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 | editorelj@regent.edu

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 | editorelj@regent.edu

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