrative support at the
different offices included in a team. There exist many administrative problems such
as buying computers and giving access-cards to team members at the different offices
that is difficult for the e-leaders to manage at a distance. Technology that doesn’t
work causes stress. E-leaders that have many offices included in their team also find it
difficult to arrange meetings that all team members can attend. In a virtual team it is
not possible to organize a meeting as easily as when you are physically close. Long-
term planning is needed when it comes to simple things such as booking a conference
room for the virtual meetings. More planning and structure is necessary. Sometimes it
is difficult to stay in touch among the team members at the different offices in a
virtual team, and follow up so things are done as the e-leader wants them to be done.
Technology that works, enough office-space and a structured agenda are defining
factors for a successful virtual meeting that is a core-activity in a virtual team and a
way to keep the team together and get work done. Environmental questions at work
are also difficult to deal with when there are many offices included in the team.
Leadership factors are such as that some of the team members want the leader to
visit more often because others take too much space when the leader is away. The e-
leader should leave tracks so that the team members do not fall back into old patterns
of behavior or an informal leader takes over at the local office. To be virtually visible
has been described as having a “telepresence”, which is defined by dimensions such
as vividness and interactivity (Zigurs, I. 2003).
An e-leader should create and distribute work that contributes to forming a team and
building trust. The strategy behind should be that it is “our work” not “yours” or
“mine”. Some work such as innovation, change processes and strategy development
are preferably done face-to face.
Information and communication is an issue in connection with stress in virtual teams.
It plays an important role both in the relationship between the e-leader and HQ, and
the e-leader and the team members in the virtual team. Also earlier it has been noticed
that communication is a tool that directly influences the social dimensions of the team
(Chad, L. Craig, S. and Ying, L. 2001). People feel stress when they do not get the
same information as they believe others get. It is also important that the head-office
4
includes all the virtual leaders when information is distributed. To decrease levels of
stress it might be useful to introduce a communication contract between the e-leader
and the team members that states when and how much they have access to each other.
It is not so easy to build trust in a virtual team when you do not see each other face-
to-face. If the e-leader fails to build trust work becomes difficult. It is sometimes also
difficult when the e-leader doesn’t know about conflicts or when someone does
something good or bad at the different offices and can react in connection to this.
Conflicts in virtual teams have to do with how much the team members must
cooperate when working and solving problems. It is not so easy to create conflicts
during virtual meetings since they are so well organized and team members do not
meet in person. It is mostly in daily work at the different offices that conflicts appear.
If a conflict appear the e-leader organizes a phone-conference to try to solve the
problem.
At a distance it is also difficult to give support when employees are exposed to verbal
and physical threats, as is common at SEA. In connection with setting salaries you
cannot judge an employee only on statistics, according to one e-leader. Behaviour is
an important aspect of evaluating employees and that is also difficult to do at a
distance.
Without natural coffee breaks it is more difficult to communicate among the team
members and small-talk doesn’t always come naturally. The concept virtual bonding
is therefore introduced in this research. In spite of what has been believed earlier
bonding and building relations can take place during virtual coffee breaks. “Every
Tuesday we drink coffee together in virtual Greece”, says some team-members. “We
discuss law cases together over video. It functions very well. It is just as sitting
together in real life. I feel safe together with the people I talk with”, says another
team-member. “One colleague that retired had a virtual party and served cake at two
different places at the same time”, describes a third team-member. All these activities
encourage friendship and interaction among the team-members. Also Chad, L. Craig,
S. and Ying, L (2008) argued that it is critical that managers build stronger
relationships and cohesion among virtual team-members as they have significant
impact on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams.
My contribution in this research has been to identify very high levels of stress among
e-leaders. In relation to other studies this study is therefore critical towards
implementing virtual teams without extensive preparations and a clear idea about why
the organization want to work virtually.
This research indicates that a more structured and even hierarchic leadership might
be needed. Also according to Watson, K.D. (2007) there was a stronger relationship
between initiating structure and satisfaction with supervision when geographical
distance was high, therefore it appears that spational distance actually acted as an
enhancer of the demand for a more structured leadership. Structure therefore a
keyword when trying to decrease levels of stress in virtual teams.
5
Preface
A SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
1 PURPOSE AND AIMING 7
1.1 Definitions and Limitations 7
1.1.1 E-leadership 7
1.1.2 A Virtual Team 8
2 A SURVEY OF THE FIELD 8
2.1 E-leadership 8
2.2 Virtual Teams 10
2.3 Technology 16
2.4 A Summary 18
3 THEORETICAL CHOICES 19
3.1 Leadership and Stress 19
3.2 Virtual teams and E-leadership 20
3.3 E-leadership and stress 22
4 METHOD 23
4.1 Project Description 23
4.2 Research Design 23
4.3 Communicative and Pragmatic Validity 24
4.4 Case: SEA 25
5 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 26
5.1 Do the e-leaders feel stress 26
5.2 Why do e-leaders feel stress 26
5.3 What is good with virtual teams 29
5.4 What is bad with virtual teams 29
5.5 A Summary of Analysis 30
5.6 A Summery of Findings 32
5.6.1Theoretical Findings 32
5.6.2 Practical Findings 32
6
6 RESULTS 32
7 IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH 33
8 TO SUM UP 34
9 PLANNED ACTIVITIES TO MAKE THE RESULTS KNOWN
AND OF USE AT THE LABOR MARKET 35
References
7
1 PURPOSE AND AIMING
Because of new technology and changing attitudes to work have virtual teams that
link people together over geographical and cultural borders become a new way to
work in many organizations and companies. The private sector was first when it came
to implementing virtual teams but now the public sector is following.
The overall purpose in this study has been to explore the relationship between e-
leadership and stress in an organization within the public sector implementing
permanent virtual teams. This has been done by posing questions such as do e-leaders
feel stress, if they do why and when, and what is good/bad with working in virtual
teams. A virtual team can be global but also local and existing within one country
and/or one organization. This way of working is supposed to demand a special kind of
leadership called e-leadership. At the same time have the goals for what a good leader
is not changed. A leader must still present a believable vision, rule, motivate, inspire
and create trust in the organization where he or she is a leader. E-leadership means
that a leader in reality never even meet the people he or she rules over but at the same
time this new way of leading offers many interesting possibilities and demands. A
possibility is to be able to use talent and competence that doesn´t exist close to the
office, in the same city or even in the same country. A problem can be to accept
different communication patterns in different countries or parts of a country, to make
cultural differences when it comes to work ethics visible and sustain a high level of
trust between the members of the team.
Implementing virtual teams means that the labor market is changing and it has many
different implications for both the leaders and the team members.
1.1 Definitions and Limitations
This research project takes place within a Swedish political context at SEA, The
Swedish Enforcement Authority, which is a government body that deal with debt
collection.
1.1.1 E-leadership is about the need to lead geographically dispersed teams, called
virtual teams. The goals of leadership have not changed, but a new medium for
implementing the goals has arisen. The fundamental leadership objectives are still the
same, and have to do with to continue to address the issues of vision, direction,
motivation, inspiration and trust. E-leadership can also be defined as a new leadership
paradigm that requires the leader to achieve these leadership objectives in a computer-
mediated manner with virtual teams that are dispersed over space and time, the main
medium of communication amongst leader(s) and followers being the electronic
conduit supported by computers. What is very different is that the e-leader may never
physically meet one or more of the followers or team members.
1.1.2 A Virtual team is a collection of individuals who are geographically and/or
organizationally or otherwise dispersed, and who collaborate via communication and
information technologies in order to accomplish a specific goal (Zigurs, I. 2009).
8
1.1.3 The ambiguity in defining stress was first recognized by Hans Selye (1907-
1982). He calls it ‘the syndrome of just being sick’. In 1951 a commentator loosely
summarized Selye's view of stress as something that ‘…in addition to being itself,
was also the cause of itself, and the result of itself ‘. First to use the term in a
biological context, Selye continued to define stress as "the non-specific response of
the body to any demand placed upon it".
A psychological definition of stress also exists when a person feels that the problems
that he or she is exposed to are more than his or her ability to handle these. This has to
do with how the individual values the problems and his or her own ability to manage
(Lazarus, R.1966). As of 2011 neuroscientists believe that stress, based on years of
empirical research, should be restricted to conditions where an environmental demand
exceeds the natural regulatory capacity of an organism. Stress shows itself through
frustration, anger and physical and psychosomatic symptom. It also expresses itself
through depression and low selfesteem. Signs of stress in an organization are absent
employees or employees that are difficult to work with because they are irritated and
nervous. And problems and mistakes take place when employees that normally do a
good job feel stress.
2 A SURVEY OF THE FIELD
This section will give an overview of earlier research about e-leadership, virtual teams
and technology.
2.1 E-leadership
‘We chose the term e-leadership to incorporate the new emerging context for
examining leadership. E-leadership is defined as a social influence process mediated
by AIT to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behaviour, and /or
performance with individuals, groups and/or organizations. E-leadership can occur
at any hierarchical level in an organization and involve one-to-one as well as one-to-
many interactions over electronic media’ (Avolio, B.J. Kahai, S. and Dodge, G.E.
2000).
Kissler, G.D. (2001) identified several e-leadership attributes such as cognitive skills
and education, quick adaptability to change, flexibility, ability to work for more than
one boss, the ability to keep ones heads in the midst of disorder and ambiguity,
experience in several different fields and the ability to transfer ideas from one to the
other, individuality and entrepreneurialism. Annunzio, S (2001) focused on the need
to generate inter-generational cooperation. Annunzio identified seven distinguishing
factors of the new e-leadership, honesty, responsiveness, vigilance, willingness to
learn and re-learn, a sense of adventure, vision and altruism. Avolio, B.J. and Kahai,
S. (2003) described e-leadership as not just an extension of traditional leadership, but
as being ‘a fundamental change in the way leaders and followers relate to each other
within organizations and between organizations’.
Hanna, N.K. (2007) authored a large World Bank study of e-leadership as it applies to
the government sector and public institutions and Holland, J.B. Malvey, D. and
9
Fottler, M.D. (2009) examined the challenges of e-leadership in healthcare
organizations.
Hamilton, B.A. and Scandura, T.A. (2003) examined the concept of e-mentoring in a
digital world as a necessary corollary to e-leadership identifying potential benefits and
challenges and discussing the opportunity to extend technology to address
relationsship building and nurturing. Avolio, B.J. Walumbwa, F.O and Weber, T.J.
(2009) observed that leading virtually not only involves leading people from different
departments and divisions of one´s own organization but sometimes even people from
competitor companies. Malhotra, A. Majchrzak, A., and Rosen, B. (2007) studied
virtual teams to identify the best leadership practices of effective leaders of virtual
teams. They concluded that successful e-leadership included the ability to generate
and sustain trust through the utilization of ICT, make sure that distributed diversity is
both clearly understood as well as appreciated, effectively monitor and manage the
life cycles of virtual work, monitor and manage the virtual teams progress with the
use of technology, extend the visibility of virtual members both within the team as
well as outside the company, and help to ensure that individual team members do
benefit from the team. And Pulley, M.L. and Sessa, V.I. (2001) identified five key
paradoxes with e-leadership. It is swift and mindful, individual and community, top-
down and grassroots, details and big picture and flexible and steady.
Kerfoot, K.M. (2010) focused on the health care industry. E-leadership was found to
be increasingly replacing traditional leadership because advancing technologies can
support new models of health care communication. According to Watson, K.D.
(2007) physically co-located employees reported significantly higher levels of
satisfaction with management than did remote employees. There was a significant
difference between virtual and physical employees, with co-located employees
reporting higher levels of career advancement than virtual employees. There was also
a stronger relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction with supervision
when geographical distance was high, therefore it appears that spational distance
actually acted as an enhancer. Shriberg, A. (2009) concludes that virtual leadership is
a paramount task that demonstrates the effectiveness of a leader. It is a very complex
act to lead a group of people who are located in different countries, have different
time zones, and speak different languages. Banarjee, P. and Chau, P.Y.K (2004) focus
on e-leadership in the context of e-government. They argued that e-leadership may
not be able to readily combat social maladies or economic hang-ups. Antonakis, J.
and Atwater, L (2002) noted that the concept of leader distance has been subsumed in
a number of leadership theories. They discussed leader distance, how distance is
implicated in the legitimization of a leader and how distance affects leader outcomes.
Luther, K. and Bruckman, A. (2010) studied collaborative innovation networks and
how they generate swarm creativity by the utilization of the virtual team concept.
Hambley, L. A. O´Neill, T.A. and Kline, T.J.B. (2006) explored the new paradigm of
work that can now be conducted anytime, anywhere, in real space or through
technology. And communication media do have important effects on team interaction
styles and cohesion.
Howell, J.M. Neufeld, D.J. and Avolio, B.J (2005) examined transformational and
transactional leadership with reference to physical distance. The physical distance
between leader and followers negatively moderated the relationship between
10
transformational leadership and business unit performance, and positively moderated
the relationship between contingent reward leadership and performance.
2.2 Virtual Teams
The articles in this section focus on examining virtual teams from different angles,
such as structure, communication, degrees of virtuality, multi-cultural issues, trust-
building and ethical issues.
Zaccaro, S.J. and Bader, P (2003) noted that virtual team is a phrase that has recently
entered into our leadership lexicon. Colfax, R.S. Santos, A.T. and Diego, J (2009)
argued that virtual teams are a necessity in today´s global world. DeRosa, D. (2009)
asserted that as virtual teams become more prevalent, organizations nust take a close
look at how to best ensure the success of these teams. Terence, D. (2006) stated that
the new collaborative workplace is evolving both globally and virtually and presents
two major challenges that are isolation and confusion.
Earlier Walker, J. W (2000) identified an e-business as a company whose ”internet-
based activities are the primary source of its revenues and profits”. Then Zaccaro, S.J.
and Bader, P. examined the trend toward establishing e-teams or virtual teams that
can span distances and times to take on challenges that most local and global
organizations must address, focusing particularly on the similarities and differences
between physical teams (face-to-face teams) and virtual teams with particular
reference to team effectiveness. As the authors asserted, the term virtual is misleading
because it suggests a degree of unreality. But virtual teams are real teams with real
people having all of the characteristics, demands, and challenges of more traditional
organizational teams, except that (a) members either work in geographically separated
work places, or they may work in the same space but at different times and (b) not all
interaction might occur exclusively through the electronic medium, as there may be a
fair amount of physical interaction from time to time. But the new reality is that we
now have e-leaders who lead these new organizational entities called e-teams. These
teams have two critical and unique features that favor them over traditional teams,
and provide competitive advantage to organizations that can employ them
successfully: e-teams are less limited by geographic constraints placed on face-to-face
teams and therefore have greater potential to acquire the necessary human capital or
skills, knowledge, and capacities required to complete projects; and e-teams have
greater potential for generating social capital, which the authors defined as the quality
of relationships and networks that leaders and team members form in their operating
environment. Zaccaro, S.J. and Bader, P. examined how e-leadership can contribute to
the development of e-teams by reducing process losses and enhancing team member
trust. The authors quoted existing research to propose a three-stage model: (a) the
development of calculus-based trust, where team members trust fellow workers to
behave consistently across different team situations; (b) the emergence of knowledge-
based trust, where team members become known to one another well enough that
their behaviors can be more easily anticipated; and (c) the development of
identification-based trust when team members understand and share each other‘s
values, needs, goals, and preferences.
Cascio, W.F. and Shurygailo, S. (2003) traced the growth of virtual teams, examined
11
the various forms they assume, listed the kinds of information and support they need
to function effectively, and studied the leadership challenges inherent in each form of
virtual team. The authors provided workable, practical solutions to each of the
leadership challenges identified. Technology enables virtual work arrangements,
which may assume various forms, such as telecommuting, teleconferencing, and
video-conferencing from geographically dispersed sites. But leadership is the critical
factor for success. Existing research has established that leaders make a critical
difference in team performance, and these findings are just as applicable to virtual
teams as they are to teams that interact physically.
The authors briefly examined the question, why virtual teams? They opined that a
major reason for forming virtual teams is to cut office- space costs, particularly for
employees who spend only a small percentage of their time in the office, such as
salespeople and consultants. Furthermore, companies in undesirable locations may
form virtual teams as a strategy for recruiting employees who have the right skills but
do not want to move. Sometimes, virtual teams are formed to integrate employees
who were added through mergers and acquisitions. The authors identified four
categories of virtual teams: (a) Teleworkers: A single manager of a team at one
location; (b) Remote teams: A single manager of a team distributed across multiple
locations; (c) Matrixed teleworkers: Multiple managers of a team at one location; and
(d) Matrixed remote teams: Multiple managers across multiple locations. Cascio and
Shurygailo added that another dimension to be considered is that of time, where
workers are on different or staggered shifts. The authors also discussed trust in virtual
teams, emphasizing that its importance for virtual teams is even more critical. The
authors concluded by re-iterating the key challenges for e-leaders of virtual teams as
being: (a) the difficulty of keeping tight or loose controls on intermediate progress
toward goals; (b) promoting close cooperation amongst teams members; (c)
encouraging and recognizing emergent leaders; (d) knowledge management; (e)
establishing and adhering to norms and procedures; and (f) establishing proper
boundaries between home and work.
Hart, R.K. and Mcleod, P.L (2003) examined communication as it occurs in the field
and presented leadership lessons culled from a field study that included three business
organizations and seven work teams. The authors defined a virtual team as one where
members meet face-to-face less than once a month. They studied the relationship
between the one hundred and twenty six possible team members in the sample over a
two week period, and categorized all message exchanges under seven categories of
messages: informational, planning or action, opinion and feeling, personal, resolution
interaction, digression and play, and helping and learning. A detailed study of the
messages themselves, followed by in-depth personal interviews of the members,
revealed the following findings: (a) close personal relationships are developed one
message at a time; (b) communication content between team members with strong
personal work relationships is not personal; (c) in strong personal relationships,
communication is frequent but short; and (d) relationships in virtual teams are
developed and strengthened through a proactive effort to solve problems. The authors
concluded that close relationships in virtual teams are not only important for task-
oriented action, but are also important for professional satisfaction and individual
development.
Zigurs, I (2003) defined what a virtual team is; reviewed existing knowledge on
12
virtual teams, and on e-leadership; and addressed key issues governing e-leadership of
virtual teams. Virtual teams come in many forms, with various objectives, criteria for
team membership, cultural diversity, organizational structure, and so on. Virtual
teams present a new challenge to the practice of leadership, because whereas our
traditional ideas of team communication is based on face-to-face contact, remote
leadership of teams complicates relationship building, the issue of trust, conflict
resolution, and dealing with sensitive issues that are best done face to face. Since
virtual teams rely on computer-mediated communication across the boundaries of
geography, time, culture, and organizational affiliation, e- leadership must investigate
and resolve issues such as the following: (a) virtual teams incorporate and redefining
the traditional roles of leaders; (b) expressing roles across distance and time; (c) the
role of facilitators in virtual teams; and, (d) critical factors for effective virtual teams.
Discussing what makes a team virtual, the author suggested that it is best to think of a
team as existing on a continuum of virtuality; the more the dimensions of dispersion
or distance, the greater the virtuality.
Discussing trust in virtual teams, the author argued that trust can indeed emerge
among virtual team members rather swiftly, but that such trust is fragile and may be
difficult to maintain. Leadership in virtual teams comes in varied forms, and virtual
teams sometimes may or may not have an assigned leader at all. Different people
might take on leadership behavior at different times. Discussing the question of
leadership presence, the author recapped that leaders in traditional teams make their
presence known in a variety of ways, including where they sit in meetings, office
location and trappings, body language, voice inflections, style of dress, and so on, but
these methods are lost in virtual environments. A new kind of presence has to be
established, namely a distant, or telepresence, that may be defined by the two
dimensions of vividness and interactivity. The title of this article asks the question
whether leadership in virtual teams is an oxymoron or opportunity. The author‘s
answer was that it is emphatically an opportunity. Xiao, Y. Seagull, F.J. Mackenzie,
C.F. Klein, K.J and Ziegert, J (2008) conducted a field experiment in a real-life
trauma center with surgical teams operating on patients. In their study, the leader of
the surgical unit alternated between co-locating with the team, and moving to an
adjacent room (where the leader interacted with the team virtually). The study showed
that when the team leader was in the adjacent room, the leader had greater influence
on communications between the senior member in the room and other team members.
When the team leader was in the same room as the team, the volume of
communication between the team leader, the senior member, and junior members was
more balanced. When the task urgency was high, the team leader was more involved
with the senior team member in terms of communication regardless of location,
whereas the communication between the team leader and junior members was
reduced.
Balthazard, P.A. Waldman, D.A and Atwater, L.E (2008) examined the role of e-
leadership in mediating virtual group member interaction by comparing virtual and
face-to-face teams. The study revealed that group members were generally more
cohesive in face-to- face situations; accepted group decisions more readily; and
exhibited a greater amount of synergy than they did in virtual teams. Face-to-face
teams exhibited, in general, a higher volume of constructive interaction in comparison
with virtual teams. Virtual teams, on the other hand, scored significantly higher on
defensive interaction styles.
13
Hunsaker, P.L. and Hunsaker, J.S (2008) provided guidelines to help leaders
understand and lead virtual teams. The authors offered a formal technique based on a
design/methodology approach and discussed the importance of effective leadership
for virtual teams. Beginning with a review of conventional teams versus virtual teams,
the authors then focused on two primary leadership functions in virtual teams:
performance management and team development. Hunsaker and Hunsaker provided a
detailed guide for the leadership of virtual teams over the life of a project, which they
defined as the four stages of a project timeline: Pre-Project, Project Initiation,
Midstream, and Wrap-Up.
Walvoord, A.A.G, Redden, E.R. Elliott, L.R and Coovert, M.D (2008) noted that
practice of effective leadership necessarily requires relationship skills in the areas of
problem solving conflict management, motivation, communication, and listening.
They argued that perhaps the paramount leadership skill involves communicating
one‘s intent to followers, for it is only then that followers may first understand, and
then execute the goals of the team and leader. In a world dominated by computer-
mediated communication, such communication is fundamental to the viability of
virtual teams. However, simple transmission of information may not suffice, because
the virtual environment presents significant challenges for effective communication.
The authors examined developments in multimodal displays that allow teams to
communicate effectively via single or multiple modalities (e.g. visual, auditory,
tactile). Firmly grounded in commonly acceptable guiding principles for the design
and use of information displays culled from an extensive review of the literature,
Walvoord et al. presented a practical example of the utility of these guiding principles
for multimodal display design in the context of communicating a leader‘s presence to
a virtual team via commander‘s intent.
Kayworth, T. and Leidner, D. (2000) identified the growing popularity of inter-
organizational alliances, the increasingly flatter organizational structures, the
globalization of commercial operations, the shift from production to service related
businesses, and the resultant spawning of a new generation of knowledge workers not
bound to physical work locations as factors contributing to an accelerated the need for
virtualization of teams. The global virtual team has emerged as a new form of
organizational structure, supported by enabling information and communication
technologies. The advantages are: (a) the ability to maximize organizational expertise
without having to physically relocate individuals; the required expertise for a given
task or project may be dispersed at multiple locations throughout the organization, but
a virtual team facilitates the pooling of this talent to provide focused attention to a
particular problem without having to physically relocate individuals; (b) the ability to
unify the varying perspectives of different cultures and business customs to avoid
counterproductive ethno-centric biases; (c) cost reduction; (d) cycle-time reduction;
and, (e) improved decision-making and problem solving skills. In the future, the
source of human achievement may not be extraordinary individuals, but extraordinary
combinations of people. Just as companies benefit from virtual teams, they must also
face numerous complexities inherent to this new type of work group: difficulty in
managing communication effectively, varying time zones, technology disparity, and
differences in technology proficiency amongst virtual team members. Keyworth and
Leidner discussed the results of an exploratory global virtual team project undertaken
with members from Mexico, Europe, and the United States. The authors attempted to
identify specific issues and challenges faced by virtual teams, to identify critical
14
success factors, and to stimulate compelling ideas for future research. The study was
conducted amongst twelve virtual teams that were given the freedom to select
whatever technology seemed to be most appropriate for the assigned task.
Interestingly, there was a significant variance among teams in their adoption and use
of various technologies. While some teams adopted e-mail alone, others adopted e-
mail, internet collaborative tools, as well web pages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
team member experience with technology may have had a significant role in their
adoption of technology. Upon final analysis of the experimental data emerging from
the field, the authors were able to identify four basic classes of issues faced by virtual
team groups: communications, culture, technology, and project management. The
study also provided rich insights into some of the types of specific challenges faced
by culturally diverse global virtual teams. By studying these challenges, the authors
derived and articulated a set of critical success factors believed to be important in the
successful design and deployment of virtual teams. Some of these success factors for
virtual teams are no different from success factors for physical teams; for instance, the
three major domains remain: communication, culture, and project management. But
some of the challenges within these domains are unique to the virtual environment:
(a) problems as delayed communication; (b) misunderstandings arising out of lack of
response; (c) lack of a shared context within which to interpret messages; and, (d) the
inability to monitor team members. Also significant was the fact that the solutions at
the disposal of team leaders to correct the problems of teamwork are quite different in
the virtual environment where much of the control and reward capabilities of the
leader are reduced. So the e-leader must create inventive solutions to address team
problems.
Nauman, S. Khan, A.M. and Ehsana, N (2010) noted that virtual teams can rapidly
respond to business globalization challenges, and that their use is expanding
exponentially. The authors studied the relationship of empowerment, e-leadership
style, and customer service standards as a measure of effective project management in
projects involving virtual teams. The authors measured empowerment through two
constructs: (a) the psychological empowerment construct, where the focus is the
individual‘s psychological empowerment state; and (b) the empowerment climate,
where the focus is on work environment. The study compared the empowerment
climate across projects exhibiting different degrees of virtuality. Nauman et al. also
examined the moderating effects of the degree of virtuality on the relationship
between empowerment and leadership style. The authors tested their hypotheses with
information collected from project management professionals in five countries using
statistical methods and operations research concepts such as linear programming. The
results revealed that the empowerment climate had a significant effect on concern for
task, concern for people, and concern for customer service. The authors also
discovered that empowerment is higher in more virtual projects.
Chad, l. Craig, S. and Ying, L. (2001) argued that it is critical that managers build
stronger relationships and cohesion among virtual team members as they have
significant impact on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams. The effect of
social factors on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams have been
recognized. Social factors such as relationship building, cohesion, and trust are crucial
for the effectiveness of virtual teams. Communication is a tool that directly influences
the social dimensions of the team. The performance of the team has a positive impact
15
on satisfaction with the virtual team. Lurey, J.S and Raisinghani, M.S (2001)
described that the issues of effectiveness within virtual teams have become critical for
companies that are dispersed across space, time, and/or organizational boundaries.
Globalization of the marketplace makes such distributed work groups achieve a
competitive advantage in this ever-changing business environment.
Kelley, L. and Sankeya, T. (2008) studied whether virtual projects provide different
challenges from conventional projects. Can virtual projects be more useful in certain
contexts than those conducted by face-to-face teams? The authors looked at two
distributed information technology projects conducted within a global banking
corporation. Their findings indicated that time zone and cultural differences in
particular, affected communication and team relations. The authors concluded that
virtual teams are useful for projects requiring cross-functional or cross-boundary
skilled inputs. Workman, M. Kahnweiler, W. and Bommer, W (2010) discussed
telecommuting and virtual teams as strategic organizational innovations with wide
ranging potential benefits for all concerned: individuals, business, and society. This
empirical study investigated telework and virtual team innovations from the
perspective of commitment, information richness, and cognitive style (mental self-
government) theory. Workman et al. reported that their findings indicated certain
combinations of cognitive styles and media as contributing to commitment in
telecommuting. The authors concluded by making some specific recommendation on
setting up a telework environment for best success. Pithon, A.C Brochaod, M.R
Sandonato, F.S and Teixeira, B.M (2006) focused on the task of communicating from
a distance. Virtual work modifies established habits of teamwork, and extends the
concepts of space and time. Innovations in communications and computer science
present new ways of distributing knowledge and reinforce cooperative work. Pithon et
al. presented an analysis of application boarding of Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (CSCW) developed by two workgroups with distinct objectives. While group-A
launched a virtual team for cooperative work, group-B analyzed the functioning of a
small company virtually.
Paul, S, Seetharaman, P. Samarah, I. and Mykytyn, P.P (2004) examined
collaborative conflict management in a multi-cultural heterogeneous virtual team
consisting of members from the United States and India, working on a project
involving a decision to be taken for a client. The entire process was conducted
virtually, and a web-based decision support system was utilized that allowed team
members to effectively collaborate, including discussing task options, critique
suggestions, and vote on the results. The data analyses suggested that collaborative
conflict management style positively impacted satisfaction with the decision-making
process, perceived decision quality, and perceived participation of the virtual teams.
The study found only weak evidence that linked a group‘s heterogeneity to its
collaborative conflict management styles. Dekker, D.M Rutte, C.G and Van den Berg,
P.T (2008) conducted a study that investigated whether members of a virtual
consisting of members from the United States, India and Belgium assigned the same
priorities to some behavioral structures as did virtual team members from an earlier
Dutch study. Thirty-four virtual team members from the three countries were
interviewed by means of the critical incident technique, involving four hundred and
ninety-three critical incidents grouped into thirteen categories. The study found
discrepancies between the results of the earlier Dutch study and this one. Indian and
Belgian team members identified a new category: Respectfulness.
16
Huang, R. Kahai, S. and Jestice, R (2009) focused on decision-making challenges in a
virtual team. How do e-leaders structure team processes and provide task support?
The authors explored the interaction effects between leadership styles and media
richness on task cohesion and cooperative climate. This, in turn, influenced team
outcome in decision-making tasks. The results obtained suggest that transactional
leadership behaviors directly improve task cohesion of the team, while
transformational leadership indirectly improve task cohesion by first improving the
cooperative climate within the team, which, in turn, improves task cohesion. These
effects on team outcome were mediated by media richnessthey occurred only when
media richness was low. The study also advocated that task cohesion results in group
consensus and members‘ satisfaction with the discussion, whereas cooperative
climate enhances discussion satisfaction and reduces time spent on the task.
Greenberg, P. S. Greenberg, R.H. and Antonucci, Y.L (2007) investigated trust in a
virtual team environment. In physical teams, trust is generally established over time
only when there is a history of reliable behavior. Therefore, it follows that it will be
hard to establish trust in virtual teams because there is no physical contact and no
history. The study found that swift trust can develop quickly in a virtual team, but that
such trust can be quite fragile. Greenberg et al. described the three components of
trust building ability, integrity, and benevolence and assigned these to different stages
in the life cycle of a virtual team. The authors proposed how e-leaders and virtual
team members can develop trust and sustain it through the entire project lifecycle.
2.3 Technology
All virtual teams are connected by information- and communication technology. All
interactions among the virtual team members as well as with their leaders is mediated
by computers. The articles in this section examine some aspects of this technology.
Zigurs, I (2003) noted that leadership in virtual teams is expressed through
technology; therefore leaders must know how to make sense of technology in order to
make the most competent use of it. The author described communication technology
in terms of media richness, which he said influences media choice, and elaborated that
it is natural to choose the right media that will provide enhanced performance virtual
groups. The author categorized media richness in terms of rapid feedback, language
variety, personalization, and multiple cues. The greater the ability of a medium to
provide for those characteristics, the richer the medium is. Zigurs presented an
alternative to viewing media from a richness perspective by looking at it in terms of
media synchronicity, which deals with two basis processes: (a) conveyance, which is
the exchange of information, and an attempt to understand its meaning with reference
to symbol variety, parallelism, feedback, rehearsability, and reprocessability; and, (b)
convergence, which is the development of shared understanding on the meaning of
the information exchanged.
Jarvenpaa, S.I and Tanriverdi, H (2003) identified a new kind of technical structure, if
not technology itself, called the virtual knowledge network that supports the e-leader.
They noted that knowledge resources today are more important than physical and
financial resources as "drivers of firm performance." The organizations themselves
are transitioning from hierarchical tree structures to flatter web-like structures that
better facilitate the flow of knowledge. The firms now create networks of customers,
vendors, partners and business associates and "tap into complementary knowledge
17
sources." As a result the place where working, learning and innovation occur appears
to have moved from inside the organizations to a virtual knowledge network. The
authors observed that organizations cope with uncertainties by designing structures
that increase their information processing ability, a virtual knowledge network being
one such structure, consisting of hardware, software, digital media, electronic records,
intellectual property, people, and so on. It is a transient, boundary-less, lateral, and
computer-mediated organization structure. Jarvenpaa and Tanriverdi explained this
type of e-leadership to be network-centric leadership practice, and concluded by
noting that firms need leadership that can create and nurture these virtual knowledge
networks.
Karpova, E. Correia, A.P and Baran, E (2008) focused on the technology to support
virtual collaboration, computer-mediated communication, and teamwork. This study
examined how global learning teams utilized technology in a virtual collaboration to
solve complex problems. Explaining the use of technology by the learning teams to
support computer-mediated communication, a model of technology application at
different stages of virtual collaborative process was proposed. The authors claimed
that the model maximizes the potential of global teams and facilitates greater
integration of virtual collaboration into a geographically dispersed team. Time
difference and lack of nonverbal cues were identified as challenges the global teams
faced. The benefits of virtual collaboration are articulated as the opportunities to:
learn how to use technology in a meaningful way; practice using technology to solve
problems; and broaden one's perspective by communicating with people from
different cultures. Bishop, A. Riopelle, K. Gluesing, J. Danowski, J. and Eaton, T
(2010) discussed e-mail networks and the technology to support global virtual teams.
The authors acknowledged that historically, managing employees that are not co-
located has relied mostly on endless e- mail folders bursting at the seams, designed to
track issues, manage performance, and distribute workload. Such methods are highly
inefficient beyond the most rudimentary data volume. As a result, the distant
manager‘s understanding and perception of his virtual team members is often skewed
by lack of information information that they normally obtain by being in close
proximity to employees. The authors proposed a set of tools called the Digital
Diffusion Dashboard that provide metrics and analytics to enable the virtual manager
better understand the network that connects him or her with the virtual team. The
tools analyze the network the extract analytics pertaining to volumes, response time,
individuals with whom an employee regularly interacts, cultural influences in the
workload of an employee, buzz around critical topics, emotion, and team
collaboration. Additionally, the proposed tools can help manage the adoption of new
global processes as well as staff changes and turnover to shorten transition time for
both incoming and exiting employees. All of these measurements have a significant
impact, especially in virtual teams where the tools help bridge the gap between
location and perceived performance.
Chen, M. Liou, Y. Wang, C.W and Chi, Y (2007) focused on collaboration
technology that enables web-based group dynamics and group decision support. The
authors noted that companies are going global, and this is especially true for
companies participating in the global supply chain. To become agile enterprises, these
companies are deploying virtual teams to carry out short- and long-term projects.
Chen et al. defined collaboration as activities that involve people engaged in various
business processes (e.g., marketing, engineering, research, and development) working
18
together by sharing information and making decisions. Distributed teams can carry
out critical tasks only with appropriate decision support technologies. The authors
discussed the architecture and detailed design of a web-based application called
TeamSpirit. A series of empirical studies were reported to assess the effectiveness of
TeamSpirit in supporting distributed group problem solving when in-person
facilitation is not possible. The results indicated that giving creative problem solving
training to TeamSpirit participants had positive impacts on team performance.
2.4 A Summary
E-leadership is a new leadership paradigm that requires the leader to achieve
objectives such as vision, direction, motivation, inspiration and trust in a computer-
mediated manner with virtual teams that are dispersed over space and time, the main
medium of communication amongst leader(s) and followers being the electronic
conduit supported by computers. The new paradigm provides many new
opportunities, as well as a number of new challenges.
Some of the exciting new opportunities are: (a) the ability to instantly communicate
one-to-one with potentially thousands of employees, (b) the capability to use talent
that does not necessarily live within driving distance from the office, (c) the
opportunity to enhance organizational performance by assembling multi-functional
teams that are richer because one can now cherry pick the talent one desires from
wherever it may exist, (d) the ability to target better customer satisfaction, (e) the
ability to cut costs, and (f) the scope for better knowledge management.
Some of the key challenges for e-leaders are: (a) communicating effectively through
the electronic medium; communicating enthusiasm digitally; (b) building trust with
someone who may never see the leader; (c) creating a viable electronic presence‖; (d)
inspiring far flung team members; (e) mentoring virtual employees; (f) monitoring
and controlling social loafing; (g) preventing lack of technical competence from
affecting performance; and (h) maintaining work-life balance and helping followers
maintain work-life balance.
Some of the new skills required by the e-leader are: (a) stronger written
communication skills, (b) strong social networking skills, (c) a global, multi-cultural
mindset and (d) greater sensitivity towards followers state of mind.
3 THEORETICAL CHOICES
Today organizational leaders grapple with two interrelated forces, the increasingly
global dispersion of divisions and subunits, customers, stakeholders and suppliers of
the organization and, the exponential explosion in communication technology that has
led to ”greater frequency of daily interactions with colleagues, co-workers,
subordinates and bosses” dispersed geographically. In the near future it is believed
that e-leadership will be the routine rather than the exception in our thinking about
what constitutes organizational leadership (Zaccaro, S.J. and Bader, P. 2003). Virtual
teams come in many forms, with various objectives, criteria for team membership,
cultural diversity, organizational structure, and so on. Discussing what makes a team
virtual, it has been suggested that it is best to think of a team as existing on a
19
continuum of virtuality; the more the dimensions of dispersion or distance, the greater
the virtuality (Zigurs, I. 2009). To fulfill the purpose of this study and analyze the
empirical data a theoretical frame consisting of theories about leadership and stress,
virtual teams and leadership, and e-leadership and stress have been put together.
3.1 Leadership and stress
Leadership and work-related factors have in many different studies been pointed out
as central for the psychosocial environment at work. Leaders are essential when it
comes to creating a good environment and reduce stress. At the same time are the
leaders also exposed to a lot of pressure and uncertainties about their own role,
responsibilities, and duties that might create a risk for health problems among the
leaders them selves. It is known since earlier that a leader who is threatening causes
stress among the employees. He or she might use his or her power to terrorize and
frighten others in the organization where he or she is working. Impossible deadlines
are set and unnecessary disturbances take place at the same time as it often exist a
strong pressure to deliver (Aquino, K. 2000, Tepper, B.J. 2000). Dr Hans Selye, who
invented the concept stress, became interested of a phenomenon that he describes as
“the syndrome of just being sick” (1956). He contributed a medical definition of
stress, focusing on the mobilization of mental and bodily resources that takes place
when an individual are exposed to difficult pressure. According to Selye there are
three phases, alarm, resistance and exhaustion, in a stress-reaction.
A psychological definition of stress also exists when a person feels that the problem
he or she is exposed to is more than his or her ability to handle these. This has to do
with how the individual values the problems and his or her own ability to manage
(Lazarus, R.1966).
In an early study about how leadership relates to organizational stress in a hospital the
concepts “consideration” and “structure” were used. A pattern shows that a
combination of a lot of individual consideration and a lot of structure initiate a low
stress level between different units at the hospital. A lot of consideration also seems to
create a low stress level within the same unit but how only structure influenced was
not certain. The study concludes that a good leader has to find a way to manage
between structure and individual consideration that supports low levels of stress
(Oaklander, H. Fleishman, E.A 1964). In a more recent study a person characterized
as a bad leader doesn´t show consideration, initiates structure without care and takes
away autonomy, responsibility and control from coworkers, uses only a transactional
approach, act laissez-faire and doesn´t answer questions or manages what is going on
in the organization (Nyberg, A. Bernin, P. Theorell, T. 2005).
That a transformational leadership relates positively to personal success and
negatively to burn out is showed in yet another study. A positive relationship exists
between a passive and avoiding leadership and burnout among coworkers. As an
example a leader that avoids answering questions causes stress. People with this sort
of leadership also often themselves become burned out (Zopiatis, A. & Constanti, P
2010).
20
In another study relates one aspect of transformational leadership, individual care,
negatively to unhappiness while one aspect of transactional leadership, management-
by-exception, relate positively to four indicators of cronic stress (Rowold, J. Schlotz,
W. 2009). This probably depends on that the boss only act when standards are wrong
or mistakes have been found.
Research also shows that if coworkers experience the boss as a change agent that
present a clear vision for the organization, and act in a way so that others trust the
leader it decreases stress levels. To exercise a leadership based only on legitimate
power and power to convince others increases stress levels. Power exercised because
of expert power or reward power increases insecurity. For an organization to be
successful and have a good working climate it is better that the leader uses power
based on personality than power based only on position (Erkutlu, H. & Chafra, J.
2006). Emotional intelligence has also been considered important for a leader and has
to do with managing your own feelings, understand others feelings and use feelings in
decision-making. One study shows that it is important to be able to handle your own
feelings when it comes to handling stress at work. To support your own and others
feeling seems to be important when it comes to successfully handling different
demands at work but to use feelings in connection with taking decisions play a small
role for others stress (King, M., Gardner, D. 2006).
Finally, stress in organizations caused by bad leadership shows itself among the
employees as frustrations, dissatisfaction, temper and psychosomatic and physical
symptoms, especially if people cannot leave the organization and find a new job.
Anger, depression and low self esteem easily emerge because of stress and bad
leadership. In a work place like this might signals about existing problems such as
these be increased absence, confused and irritated employees that are difficult to
cooperate with, and that many mistakes happens when it comes to work that is
normally performed well.
3.2 Virtual teams and e-ledership
Brake, T (2006) stated that the new collaborative workplace is evolving both globally
and virtually and presents two major challenges that are isolation and confusion.
Howell, J. M. Neufeld, D.J. and Avolio, B.J (2005) examined transformational and
transactional leadership with reference to physical distance. The physical distance
between leader and followers negatively moderated the relationship between
transformational leadership and business unit performance, and positively moderated
the relationship between contingent reward leadership and performance.
Pulley,M.L. and Sessa, V.J (2001) identified five key paradoxes with e-leadership. It
is swift and mindful, individual and community, top-down and grassroots, details and
big picture and flexible and steady. And Kissler, G.D (2001) identified some e-
leadership attributes such as cognitive skills and education, quick adaptability to
change, flexibility, ability to work for more than one boss, the ability to keep ones
heads in the midst of disorder and ambiguity, experience in several different fields
and the ability to transfer ideas from one to the other, individuality and
entrepreneurialism. Annunzio, S (2001) focused on the need to generate inter-
generational cooperation. He identified seven distinguishing factors of the new e-
21
leadership, honesty, responsiveness, vigilance, willingness to learn and re-learn, a
sense of adventure, vision and altruism.
Malhotra, A. Majchrzak, A and Rosen, B (2007) studied virtual teams to identify the
best leadership practices of effective leaders of virtual teams. They concluded that
successful e-leadership included the ability to generate and sustain trust through the
utilization of ICT, make sure that distributed diversity is both clearly understood as
well as appreciated, effectively monitor and manage the life cycles of virtual work,
monitor and manage the virtual teams progress with the use of technology, extend the
visibility of virtual members both within the team as well as outside the company, and
help to ensure that individual team members do benefit from the team.
According to Watson, K.D (2007) physically co-located employees reported
significantly higher levels of satisfaction with management than did remote
employees. There was a significant difference between virtual and physical
employees, with co-located employees reporting higher levels of career advancement
than virtual employees. There was also a stronger relationship between initiating
structure and satisfaction with supervision when geographical distance was high,
therefore it appears that spational distance actually acted as an enhancer. Discussing
trust in virtual teams, Zigurs, I. argued that trust can emerge among virtual team
members rather swiftly, but that such trust is fragile and may be difficult to maintain.
Leadership in virtual teams comes in varied forms, and virtual teams sometimes may
or may not have an assigned leader at all. Different people might take on leadership
behavior at different times. Discussing the question of leadership presence, the author
recapped that leaders in traditional teams make their presence known in a variety of
ways, including where they sit in meetings, office location and trappings, body
language, voice inflections, style of dress, and so on, but these methods are lost in
virtual environments. A new kind of presence has to be established, namely a distant,
or telepresence, that may be defined by the two dimensions of vividness and
interactivity. The title of this article asks the question whether leadership in virtual
teams is an oxymoron or opportunity. The author‘s answer was that it is emphatically
an opportunity (Zigurs, I 2003)
Chad, Craig, and Ying (2008) argued that it is critical that managers build stronger
relationships and cohesion among virtual team members as they have significant
impact on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams. The effect of social
factors on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams have been recognized.
Social factors such as relationship building, cohesion, and trust are crucial for the
effectiveness of virtual teams. Communication is a tool that directly influences the
social dimensions of the team. The performance of the team also has a positive impact
on satisfaction with the virtual team.
In addition to this Zigurs, I. (2009) noted that leadership in virtual teams is expressed
through technology; therefore leaders must know how to make sense of technology in
order to make the most competent use of it. The author described communication
technology in terms of media richness, which he said influences media choice, and
elaborated that it is natural to choose the right media that will provide enhanced
performance in virtual groups. The author categorized media richness in terms of
rapid feedback, language variety, personalization, and multiple cues. The greater the
ability of a medium to provide for those characteristics, the richer the medium is.
22
3.3 E-leadership and stress
One paper proposes that stress is more common in virtual teams than in F2F teams
and that social support which is able to reduce stress is more prominent in F2F
situations than in virtual teams (Widjaja, E. and Chen, V. 2012). Stressors in virtual
teams often relate to cultural patterns of communication, as well as geographic
distance and technology. Strains that develop due to participation in virtual teams
might include anxiety, frustration, low affective and continuance of organizational
commitment, low satisfaction and turnover intention (Glazer, S. Kozusznik, M.W.
and Shargo, I.A. 2012).
Leadership in virtual teams comes in varied forms, and virtual teams sometimes may
or may not have an assigned leader at all. Different people might take on leadership
behavior at different times. Discussing the question of leadership presence, the author
recapped that leaders in traditional teams make their presence known in a variety of
ways, including where they sit in meetings, office location and trappings, body
language, voice inflections, style of dress, and so on, but these methods are lost in
virtual environments. A new kind of presence has to be established, namely a distant,
or telepresence, that may be defined by the two dimensions of vividness and
interactivity (Zigurs, I 2003).
Pulley, M.L and Sessa, V.I (2001) identified five key paradoxes with e-leadership. It
is swift and mindful, individual and community, top-down and grass-roots, details and
big picture and flexible and steady. And Kissler, G.D (2001) identified some e-
leadership attributes such as cognitive skills and education, quick adaptability to
change, flexibility, ability to work for more than one boss, the ability to keep ones
heads in the midst of disorder and ambiguity, experience in several different fields
and the ability to transfer ideas from one to the other, individuality and
entrepreneurialism. Annunzio, S (2001) focused on the need to generate inter-
generational cooperation. He identified seven distinguishing factors of the new e-
leadership, honesty, responsiveness, vigilance, willingness to learn and re-learn, a
sense of adventure, vision and altruism. Malhotra, A. Majchrzak, A and Rosen, B
(2007) concluded that successful e-leadership included the ability to generate and
sustain trust through the utilization of ICT, make sure that distributed diversity is both
clearly understood as well as appreciated, effectively monitor and manage the life
cycles of virtual work, monitor and manage the virtual teams progress with the use of
technology, extend the visibility of virtual members both within the team as well as
outside the company, and help to ensure that individual team members do benefit
from the team.
Howell, J.M. Neufeld, D.J and Avolio, B.J (2005) examined transformational and
transactional leadership with reference to physical distance and found that the
physical distance between leader and followers negatively moderated the relationship
between transformational leadership and business unit performance, and positively
moderated the relationship between contingent reward leadership and performance.
According to Watson, K.D (2007) physically co-located employees reported
significantly higher levels of satisfaction with management than did remote
employees. There was also a significant difference between virtual and physical
23
employees, with co-located employees reporting higher levels of career advancement
than virtual employees. In addition to this there was also a stronger relationship
between initiating structure and satisfaction with supervision when geographical
distance was high, therefore it appears that spational distance actually acted as an
enhancer.
Chad, L. Craig, S. and Ying, L (2008) argued that it is critical that managers build
stronger relationships and cohesion among virtual team members as they have
significant impact on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams. Social factors
such as relationship building, cohesion, and trust are crucial for the effectiveness of
virtual teams. As an example communication is a tool that directly influences the
social dimensions of the virtual team.
4 METHOD This section includes a project description and informs about research design as well
as why and how the case SEA was picked.
4.1 Project Description
The aim of this case study has been to explore, describe and interpret a phenomenon
in a real-life situation, in this case the relationship between e-ledarship and stress in
permanent virtual teams (Garfinkel, H. 1972, Denzin, N. 1983). The goal has been to
give a descriptive account that is so well grounded in empirical data that it is possible
to understand “what is going on here” and analyze “how things work” (Wolcott, H.
1994). An accurate description of something can be a diagnosis and also an
explanation of what is taking place. The goal here has been to investigate, make
visible and interpret how others make sense of and interpret what happens to them in
their every-day world. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz thinks that a good
interpretation of anything-a poem, a person, a history, a ritual, an institution or a
society-takes us into the heart of that of which is the interpretation. The case SEA was
picked since more and more public sector organizations decide to reorganize
themselves into virtual teams. It is also in line with discussions in society about the
need to be ‘green’ and the need for sustainability.
4.2 Research Design
This research started with 2 pilot studies, one in a private company and the second in
a public sector organization. Then the rest of the project took place during four phases
integrating interviewing, enquiries, analyzing empirical data and writing.
Phase One: During phase one reading of documents about SEA and the change
process within the organization took place. Also interviews at the HQ were conducted
(Silverman, D. 1993, 1998, Wolcott, H. 1994). The goal with these interviews was to
establish a “community of interpretation” (Sandberg, J. 1994).
Phase Two: During phase two interviews with eight virtual leaders took place. The
24
eight leaders were picked ad hoc among forty virtual leaders at SEA. The results that
showed high stress levels made the researcher decide to continue and include all 40 e-
leaders in the study.
Phase Three: During the third phase a questionnaire was sent to all the 40 e-leaders
in the SEA organization. In it following key-questions was asked: Do you feel stress?
If yes, why do you feel stress? The e-leaders were also asked to list what they
perceive as good and bad with virtual teams.
Phase Four: During analysis the researcher went through the empirical data
analyzing and dividing it into question by question. The first question was
quantitative and the researcher identified the percentage of e-leaders that feel stress.
Then a qualitative in-depth analysis of why the e-leaders feel stress took place by
studying and comparing the answers to the three other questions and searching for
reliable patterns among the answers. An analysis of the results took place between
how they compared to theories about leadership and stress and theories about e-
leadership and stress. A write up of the results were done and presented for
stakeholders at a leadership conference.
Organizational factors Leadership factors
Why do e-leaders feel stress? Theories about e-leadership and
stress
Theories about leadership and
stress.
Theories about e-leadership and
stress
Theories about leadership and
stress.
What is good with virtual
teams?
Theories about e-leadership and
stress
Theories about leadership and
stress.
Theories about e-leadership and
stress
Theories about leadership and
stress.
What is bad with virtual
teams?
Theories about e-leadership and
stress
Theories about leadership and
stress.
Theories about e-leadership and
stress
Theories about leadership and
stress.
Figure 1. Analytical figure
4.3 Communicative and Pragmatic validity
On the results in this study have communicative and pragmatic validity been applied.
Communicative validity involves establishing an ongoing dialogue in which
conflicting knowledge claims are debated throughout the research process (Sandberg,
J. 1995, 1994) Pragmatic validity involves testing the knowledge produced in action.
According to Sandberg striving for pragmatic validity increases the likelihood of
capturing knowledge in action rather than “espoused theories” about what is going on.
To assess the relevance of results stakeholder checks have been used. They involve
25
opportunities for people with a specific interest in the research to comment on the
interpretations that have been made. In this case this has been done during a
leadership conference at SEA.
4.4 Case: SEA The Swedish Enforcement Authority
The Swedish Enforcement Authority employs about 2 200 people. Earlier SEA was
part of the The Swedish Tax Authorities but from 2006 it is an independent authority
administered by the state. The purpose of the organization is to deal with debt
collection, participate in society, be efficient and serve people all over the country.
SEA works with Preventive Communication, Summary Proceedings and
Enforcement. They work under “offentlighetsprincipen” and think themselves that the
only thing that makes them different from private business is how they are financed
which is by tax money. They are supposed to work according to certain legislation
and treat everybody all over the country in the same way.
From December 2011 they have been implementing a new team-based organization.
The teams are introduced because SEA has had too many managers, too many offices
and needed to streamline the organization. The processes that take place in SEA
during the implementation of a new organization are –implementing and learning how
to work in a team based way, reorganization, implementing virtuality and developing
a new leadership called e-leadership.
Now SEA is divided into three units. The organization consists of 120 teams and 40
of them are virtual. Every virtual team consists of 1-9 offices and between 5-25 team
members. The reorganization has decreased the amount of offices and managers with
about half. But there are still 120 middle managers in SEA. The leadership group at
the HQ consists of 9 people and they work face-to-face. There are three different
types of teams at SEA:
The more cooperation there is in the team the fewer amount of people are included in
the team, the less cooperation there is the more people are included in the team
(Excerpt from interview).
A. It is 10-15 people in teams that perform complicated work and solve problems
together.
B. It is 15-20 people in a normal team in which they sometimes work together but
often on their own.
C. It is 20-25 people in a team that have many things to do and in which people work
a lot by themselves.
SEA uses Office Communicator and Lync, Videoconference equipment, phones and
Scype, SMS and chatting.
26
5 ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
During the analyses the researcher first went through all the data to identify the stress
level among the e-leaders. Then answers to the three qualitative questions were
analyzed in-depth and the data divided into organizational and leadership factors.
Finally a summary of findings, results and implications of results are presented. The
study ends with a sum up of results.
5.1 Do the e-leaders feel stress?
Of forty virtual team-leaders 35 answered a questionnaire. Of them 29 e-leaders felt
stress (83%), two e-leaders answered No, one was sick, and three said that they did
not know if they felt stress or not. Five e-leaders did not answer the questionnaire at
all, probably because of stress. The stress the e-leaders feel has been singled out as
caused by virtuality and not other factors in the organization. There is not any
noticeable difference when it comes to amount of offices and team members included
in their virtual team between the 2 e-leaders that said that they did not feel stress and
the rest. This result is in accordance with earlier results that suggest that stress is more
common in virtual teams than in face-to-face teams. Also social support that is able to
reduce stress is more prominent in face-to-face teams than in virtual teams (Widjaja,
F. and Chen, V.2012).
5.2 Why do e-leaders feel stress?
So, a very high percentage among the e-leaders feels stress. Virtual teams were
implemented because of a desire to decrease travelling and create a more sustainable
organization. Instead travelling has increased and a core in the stress-reaction among
the e-leaders is that they never feel that they are were they should be. Earlier stress
has often been related to cultural patterns of communication, geographic distance and
technology (Glazer, S. Kozusznik, M.W. and Shargo, I.A. 2012). Also in this case
technology that doesn’t work causes stress as well as geographic distance.
The reasons for feeling stress among the e-leaders has been divided into
organizational and leadership factors.
Many offices included in the team, administrative issues and the lack of an
administrative assistant, are organizational factors that cause stress. An e-leader that
has several offices in her team might have problems to assure that a new employee get
an access-card and a computer that work. In a virtual team with several offices it is
also difficult to be flexible and arrange meetings when needed. Another factor that
causes stress is that it is often necessary to book a room for virtual meetings a long
time in advance. It requires long-term planning and decreases flexibility in the team.
Leadership factors that causes stress is the question of when informal leadership
appears and a need to be virtually visible för the virtual leader. Also the e-leader is
27
asked to leave tracks so that the team members do not fall back into old patterns of
behavior or an informal leader takes over at the local office. Some of the team
members want the leader to visit more often because others take too much place when
the leader is not there. To be virtually visible has been described as having a
“telepresence”, which is defined by dimensions such as interactivity and vividness
(Zigurs, I 2003). Team members want to have a leader that is present and complaints
from team members often have to do with too little or lack of feed-back from the
virtual team-leader.
Stress is caused by difficulties to find a balance for how work should be organized
and what should be done, or the lowest level of output at each office that is included
in the team. It is also difficult to evaluate the work that is done at the different offices
and the virtual team leader often has to rely on second hand information when making
judgments. It is also difficult to support and evaluate team members that feel insecure
with virtual leadership and to build trust in the team. Well worked out routines and a
contract when the team members have access to the e-leader are necessary to lower
stress levels. Small-talk is not so easy as when you are face-to-face. Still small talk is
very important in organizations and a way to create trust among team members.
Also environmental questions, strategy building and change processes often crave
face-to-face interaction for a successful outcome.
Information and communication is also an issue in connection with stress in virtual
teams. It plays an important role both in the relationship between the e-leader and
HQ, and the e-leader and the team members. Also earlier it has been noticed that
communication is a tool that directly influences the social dimensions of the team
(Chad, L. Craig,S. and Ying, L. 2001).
According to this research a more hierarchic or structured leadership might be needed
in virtual teams. Watson, K.D (2007) agrees with this and writes that there is a
stronger relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction with supervision
when geographical distance was high, therefore it appears that spational distance
actually acted as an enhancer of the demand for a more structured leadership.
Organizational factors Leadership factors -The more offices that are included in one virtual
team the bigger the problem is. Having many
offices means that as an e-leader you have to
travel a lot and it is easy to become burned out.
The core in the stress reaction is that the e-
leaders are never where they feel that they should
be and it is a frustrating experience.
-Also, travelling among e-leaders has increased
instead of decreasing as was presumed from the
beginning.
-E-leaders often find it difficult to arrange
meetings that all team members can attend.
-Technology that doesnt work causes stress.
-An e-leader must create and distribute work
that contributes to forming a team and building
trust. The strategy behind should be that it is “our
work” not “yours” or “mine”.
-Information and communication is an issue in
connection with stress in virtual
teams. It plays an important role both in the
relationship between the e-leader and
HQ, and the e-leader and the team members in the
virtual team. People feel stress when they do not
get the same information as they believe others
get.
-Environmental questions at work are difficult to
deal with when there are many offices included in
a virtual team.
28
-Long term planning is necessary even when it
comes to booking a room for virtual meetings.
-Administrative work such as assuring that new
team members get access cards or computers that
work causes stress.
-Developing new strategies are face-to-facework.
-Change processes must be carried out face-to-
face.
-At a distance it is also difficult to give support
when employees are exposed to verbal and
physical threats, as is common at SEA.
-In connection with setting salaries you cannot
judge an employee only on statistics, according to
one e-leader. Behavior is an important aspect of
evaluating employees and that is difficult to do at
a distance.
-It is not easy to build trust in a virtual team
when you do not see each other all the time. If the
e-leader fails to build trust work becomes
difficult.
-Without natural coffee breaks it is more difficult
to communicate among the team members and
small-talk doesn’t always come naturally.
-Conflicts in virtual teams have to do with
relations and how they are built. They also have
to do with how much the team members must
cooperate when working and solving problems. It
is mostly in daily work at the different offices that
conflicts appear. If a conflict appears the e-leader
organizes a phone-conference to try to solve the
problem.
-Also in this research the e-leader is asked to
leave tracks so that the team members do not fall
back into old patterns of behavior or an informal
leader takes over at the local office. Some of the
team members want the leader to visit more often
because others take too much place when the
leader is not there. To be virtually visible has
been described as having a “telepresence”, which
is defined by dimensions such as interactivity and
vividness (Zigurs, 2003). Team members want to
have a leader that is present and complaints from
workers often have to do with too little or lack of
feed-back.
Figure 2. Organizational and leadership factors that cause stress among e-leaders.
5.3 What e-leaders list as good with virtual teams
E-leaders list that it is possible to participate in work at a distance, such as meetings at
HQ in Stockholm, and that you as a leader get a bigger network as good with virtual
29
teams. An e-leader might also get more insight into local business and more
dimensions of work when having several offices included in her team. When he or she
changes environment/office he or she get new input. But an e-leader is also dependent
on having co-workers that can manage alone and like to work virtually. Virtual teams
are sometimes implemented by the organization as a way to decrease the amount of
leaders and save money. Then they might be questioned by employees and not always
successful.
Organizational factors Leadership factors -It is possible to participate at a distance in
meetings at HQ.
-It is possible to save money for the organization
in which the virtual team is included.
-Employees at a distance with specific knowledge
can be included in the team.
-You can have a central function in the
organization but still live in another city than HQ
is located.
-More dimensions of work and more information
are included in work when you work in a virtual
team. You get a bigger network.
-More knowledge about local business.
-When you change environment/office you get
new input.
Figure 3 What e-leaders list as good with virtual teams.
5.4 What e-leaders list as bad with virtual teams
Having several offices in a virtual team might mean that the e-leader has to deal with
different cultures at different offices, and that is mentioned as a bad thing with virtual
teams. It might also mean double or triple work and that closeness and spontaneity
among employees disappear. To distribute information takes longer in a virtual team
and it is difficult to deal with sensitive information. All soft questions take a longer
time. An e-leader often has to plan even years ahead when it comes to organizing a
room for virtual meetings and book technical equipment. It is difficult to be flexible in
virtual teams. The need to be more structured as an e-leader and less flexible than in
face-to-face teams has also been mentioned as negative with virtual teams. Too much
flexibility increases stress. Therefore structure is a keyword when trying to lower
levels of stress in virtual teams.
Organizational factors Leadership factors -Virtual meetings cannot replace physical
meeting, also physical meetings might cost more
money.
-A virtual perspective might be lacking at HQ.
-When they create group-excercises at HQ they
do not think about the virtual teams.
-Too much travelling might be needed. Long trips
-More planning is needed.
-It is difficult to build trust. To work in a virtual
team might create a feeling of being excluded.
-Soft questions take a longer time.
-Less transfer of knowledge might be the case.
-You must have team members that can manage
30
when trains does not function, and with bad
internet is tiresome.
-The question about cost and flying is important.
-Two offices also means two cultures, many thing
must be done twice, difficult to implement
changes at the other office, difficult to solve
problems, physical meeting give more than virtual
meetings, personal, closeness, the daily and
spontaneous disappear, improved climate if
members might meet more often.
by themselves.
-It is difficult to gather everybody quickly.
-To work in a virtual team might be unsatisfying
and cause sickness.
-It might include double or triple work, waste of
time, problems to be exact, difficulties to develop
and change the work.
-It takes a long time as a leader to notice when
something doesn’t work, it is difficult to check
what happens when somebody is sick, cheat or
doesn’t feel well. It demands loyalty and
communication.
-The information ways are longer in a virtual
team, it is difficult to deal with sensitive
information, exchange of information and
building of relations.
Figure 4 What e-leaders list as bad with virtual teams.
5.5 A Summary of Analyses
Stress is definitely a major challenge in virtual teams. And it is stress that is related to
virtuality and not caused by other factors in the organization. Earlier stress in virtual
teams has often been related to cultural patterns of communication, geographic
distance and technology (Glazer, S. Kozusznik, M.W. and Shargo, I.A. 2012). Also in
this case stress has to do with technology that doesn’t function, different cultures at
different offices included in a virtual team and being at a distance. E-leaders that have
several offices included in their team have to travel a lot. Actually travelling has
increased instead of decreasing for the e-leaders in this organization. Also according
to earlier research stress is more common in virtual teams compared to in face-to-face
teams. If stress exist in a team it is also easier to supply social support in a face-to-
face team than in a virtual team (Widjaja, E. and Chen, V. 2012)
Informal leadership easily appears in a virtual team and team members at each office
want the e-leader to be there as much as possible. Complaints in virtual teams appear
because the team members are unhappy since they wish to be near the e-leader more
than they are. There is a demand for written contracts about when to have access to
the e-leader and very structured routines in virtual teams. Too much flexibility causes
stress in virtual teams.
Earlier it has been noticed that communication is a tool that directly influences the
social dimensions of the team (Chad, L. Craig, S. and Ying, L. 2001) And social
factors such as relationship building, cohesion and trust are crucial for the
effectiveness of virtual teams. It is therefore critical that managers build stronger
relationships and cohesion among virtual team-members as they have significant
impact on the performance and satisfaction of virtual teams. Here concepts such as
31
virtual bonding are important. Virtual bonding has to do with increasing trust in the
team by virtual activities such as solving problems together virtually, drinking coffee
together virtually and other similar activities.
To decide and explain to team members why virtual teams are implemented in the
organization is important. If there are suspicions among the employees that virtual
teams are implemented only to decrease the amount of employees/middle managers
and save money in the organization, it might be the cause of failure of the teams. It
might also cause the team members to become cynical about the strategy of the
organization. If HQ explains that implementing virtual teams is an ambition to be
modern and part of the future it might influence the teams in a more successful
direction.
In both face-to-face teams and virtual teams both consideration and structure are
keywords when dealing with stress. Too much consideration and no structure cause
stress as well as too much structure and no consideration (Oaklander, H., Fleischman,
E.A. 1964) This research indicates that structure is even more important in virtual
teams compared to in face-to-face teams. Planned meetings, structured agendas for
every virtual meeting, structured access to the e-leader and structured and planned
activities to support virtual bonding are examples of needed structuring in virtual
teams that influences the stress level.
In the next section there is a summary of findings, both theoretical and practical, in
this project.
32
5.6 A Summery of Findings
In this section findings are divided into theoretical and practical findings.
5.6.1 Theoretical findings
This research introduces the concept virtual bonding as a way to enhance trust in
virtual teams. It means that the e-leader must find ways to implement events such as
virtual coffee-breaks, ‘drinking coffee in virtual Greece’, and other types of
cooperation and integration with the help of ICT-tools, to encourage people to small-
talk and building relations. There is a need to be more innovative when it comes to the
issue of developing the concept virtual bonding.
5.6.2 Practical findings
Implementing virtual teams at SEA come with high levels of stress.
The e-leaders experience stress mostly because they feel that they are never where
they should be, and that is very frustrating.
Being an e-leader and responsible for a virtual team in which there are several
offices included increases instead of decreases travelling.
There are strains between the e-leader and the team members but also in the
relationship towards HQ that is not virtual. HQ sometimes forgets that the teams are
virtual and make demands that are not so easy to fulfill at a distance.
How much access to give to team members and to decide the lowest level of output
allowed at each office included in the team is other causes for stress.
Administrative matters such as giving access-cards and computers to new employees
might cause stress.
As an e-leader it is difficult to support and evaluate employees.
This research indicate that a more structured leadership is needed, an explicit agenda
for work must be expressed and a strategy for how to conduct successful virtual
meetings are important to implement as well as implementing very strict and well
worked out routines in the virtual team.
6 RESULTS
This research shows that stress is a serious challenge in virtual teams and that
structure and structuring are important when dealing with it. More than 84 percent of
the e-leaders answers that they feel stress. Reasons why stress appears among the e-
leaders are dependent on organizational and leadership factors. The core in the stress-
reaction among the e-leaders is a feeling of that they are never ‘were they should be’.
33
Also travelling increases instead of decreases among the e-leaders. This research has
explored the relationship between e-leadership and stress further and list
organizational and leadership factors that are stressors for the e-leader. How many
offices that is included in the virtual team influences travelling and feelings of stress
among the e-leaders.
Leadership factors that cause stress among e-leaders are that it is difficult to decide
the lowest level of output at each office. It is difficult to inform all the offices
included in the team equally and it is difficult with equal access to the e-leader for the
team members. As a leader it is difficult to discover when team members are sick or
feeling bad and give support when needed. It is also difficult to evaluate the team
members in connection with setting salaries. It is difficult to keep the power over the
team since informal leadership easily takes over. It is difficult when HQ forget that
they are virtual. Stress appears when the technology does not function and with
unstructured routines.
It is important to employ e-leaders that have experience of leading since earlier and
preferably know what virtuality means. In every organization implementing virtual
teams there is a need for a virtual leadership-education. Another way to support the e-
leaders might be to introduce a network including meetings and mentoring.
In the next section there will be a summary of what implications for the e-leaders the
results and findings in this project have.
7 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS FOR THE E-LEADER
One of the implications of the results in this research are that the e-leader is of
major importance when it comes to handling stress in virtual teams. He or she must
create and implement a strategy for the team. Everybody must know what to do, how
to do it and when. The E-leader must create and share work that form a team, be
virtually visible and build trust. It takes serious work to create trust and consensus in a
virtual team. And too much flexibility creates stress both among e-leaders and team
members.
It is important to inform all offices that are included in the virtual team at the same
time. It is necessary to exercise control but without being a ‘control freak’. It can also
be difficult to make team members feel engaged. To be physically close is always
more powerful.
It is difficult to handle conflicts in virtual teams. Without coffee-breaks small-talk
disappear in an organization or a team. Virtual coffee-breaks have been one way to
solve this in virtual teams.
It is difficult to work with strategy-and change processes without being face-to-face.
There is a strong relationship between structure, well worked out routines and
satisfaction in virtual teams.
34
Virtual meetings function as an important tool for enhancing cooperation and unity
in virtual teams. Defining factors for a successful virtual meeting is technology that
works, enough space in the room and a structured agenda. Not more than 12-24
people should be in the conference-room at the same time.
It also seems that team members with intellectually more complicated work such as
lawyers manage virtuality better that employees that work ‘with people’ on the field.
8 TO SUM UP
So what has all this been about? To sum up, I have studied a phenomenon that is
growing and transforming the labor market. It will also influence how we see
leadership and its pros and cons in the future. I have fulfilled the purpose of this
project and reached my aim, which was to explore the relationship between e-leaders
and stress in an organization with permanent virtual teams. I have answered the
research questions, do the e-leaders feel stress, what causes stress and what is
good/bad working in virtual teams, and added to earlier research. To implement
virtual teams has been suggested as a “green” way to work among people interested
of “sustainability”. As an example it was supposed to lead to less traveling and less
‘damage on the nature’. But more than 83 percent of the e-leaders in this study feel
stress. And travelling has increased. Since the labor market is changing and more and
more organizations, companies and projects work virtually this is relevant, significant
and needed research. This study is hopefully of importance when deciding if one
should continue implementing this way of working and how to do to avoid stress.
A study like this generates general results but also results applicable to the specific
area of work that is done in the chosen organization, and also the specific
organization. At the labor market some virtual teams are more loosely put together
such as medical teams. It is also possible to create virtual teams for solving a specific
problem or dealing with a specific question. When the problem is solved the virtual
team might dissolve itself. This research has studied a conventional organization, in
which the members of a team used to sit in the ‘same corridor’, but have now
transformed itself into virtual teams that are spread all over the country. But the goal
still is that the team should work permanently together.
In this case stress among e-leaders are caused by both organizational and leadership
factors. Some of the e-leaders feel that HQ that works face-to-face shows very little
understanding for their situation. Also some people just don’t like to be virtual and
work at a distance. They like to be physically close.
My contribution in this research has been to identify very high levels of stress among
e-leaders. In relation to other studies this study is therefore critical towards
implementing virtual teams without extensive preparations and a clear idea about why
the organization want to work virtually. I have concluded that structure is a keyword
when dealing with stress in virtual teams. Virtual trustbuilding is an interesting
concept that has developed out of this research and might be taken further to
introduce a feeling of unity in the virtual team.
35
Still virtuality is a way many organizations are taking and therefore future research
should explore questions such as how virtual a leader can be? What type of leaders
manages best to be virtual? Why are virtual teams introduced? Is it to save money or
to improve the organizational setting?
Finally, there is a need to decide on how to best support virtual leaders with a virtual
leadership education and a network of meetings and mentors to lower levels of
loneliness and stress.
9 Planned Activities to make the results known and of use at the
Labor market
The results generated in this research will be presented and discussed at SEA during a
seminar with the new leadership. It will also be sent to different unions and
organizations focusing on leadership. A scientific article is planned and will be
written as soon as possible. Hopefully that will involve this researcher in an
international debate going on about virtuality and its challenges. Members of the press
that are interested of how to organize the future labor market will be invited to a
seminar during next year.
36
REFERENCES
Annunzio, S. (2001). eLeadership: Proven techniques for creating an environment of
speed and flexibility in the digital economy. New York: Free Press.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed
theory. The Leadership Quarterly 13(6), 673-704.
Aquino, K. (2000) Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization:
The Effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of
Management, 26, 171-193
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. (2003). Adding the -e to e-leadership: How it may impact
your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4).
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory,
research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4). Literature Review: e-
Leadership P a g e | 31 Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 4 Iss. 1, pp. 1- 36. ©
2011 Regent University School of Global Leadership Entrepreneurship ISSN 1930-
806X | [email protected]
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421-449.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (2008). The mediating effects of
leadership and interaction style in face-to-face and virtual teams. In S. Weisband
(Ed.), Leadership at a distance: Research in technologically supported work (pp.
127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Banerjee, P., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2004). An evaluative framework for analysing e-
government convergence capability in developing countries. Electronic Government,
an International Journal, 1(1), 29-48.
Brake, T. (2006) "Leading global virtual teams", Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 38 Iss: 3, pp.116 – 121
Bishop, A., Riopelle, K., Gluesing, J., Danowski, J., & Eaton, T. (2010). Managing
global compliance through collaborative innovation networks. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(4).
Cascio, W. F., & Shurygallo, S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams.
Organizational Dynamics, 31(4).
Chad, I. Craig, S and Ying,L . 2008. A model to develop effective virtual teams.
Decision Support Systems. 45 (4): pp. 1031-1045.
Chen, M., Liou, Y., Wang, C.-W., Fan, Y.-W., & Chi, Y.-P. J. (2007). TeamSpirit:
Design, implementation, and evaluation of a Web-based group decision support
system. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1186-1202.
Colfax, R. S., Santos, A. T., & Diego, J. (2009). Virtual leadership: A green
possibility in critical times but can it really work? Journal of International Business
Research, 8(2).
Dekker, D. M., Rutte, C. G., & Van den Berg, P. T. (2008). Cultural differences in the
perception of critical interaction behaviors in global virtual teams. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 441-452.
DeRosa, D. (2009) In Focus/Virtual Teams-Improving performance by emulating the
best. Leadership in Action, 29:17-19
Denzin, N. (1983) Interpretive Interactionism. Beyond Method. (Ed Morgan, G.) Sage
Publishing.
Dervin, B. (1992) From the Mind´s Eye of the “User”: The Sense-Making
Qualitative-Quantitative Methodology. In Qualitative Research in Information
Management, eds
37
Erkutlu, H, V., Chafra, J. Relationship between leadership power bases and job stress
of subordinates: example from boutique hotels. Management Research News. Vol.29
No 5, 2006, pp.285-297
Garfinkel, H. (1972) “Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities. Studies
in Social Interaction”. Sudnow.D.(Eds) Free Press, New York.
Geertz, C. (1973/2000) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.
Glazer, S., Kozusznik, M. W., & Shargo, I. (2012). Global virtual teams: A cure for—
or a cause of—Stress. In P. L. Perrewé, J. R. B. Halbesleben, & C. C. Rosen (Eds.),
The role of the economic crisis on occupational stress and well being: Research in
occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 10, pp. 213–266). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. Bingley, UK.
Greenberg, P. S., Greenberg, R. H., & Antonucci, Y. L. (2007). Creating and
sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50, 325-333.
Hambley, L. A., O‘Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Virtual team leadership: The
effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and
outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1-20.
Hamilton, B. A., & Scandura, T. A. (2003). E-mentoring: Implications for
organizational learning and development in a wired world. Organizational Dynamics,
31(4), 388-402
Hanna, N. K. (2007). e-Leadership institutions for the knowledge economy.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Hart, R. K., & Mcleod, P. L. (2003). Rethinking team building in geographically
dispersed teams: One message at a time. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 352-361.
Holland, J. B., Malvey, D., & Fottler, M. D. (2009). Health care globalization: A need
for virtual leadership. The Health Care Manager (Frederick), 28(2), 117-123.
Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of
leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(2), 273-285.
Huang, R., Kahai, S. & Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on
team collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1098-
1110.
Hunsaker, P. L., & Hunsaker, J. S. (2008). Virtual teams: A leader's guide. Team
Performance Management, 14(1/2), 86-101.
Jarvenpaa, S. I., & Tanriverdi, H. (2003). Leading virtual knowledge networks.
Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 403-412.
Hanna, N. K. (2007). e-Leadership institutions for the knowledge economy.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Karpova, E., Correia, A.-P., & Baran, E. (2009). Learn to use and use to learn:
Technology in virtual collaboration experience. The Internet and Higher Education,
12(1), 45-52.
Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for
success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183-194.
Kerfoot, K. M. (2010). Listening to see: The key to virtual leadership. Nursing
Economics, 28(2), 114-115.
King,M., Gardner, D. (2006) Emotional intelligence and occupational stress among
professional staff in New Zealand. International Journal of Organizational
Kissler, G. D. (2001). E-leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 121-133.
Lazarus, R. (1966) Psychological stress and the Coping Process. New York,
NY.McGrawHill
Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankeya, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value creation and
38
project success: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1).
Luther, K., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Flash collabs: Collaborative innovation networks
in online communities of animators. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4),
6571-6581.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy
Of Management Perspective, 21, 60–70.
Nauman, S., Khan, A. M., & Ehsan, N. (2009). Patterns of empowerment and
leadership style in project environment. International Journal of Project
Management, 28, 638-649.
Nyberg, A. Bernin, P. Theorell, T. 2005 The impact of leadership on the health of
subordinates. Report no 1:2005 SALTSA-Joint Programme for working life research
in Europe.
Oaklander, H., Fleischman, E.A. Patterns of Leadership Related to Organizational
Stress in Hospital Settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.8,No.4 (Mar, 1964)
pp 520-532
Pithon, A. C., Brochado, M. R., Sandonato, F. S., & Teixeira, B. M. (2006).
Collaborative analysis among virtual teams: An experience. In D. T. Pham, E. E.,
Eldukhri, A. J. Soroka (eds.), Intelligent Production Machines and Systems (pp. 113-
119). Cardiff, UK: Elsevier, LTD.
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., & Mykytyn, P. P. (2004). Impact of
heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of
synchronous global virtual teams. Information & Management, 41(3), 303-321.
Pulley, M. L., & Sessa, V. I. ('2001). E-leadership: Tackling complex challenges.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(6/7).
Roberto 2002 Lessons from Everest: The interaction of cognitive bias, psychological
safety and system complexity. California Management Review
Rowold, J Shlotz W. Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Followers
Chronic Stress. Leadership Review, Vol 9, Spring 2009, pp 35-48
Sandberg, J. (1994) Human Competence at Work. An interpretative approach.
Bas,Göteborg.
Sandberg, J. (1995) How do we justify knowledge produced by interpretative
approaches. EFI Research Report. ISBN NR 91-7258-400-9.
Sandberg, J. (2000) “Understanding human competence at work. An interpretative
approach”. Academy of Management Journal, vol.43, pp.9-25.
Selye, H. (1956) The Stress of Life. New York:McGrawHill
Shriberg, A. (2009). Effectively leading and managing a virtual team. The Business
Review, 12(2).
Strauss A and Corbin J. (1998), “Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory”. Sage Publications.
Tepper B.J. 2000 Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 178-190
Walker, J. W. (2000). E-leadership? Human Resource Planning, 23(1), 5-6. Literature
Review: e-Leadership P a g e | 36 Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 4 Iss. 1, pp. 1-
36. © 2011 Regent University School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship ISSN
1930-806X | [email protected]
Walvoord, A. A. G., Redden, E. R., Elliott, L. R., & Coovert, M. D. (2008).
Empowering followers in virtual teams: Guiding principles from theory and practice.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1884-1906.
39
Watson, K. D. (2007). Remote management: Traditional leadership behaviors in a
contemporary work environment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS.
Su, B. , Widjaja, A. E. and Chen, J. , 2012-11-17 "Stress in Virtual Team Vs Face-to-
Face Team: Is Working in Virtual Team more Stressful than Face-to-Face
Team?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 43rd Decision Sciences Institute
Annual Meeting, San Francisco Marriot, San Francisco, CA Online
Wolcott, H.F. (1994) Transforming qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., & Bommer, W. (2010). The effects of cognitive style
and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 63(2).
Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading e-
teams: Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics,
31(4).
Xiao, Y., Seagull F. J., Mackenzie, C. F., Klein, K. J., & Ziegert, J. (2008).
Adaptation of team communication patterns. Exploring the effects of leadership at a
distance: Task urgency, and shared team experience. In S. Weisband (Ed.),
Leadership at a distance: Research in technologically supported work (pp. 71–96).
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zigurs, I. (2009). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity?
Organizational Dynamics, 31(4).
Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P. Leadership styles and burnout: is there an association?
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol 22 No.3 2010
40
41
42