Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Bruce J. Avolio*
Surinder Kahai
Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY
George E. Dodge
West Texas A&M University
In this article we review literature to build a broad understanding of what constitutes e-leadership
in organizations. We propose a framework based on Adaptive Structuration Theory that could
be used to study how Advanced Information Technology could influence and is influenced by
leadership. According to our framework, the effects of Advanced Information Technology emerge
from their interaction with organizational structures of which leadership is a part. Furthermore,
organizational structures, including leadership, may themselves be transformed as a result of
interactions with Advanced Information Technology. We use our Adaptive Structuration Theory–
based framework to pool relevant results and suggestions from a diverse array of literature to
provide recommendations for developing a research agenda on e-leadership.
* Direct all correspondence to: Bruce Avolio, Center for Leadership Studies and School of Management,
Binghamton University, PO Box 6015, Binghamton, NY 13902-6015; e-mail: head3@binghamton.edu.
This article begins to address the gap in the literature concerning how AIT
affects the way we study and practice leadership in organizations. We believe it is
perhaps too early to identify any empirically based, systematic, patterned variations
or to draw any broad conclusions about e-leadership. Consequently, the central
purpose of this article is to develop a nomological framework primarily based on
DeSanctis and Poole’s (1994) Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) as a broad
basis for guiding future research on e-leadership. According to AST, the effects of
AIT emerge from their interaction with organizational structures of which leader-
ship is a part. Furthermore, organizational structures, including leadership, may
themselves transform as a result of interactions with AIT. We use our AST-based
framework to pool relevant results and suggestions from a diverse array of literature
to provide recommendations for developing a research agenda on e-leadership.
We examine e-leadership in context so as not to pursue another avenue of
leadership research where leader-follower relationships are studied in a vacuum
(House & Aditya, 1997). In the case of e-leadership the context not only matters,
it is a part of the construct being studied. Accordingly, we begin our analysis of
e-leadership by examining the context in which this leadership process is emerging
and then define what e-leadership represents. Following our definition, we discuss
AST and how leadership relates to AST. Finally, we examine the research available
for a special case of AIT—Group Support Systems (GSS). This special type of
information technology is important because it represents a microcosm of the
potential effects that can occur concerning the interface between leadership pro-
cesses, group processes, individual processes, and AIT at a group level, and over
time at organizational and inter-organizational levels. GSS research is particularly
relevant to our discussion because it is one information technology domain where
research has specifically examined leadership style and processes. Finally, we end
this article by offering some guidance and directions for future research.
People make sense of the social world around them by enacting micro changes that
accumulate, resulting in major social and structural changes (Weick, 1990). Leaders
are likely to be strong contributors to this sense making and enactment, for instance,
by providing an organizational vision.
What follows is a theoretical framework, called AST, which captures the view
that technology and organizational structures influence each other. Adaptive Struct-
uration Theory forms the basis for our description of the co-evolution of e-leadership
and technology in organizations. This framework spells out the sources of structures
that influence technology use, how technology interacts with these sources of struc-
ture, and the dialectic interplay between technology integration and the sources of
structures. It also helps one identify the relevance of leadership in the “emergent”
interplay between technology and organizational structures.
new structures and consider structures from non-technology sources, such as organi-
zational hierarchies, knowledge, and standard operating procedures in the design
of a new AIT system. The structures of an AIT can be described in two ways:
structural features and the spirit of those features (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). The
structural features of an AIT refer to the actual design characteristics that govern
how information is gathered, manipulated, and managed by users. For instance, the
structural features of a GSS system might include anonymous posting of messages,
enabling access at any time and from any place.
The spirit of structural features refers to the intent or purpose underlying the
inclusion of structural features. The spirit indicates the normative framework for
interpretation and use of a set of structural features, that is, how the features
ought to be interpreted and used. According to DeSanctis and Poole (1994), when
considering structural features of an AIT, one is concerned with questions such as
what does the system look like or what modules does it contain (p. 127). When
considering the spirit of an AIT, one is concerned with questions such as what kind
of goals are being promoted by technology or hat kind of values are being supported.
The notion of AIT’s spirit is akin to a leader’s intent. When considering a leader’s
intent, one is concerned with the goals and values promoted by the leader.
As an illustration of the structural features and spirit of an AIT, consider the
Electronic Brainstorming (EBS) tool available in Ventana’s GSS (Nunamaker,
Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George, 1991). The EBS’s structural features include
enabling anonymous and parallel communication. The spirit of these features is
to promote participation by removing social barriers to communication, such as
evaluation apprehension, fear of reprisals, and waiting for someone to finish speak-
ing before you speak. The spirit of the system might be described as analogous to
promoting participative leadership.
In addition to AIT, a group’s task and environment also provide certain struc-
tures. The contents and constraints of a task act as resources and rules that guide
the accomplishment of the task. For instance, when developing an AIT application,
the user requirements and budgetary limits act as resources and rules for task
participants. Likewise, the internal and external environments may provide struc-
tures or even scripts for behavior. The internal environment’s climate, culture, and
standard operating procedures may act as rules and resources that guide organiza-
tional members’ actions, as may the characteristics of the external environment such
as economic climate, regulation, inter-organizational relationships, competition,
technological possibilities, and professional institutions.
During the use of AIT, users bring into action (i.e., use or interpret) the structures
from various sources. Bringing structures into action is defined as appropriation of
those structures. The appropriation of structures and its outcomes can reaffirm
existing structures, modify them, or give rise to new structures. As we appropriate
AIT, our tasks, and features of the environment, the information and outcomes
generated by their appropriation can create structures, which emerge and come
into play over time. Thus, in addition to structures provided by the AIT and a
group’s task and its environment, new “emergent” structures may also impact
on how a group works together. Complicating matters, there is also a recursive
relationship between the emergent and existing structures, which can impact on
Avolio et al. 621
So, there are structures in technology, on the one hand, and structures in
action, on the other. The two are continually intertwined; there is a recursive
relationship between technology and action, each iteratively shaping the other.
(p. 125)
they should influence or be influenced by others at the same level, below them, or
above them (Lord & Maher, 1991). Leadership systems also include the quality of
dyadic interactions and relationships (Graen & Ulh-Bien, 1995), the collective
leadership within group interactions (Sivasubramaniam, Jung, Avolio, & Murry, in
press), and ultimately the leadership culture that characterizes an organization
system or larger collective (House & Aditya, 1997). The leadership system encom-
passes both individual as well as collective leadership behavior within and across
levels of the organization (Avolio, 1999). As such, a leadership system can be
viewed as a source of structures that guides action, including a technology’s appropri-
ation (Kahai et al., 1997).
these systems more often reinforce existing structures and practices than they
introduce new ones. The notion of information technology as the spearhead
for change in organizations is in most cases, just not applicable. (p. 7)
most susceptible to adaptation and change when new technology is first introduced
into an organization. Supporting Weick’s position, Tyre and Orlikowski (1994)
investigated a diverse range of project teams demonstrating that social and structural
adaptations with new technology were accomplished during a relatively short initial
period of engagement. People resisted further adaptations after the initial adapta-
tion period because of pressures from management to perform. This work under-
scores the importance of how leadership can influence the way technology is appro-
priated and faithfully adapted to and used by organizations.
What specific role does leadership play in enabling technology’s appropriations
that result in successful adaptation? According to AST, the nature of technology’s
appropriations is likely to be influenced by a group’s internal system, which is
defined in terms of the group’s style of interacting, member expertise, perceptions
of others and group, shared mental models, diversity, and identification. Leadership
is expected to have a substantial influence on many of these factors, which will in
turn affect the appropriation of new technology. For instance, Kahai et al. (1997)
reported that group members were more supportive of each other using a groupware
system designed to enhance collaborative interaction when the leader was more
participative versus directive.
In addition to influencing the nature of AIT appropriations indirectly by affecting
a group’s internal system, leadership may also directly influence the nature of AIT
appropriations. For instance, participative leadership is likely to promote a more
positive attitude among group members than directive leadership as group members
appropriate an AIT (Kahai et al., 1997). According to AST, having a more positive
attitude among group members when they are appropriating AIT is likely to lead
to a more effective set of interactions and ultimately better use of AIT (Gopal,
Bostrom, & Chin, 1993).
Not only can leadership promote successful adaptations to change, it is possible
for leadership to cause new information technology to be appropriated in such a
way that it has little or no effect on the pre-existing social-cultural system within
an organization. For instance, autocratic leadership may repel the best attempts at
collaboration enabled by a groupware system designed for collaboration. Similarly,
a leader who has created an in-group and out-group among her followers may see
the best AIT system blocked from effectively creating collaboration resulting from
low levels of trust within the unit.
leaders are rarely challenged when setting the mission or standard operating proce-
dures. Leaders may have an implicit model of followers as passive, dependent, and
non-confrontational. With the introduction of AIT, access to a broader array of
information can challenge pre-existing beliefs of what constitutes followership,
as well as what constitutes a full range of appropriate leadership behavior. New
technology can enable relationships to exist within and between networks where
greater levels of collaboration can also “spontaneously” emerge. Access to new
information and development of knowledge can transform what was once consid-
ered acceptable and unacceptable behaviors by followers, as well as by leaders,
resulting in a rethinking of how each should work together to accomplish their
goals and the organization’s goals. Indeed, a leadership system may co-evolve with
the insertion of new technology, morphing into a new and perhaps more adaptive
social-cultural system. Alternatively, inserting new technology can also destroy a
social system leaving a leadership vacuum that must be addressed.
Summary
Successful implementation and integration of AIT will typically require a trans-
formation in the leadership system to accommodate the insertion of new technology.
As argued above, the leadership system that exists during AIT’s introduction is
likely to influence AIT’s effects on people in that organization. Unfortunately, we
do not know much either theoretically or empirically about these phenomena, as
noted by Dodge, Webb, and Christ (1999):
There are many gaps in our knowledge of the effects and consequences of
digitization. We could find very few references to cite when it comes to the
likely consequences of digitization on management and leadership, per se. (p. 31)
Having considered the potential interaction of AIT and leadership, we offer the
following global proposition as a guide for launching future research in this area.
Table 1. Summary of Prior Studies of Group Leadership without Leadership Manipulation: Part 1
Communication Medium Characteristics
Media Was a
Group and Member Attributes
in which Technical
Study
Nature of Nature of Facilitation GSS Channel Facilitator
Authors Focus Group and Members Leader’s Position Type of taska Examined Specific GSS and Features Characteristics Used?
George et Effects of assigned Ad-hoc groups of Randomly chosen Creativity and Face-to-face and GroupSystems (EBS, issue Parallel, Yes
al. (1990) leadership and students; size: 6 group member intellective Decision analyzer, voting/rating/ anonymous
anonymity was appointed Room GPSSb ranking) and non-
as leader anonymous
channels with
recording
Hiltz et al. Effects of elected Combination of intact Leader was a Intellective GCSSb EIES (item ranking and Parallel, non- No
(1991) leadership and and ad hoc groups group member statistical feedback) anonymous
statistical of managers and elected by other channels with
feedback professionals; members recording
size: 5
Ho and Effects of different Ad-hoc groups of Leader was a Decision Face-to-face SAMM (problem Parallel, non- No
Raman levels of support students; size: 6 group member making (manual definition, selection anonymous
(1991) (manual, manual elected by other (preference groups) and criteria definition, channelsc with
with structure members or non- Decision definition of alter- recording
equivalent to intellective) Room GPSS natives, rating/ranking
GSS, GSS) and alternatives, voting,
elected leader decision definition)
(continued)
627
628
Table 1. (Continued)
Communication Medium Characteristics
Media Was a
Group and Member Attributes
in which Technical
Study
Nature of Nature of Facilitation Specific GSS GSS Channel Facilitator
Authors Focus Group and Members Leader’s Position Type of taska Examined and Features Characteristic Used?
Lim et al. Influence attempts Ad-hoc groups of Leader was a Decision Face-to-face SAMM (problem Parallel, non- No
(1994) in differently students; size: 5 group member making (manual definition, selection anonymous
supported elected by (preference groups) and criteria definition, channelsc with
groups (manual, other members or non- Decision definition of alter- recording
manual with intellective) Room GPSS natives, rating/ranking
structure equiv- alternatives, voting,
alent to GSS, decision definition)
GSS) with and
without elected
leader
Harmon et Effects of face-to- Intact groups of Leader was a Intellective Face-to-face Open-line audio-con- Single, non- No
al. (1995) face vs. audio- students; size 3–4 group member and audio- ferencing system (no anonymous
conferencing who emerged as conferencing specific name provided). channel
meetings for two a leader and was system Input via microphone
intellective tasks recognized as a and output via desk
with varying leader by other monitors
levels of members
difficulty
Barkhi et Effects of leader- Intact groups of Leader was a Mixed-motive Face-to-face GPSS with modeling and Parallel, non- No
al. (1998) ship and GSS students; size: 3–4 group member (supported optimization capabil- anonymous
who was ran- with GPSS) ities, information ex- channels with
domly desig- and GPSS change facilities, and recording
nated as a what-if capability
leader by
experimenters
a
Notes: Based on McGrath (1984).
b
GPSS ⫽ Group performance support system; GCSS ⫽ Group communication support system (McGrath and Hollingshead, 1993).
c
No evidence about the use of anonymity is available. Hence non-anonymous communication is assumed.
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Avolio et al.
Table 2. Summary of Prior Studies of Group Leadership without Leadership Manipulation: Part 2
Operating Conditions
Dependent Variables
Temporal Spatial Distribution Nature of Leader’s Leadership (Process and Outcome
Study Nature of Members Influence Attempts Style Variables) Key Significant Findings
George Single Members in same place Process Style not Decision quality, number of Anonymous groups with leaders and
et al. meeting measured alternatives, difficulty reaching non–anonymous groups without leaders
(1990) consensus, time to decision, were most satisfied. Manual groups
participation inequality, without leader and GSS groups with leader
satisfaction, number of more likely to have unequal levels of
uninhibited comments participation
Hiltz Single Members in different Process and Style not Decision quality, satisfaction, Leadership associated with higher decision
et al. meeting places content measured agreement quality. Statistical feedback and leadership
(1991) interacted to reduce agreement
Ho and Single Members in same place Process and Style not Consensus, equality of influence, No difference in effects across face–to–face
Raman meeting content measured leader influence and Decision Room GPSS groups
(1991)
Lim et al. Single Members in same place Process and Style not Influence attempts Influence attempts more unequal in GSS
(1994) meeting content measured supported groups with leader than in
groups without leader
Harmon Single Members in same place Process and Style not Solution quality, support for No difference in effects across face–to–face
et al. meeting in face–to–face but content measured decisions, influence, and status and audio–conferencing conditions
(1995) dispersed in audio– disruption
conferencing condition
Barkhi Single Members in same place No information Style not Performance, performance In presence (absence) of a leader, members
et al. meeting in face–to–face but provided measured variability, performance in GSS supported face–to–face groups
(1998) dispersed in GSS deviation, truthfulness, were more (less) willing to disclose
condition satisfaction with solution, information than in GSS-only groups
frustration with process
629
630 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
The authors reported that leader influence was lower (although not significantly
so) in GSS supported groups than in non-GSS groups, leading them to suggest that
the GSS’s group support structure may have undermined the impact of leadership
on group processes, similar to the suggestion made by Hiltz et al. (1991). These
results underscore the importance of examining the group’s internal structure in
terms of its appropriation of a groupware AIT system.
Lim, Raman, and Wei (1994) reported that although GSS promoted equality of
influence attempts in leaderless groups, it did not stop the leader in the elected-
leader groups from exercising influence on the group’s interactions. They concluded
that a GSS can promote more democratic group discussion in the absence of an
elected leader. A similar conclusion that a GSS does not mute a leader’s influence
or influence attempts was reached by Harmon, Schneer, and Hoffman (1995).
Barkhi, Varghese, Pipino, and Pirkul (1998) reported that groups with a leader
were more frustrated with the process than groups with no leader. They also found
that in the presence of a leader, members in GSS supported face-to-face groups
were more willing to disclose information than in GSS-only groups. When there
was no leader, members in GSS-only groups were more willing to disclose informa-
tion than in GSS supported face-to-face groups. According to the authors, because
of the mixed-motive nature of the task used in their study, group members in GSS-
only groups may have viewed their leader as being more likely to make decisions
that may be harmful, causing them to withhold information from the leader.
The above studies indicate the presence or absence of leadership can have an
effect in a GSS environment. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the interaction
effect of anonymity and leadership observed by George et al. (1990), leadership
has the potential to interact with structural features of a GSS to affect appropriation
of those features and the subsequent group processes and outcomes. This supports
our earlier point about examining the interaction between the leadership and techni-
cal system in terms of their optimal integration and impact on performance. In the
absence of any systematic manipulation of leadership in the above studies, however,
it is not possible to generalize or derive any practical prescriptions for leadership
in these computer-mediated environments. Because these studies neither controlled
for nor measured leadership behavior directly, it is not clear what was the nature
and level of leadership behavior displayed. Specifically, assigning, electing, or desig-
nating a leader may not have resulted in a consistent style of leadership displayed
by the leaders and perceived by participants. The above studies, however, raise
some questions about leadership that provide directions for future research.
First, can GSS structures substitute for leadership structures? Leadership substi-
tutes are characteristics of the context in which leadership is exercised “which
render relationship and/or task oriented leadership not only impossible but also
unnecessary” (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Ho and Raman (1991) suggested that the
process structure provided by a GSS in the form of a normative set of steps to
follow (define problem, define selection criteria, define alternatives, etc.) may have
undermined the leader by rendering the process structure provided by the leader
redundant. GSS structures may substitute for leadership structures by also neutraliz-
ing them (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986). Hiltz et al. (1991) suggested that the
provision of statistical feedback by the GSS could have implied a direction for the
Avolio et al. 631
group to follow. This implied direction may have conflicted with the leader’s direc-
tions for following a course of action, thereby neutralizing the leader’s effect. George
et al. (1990) suggest that the GSS facilitator’s process leadership, which guided the
groups successfully through the process of using a GSS, may have conflicted with
the group leader’s process leadership to move the groups to consensus.
Second, do GSS structural features other than anonymity interact with leader-
ship? Also, how do various leadership styles interact with different GSS structural
features to affect a group’s interactions and performance? And do these interactions
change as a function of time? Generally, not enough research has been done
examining the specific features of the GSS and their linkages to leadership style to
come to any firm conclusions. The linkage between the GSS and leadership system
remains an area ripe for exploration.
In sum, we can ascertain from these GSS findings that leadership may have
an effect on the group’s process, appropriation of technology, and ultimately its
performance. Yet, prior research has not systematically manipulated the leadership
style or the behavior of facilitators or group members to assess its interactive effects
with GSS technology.
Table 3. Continued
Group and Member Attributes Communication Medium Characteristics
Nature of Media in which Was a Technical
Study
Nature of Group Facilitator’s Type of Facilitation Specific GSS GSS Channel Facilitator
Authors Focus and Members Position Taska Examined and Features Characteristics Used?
Wheeler Effects of different Ad–hoc groups GSS facilitator was Decision– GPSS in a be- VisionQuest Parallel, non– Yes (in addition to
and types of process of students; an individual making havioral lab (brainwriting, anonymous process facilitator in
Valacich restrictiveness size: 5 external to the voting, ranking, channelsc with facilitated groups)
(1996) (facilitation, GSS group rating, scoring, recording
configuration, agenda display)
training)
Miranda Effects of process/ Ad–hoc groups GSS facilitator was Planning/ Face–to–face GroupSystems (issue Parallel, non– Yes (in addition to
and content facilitation of students; an individual decision– and Decision identification, anonymous process and content
Bostrom and GSS use size: 5–8 external to the making Room GPSS issue consolidator, channelsc with facilitator)
(1999) group voting/rating/ recording
ranking)
a
Notes: Based on McGrath (1984).
b
GPSS ⫽ Group performance support system, GCSS ⫽ Group communication support system (McGrath and Hollingshead, 1993).
c
No evidence about the use of anonymity is available. Hence non–anonymous communication is assumed.
d
The authors make an indirect reference to anonymity among group members during the use of Topic Commenter. However no information about anonymity from the
facilitator as well as anonymity during the use of the Issue Consolidator has been provided.
633
634
Table 4. Continued
Operating Conditions
Spatial Focus of Dependent Variables
Study Temporal Distribution Facilitator’s (Process and Outcome
Authors Nature of Members Influence Attempts Facilitator’s Style Variables) Key Significant Findings
Wheeler Single meeting Members in same Process Directive Faithful and unfaithful moves, Presence of mediators that guide appropriation
and place decision quality increase faithful use of process heuristics.
Valacich Active mediation in the form of facilitation alone
(1996) or in combination with GSS configuration or
training led to more faithful appropriation
moves than training or GSS configuration
(alone or in combination)
Facilitation interacted with GSS configuration
and training to affect faithful and/or unfaithful
moves
More faithful appropriations and fewer
unfaithful appropriations led to higher
decision quality
Miranda Four meetings Members in same Process and content Style not measured Meeting process (reflected Process facilitation had a positive effect on
and place nor determinable in relationship development, meeting processes while content facilitation
Bostrom from description issue-based conflict, had a negative effect
(1999) interpersonal conflict, Meeting processes had a positive effect on
equality of participation, satisfaction but was unrelated to product
negative socio-emotional quality.
communication), satisfaction Overall, GSS and process facilitation affected
with process and decision, satisfaction negatively whereas GSS and
product quality content facilitation affected satisfaction
positively
635
636 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
directive (Dickson et al., 1993; George et al., 1992; Miranda & Bostrom, 1999;
Wheeler & Valacich, 1996). Future research in this context now needs to go beyond
simply focusing on restrictive or directive facilitation style and examine the effects
of a broader range of styles.
Table 6. Summary of Prior Studies of Group Leadership with Leadership Manipulation: Part 2
Operating Conditions
Table 6. Continued
Operating Conditions
Table 6. Continued
Operating Conditions
that was more consistent with the transformational leader’s emphasis on taking
collective action.
Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio (1998) examined the impact of transformational leader-
ship and anonymity on group creativity in an electronic brainstorming context. A
transformational leadership style was expected to enhance group creativity mea-
sured in terms of ideational fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Tor-
rance, 1965). Sosik, et al. (1998) reported that higher levels of transformational
leadership were associated with higher levels of elaboration and originality. Ano-
nymity had a positive effect on flexibility but not on other measures of creativity.
Groups in the identified high-transformational condition demonstrated higher flex-
ibility than groups in the identified low-transformational condition. In the anony-
mous condition, the leadership effects were eliminated. This may be the result of
the system substituting for leadership in that anonymity may provide a context in
which flexibility of thinking is already encouraged.
Sosik et al. (1998) examined the impact of components of transactional and
transformational leadership styles and anonymity on creativity in an electronic
brainstorming context. When examining the separate components of transforma-
tional leadership, the authors found that intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration each had a negative impact on group creativity. Transactional goal
setting and inspiring leadership both had a positive impact on group creativity.
Sosik et al. (1998) suggested that it is possible that participants may have perceived
the facilitator’s intellectual stimulation as being critical or judicial, resulting in group
members’ curbing their input or being more cautious in generating ideas. Such
judicial thinking can result in less creative output during brainstorming (Stein,
1974). An additional explanation is that by being perceived as critical of members’
ideas, the intellectually stimulating leader may have been seen as violating the spirit
of a group decision support system (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994).
In another study designed to examine whether flow mediates the effects of
perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership on creativity, Sosik,
Kahai, and Avolio (1999) found that flow mediated the effects of perceptions of
transactional and transformational leadership only in the anonymous condition.
Anonymity led to a marginally more positive effect of perceptions of transforma-
tional leadership on flow, lending support to the idea that anonymity tends to
enhance the effects of transformational leadership.
The limited base of research on the impact of leadership style in GSS contexts
suggests that style indeed does make a difference. Furthermore, anonymity interacts
with the transformational and transactional leadership styles to influence group
process and/or outcomes. Yet, these results must be viewed with caution since all
of these studies conducted at the Center for Leadership Studies included ad hoc
temporary student groups. Nevertheless, they do highlight the importance of exam-
ining leadership within an AIT context. They also lead to the following questions.
How do leadership effects summarized above and in Table 3 vary with group
history? Does consistency of a leader’s style with the AIT’s spirit matter for group
performance? Do AIT features influence how a leadership style is perceived? How
do characteristics of the context, such as the task, moderate the effects of different
leadership styles?
644 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Summary
The above review provides a basis for offering the following general propositions.
The work reviewed above can be seen as focusing on the effects of leadership
behaviors on the appropriation of technology and a group’s process and outcomes.
As implied in our theoretical framework in Figure 1, appropriation of technology,
group process, and outcomes in turn can influence the structures under which a
group operates, including the structures provided by a leader. To our knowledge,
however, there has been no work on how the structures that result from the appropri-
ation of technology and a group’s process and outcomes influences leadership.
For instance, what is the impact of the appropriation of collaborative groupware
technology on a directive leader’s behavior, or at least the perceptions of that
behavior? Under what conditions do the group’s appropriations of various structures
lead to a change in leadership style? Future work must now examine the dialectic
interplay between leadership as a source of structures and how leadership affects
and is affected by the structures arising from the appropriation of technology.
Table 7. Continued
Communication Medium Characteristics
Group and Member Was a
Attributes Technical
Study
(Nature of Group Media Specific GSS GSS Channel Facilitator
Authors Focus and Members) Type of taska Employed and Features Characteristics Used?
Pinsonneault, Effects of brainstorming 16 ad–hoc groups of students; Decision–making Face-to-face and GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous Yes
Barki, technologies (nominal, size: 6. and cognitive Decision Room (EBS) and non-anony-
Gallupe, GSS–anonymous, 16 intact groups of students conflict GPSS mous channels
and GSS–non–anonymous, from association on with recording
Hoppen verbal), social sensi- campus; size: 6
(1999) tivity of topic (high/
low), cues (present/
absent)
Watson, Effects of GSS technol- 130 ad hoc groups of stu- Decision–making Face-to-face with flip Group Systems Parallel, anonymous, No
Ho, and ogy on consensus deci- dents; U.S. size, 82; charts, GSS with (SAMM) and non-anony-
Raman sions across cultural Singapore size, 48 public screen, vot- mous channels
(1994) groups ing and anonymity, with recording
and no support
face to face
Lea and Effects of individual and 48 undergraduate Attitudes toward GCSS Email Parallel, non-anony- No
Spears group identity, as well psychology students four controver- mous channels
(1991) as anonymity (vs. sial topics
co–present) on CMC pre and post
interactions discussion
a
Notes: Based on McGrath (1984).
b
GPSS ⫽ Group performance support system, GCSS ⫽ Group communication support system (McGrath and Hollingshead, 1993).
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Avolio et al.
Spatial
Study Temporal Distribution of Dependent variables
Authors Nature Members (Process and Outcome Variables) Significant Findings
Chidambaram Synchronous; Proximate members Cohesiveness, perceptions, and group A shift from limiting interactions in GSS environment, change of GSS
(1996) four meetings process users attitudes from highly negative to somewhat positive, support of
over four Social Information Processing perspective that repeated use of
weeks computer support can help groups affiliate more effectively
Daily Three Proximate members Number of non–redundant realistic ideas; GSS outperformed face to face on number of ideas; culturally diverse
et al. synchronous quality of group solution groups outperformed homogenous groups on ideas generated;
(1996) meetings, one heterogeneous groups using GDSS produced the most ideas; there
every month were no differences in terms of the quality of the ideas generated
over three
months
Dennis (1996) Single Proximate members Individual level: Decisions made on GSS groups exchanged more information then non GSS groups; had
synchronous admissions; perceptions of information similar preferences for unique vs. common information, as well as
meeting exchange; information use; pre and post for preference supporting versus non–supporting information; GSS
discussion decision choice; satisfaction less likely to use information exchanged in decisions; only one GSS
and credibility of information exchanged and one non GSS made optimal decision and no differences in
Group level: Amount of common and consensus GSS recalled less information that was initially not known
unique information exchanged; and did not make a better decision; information seen as less credible
decision quality or optimal solution in GSS groups
achieved or not; decision time; consensus
(continued)
647
648
Table 8. Continued
Operating Conditions
Spatial
Study Temporal Distribution of Dependent variables
Authors Nature Members (Process and Outcome Variables) Significant Findings
Dennis Synchronous Proximate members Decision time, decision quality, With distinct majority/minority, groups exchanged more information,
et al. satisfaction made better decisions, and took no more time than non–GSS. GSS
(1998) enabled minority to overcome the group’s inertia toward the majority
preference
Mennecke Synchronous Proximate members Percent of available information Established groups discussed less unique information than ad hoc groups.
and discussed during the meeting, group Information sharing was positively related to the quality of group decisions,
Valacich decision quality, solution satisfaction, members of established groups were more satisfied than members of ad
(1998) and process satisfaction hoc groups, members using CMC were less satisfied than those
communicating face–to–face
Pinsonneault Single Proximate members Number of unique ideas generated; None of the interactions of group structure, technology, topic sensitivity or
et al. synchronous group member satisfaction; interest in seeding or not seeding the groups with ideas relevant to topical issues;
(1999) meeting brainstorming activity; and group history, topic sensitivity and technology had main effects;
involvement established groups produced more unique ideas; few ideas for sensitive
topics; largest number of ideas with e–nominal, while lowest number of
ideas with verbal; participants less satisfied with e–nominal
Watson, Ho Single Proximate members Consensus change in preference decision Singaporeans had higher consensus before meeting, but the same level with
and Raman asynchronous choice and equality of influence U.S. afterwards.
(1994) face to face Influence patterns were more equivalent for the Singaporean groups
and controlling for pre–meeting consensus.
synchronous Greater shift in consensus for U.S. groups post meeting consensus and
meeting greater variation in equality of influence scores
Lea and Two Proximate members Attitudinal positions on four Greater group polarization was found in the de–individuated group,
Spears asynchronous controversial issues by self and however it did not result in higher uninhibited behavior.
(1991) meetings estimating other member’s attitudes. Polarization was associated with more social remarks and unequal
Coded logs for three content categories: participation.
discussion–oriented, situation, and Depolarization in the individual–deindividuated condition was related to
social. longer messages, greater equality and more discussion comments
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Avolio et al. 649
tions will also have to emphasize relationship building, especially during a group’s
initial encounters. Future research should not only examine the importance of
relationship building in computer-mediated interactions but also the role of different
leadership styles on how relational communication influences trust building, open-
ness, feedback, and acceptance of others in computer-mediated groups.
lenges. One key challenge is how a geographically dispersed workgroup can achieve
the “gel” that makes the team greater than the sum of its parts (McKnight, Cum-
mings, & Chervany, 1998; Melymuka, 1997; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson,
1998). This challenge involves understanding how virtual members can “work out
task interdependencies, resolve issues involving tradeoffs among various perspec-
tives, and develop solutions and approaches that build upon the diversity of exper-
tise” to accomplish collective goals (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995, p. 64).
Whatever little we do know about virtual teams suggests that two important compo-
nents of that gel are likely to be leadership and trust (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner,
1998; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997). In this section, we examine how leadership can
impact the appropriation of collaborative technologies and play a significant role
in the emergence of trust and the performance of virtual teams.
Trust may be defined as “the willingness of a team member to be vulnerable to
the actions of other team member(s) based on the expectation that the other(s)
will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability
to monitor or control other team member(s)” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995,
p. 712). Trust is critical in virtual teams because direct supervision, a common form
of social control in traditional teams, is not feasible. Furthermore, geographical
proximity, similarity in backgrounds, and experience, which contribute to social
control and coordination, may also be absent.
Past research (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998) seems to suggest that leadership in virtual
teams is likely to play an important role in facilitating the formation of trust. It is
not clear, however, what type of e-leadership will have the most positive impact at
different phases of a virtual team’s development cycle. Specifically, will virtual
teams have to meet face to face to launch an effective team leadership process or
can leadership evolve at a distance solely through the use of AIT? How will leader-
ship shape the appropriation of technology and be shaped by technology? These
questions have not been addressed in either the leadership or the Information
Systems (IS) literature. We develop a model based in part on a broader theoretical
framework presented earlier in Figure 1, to help guide our discussion, and then
discuss how transactional and transformational leadership link to trust building and
outcomes in a virtual team context.
virtual team (and, therefore, a higher level of trust among members). A transforma-
tional leader can instill confidence among team members about the ability of individ-
uals in their team through (a) individualized consideration, whereby the leader
considers and encourages consideration of input provided by every member of the
team, and (b) inspirational motivation, whereby the leader expresses confidence in
team members’ collective ability to accomplish a task all members identify with
(Sosik et al., 1997).
By encouraging team members to work as a team and by helping them see the
importance of transcending their own self-interest for the sake of achieving the
team’s objectives, a transformational leader is likely to instill greater confidence
among team members about other members’ benevolence. A transformational
leader is likely to promote such comments by encouraging an understanding and
deeper appreciation of input provided by other team members (i.e., empathy toward
them). Perceptions of benevolence may also be promoted by peer support, which
arises due to a transformational leader’s inspirationally motivating comments em-
phasizing the importance of taking collective action (Kramer, Brewer, & Hannah,
1996). Additionally, by promoting intellectual stimulation, which encourages a ques-
tioning of assumptions and reframing of thinking, a transformational leader can
increase information exchange among team members. Information exchange among
members is likely to reveal information about other members’ ability, benevolence,
and integrity thus impacting positively on trust among team members (Jarvenpaa
et al., 1998).
In addition to the above mechanisms, a transformational leader may influence
perceptions of other members’ ability, benevolence, and integrity (and, therefore,
trust among members) via team members’ emotions and moods. The individually
considerate and inspirational interactions promoted by a transformational leader
are likely to lead to positive emotions and moods among team members (Avolio,
1999). Furthermore, a transformational leader may create positive emotions and
moods through inspirationally motivating comments, which provide meaning and
challenge to team members. According to Jones and George (1998), positive emo-
tions and moods are likely to lead to positive perceptions that team members
develop about others’ ability, benevolence, and integrity, resulting in heightened
experience of trust in one’s team members.
Based on the above, we propose the following.
Data Collection
For the media-poor condition we might retrieve each team’s collaboration text-
based transcripts. AIT system logs provide information on the frequency of log-
ins, time stayed, messages read, and features used on a per-user basis. Participants
would be notified at the start of the project that team transcripts would be collected
and analyzed. For the media-rich condition, we would record all audio/video confer-
ences using a specially written utility that will capture all sessions in real-media
format, and then make them available for later viewing. The on-demand content
would be similar to the message archive tools available in the media poor condition.
We would transcribe the audio files and use the transcripts for content analysis.
Avolio et al. 657
The nature of team interactions over time might be evaluated based on coding
of their recordings. A standard coding scheme employed in prior research on
electronic communication (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990) might be used to
enable classification of comments into the categories of individually considerate
comments, inspirationally motivating comments, and intellectually stimulating com-
ments. Furthermore, this scheme also enables measurement of the level (amount)
of team interaction.
The proposed study focuses on team effectiveness and team potency as team
outcomes. Team effectiveness may be measured based on the quality of the project
submitted by a team. Quality of a team’s project may be evaluated using expert
judgment of faculty members or consultants with significant experience in the field
of electronic commerce.
In sum, the proposed study provides one example of how we might systematically
evaluate the impact of individually based e-leadership on virtual team development.
The proposed study has been used to stimulate the reader’s thinking about alterna-
tive ways to study e-leadership, as opposed to suggesting this study as a starting
point for future research on e-leadership in teams. For instance, other methods
could be used to launch the teams. One could also examine how leadership “by”
the team itself instead of leadership vested in one individual affected trust formation.
REFERENCES
Abel, M. J. (1990). Experiences in an exploratory distributed organization. In J. Galegher,
R. Kraut, & C. Agate (Eds), Intellectual team work: Social and technological foundations
of cooperative work (pp. 489–510) Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anson, R., Bostrom, R., & Wynne, B. (1995). An experiment assessing group support system
and facilitator effects on meeting outcomes. Management Science, 41, 189–208.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., Dum Dum, R., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (in press). Virtual teams:
Implications for E-Leadership and team development. In M. London (Ed.), How
people evaluate others in organizations: Person perception and interpersonal judgement
in I/O Psychology. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of creation and thought: A social cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barkhi, R., Varghese, J. S., Pipino, L., & Pirkul, H. (1998). A study of the effect of communica-
tion channel and authority on group decision process and outcomes. Decision Support
Systems, 22, 205–526.
Barua, A., & Whinston, A. (2000). Measuring the internet economy. Available at http://
www.internetindicators.com/june_full_report.PDF.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transforma-
tional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bassie, L. J., Cheney, S., & Van Buren, M. (1997). Training industry trends. Training and
Development Journal, Spring, 44–59.
Brynjolfson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology: Review and
assessment. Communications of the ACM, 36, 66–77.
Carley, K. (1986). Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instructional Science, 14,
381–438.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. Manage-
ment Information Systems Quarterly, 20, 143–160.
Clawson, V. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Anson, R. (1993). The role of the facilitator in computer-
supported meetings. Small Group Research, 24, 547–565.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L., & Valacich, J. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on
idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689–703.
Daily, B., Whatley, A., Ash, S. R., & Steiner, R. L. (1996). The effects of a group decision
support system on culturally diverse and culturally homogenous group decision-making.
Information and Management, 30, 281–289.
664 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness
and Structural Design. Management Science, 32, 554–572.
Dansereau, F. D., & Yammarino, F. J. (1998). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches
contemporary and alternatives. Stamford, CN: JAI Press.
Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can
lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think. Management Information
Systems, 20, 433–457.
Dennis, A. R., Heminger, A., Nunamaker, J., & Vogel, D. (1990). Bringing automated
support to large groups. The Burr-Brown experience. Information and Management,
18, 111–121.
Dennis, A. R., Hilmer, K. M., & Taylor, N. J. (1998). Information exchange and use in GSS and
verbal group decision-making: Effects of minority influence. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 14, 61–88.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use:
Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.
Dickson, G. W., Partridge, J. L., & Robinson, L. H. (1993). Exploratory modes of facilitative
support for GSS. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 17, 173–194.
Dickson, G., Lee, J. F., Robinson, L., & Heath, R. (1989). Observations of GSS interaction:
Chauffeured, facilitated, and user-driven systems. In R. Blanning & D. King (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
3, 337–343.
Dodge, G. E., Webb, H. W., & Christ, R. E. (1999). The impact of information technology on
battle command: Lessons from management science and business. U.S. Army Research
Institute of the Behavioral Sciences Technical Report 1091.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.
Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). An assessment of group support systems experimental
research: Methodology and results. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15,
7–149.
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management
Journal, 5, 921–950.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail:
An extension to the technology acceptance model. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 21, 389–400.
George, J. F., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). An experimental investigation
of facilitation in an EMS decision room. Group Decision and Negotiations, 1, 57–70.
George, J. F., Easton, G., Nunamaker, Jr. J. F., & Northcraft. G. (1990). A study of collabora-
tive group work with and without computer-based support. Information Systems Re-
search, 1, 394–415.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in
social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gopal, A., Bostrom, R., & Chin, W. (1993). Applying adaptive structuration theory to
investigate the process of group support system use. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 9, 45–69.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member
exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment
model. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 30, 109–131.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based approach to leadership: Develop-
ment of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Applying
a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 68, 219–247.
Avolio et al. 665
Grover, V. Jeong, S. R., & Segars, A. H. (1996). Information system effectiveness: The
construct space and patterns of applications. Information & Management,31, 177–191.
Guzzo, R., Yost, P., Campbell, R., & Shea, G. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a
construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar
views of organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organiza-
tional behavior (vol. 9; pp. 369–406). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Harmon, J., Schneer, J. A., & Hoffman, L. R. (1995). Electronic meetings and established
decision groups: Audio-conferencing effects on performance and structural stability.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 138–147.
Henry, D., Buckley, P., Gill, G., Cooke, S., Dumagan, J., Pastore, D., et al. (1999). The
emerging digital economy II. Available at http://www.ecommerce.gov/ede/report.html.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1991). Group decision support: The effects of human
leaders and statistical feedback in computerized conferences. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 8, 81–108.
Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiment in group decision-making, disinhibi-
tion, de-individuation and group process in pen name and real name computer confer-
ences. Decision Support Systems, 5, 217–232.
Ho, T. H., & Raman, K. S. (1991). The effect of GSS and elected leadership on small group
meetings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 8, 109–133.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. W. (1997). The social science study of leadership: Quo Vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409–473.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 88–102.
Hunt, J. P., & Osborn, R. N. (1982). Toward a macro-oriented model of leadership: An
Odyssey. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership beyond
establishments views (pp. 196–221). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science, 2, 14–39.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.),
Human productivity enhancement (pp. 7–65). New York: Praeger.
Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust
in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 29–64.
Jones, G., & George, J. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–546.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem
structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environ-
ment. Personnel Psychology, 50, 121–146.
Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards
in an electronic meeting system environment. Working Paper, Center for Leadership
Studies, Binghamton.
Kamel, N. N., & Davison, R. M. (1998). Applying CSCW technology to overcome traditional
barriers in group interactions. Information and Management, 34, 209–219.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.
Klein, H., & Hirschheim, R. (1983). Issues and approaches to appraising technological change
in the office: A consequentialist perspective. Office, Technology, and People, 2, 15–42.
Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action:
The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust
666 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 357–389). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Lam, S. S. V. (1997). The effects of group decision support on group communication and
decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 193–215.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
Latane, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters:
Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795–
805.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and
group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283–301.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341.
Lim, L., Raman, K. S., & Wei, K. (1994). Interacting effects of GSS and leadership. Decision
Support System, 12, 199–211.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations
with technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perception
and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An itegrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Maznevski, M., & Chudoba, K. (in press). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473–492.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge
management. Californian Management Review, 41, 103–117.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. (1993). Putting the “group” back in group support
systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technology
and enhancements. In L. Jessup & J. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New
perspectives (pp. 78–96). New York: MacMillan.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490.
Mennecke, B. E., & Valacich, J. S. (1998). Information is what you make of it. The influence
of group history and computer support on information sharing, decision quality, and
member perceptions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 173–197.
Melymuka, K. (1997). Virtual realities. Computerworld, (April 28), 70–72.
Miranda, S., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Meeting facilitation: Process versus content interven-
tions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 89.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organiza-
tions: New forms of knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Neiderman, F., Beise, C. M., & Beranek, P. M. (1996). Issues and concerns about computer-
supported meetings. The facilitator’s perspective. MIS Quarterly, 20, 1–22.
Nord N. N., & Fox, S. (1996). The individual in organization studies: The great disappearing
act? In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp.
148–175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991).
Electronic meeting systems to support group work: Theory and practice at Arizona.
Communications of the ACM, 34, 40–61.
O’Mahoney, S., & Barley, S. R. (1999). Do digital communications affect work and organiza-
tion? The state of our knowledge. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 125–161.
Avolio et al. 667
Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the
workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29.
Trist, E. L. (1950). The concept of culture as a psycho-social process. Proceedings, Anthropoli-
tical Section, British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Trist, E. L., (1993). A socio-technical critique of scientific management. In E. Trist & H.
Murray (Eds.), The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology (pp.
580–598). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of
technological adoption in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 98–118.
Vandenbosch, B., & Ginzberg, M. J. (1997). Lotus notes and collaboration: Plus ca change.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 65–81.
Watson, R., Ho, T., & Raman, V. (1994). Culture: A fourth dimension of group support
systems. Communications of the ACM, 451–455.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on
interaction process and performance comparing homogenous and diverse task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.
Weick, K. F. (1990). Technology as equivoque: Sense making in new techniques. In P. S.
Goodman, L. S. Sproull, & Associates (Eds.) Technology and organizations (pp. 1–44).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E. (1993). Organization redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H.
Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 346–379). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Weisband, S., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication
and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 1124–1151.
Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1996). Facilitation, GSS, and training as sources of process
restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision-making: An empirical assess-
ment. Information Systems Research, 7, 429–450.
Wyer, R. S. (1966). Effects of incentive to perform well: Group attraction and group accep-
tance in a judgment task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 268–290.
Yates, J., Orlikowski, W. J., & Okamura, K. (1999). Explicit and implicit structuring of
genres in electronic communication: Reinforcement and change of social interaction.
Organization Science, 10, 83–103.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (in press). The nature of organizational leadership: An
introduction. In S.J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational
leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.