Information Systems Development Methodologies in

E-LEADERSHIP: IMPLICATIONS FOR
THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE
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.
The global economy is undergoing a major transition that is fundamentally changing

how organizations build new markets and relate to their stakeholders. At the
center of this transformation is Advanced Information Technology (AIT), which
is enabling completely new ways of working and creating value in both the physical
world and the virtual world (Rayport & Sviokla, 1995). These changes require a
significant adaptation on the part of the leadership in organizations to the new
emerging realities of the marketplace, while also continuing to evolve and remain
productive in the “old world order”. Past leadership research has not focused on
issues confronting the leadership in organizations where work is mediated by AIT.
* 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.
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.

Copyright  2001 by Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
616 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
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.
ADVANCED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND E-LEADERSHIP

Advanced Information Technology is defined as tools, techniques, and knowledge
that enable multiparty participation in organizational and inter-organizational activ-
ities through sophisticated collection, processing, management, retrieval, transmis-
sion, and display of data and knowledge (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Advanced
Information Technology includes, but is not restricted to, e-mail systems, message
boards, groupware, GSS, knowledge management systems, executive information
systems, and collaborative customer relationship management and supply-chain
management systems. These technologies can help leaders scan, plan, decide, dis-
seminate, and control information.
Today, we are observing a more rapid and extensive proliferation of AIT through-
out organizations than what was anticipated even a few years ago. According to
Internet Economy Indicators (Barua & Whinston, 2000), the Internet Economy,
which has been enabled by AIT, has grown much faster and has had a deeper
impact on the U.S. economy from 1994 to the present, than the entire Industrial
revolution, which began in the eighteenth century. According to a U.S. Department
of Commerce report (Henry, Buckley, Gill, Cooke, Dumagan, Pastore, et al., 1999),
Avolio et al. 617
industries producing information technology (i.e., computer and communications

hardware, software, and services) accounted for 8% of the U.S. Gross Domestic
Product and contributed on average 35% of the nation’s real economic growth. By
2006, about half the U.S. workforce will be employed by industries that are either
major producers or intensive users of information technology.
An AIT-enabled economy is creating a new context for leadership. Key character-
istics of an AIT-enabled economy are real-time information availability, greater
knowledge sharing with stakeholders, and the use of this information and knowledge
to build “customized” relationships. These customized relationships are putting
pressure on organizations and their leaders to be more responsive to their stakehold-
ers. Accompanying these dramatic changes is the global nature of organizational
relationships fueled by the ease with which information exchange is enabled across
national borders (Drucker, 1993).
Not only are leaders’ knowledge structures changing as a result of greater accessi-
bility of information, but the nature of leadership is also changing (Shamir, 1997).
Rapidly changing customer demands have led to more work being done in temporary
project teams. These project teams are often virtually configured, where individuals
work at a distance from each other in different countries, cultures, and organizations
(Avolio, Kahai, Dum Dum, & Sivasubramaniam, in press; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997;
O’Mahoney & Barley, 1999). Members of virtual teams have to communicate via
AIT, which enables asynchronous, synchronous, one-to-one, or one-to-many com-
munication. Leaders of virtual teams may display “tele-leadership” when they com-
municate with other team members over electronic media (Shamir & Ben-Ari,
1999). Moreover, leadership may be shared by virtual team members interacting
with each other (Shamir, 1997).
Leaders will need to play a more proactive role in creating the social structures
that foster the implementation of AIT. Specifically, one of the main challenges
leaders face today is how optimally to integrate human and information technology
systems in their organizations to fully leverage AIT. Interestingly enough, although
organizations implement AIT with the expectation of business and personal benefits
including increased efficiency, productivity, and profitability, no demonstrable rela-
tionship between dollars invested in AIT and corporate profits has been reported
(Brynjolfson, 1993; Grover, Jeong, & Segars, 1996). Indeed, what many AIT systems
have accomplished is the creation of what McDermott (1999) referred to as “infor-
mation junkyards.”
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, behavior, and/or perfor-
mance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations. E-leadership can occur at any
hierarchical level in an organization and can involve one-to-one and one-to-many
interactions within and across large units and organizations. It may be associated
with one individual or shared by several individuals as its locus changes over time.
In summary, AIT is creating a new context in which leadership will be exercised.
To guide our discussion on e-leadership, it is important to consider how AIT
interacts with leadership to influence both the structure and effects of leadership and
how leadership, in turn, might influence AIT’s adoption and effects on organizations.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXAMINING E-LEADERSHIP

Our discussion of e-leadership builds on the socio-technical systems approach (Trist,
1950, 1993), according to which organizational effectiveness is determined by how
well the social and technical systems are designed to align with each other and
the external environment. A major difference between the earlier focus on socio-
technical systems and our discussion of e-leadership is that we believe much less
independence exists between social and technical systems than described by Trist
(1950, 1993). Trist argued that although socio-technical systems are correlative,
they are still independent. We believe that AIT and social systems in which AIT
are developed and used, influence each other reciprocally (e.g., Klein & Hirschheim,
1983; Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto, 1995; Weick,
1990; Yates, Orlikowski, & Okamura, 1999).
According to Weick (1990), technology is both a cause and consequence of
structures in organizations. Orlikowski (1992) uses the term “interpretive flexibility”
to describe the recursive relationship between AIT and the organizational setting
in which it was developed and used. AIT is not viewed as some fixed object with
fixed effects but rather as something that offers various possibilities for creation
and interpretation. Organizational members, especially leaders, play a major role
in the creation and interpretation of AIT. AIT’s interpretation determines how it
is used, what it can do, and ultimately its contribution to organizational performance.
Orlikowski et al. (1995) described the recursive relationship between AIT and
the context in which it is used in their work on “technology-use mediation,” which
they define as a deliberate organizationally sanctioned intervention to help adapt
new technology within context and to modify the context to accommodate technol-
ogy use. They view the introduction and use of new technology as affecting institu-
tions, including the leadership systems that run them, just as institutions can affect
the use and adaptation of technology.
In a later article, Yates, Orlikowski, and Okamura (1999) related technology-
use mediation to “genres” of an organization. The genres are somewhat analogous
to what cognitive psychologists have referred to as scripts, and serve as organizing
structures or logic for shaping an organization’s interactions. The authors illustrate
the recursive relationship between AIT and social systems by describing how the
introduction of new communication technology can lead to the enactment of modi-
fied or new genres within the new communication medium, and how the interaction
within the new medium can also be shaped by genres that exist prior to the introduc-
tion of new technology.
Current thinking also recognizes that in addition to AIT and organizations influ-
encing each other, there is a dialectical and often unplanned interplay between
AIT and organizations that unfolds or emerges over a period of time. For instance,
Hutchins (1991) suggested the evolution of organizations is not necessarily achieved
by systematic conscious reflection but rather through a sequence of situated or local
adaptations that are based on how structures are interpreted and designed in action.
We believe that leadership is likely to play an important role in the adaptation
between AIT and its environment.
Orlikowski (1996) expands on Weick’s (1993) “theatrical improvisation” meta-
phor of organizational change and argues that organizational change occurs from
Avolio et al. 619
ongoing, unplanned, and situated adaptations of organizational members in their

everyday work life. According to Orlikowski (1996), change can occur
even imperceptibly, in the slippages and improvisations of everyday activity.

Those variations that are repeated, shared, amplified, and sustained can, over
time, produce perceptible and striking organizational changes. (p. 89)
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.
ADAPTIVE STRUCTURATION THEORY

Based on earlier work by Giddens (1979), AST was created to help explain the
process through which people incorporate AIT into their work. Like Giddens’s
structuration theory (1979), AST takes a middle ground in the debate about whether
AIT has pre-determined effects or whether institutions influence AIT’s interpreta-
tions and its use. According to AST, while an AIT’s interpretation is influenced by
the context in which it is used or embedded, it also has the ability to modify the
context. Depending on their work context, users of AIT adapt, resist, or reject
technology, frequently leading to impacts that were not designed or intended. The
actions of users (i.e., adaptation, resistance, or rejection), or the impacts of their
actions, in turn, can lead to modification of the work context in which the technology
is used. Adaptive Structuraion Theory shares its roots with work by Orlikowski,
Yates, and colleagues reviewed above with respect to recognizing the recursive or
co-evolutionary relationship between technology and organizational context (i.e.,
Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski et al., 1995; Yates et al., 1999).
According to AST, human action is guided by structures, which are defined as
rules and resources that serve as templates for planning and accomplishing tasks
(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Structures are provided by an AIT and a work group’s
internal system, task, and environment. Structures also emerge when a work group
acts on structures and produces new information, which serves to shape subsequent
interaction. These various sources of structure may be thought of as defining the
context, that is, the attributes of the physical and social systems in which a work
group exists (Nord & Fox, 1996).
Advanced Information Technology comes bundled with structures that its devel-
opers build into its design. Advanced Information Technology developers build
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
subsequent group processes and outcomes. Regarding technology structures and

their use, DeSanctis and Poole (1994) state:
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)
The repeated appropriation of information technology generates or transforms

social structures, which over time become institutionalized. For example, the use
of electronic brainstorming can create a structure for interaction that becomes a
culture for promoting innovative ideas. Scott, Quinn, Timmerman, and Garrett
(1998) showed that groups who over time used a GSS went from working with a
norm of equality of input, which was more consistent with the system’s spirit, to
one based on hierarchical norms that evolved within the group. As groups became
more comfortable allowing for everyone to provide input, a hierarchy based on
expertise emerged that enhanced the group’s interactions beyond the GSS designer’s
original intent.
According to AST, the nature of appropriations determines group process (De-
Sanctis & Poole, 1994). Desirable group processes are more likely to occur when
(a) the appropriations are faithful (i.e., consistent with information technology’s
spirit), (b) the appropriations promote a positive attitude, (c) the information
technology is appropriated more often, and (d) the structures are appropriated to
move the group further along in its task rather than for power or exploratory
reasons. Furthermore, desirable task outcomes will occur only if a group’s processes
are suitable for its task.
Poole and DeSanctis (1990) suggest that regardless of the features that are
designed into an AIT, users mediate its effects by adapting it to their needs, resisting
it, or refusing to use it. Because group members make active choices in how struc-
tures are used in their interactions, the group’s internal system determines the
nature of appropriations of an AIT (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). A group’s internal
system can be broadly defined by a variety of factors including members’ style of
interacting, norms for behavior, their degree of knowledge of and experience with
the structures embedded in the technology, perceptions of others’ knowledge of
structures, and agreement on which structures should be appropriated (DeSanctis &
Poole, 1994).
Modifications to Adaptive Structuration Theory

We propose certain modifications to AST for use as a broad conceptual frame-
work on future work examining e-leadership. Figure 1 presents the modified AST
framework. First, we expand the description of a group’s internal system as provided
by DeSanctis and Poole (1994). A group’s style of interacting is clarified to include
the style of leadership in the group and how group members relate to one another
(e.g., as peers or in some hierarchical fashion). Corresponding to member’s knowl-
edge about technology, perceptions of others’ knowledge about technology, and
Figure 1. Adaptive Structuration Theory–Based Theoretical Framework.
agreement on which technology structures to appropriate, we use the following

more general characteristics that are not specific to technology: members’ expertise,
perceptions of others and of the group, and shared mental models (Zaccarro &
Klimoski, in press). One could expand this list to include a variety of other character-
istics such as identification with the group and diversity of membership, experience
and backgrounds.
Second, unlike DeSanctis and Poole (1994), we consider a group’s internal system
as a source of structures. For example, the style of a group’s leader is likely to
channel a group’s thinking and hence serve as a source of structures for subsequent
appropriations (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997). Likewise, shared mental models,
members’ expertise, perceptions of others and of the group, diversity in the group,
and identification with the group are likely to structure a group’s thinking, interac-
tion, and ultimately its process and structures (Zaccarro & Klimoski, in press). All
of these must be considered as potentially relevant to the structures that emerge
with the insertion of AIT (Lea & Spears, 1992; Mennecke & Valacich, 1998; Watson,
Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993; Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995).
RELEVANCE OF LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE ADAPTIVE

STRUCTURATION THEORY FRAMEWORK
Leadership may be viewed as a system embedded within a larger social organiza-
tional system, and it includes the implicit models in people’s heads regarding how
Avolio et al. 623
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).
Leadership and Adaptation to New Technology

Similar to the characterization of technology, the leadership system in an organi-
zation can be characterized by its spirit or intent. For instance, the spirit of a
participative leadership system is to increase involvement of organizational mem-
bers in decision-making by fostering openness in communication and collaboration
among organizational members. Consistency between the leadership’s spirit and
AIT’s spirit is important for faithful appropriations, and will likely predict how
successful or unsuccessful insertion of new technology will be in an organization.
Consider Vandenbosch and Ginzberg’s (1997) study of the insertion of a
groupware called Lotus Notes into an organization. The spirit of Lotus Notes is to
increase collaboration among office workers. Yet, groups that did not collaborate
before the introduction of a collaborative information technology failed to collabo-
rate after the new technology was introduced. Vandenbosch and Ginzberg (1997)
indicated that
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)
The appropriation of groupware technology has frequently fallen short of its

spirit because of the absence of a leadership system that fosters collaboration.
Vandenbosch and Ginzberg (1997) noted that groupware systems such as Lotus
Notes are likely to enhance collaboration in organizations that have a collaborative
culture, which may be rare. One could argue that to collaborate there must be
appropriate leadership, culture and support systems in place prior to the insertion
of new technology.
We take the position that the successful appropriation of AIT is tied to the type
of leadership and cultural system in which it is placed. Leadership will likely be
the spearhead for adaptive change, where it prepares the organizational system to
co-evolve with AIT and appropriate this new technology faithfully. Part of the
preparation of the organizational system to appropriate technology faithfully may
involve transforming the leadership system.
Preliminary evidence indicates that the leadership in an organization or group
is likely to have a narrow window of opportunity in which to promote the successful
adaptation to an AIT. Weick (1990) suggested that organizations and people are
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.
Technology’s Effect on Leadership

So far we have presented the role of leadership in how the social system appro-
priates AIT and adapts to it over time. We now present the effects of technol-
ogy more explicitly on leadership. The effect of new information technology on
e-leadership will in part depend on the technology’s structural features and spirit,
the groups internal systems, and the organization’s internal culture. A leadership
system may be enabled, undermined, or completely disabled by the introduction
of AIT.
Taking the extreme possibility as a case in point, consider how AIT can impact
a closed and autocratic organizational system. In this type of organization, the
Avolio et al. 625
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.
Proposition 1: Leadership systems and appropriation of AIT need to co-

evolve over time to optimize a group’s development and performance.
Related to Proposition 1, a specific issue to pursue is to examine how transforma-

tional leaders prepare the social system to enable its co-evolution with AIT (Avolio,
1999; House & Aditya, 1997). For example, if the leadership of an organization
clearly articulates how technology fits and supports the organization’s vision, how
will members of that organization then appropriate new technology into their work
compared to an organization where the leadership has not explained how technology
can contribute to the organization’s vision?
We believe the quality of leader-follower relationships and exchanges will play
an important role in the co-evolution of the leadership and social systems’ appropria-
tion of AIT. Accordingly, the work on leader-member exchange theory (Graen &
Uhl-Bein, 1995) is likely to be a promising basis for studying the above proposition.
For instance, Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) have already discussed the
linkage between leader-member exchange, work design and organizational perfor-

mance. This work should be extended to incorporate how the quality of leader-
follower relationships and exchanges may affect and be affected by appropriation
of AIT.
We now turn in our discussion to GSS, which is a subset of AIT. Overall, there
has been very little research on e-leadership, except within the context of GSS.
While work on leadership in GSS contexts per se is limited to the spirit and attributes
of this particular technology, it does have relevance to the study of the interaction
between leadership and AIT, as we describe below.
LEADERSHIP IN GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEM SETTING

Leadership in a GSS setting may be exercised by an external facilitator and/or by
any member of the group. Fjermestad and Hiltz (1998) reviewed 230 GSS articles
and reported that though leadership is considered to be a key determinant of group
behavior, it has been virtually ignored in the Information Systems literature. Over
70% of these studies did not use a leader in the form of a GSS facilitator and those
that did confounded the presence of the facilitator with the facilitator’s style and
mode of communication. Furthermore, 94% of the studies had no group leaders,
which Fjermestad and Hiltz (1999) noted as being surprising as most organizational
groups typically have some form of assigned leadership.
In what follows, we examine the bulk of work that has studied leadership behav-
iors in GSS contexts. We first examine GSS studies in which group members were
designated or elected as leaders, but leadership behaviors were not manipulated.
Then we examine GSS studies that manipulated the style of facilitation and leader-
ship. In these latter studies, designated group members displayed manipulated
leadership behaviors.
Studies of the Effects of Group Leaders without Leadership Manipulation

Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of GSS studies that examined the effects of
group leaders without manipulating leadership behaviors. George, Easton, Nuna-
maker, & Northcraft (1990) reported that assigned leadership had only interaction
effects in their study. They found that (1) anonymous groups with leaders and non-
anonymous groups without leaders were most satisfied with the group process, and
(2) manual groups without a leader and GSS groups with a leader were more likely
to have unequal levels of participation. They cited the difference in missions between
the leader and the GSS facilitator as a potential reason for the lack of main effects.
Hiltz, Johnson, and Turoff (1991) reported that elected leadership improved the
quality of a group’s decision though it did not affect the level of group members’
satisfaction or agreement. They also reported that in the presence of statistical
feedback, assigned leadership reduced the level of agreement in the group. Hiltz
et al. (1991) suggested that provision of statistical feedback could have substituted
for leadership by highlighting a solution for group members, thus potentially elimi-
nating the need for assigned leadership.
Ho and Raman (1991) reported no effects of elected leadership in their study.
Avolio et al.
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)
Media Was a
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
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.
Studies of Effects of Group Support System Facilitation

Group Support Systems facilitators are trained to enhance the overall range of
interactions among users. In some cases, the facilitator plays a “chauffeur’s” role
by implementing the GSS’s features and/or entering/editing data at the direction
of the group (e.g., Dickson, Lee, Robinson, & Heath, 1989). In other cases, a
facilitator can assume a leadership role. For instance, GSS facilitators may assume
a directive leadership role when they instruct groups on what features to use, how
to use them (Clawson, Bostrom, & Anson, 1993; Dickson, Partridge, & Robinson,
1993), and/or when they provide expert advice (George, Dennis, & Nunamaker,
1992). A GSS facilitator may play a participative leadership role by creating and
reinforcing an open and participative environment (Clawson et al., 1993). The
facilitator’s role has been identified as an important dimension in computer-medi-
ated meetings in terms of having an effect on group process and performance
(Dennis, Heminger, Nunamaker, & Vogel, 1990; Neiderman, Beise, & Beranek, 1996).
Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary of GSS studies that examined the effects of
facilitation. George et al. (1992) compared the effects of user-driven (non-facili-
tated) groups and groups facilitated by a directive facilitator for a task that had
creativity and intellective components (McGrath, 1984). George et al. reported that
after controlling for the number of alternatives generated, facilitated groups were
less likely to reach consensus but made higher quality decisions than user-driven
groups. Dickson, Partridge, and Robinson (1993) reported lower post-meeting con-
sensus for facilitator-driven groups than chauffeur-driven groups, concluding that
for a mixed-motive task, facilitation must be open and adaptive rather than restrictive.
Anson, Bostrom, and Wynne (1995) reported that adaptive facilitation led to a
marginally significant improvement in interaction quality and cohesion, but it did
not influence performance. Furthermore, they found a weak significant interaction
for adaptive facilitation and GSS on performance: relative to the performance in
632
Table 3. Summary of Prior Studies of Facilitation in GSS Contexts: Part 1

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?
George Effects of facilitated Intact groups of GSS facilitator was Creativity and Decision Room Electronic discussion Parallel, non– No
et al. versus user–driven students; size: an individual intellective GCSSb system with alter- anonymous
(1992) (non–facilitated) 4 and 5 external to the native listing channels with
groups group and voting recording
Dickson Effects of chauf- Ad–hoc groups GSS facilitator was Decision– Decision Room SAMM Parallel, non– Facilitator (in facil-
et al. feured and facil- of students; an individual making GPSSb anonymous itated group) or
(1993) itated groups size: 3–6 external to the channelsc with chauffeur (in chauf-
group recording feured groups) pro-
vided technical
faciltiation
Anson Effects of facilitation Ad–hoc groups GSS facilitator was Generating Face–to–face GroupSystems (topic Parallel channels Yes (in addition to
et al. (absent/present) of students; an individual and perfor- and Decision commenter and with record- process facilitator in
(1995) and GSS (absent/ size: 6–7 external to the mance Room GPSS issue consolidator) ing; incom- facilitated groups)
present) group plete informa-
tion about
anonymityd
(continued)
Avolio et al.
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
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. Summary of Prior Studies of Facilitation in GSS Contexts: Part 2

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
George Single meeting Members in same Process (including Directive Decision quality, number After controlling for the number
et al. place the use of GSS of alternatives, of alternatives generated,
(1992) features required consensus, and facilitated groups were less
by the process) satisfaction likely to reach consensus but
made higher quality decisions
than user-driven groups
Dickson Single meeting Members in same Process done in Directive done in Consensus Facilitated groups were
et al. place facilitator driven facilitator-driven groups. associated with lower levels of
(1993) groups. None in In chauffeured groups, consensus than chauffeured
chauffeured chauffeur acted at groups
groups. group’s request
Anson Single meeting Members in same Process Adaptive execution of Group cohesion, Weak significant interaction
et al. place behaviors from a set interaction quality, and effect of facilitator and GPSS
(1995) regarded by authors as performance on performance, suggesting
constituting effective lack of additivity; Facilitated
facilitator behaviors groups (GPSS and non-GPSS)
were associated with a weak
significant effect on group
cohesion and interaction
quality
(continued)
Avolio et al.
Table 4. Continued
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
non-GSS groups, performance in GSS groups dropped with the introduction of

facilitation.
Wheeler and Valacich (1996) argue that appropriation mediators in the form of
a facilitator, GSS configuration, or training may narrow the group’s choice of
appropriations to faithful appropriations. They reported that active mediation in
the form of facilitation alone or in combination with GSS configuration or training
led to more faithful appropriations than training or GSS configuration (alone or in
combination). Furthermore, facilitation interacted with both GSS configuration and
training. The increase (decrease) in the number of faithful (unfaithful) appropria-
tions because of facilitation was greater in the absence of GSS configuration than
in presence of GSS configuration. Also, the decrease in the number of unfaithful
appropriations because of facilitation was greater in the absence of training than
in presence of training. More faithful appropriations and fewer unfaithful appropria-
tions were found to improve decision quality, highlighting the importance of aligning
the spirit of an AIT with its use.
Miranda and Bostrom (1999) examined whether facilitation was an important
mediator of success in GSS environments. The authors compared the effects of
“restrictive” process and content facilitation in face-to-face meetings versus GSS
supported meetings in a task involving creativity and decision-making components.
Their results indicate that process facilitation had a positive effect on meeting
process, while content facilitation’s effect was negative. Meeting processes had a
strong positive effect on satisfaction, but no impact on product quality. The interac-
tion of GSS use and process facilitation had a negative effect on satisfaction whereas
the interaction of GSS use and content facilitation had a positive effect on satis-
faction.
Taken together, the pattern of results from the above studies indicated that the
type of GSS facilitation could be an important determinant of the outcomes achieved
in a GSS context. The results comparing restrictive facilitation to no facilitation,
however, were mixed and seem to be contingent on the task, the dependent variable
measured, and the orientation of facilitation (i.e., whether it is process or content
oriented).
George at al. (1992) reported that restrictive process facilitation led to lower
levels of consensus compared to user-driven groups for a task with creative and
intellective components. Wheeler and Valacich (1996) reported that restrictive
process facilitation had positive effects on the number of faithful appropriations
for a decision-making task. Similarly, Miranda and Bostrom (1999) reported that
restrictive process facilitation had a positive effect whereas content facilitation had
a negative effect on the meeting process for a task involving creativity and decision-
making components.
The interaction effect of facilitation and GSS use parallels the potential of GSS
structures to substitute for leadership as observed by George et al. (1990) and Hiltz
et al. (1991) in GSS-supported groups with leaders. The results also seem to indicate
that content facilitation and GSS may interact differently than process facilitation
and GSS use (Miranda & Bostrom, 1999). Currently, there is no clear explanation
for the above interaction effects of facilitation and GSS use. Most of the prior GSS
studies that manipulated the facilitator’s style, manipulated it to be restrictive or
Avolio et al. 637
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.
Studies of the Effects of Group Leaders with Leadership Manipulation

Responding to some of the concerns raised above, various leadership styles,
including the participative, directive, transformational, and transactional, have been
systematically manipulated and measured in GSS contexts in a series of investiga-
tions conducted at the Center for Leadership Studies at Binghamton University.
In these studies, the leadership manipulation was primarily based on the behaviors
a confederate leader exhibited through the GSS. A summary of these investigations
is provided in Tables 5 and 6 and below.
Kahai et al. (1997) argued that participative leadership would be more consistent
than directive leadership with the “participative spirit” of a GSS and lead to greater
input in the form of solution proposals, critical remarks, and supportive remarks.
However, they found that for a creativity task in which participants provided input
anonymously, the number of critical comments generated were similar for directive
and participative leadership. Furthermore, participative leadership was more condu-
cive to promoting solution proposals for a semi-structured problem, while directive
leadership was more conducive to generating solution proposals for a more struc-
tured problem. Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1997) examined the effects of transforma-
tional versus transactional leadership on group potency and effectiveness in a GSS
setting. Overall, transformational leadership was associated with higher levels of
group potency than transactional leadership. Group potency in turn was positively
related to group effectiveness. Sosik et al. (1997) reported that anonymity affected
the impact of leadership style on group potency differentially depending on whether
the group was using the technology to brainstorm or to complete a report. In other
words, leadership style and technology may have interacted differently depending
on the nature of the task.
In the above study the effect of transformational versus transactional leadership
on group potency diminished in presence of anonymity for the brainstorming phase
but increased in presence of anonymity in the report generation phase. The report
generation phase can be characterized as a more collective task versus the brain-
storming phase. Transformational leaders are typically described as motivating the
collective performance of the group (Bass, 1985), and anonymity may have enhanced
this motivating effect of transformational leadership by making the “collective”
more salient.
Transformational leadership may also limit social loafing by getting all members
to work for the good of the group, as was shown in a recent study by Kahai, Sosik,
and Avolio (2000), also conducted within a GSS context. In this study, groups led
by transformational leaders were less likely to loaf in anonymous and group reward
conditions. Furthermore, anonymity enhanced the effects of transformational versus
transactional leadership on solution originality, group efficacy, and satisfaction with
the task. This may have been the result of anonymity providing a favorable condition
638
Table 5. Summary of Prior Studies of Group Leadership with Leadership Manipulation; Part 1
Media in Was a
which Technical
Study
Nature of Group Nature of Facilitation Specific GSS GSS Channel Facilitator
Authors Focus and Members Leader’s Position Type of taska Examined and Features Characteristics Used?
Kahai Effects of directive/ Ad hoc groups of Leader was an Creativity Decision GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous Yes
et al. participative leadership students; size: 4 individual Room (EBS) channel with
(1997) styles across tasks with external to the GPSSb recording
different levels of group
structure
Sosik Effects of transformational/ Groups of Leader was an Creativity Decision GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous, Yes
et al. transactional leadership students with individual and Room (EBS, input/ and non-anonymous
(1997) and anonymity brief history; external to planning GPSS output, group channels with
size: 4–5 the group writing) recording
Sosik, Effects of different levels of Groups of Leader was an Creativity Decision GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous, Yes
Kahai, transformational students with individual Room (EBS, input/ and non-anonymous
and leadership and anonymity brief history; external to GPSS output) channels with
Avolio size: 4–5 the group recording
(1998)
Sosik, Effects of perceptions of Groups of Leader was an Creativity Decision GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous, Yes
Avolio, transformational and students with individual Room (EBS, input/ and non-anonymous
and transactional leadership brief history; external to GPSS output) channels with
Kahai and anonymity size: 4–5 the group recording
(1998)
Sosik Effects of perceptions of Groups of students Leader was an Creativity Decision GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous, Yes
et al. transformational and with brief individual Room (EBS, input/ and non-anonymous
(1999) transactional leadership history; size: 4–5 external to GPSS output) channels with
and anonymity the group recording
Kahai Effects of transformational Ad hoc groups of Leader was an Decision– Decision GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous, Yes
et al. versus transactional students; size 4 individual making Room (EBS) and non-anonymous
(2000) styles, anonymity, and external to GPSS channels with
individual versus group the group recording
rewards
a
b
GPSS ⫽ Group performance support system.
Avolio et al.
Table 6. Summary of Prior Studies of Group Leadership with Leadership Manipulation: Part 2
Spatial Dependent Variables

Study Temporal Distribution Focus of Leader’s Leadership (Process and Outcome
Authors Nature of Members Influence Attempts Style Variables) Key Significant Findings
Kahai Single meeting Members in Process Directive & Frequency of solution Participants made more supportive
et al. same participative proposals, frequency of remarks under participative leadership
(1997) place supportive remarks, than directive leadership.
frequency of critical Participative leadership was more
remarks, group conducive to solution proposal for a
productivity, member semi–structured problem, while
satisfaction directive leadership was more
conducive to solution proposal for a
fairly structured problem.
Frequency of solution proposals was
positively related to group productivity
and member satisfaction.
Sosik Two meetings Members in Process Transformational Group potency, idea Overall, the effect of transformational
et al. same & transactional generation versus transactional leadership on
(1997) place effectiveness, report group potency was positive.
generation This effect of transformational versus
effectiveness transactional leadership diminished in
presence of anonymity for the
creativity phase of the task and it
increased in the generate (group report
writing) phase of the group’s task.
Group potency was positively related to
group’s effectiveness.
(continued)
639
640
Table 6. Continued

Overall, the effect of transformational
versus transactional leadership on
group’s effectiveness was negative for
the creativity phase of the task and
positive for the generate (group report
writing) phase of the group’s task.
These effects of leadership on group’s
effectiveness became more positive in
presence of anonymity.
Sosik, Single meeting Members in Process Transformational Group creativity reflected Elaboration improved significantly and
Kahai, same in solution fluency, originality improved marginally with
and place flexibility, originality, higher levels of transformational
Avolio and elaboration leadership.
(1998) Leadership style interacted with
anonymity to influence flexibility:
Groups in the identified,
high–transformational condition
demonstrated higher flexibility than
groups in the identified,
low–transformational condition.
This leadership effect vanished with
anonymity.
(continued)
Table 6. Continued
Avolio et al.

Sosik, Single meeting Members in Process Transformational Group creativity Perceptions of goal setting and
Avolio, same & transactional inspirational leadership were positively
and place associated whereas intellectual
Kahai stimulation and individualized
(1998) consideration were negatively
associated with group creativity.
Except for the effect of intellectual
stimulation on group creativity, these
effects were stronger under anonymous
versus identified conditions.
Sosik Single meeting Members in Process Transformational Flow, group creativity In the identified condition, perceptions of
et al. same & transactional transactional leadership were
(1999) place positively related to flow but
perceptions of transformational
leadership were unrelated to flow.
In the identified condition, flow had no
effect on creativity.
In the anonymous condition, both
perceptions of transactional and
transformational leadership had
positive effects on flow, which in turn
had a positive effect on creativity.
Anonymity led to a marginally more
positive effect of perceptions of
transformational leadership on flow
and a more positive effect of flow
on creativity.
(continued)
641
642
Table 6. Continued

Kahai Single meeting Members in Process Transformational Participation, Under transactional leadership,
et al. same & transactional cooperation, originality anonymity was associated with
(2000) place of solutions, group decreases in participation and
efficacy, and cooperation, and an increase in the
satisfaction originality of solutions in the group
rewards condition relative to the
individual rewards condition.
Under transformational leadership,
anonymity was not accompanied by
changes in participation, cooperation,
and originality of solutions in the group
rewards condition relative to the
individual rewards condition.
Transactional leadership was associated
with greater solution originality than
transformational leadership.
In the identified condition, transactional
leadership was associated with greater
group efficacy and task satisfaction
than transformational leadership.
This advantage of transactional over
transformational leadership
disappeared with the introduction of
anonymity.
Avolio et al. 643
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?
Summary
The above review provides a basis for offering the following general propositions.
Proposition 2: Leadership behaviors within a GSS context influence GSS’s

appropriation.
Proposition 3: Leadership behaviors within a GSS context interact with GSS

features to influence GSS’s appropriation.
Proposition 4: GSS appropriations influence group process and outcomes.
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.
ADDITIONAL GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEM RESEARCH WITH INDIRECT

LINKAGES TO LEADERSHIP
In this section, we review selected GSS research whose focus was not on leadership
per se, but whose findings are relevant to understanding the effects of e-leadership.
Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of the empirical GSS studies reviewed below.
Relational Development in Group Support System Contexts

How do groups appropriate GSS technology to suit their relational needs? Chi-
dambaram (1996) found that compared to face-to-face communication, initially
there was less relational communication in a GSS requiring text communication;
this difference, however, dissipated over time. To overcome the inherent media
leanness characterizing interactions within a GSS context, group members adopted
mechanisms such as greater self-disclosure to enhance relational communication.
The model of relational communication in GSS contexts that emerges from prior
research suggests that to impact the relational development of a group during its
initial phases of electronic communication, leaders need to focus on building higher
quality relationships among group members. Work on Leader-Member Exchange
theory indicates that leaders typically stress the importance of building higher
quality relationships in face-to-face group interactions. Leaders of electronic interac-
Table 7. Summary of Additional GSS Studies Relevant to Leadership: Part 1
Avolio et al.

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?
Chidambaram Effects of GSS vs. 28 ad–hoc groups of Decision–making Face-to-face and GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous Yes
(1996) face–to–face students; size: 5 Decision Room (EBS, issue channels with
groups GPSSb analyzer, recording
voting/rating/
ranking)
Daily, Effects of GSS 12 ad–hoc groups of Creative and Face-to-face and VisionQuest (idea Parallel, anonymous Yes
Whatley, (present/absent) students both undergrad decision–making Decision Room ranking and channels with
Ash, and and cultural and MBA; size: 4–5. GPSS rating) recording
Steiner homogeneity Diverse and homogeneous
(1996) (present/absent) groups employed
Dennis (1996) Effects of GSS vs. 14 ad–hoc groups of Intellective Face-to-face and GroupSystems Parallel, anonymous Yes
face–to–face students; size: 10 Decision Room (group outliner, channels with
groups GPSS quick vote) recording
Dennis, GSS use crossed Ad hoc groups of 170 Decision–making Face-to-face and TCBWorks Parallel, anonymous Yes
Hilmer, and with decision college business GPSS channels with
Taylor situation students recording
(1998)
Mennecke Group history and Ad hoc and established Decision–making Face-to-face and Group systems Parallel, anonymous Yes
and level of computer groups, 33 groups (132 Decision Room (topic channels with
Valacich support in groups students) for ad hoc and GPSS commenter) recording
(1998) 31 groups (124 students).
Students were
participating in a speech
communications course
at Indiana University
(continued)
645
646
Table 7. Continued
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
b
GPSS ⫽ Group performance support system, GCSS ⫽ Group communication support system (McGrath and Hollingshead, 1993).
Avolio et al.
Table 8. Summary of Additional GSS Studies Relevant to Leadership: Part 2

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
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
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.
Impact of Group History on Group Support System Interactions

Pinsonneault, Barki, Gallupe, and Hoppen (1999) examined whether a shared
understanding developed in a group over time affected member interactions and
subsequent productivity. These authors reported that GSS-supported nominal
groups generated a greater number of ideas than GSS-supported brainstorming
groups. It seems that members might have held back ideas during brainstorming
because they wanted to offer “original ideas,” which they assumed no one else in
their group would have offered. In other words, established groups may assume
they understand each other better and may be less prone to share information
familiar to all group members (Mennecke & Valacich, 1998). Perhaps, a group’s
interaction history creates an embedded social structure and ultimately a way of
thinking that influences the effect of different leadership styles on a GSS’s appropria-
tion. Furthermore, the more established the group, the stronger the effect of history
will likely be on GSS appropriation (Carley, 1986). The challenge for established
groups is for leaders to surface the shared mental models (Zaccarro & Klimoski,
in press) that will affect subsequent use and appropriation of AIT. The question
of how group or organizational history interacts with leadership to influence a GSS’s
appropriation needs to be examined in future research.
Further Explorations of Anonymity Impact on Group Support System Interactions

One area that has received much attention in this literature concerns the effects
of GSS anonymity on group interactions. In an environment where information
exchange is restricted, GSS anonymity can promote the sharing of sensitive informa-
tion among group members by masking the identity of contributors. For instance,
Dennis (1996) reported that GSS-supported groups exchanged 50% more informa-
tion then face-to-face groups. Dennis, Hilmer, and Taylor (1998) demonstrated that
by making input anonymous, GSS are able minimize the biases in decision-making
that may come with group members simply going with the majority group’s opinion.
Generally speaking, the effects of anonymity have varied depending on the type
of anonymity, the nature and size of groups, the proximity of group members, the
task, and the facilitator’s tone. Context may also moderate anonymity’s effects
(Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1998). For instance, Hiltz, Turoff, and Johnson (1989)
reported that anonymity increased the level of conservative behavior in those groups
that came from an organizational culture that was more conservative.
The downside of anonymity is that when we are unable to determine the source
of an idea, it may be difficult to judge its credibility (Dennis, Hilmer, & Taylor,
1998). In certain cultures, this may be a particularly important issue where there is
high power distance (Bass, 1998). Thus, by merely increasing the level of information
exchange we will not necessarily achieve better decision-making, if that information
is not recognized, understood, or appropriated by the group (Dennis, 1996). The

absence of any means to recognize individual contributions may lead group members
to exhibit a “what’s in it for me” attitude (Kahai et al., 2000; Sproull & Keisler,
1986). Although most GSS are designed to “free” the individual of conformity to
a group, the downside of enhanced freedom may be enhanced self-interest and
lower group performance. This condition challenges the leader to create a stronger
sense of identification with the group’s mission among its members (Avolio, 1999).
Group Identification and its Impact on Group Support System Interactions

Lea and Spears (1991, 1992) present a group process model that incorporates
social identification and de-individuation processes, which they labeled SIDE the-
ory. According to SIDE, in the absence of nonverbal cues that tend to reveal
individual differences, GSS users focus more on the similarities they share with
other group members and identify more strongly with their group when they are
cued that they are members of a group. Stronger identification with a group, in
turn, leads to greater conformance to the group’s norms. Sources of membership
cues include group members’ history with each other or similarity on attributes
such as affiliation with a professional or social group.
Leaders are often charged with building identification within groups to create
synergy and coherence. Now leaders must consider how to use computer-mediated
communication that makes the similarity of members more salient and strengthens
identification within the group. In early group formation, anonymity may provide
the necessary “cover” to overcome apparent differences in gender, age, ethnicity,
and race that may impede a group’s subsequent development.
In line with the above arguments, it seems that under certain conditions GSS
technology may serve as a catalyst for the effects of a leader’s attempts to enhance
group identification. Preliminary evidence from Kahai et al. (2000), who studied the
effects of leadership style, rewards, and anonymity on group process and outcomes,
supports this position. The authors reported that groups working with a transactional
leader had higher levels of group efficacy and task satisfaction than groups working
with a transformational leader when individual inputs were identified. When individ-
ual inputs were anonymous, this advantage disappeared; levels of group efficacy
and task satisfaction increased under transformational leadership but decreased
under transactional leadership relative to the levels when inputs were identified.
This finding may support the idea that anonymity can enhance the effects of transfor-
mational leadership relative to transactional leadership by providing a favorable
social condition that is consistent with the spirit of transformational leadership’s
emphasis on collective action. These preliminary results highlight the need for
future research to further examine how computer mediation affects efforts by
leaders to build identification, commitment, and cohesion in groups.
Cultural Differences and Computer-Mediated Group Interactions

Kamel and Davison (1998) suggested the features of a GSS might need to be
changed, to have an optimal impact across different cultures. For example, in some
cultures, use of anonymity may lead to de-individuation and feelings of alienation
from the group, which could result in reduced levels of commitment. Also, such
Avolio et al. 651
features can lead to inappropriate behavior in certain cultural groups as Watson,

Ho, and Raman (1994) observed with groups from Singapore, who became highly
critical of one another when protected by anonymity in a group decision support
system.
Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen (1993) examined culturally diverse and homoge-
nous groups comparing their interactions over a period of 17 weeks. Watson et al.
(1993) reported that culturally diverse groups initially suffered in their performance
but over time surpassed homogenous groups, especially in terms of the number of
alternatives generated. Daily, Whatley, Ash, and Steiner (1996) confirmed earlier
results demonstrating that computer-mediated groups outperformed face-to-face
groups, with culturally diverse groups generating a significantly greater number of
ideas. These results suggest the need to take cultural differences into consideration
in situations where leadership is conducted via electronic media. Leadership effects
over electronic media in one culture may not be reproducible in another culture
because technology’s features may be appropriated differently and, consequently,
may interact with or mediate leadership effects differently. Future research will
need to examine these issues across a diverse set of cultures.
Impact of Distance on Computer-Mediated Interactions

According to theorists such as Latane (1981), immediacy is considered a critical
factor in determining the social systems that one interacts in over time. Immediacy
traditionally has been described as physical distance. A key issue for our purposes
is whether technology is changing the traditional constraints or boundaries that
physical distance may have placed on social interactions in organizations. There is
a need to examine how much distance really matters when leaders and followers
are working virtually across organizations, time zones, and cultures.
Latane, Liu, Nowak, Bonevento, and Zheng (1995) examined whether distance
still mattered across different cultures and found that the most memorable interac-
tions were between individuals who were physically close. It should be noted,
however, that in 1995 the world was at the very front end of using the Internet.
With the Internet quickly becoming the central nervous system for global communi-
cations, one wonders about the extent to which physical distance matters in social
interaction processes such as leadership. This area is also ripe for future research.
In sum, the above review summarized selected GSS studies that did not focus
on leadership per se, but whose results have implications for future research and
practice of e-leadership. In the next section, we provide an example of how we might
systematically study e-leadership. We develop a model of the effects of e-leadership
on building trust in virtual teams. We then indicate how this model fits within the
AST-based theoretical framework and propose an empirical study to examine the
model.
E-LEADERSHIP AND TRUST-BUILDING IN VIRTUAL TEAMS

In a recent survey, HR executives ranked “going virtual” as among the top five
trends in the industry over the next three years (Bassie, Cheney, & Van Buren,
1997). Tapping the productive potential of virtual teams poses several unique chal-
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.
Modeling the Effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership in

Virtual Teams
We examine here how transformational versus transactional leadership and col-
laborative AIT differing in media richness affects the formation of trust and out-
comes in virtual teams. Using AST as a broad conceptual framework, we expect
that virtual teams led by transformational leaders will appropriate technology to
enhance collaboration and synergies in teams, leading to higher levels of trust, team
potency, and performance. This model, shown in Figure 2, is proposed to stimulate
e-leadership research within this emerging context.
The model in Figure 2 extends the work of Mayer et al. (1995) by incorporating
the recent work of Jones and George (1998) on the emergence and outcomes of
trust in virtual teams. The model also incorporates leadership and collaboration
Avolio et al. 653
Figure 2. Model of Leadership and Groupware Effects on Trust Formation in

Virtual Teams.
technology as important determinants of social interaction and outcomes in virtual

teams. The labels for shaded regions in Figure 2 show how the elements of the
model are related to key AST notions in Figure 1.
Leadership and collaborative AIT provide structures that influence appropria-
tions of trust by members of a virtual team. These appropriations then influence
group processes reflected in the interaction among team members and their emo-
tions and moods. Team interaction and members’ emotions and moods, in turn,
structure ongoing appropriations of trust by team members. Finally, outcomes are
determined by the nature of interactions among team members.
Leadership is likely to influence the appropriation of trust among members of
a virtual team by affecting (a) perceptions of other members’ ability, benevolence,
and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995) and (b) team members’ emotions and moods
(Jones & George, 1998). Ability refers to the group of skills that enable an individual
being trusted (i.e., a trustee) to be competent in a certain domain. Benevolence is
a positive orientation of a trustee towards the trustor, whereby the trustee wants
to do good for the trustor by showing interpersonal care and concern. Integrity
refers to a trustee’s adherence to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.
Emotions and moods refer to feelings of individuals as they go about their daily
activities.
Effects of Leadership on Trust and Interaction

Compared to transactional leadership, transformational leadership is likely to
be associated with perceptions of higher ability and benevolence of others in a
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.
Hypothesis 1: A higher level of trust will be associated with higher frequen-

cies of comments by the leader and members in virtual teams showing
(a) individualized consideration, (b) inspirational motivation, and (c)
intellectual stimulation.
Effect of Technology’s Media Richness on Trust and Interaction

Media richness refers to a technology’s capacity for providing immediate feed-
back, the number of cues and channels utilized, personalization of messages, and
language variety (Daft & Lengel, 1986). In the new emerging context of e-leadership,
media richness becomes a key facet of the AIT in terms of its potential impact on
the appropriation of new technology and the emergence of social structures and
Avolio et al. 655
interaction. Media richness is expected to influence the emergence of trust by

influencing the perception of ability, benevolence, and integrity. Lower media rich-
ness will inhibit forming judgments about team member ability, benevolence, and
integrity (Ridgeway, 1987), potentially reducing the amount of interaction as well
as blocking the formation of trust. This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Collaborative group ware technology that possess higher me-

dia richness will be associated with higher levels of trust among members
of a virtual team.
Interaction of Leadership and Collaboration Technology on Trust

According to work based on social identity theory, when media richness is low,
a team that is made more salient by a transformational leader (e.g., inspiring
members to think of themselves as a team to create synergy by working towards
a common vision or mission) (Lea & Spears, 1991) can produce higher levels of
trust. The greater salience of the team is likely to help create a team identity and
facilitate trust formation among team members (Kramer et al., 1996), potentially
contradicting Hypothesis 2. This discussion leads to our third hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Leadership style (transformational versus transactional) and

the type of collaboration technology (high versus low media richness)
will interact to affect the emergence of trust among members of a virtual
team.
Effect of Team Interaction on Team Outcomes

The proposed study may also focus on team effectiveness and team potency as
potential team outcomes. Group potency is defined as a group’s collective belief
that it can be effective (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). Guzzo et al. (1993)
argue that transformational leadership directly influences group potency by boosting
the confidence of team members that they will succeed. Several others have argued
for a similar relationship between team leadership and potency (cf. Shamir,
House, & Arthur, 1993). Hence, we offer the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4: Higher frequencies of comments by the leader and members in

virtual teams showing (a) individualized consideration, (b) inspirational
motivation, and (c) intellectual stimulation will be associated with more
positive team outcomes, such as potency.
Proposed Research Design

The proposed study might employ a 2 (transactional/transformational leadership)
2 (low/high media-rich collaboration technology) design with 60 virtual teams. The
experimental groups could be randomly assigned across leadership and collaborative
technology conditions. Each group could be assigned the task of completing an
electronic commerce project.
Two confederates might be trained to lead the project teams virtually by exhib-
iting either transactional or transformational leadership behaviors via computer-

mediated interactions. Specifically, the transactional confederate will emphasize
what the team is expected to do and the rewards (e.g., feelings of satisfaction and
other tangible rewards) it would receive upon completing their project. Additionally,
the transactional confederate would provide contingent recognition in the form of
expressing satisfaction with the progress being made by the team. The transforma-
tional confederate will display and encourage understanding and appreciation of
different needs and viewpoints within the team, stimulation of each other’s efforts
by questioning assumptions, re-framing problems, and approaching old situations
in new ways. The transformational confederate will also provide meaning and
challenge to participants’ efforts, while encouraging them to work together in order
to contribute to the collective mission of the team.
To manipulate media richness, teams might be assigned one of two different
collaborative technologies to support their projects. One of the collaborative tech-
nologies may be a Web-based communication system. This technology enables
different-time (asynchronous) and same-time (synchronous) communication among
dispersed individuals. It enables teams to have a threaded discussion, maintain and
support mailing lists, online “chats”, and searching from all posted messages. Be-
cause of its text-based nature, it is designated as low in media richness. The other
collaboration technology in this proposed study may be a desktop video-conferenc-
ing system. In addition to enabling text-based collaboration, this system enables
real-time video and audio communication among individuals. Team members can
collaborate online by sharing applications or streaming their presentations. Conse-
quently, this collaboration technology is designated as high in media richness.
Initial team building sessions might be used prior to beginning their work on
the group projects. The objective of these sessions will be to exchange information
about members of the team that will be relevant for assessing one another’s project-
related skills (ability), their motivations for contributing to the team effort (benevo-
lence), and their work/study habits believed to be compatible with a successful
effort (integrity). The confederate team leaders will display transactional or transfor-
mational behavior, as per the manipulation via computer-mediated interactions.
A questionnaire designed to measure trust among subjects, team potency, sub-
jects’ moods and emotions, and subjects’ perceptions of media richness and leader
behaviors might be administered at the end of the initial team building sessions
and prior to submission of their final project.
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.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ON E-LEADERSHIP

Much of our discussion about the integration of computer-mediated technology
in organizations and its impact on leadership suggests that we must examine the
patterns that emerge over a period of time in social systems when a new technology
is introduced (Fulk, 1993). In our discussion, we have assumed we are examining
emergent social systems created over time through a complex interplay of various
technical and human/leadership system processes. For instance, some leaders may
observe how others use technology to open communication channels and challenge
“old” ways of thinking in their organizations. Through observation, they learn these
changes in behavior can be effective for stimulating innovation, trust building, and
enhanced commitment. Subsequently, they begin to model those behaviors and
create a new structure for interaction, which substitutes for older forms of interaction
over time. These emergent systems are represented not only in terms of behaviors
but also in the way people construe meaning from their interactions (Bandura,
1986; Fulk, 1993). Hence, technology becomes part of the social transformation in
the organization and, in turn, part of the leadership system. In contrast, another
leader may view the appropriation of technology as a cost efficient means of control-
ling employee behavior through constant monitoring of deviations from standards.
The social system that emerges is likely to be quite different then the one that
emerges with the first leader.
As noted at the outset of this review, even the most sophisticated and well-
intentioned firms have yet to reap the benefits of coordination, knowledge dissemi-
nation, acquisition, and learning heralded by technology advocates (O’Mahoney &
Barley, 1999). Technology itself does not reduce constraints on what information
is available; rather it creates opportunities that can facilitate the reduction of such
constraints, oftentimes increasing the discretion available to employees at all levels

of organizations. As technology encounters power structures and strong cultures,
however, its integration has become more complex, and more interesting. Perhaps
the most important question now, is why do people come together, as opposed to
studying how they come together. The shift in question leads to a need to study
the social system in which technology is embedded and evolving over time, and at
the heart of that social system is leadership. To do this requires that we define the
level at which we intend to observe the interaction between technology and the
human/social system.
Some Future Directions for E-Leadership Research

Throughout our discussion of e-leadership we have emphasized both explicitly
and implicitly the importance of examining this construct in terms of how it is
embedded in context, at different levels of analysis. Here, we provide a general
rationale for considering how previous models of leadership need to be adapted
to e-leadership, by examining this construct at individual, dyadic, group, and/or
organizational levels of analysis.
Zaccaro and Klimoski (in press) emphasized the importance of examining leader-
ship processes within context, as we have done at the outset of this article. This
leads us to an essential question that must be considered in terms of our discussion
of e-leadership: How does the organizational context including the specification of
levels of analysis, affect how we conceptualize, define and measure e-leadership?
With respect to future research on e-leadership, never has the context been more
relevant to how we define leadership. If the context is in part the nature or “spirit”
of technology, and technology is transforming the way leaders (teams) scan, inter-
pret, and disseminate information, then “context” is integral to what constitutes
leadership processes and systems in organizations. If this general assumption is
accepted, then we must systematically examine how advanced information technol-
ogy transforms the “traditional roles of leadership” at individual, dyadic, group,
and organizational/systems levels.
Katz and Kahn (1978) described organizations as interconnected systems where
changes in one part of the system can affect changes in other parts. We used AST
in our discussion of e-leadership in part to demonstrate the importance of examining
the interconnectedness of leadership and information technology systems within
the larger organizational system. We have argued that organizational effectiveness
is determined in part, by how well social and technical systems are aligned with
each other and the external environment.
With the introduction of e-leadership into the leadership literature, we now
examine how this construct should be conceptualized, measured, and analyzed using
a multi-level framework. To do so, and given space limitations, we will use an
integrative framework offered by Dansereau and Yammarino (1998) to examine
how the construct of e-leadership can be interpreted at different levels of analysis.
Dansereau and Yammarino (1998) presented a multi-dimensional model of lead-
ership, which included such areas as Fundamental Human Processes associated
with leadership (e.g., affective and cognitive), Leadership Core Processes (e.g.,
Avolio et al. 659
transformational), and Leadership Outcomes (e.g., participation and team-building).

Their levels of analysis included: Person or Individual, Dyad, Group, and Collective/
Systemic. To orient our examination of e-leadership and its relevance to other
models of leadership, we discuss e-leadership as it relates to an individual leader’s
behavior, the exchange between a leader and one follower, the exchange that occurs
within a group, and the exchanges that occur within a larger collective, system and/
or organization.
Hunt and Osborn (1982) emphasized the importance of examining the level of
discretion afforded to a leader and indirectly to followers at different organizational
levels. Their focus on discretion is pertinent to our discussion of advanced informa-
tion technology, since information technology can provide a leader’s followers with
the information needed to make informed decisions, thus changing the balance of
how much information needs to be sourced from the leader. The concept of leader
discretion as introduced by Hunt, Osborn, and others (cf. Hambrick & Finkelstein,
1987; Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Katz & Kahn, 1978) represents the ability of a leader
and followers to make decisions and to choose certain behaviors. Discretion repre-
sents the degrees of freedom an individual has concerning the range of actions
available in a given situation. To the extent that information technology changes
the span and scope of leader (follower) discretion, technology must now be factored
into how we examine leadership and decision-making at individual, dyadic, group,
and organizational levels. The transformation in discretion at each level is illustrative
of the type of transformation we expect can and will occur as AIT is appropriated
at multiple levels of organizations.
Going from the individual to the group and organizational levels, today a senior
leadership team can communicate and disseminate information to all employees
as often as it desires. How does this capability affect the leadership team’s strategy
for adapting to complexity and uncertainty in the environment? As the senior
management team’s leadership is mediated more through technology, how does it
influence its credibility when articulating the organization’s goals, strategy, and
vision? How does AIT help the team to reinforce the organization’s principles and
values within and between various levels of analysis? What type of leadership team
is needed before one can go “e” in terms of widely disseminating information? As
more and more strategic thinking, visions, goals, and messages are mediated through
information technology, what impact will such mediation have on direct and indirect
followers operating at a distance? Will a closer alignment represented in the direct
followers’ views of the leadership team be more rapidly developed at subsequent
levels by using AIT to disseminate and store key messages?
Alternatively, if employees at lower levels can access information as rapidly as
their senior management team, will this have any effect on levels of alignment
within the overall organization, and the “sense-making” function typically driven
by an organization’s leadership? Employees may access information that contradicts
a strategic leadership directive, with information that may not yet be available to
the senior leadership team. How does the senior management team assure followers
that its message is authentic if interactions occur primarily at a distance? With all
good intentions, the senior leadership’s directive may be seen as lacking in credibil-
ity, thereby contributing to a lack of alignment around strategic goals and directions.
Fundamentally, given broader access to information, how can the leadership of an

organization best lead its followers?
The type of impact that information technology can have at a larger collective
or organizational level can also be expected to emerge at unit and dyadic levels.
Members of a team can reinforce the principles or agreements adopted by the team,
by frequently exchanging examples that support those principles, even if the team
never meets face-to-face. The same is also true for two individuals who are inter-
acting with each other via technology. The ability of the group to stay connected
and informed about each other’s work, would be expected to have a positive impact
on the group’s level of cohesion, efficacy, and potency (Avolio et al., in press). Yet
staying connected may also have a negative impact to the extent that information
is rapidly transmitted about all of the problem areas in the group.
What we might observe at the group level can also be observed in the quality
of relationships observed between a leader and his or her respective followers.
Perhaps, it is now possible to develop high quality relationships between leaders
and followers at a more rapid pace, where leaders have the ability to have more
frequent virtual contact with followers. Of course, just as high quality relationships
and even trust may be developed more quickly with the support of advanced
information technology, so can poorer individual relationships be developed at an
accelerated pace.
With the integration of AIT in organizations, the interpretation of distance
between leaders and followers may also change. As we discussed earlier in reference
to virtual teams and Shamir’s work on near and distant leaders, how one conceptual-
izes and measures e-leadership may change the way we view physical as well as
social distance between leaders and followers.
Advanced Information Technology is transforming the way we conceive of lead-
ership as a social influence process. In so doing, it has changed the way we need
to conceptualize leadership from implicit through strategic models of leadership.
What followers consider exemplary leadership will now need to take into consider-
ation how leaders use technology to inform, monitor, and make decisions. How
leaders and groups develop trust will no doubt be affected by the use of technology
in the development of their relationships, and ultimately in terms of the impact of
those relationships on shared or collective leadership.
How organizations gather, interpret, and disseminate information that impacts
strategic goals and plans will no doubt be affected by the use and integration of
AIT. Consequently, we have argued that e-leadership will transform our models
of leadership, and ultimately the way it is measured and developed in organizations,
even though many aspects of leadership will also remain the same. Leaders who
are more inspirational, caring, intellectually challenging, credible, honest, goal-
oriented, and stable will still be seen as more effective. The “behavior” that leads
to being seen as effective, however, will in many cases be mediated by AIT.
We have provided below some more specific themes that need to be explored
in future research on e-leadership. Some of these themes stem from critiques of
the literature, while others build on what has been learned from our review of the
literature.
Avolio et al. 661
1. There is a need to examine how existing leadership styles and cultures

embedded in a group and/or an organization affect the appropriation of
advanced information technology systems. To do so, more research needs
to be conducted with intact versus ad hoc groups working over longer periods
of time. There also needs to be much more attention given to measuring the
attributes of the social/cultural system prior to inserting new technology,
using multiple methods (quantitative and qualitative) to collect data from
multiple sources. Simply using surveys to collect such data will not be suffi-
cient to fully capture these emergent systems and processes.
2. There are some studies (e.g., Kahai et al., 1997; Sosik et al., 1997) that have
examined how leadership style and task type interact to influence group
interactions in electronic contexts. We need to broaden the basis of inquiry
to include tasks that have significant meaning to participants, and also to
vary the conditions under which those tasks are completed (e.g., stable vs.
unstable contexts). At the same time, we will need to vary leadership style
to examine its interaction with task type, context and the characteristics of
technology. We need to examine the relationship that exists between the
leader and follower to determine how technology will interact over time as
each becomes more adept at appropriating new technology.
3. Some preliminary research in computer-mediated contexts indicates that
computer-mediated groups solve problems differently then those working
face to face. For example, Lam (1997) reported that decision quality was
higher in computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups when groups worked
on tasks of increasing complexity. Computer-mediated groups spent more
time analyzing the decision and discussing how to approach the task, assump-
tions, and the like. In a face-to-face setting, the merits of each individual’s
proposal was not evaluated as extensively or as deeply as in computer-
mediated interactions. Critical comments here were directed toward analyz-
ing the problem as opposed to being critical of one another. Future research
needs to explore how introducing different styles of leadership may result
in different patterns of problem-solving capacity in computer mediated versus
face-to-face groups. Also, as groups become more familiar interacting via
technology, will they fall back on some of their old habits of interaction
observed in a face-to-face setting?
4. As we focus on leadership behaviors, we will need to take into consideration
whether to examine the leadership behaviors of an individual and/or the
collective. In situations where teams already exist, it may be more appropriate
to examine leadership by the team versus leadership of the team by a single
individual (Sivasubramaniam et al., in press). The impact of technology on
a team’s learning capacity at different points in its development remains a
largely unexplored area (Saunders & Miranda, 1998).
5. Many of the groups that end up taking advantage of AIT are multi-cultural
groups. There is a very slim base of research on how to best use technology
within and between multi-cultural groups. Maznevski and Chudoba (2000)
investigated the development of trust in global virtual teams. Based on
extensive observations of global virtual teams interacting around work proj-
ects over a two-year period, Maznevski and Chudoba reported that teams
with shared expectations needed less interaction and information to make

decisions. These results point to the importance that leadership may play in
developing shared expectations in multi-cultural teams working virtually at
a distance.
6. Gefen and Straub (1997) examined how men and women perceive the use
of information technology, concluding that women tend to see communica-
tion tools such as e-mail as having much higher social presence. Thus, women
may be more likely to appropriate such technology to build and sustain
relationships in organizations. A key issue to consider here is how men and
women leaders appropriate new technology within and between different
cultures. What impact does the appropriation have on emergent social sys-
tems? How does the emergence of these social systems impact subsequent
interactions within and between different gender groups? Finally, do male
versus female leaders use technology with followers in ways that are different,
resulting in different social structures and interactions being formed?
7. The issue of “sense of presence” will become more relevant as emerging
technologies involving video and auditory streaming hit the markets. In the
near future, people will have a much broader range of channels to communi-
cate with each other. Yet, we have little if any evidence in support of or against
using broader band technologies to improve group dynamics or leadership
performance. Broader band technologies may distract people from getting
down to the specific task at hand. With most of the research on GSS systems
discussed above, anonymity was protected because interactions were text-
based. One question that arises is whether the introduction of video and
auditory cues will bring us backwards in terms of the influence that stereo-
types have had on social interactions in organizations. Once we know whom
we are interacting with, will old biases and stereotypes affect the type of
social interactions that result?
A related question concerns the implications for on-demand and spontane-
ous virtual communication in those groups working at a distance. Abel (1990)
reported that having a continual audio-video cross-link enabled groups to
build more cohesive teams. Instead of using less rich media, which can
“remove” us from the person with whom we are interacting, the newer media
platforms brings us “virtually” in contact throughout the day with remote
group members. How will this type of contact effect our interactions and
expectations of each other as we work at a distance from each other?
8. A basic proposition in this article has been that human and technology
systems over time emerge from a dialectical interplay between them. One
of the key interest areas to explore is how to intervene to affect the course
of emergence of human and technology systems. How do we train leaders
and teams to affect the course of emergence? What strategies can we use
to accelerate the emergence of organizational systems that are technically
and socially more effective? At this point, no attempts have examined how
the insertion of information technology in human systems emerges over time
with strategically timed interventions. This area of research will require that
we take a multi-level approach to examine the emergent social and technical
system over time, as discussed in the previous section.
Avolio et al. 663
In conclusion, a broad, new frontier is opening for research on leadership in the

information environment that we have labeled e-leadership. We believe the field
of leadership can directly benefit by exploring and testing existing leadership models
and theories as they each apply to e-leadership. Advanced information technology
will be inserted and the information environment will evolve whether we study
their impact on leadership or not. The question is not whether to study e-leadership,
but where to start.
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.
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
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
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
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology

in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situation
change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63–92.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic commu-
nication: The meta-structuring of technology in the context in use. Organization Science,
6, 423–444.
Pinsonneault, H. A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. S., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic brainstorming:
The illusion of productivity, Information Systems Research, 10, 110–133
Pinsonneault, H. A., & Heppel, N. (1998). Anonymity in group support systems research:
New conceptualization, measure and contingency framework. Journal of Management
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support
systems. The theory of adaptive structuration. In C. W. Steinfeld & J. Fulks (Eds.),
Organizational and communication technology (pp. 173–193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rayport, J. F., & Sviokla, J. J. (1995). Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business
Review, 73, 75–85.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task
groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 683–694.
Saunders, C., & Miranda, S. (1998). Information acquisition in group decision making.
Information and Management, 34, 55–74.
Scott, C. R., Quinn, L., Timmerman, C. F., & Garrett, D. M. (1998). Ironic uses of group
communication technology: Evidence from meeting transcripts and interviews with
group decision support users. Communication Quarterly, 46, 353–374.
Shamir, B. (1997). Leadership in boundaryless organizations: Disposable or indisposable.
Unpublished manuscript, Hebrew University.
Shamir, B., & Ben-Ari, E. (1999). Leadership in an open army? Civilian connections, interor-
ganizational frameworks, and changes in military leadership. In J. G. Hunt, G. E.
Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.) Out of the box leadership: Transforming the 21st Century
Army and other top performing organizations. Stamford, CT: JAI Press
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leader-
ship: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Jung, D. I., Avolio, B. J., & Murry, W. D. (in press). A longitudinal
model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance.
Group and Organization Management (forthcoming).
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity
and group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89–103.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Inspiring group creativity: Comparing
anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 3–31.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer-supported work group
potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity and
task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 491–511. [In Table 6]
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions
of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Re-
search Journal, 11, 111–121.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organiza-
tional communications. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
Stein, M. W. (1974). Stimulating creativity (Vol. 2). NY: Academic Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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.

Information Systems Development Methodologies in

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Information Systems Development Methodologies in

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

E-LEADERSHIP: IMPLICATIONS FOR

THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE

The global economy is undergoing a major transition that is fundamentally changing

Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.

ADVANCED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND E-LEADERSHIP

industries producing information technology (i.e., computer and communications

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXAMINING E-LEADERSHIP

ongoing, unplanned, and situated adaptations of organizational members in their

even imperceptibly, in the slippages and improvisations of everyday activity.

ADAPTIVE STRUCTURATION THEORY

subsequent group processes and outcomes. Regarding technology structures and

The repeated appropriation of information technology generates or transforms

Modifications to Adaptive Structuration Theory

Figure 1. Adaptive Structuration Theory–Based Theoretical Framework.

agreement on which technology structures to appropriate, we use the following

RELEVANCE OF LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE ADAPTIVE

Leadership and Adaptation to New Technology

The appropriation of groupware technology has frequently fallen short of its

Technology’s Effect on Leadership

Proposition 1: Leadership systems and appropriation of AIT need to co-

Related to Proposition 1, a specific issue to pursue is to examine how transforma-

linkage between leader-member exchange, work design and organizational perfor-

LEADERSHIP IN GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEM SETTING

Studies of the Effects of Group Leaders without Leadership Manipulation

Studies of Effects of Group Support System Facilitation

Table 3. Summary of Prior Studies of Facilitation in GSS Contexts: Part 1

Table 4. Summary of Prior Studies of Facilitation in GSS Contexts: Part 2

Spatial Focus of Dependent Variables

non-GSS groups, performance in GSS groups dropped with the introduction of

Studies of the Effects of Group Leaders with Leadership Manipulation

Spatial Dependent Variables

Spatial Dependent Variables

Spatial Dependent Variables

Spatial Dependent Variables

Proposition 2: Leadership behaviors within a GSS context influence GSS’s

Proposition 3: Leadership behaviors within a GSS context interact with GSS

Proposition 4: GSS appropriations influence group process and outcomes.

ADDITIONAL GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEM RESEARCH WITH INDIRECT

Relational Development in Group Support System Contexts

Communication Medium Characteristics

Table 8. Summary of Additional GSS Studies Relevant to Leadership: Part 2

Impact of Group History on Group Support System Interactions

Further Explorations of Anonymity Impact on Group Support System Interactions

is not recognized, understood, or appropriated by the group (Dennis, 1996). The

Group Identification and its Impact on Group Support System Interactions

Cultural Differences and Computer-Mediated Group Interactions

features can lead to inappropriate behavior in certain cultural groups as Watson,

Impact of Distance on Computer-Mediated Interactions

E-LEADERSHIP AND TRUST-BUILDING IN VIRTUAL TEAMS

Modeling the Effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership in

Figure 2. Model of Leadership and Groupware Effects on Trust Formation in

technology as important determinants of social interaction and outcomes in virtual

Effects of Leadership on Trust and Interaction

Hypothesis 1: A higher level of trust will be associated with higher frequen-

Effect of Technology’s Media Richness on Trust and Interaction

interaction. Media richness is expected to influence the emergence of trust by

Hypothesis 2: Collaborative group ware technology that possess higher me-

Interaction of Leadership and Collaboration Technology on Trust

Hypothesis 3: Leadership style (transformational versus transactional) and

Effect of Team Interaction on Team Outcomes

Hypothesis 4: Higher frequencies of comments by the leader and members in

Proposed Research Design

iting either transactional or transformational leadership behaviors via computer-