Final Paper - The Work in Progress

I've spent most of the weekend working on my paper, therefore, I am posting the work in progress.

INTRODUCTION

With the continuing rise of digital convergence, leadership is becoming a more profound issue, “virtual teams, once a novelty, are increasingly common” because convergence is “transforming the way companies in virtually every industry find, connect with, and develop relationships…an unstoppable force that is transforming business of all kinds...driving expansion and growth in the information, communications, and entertainment (ICE) industry, bringing new opportunities for profit;” new innovations are necessary to formulate new means of gaining and sustaining a competitive edge (Wheelan, 2005, p. 363; KPMG International, 2008, pp. 5-7, 38 pdf; Kaluza, Bleckerr, Bischof, 1999, p.2). That is, changes in media’s structures due to “the emergence of digital technologies” as the main entity and method for “representing, storing, and communicating information” are calling for a new evaluation of leadership within this new digital context (Syracuse University Convergence Center, 2009, p. 1).

Additionally, globalization is increasing and expanding due to digital emergence, “innovations like the internet have made its possible to access information and resources across the world – and to coordinate activities in real time” (Smith and Smith, 2002, p. 4). According to Hutton and Giddens as cited by Smith and Smith (2002), it is the interaction of extraordinary technological innovation combined with world-wide reach that gives today’s change its particular complexion (p. 4). That is, “the spread and connectedness of production, communication and technologies across the world” is inclusive of the webbing of “economic and cultural activity” (Smith and Smith, 2002, p.1). The result of the growth of digital convergence and globalization has a direct impact on society’s cultural, social, technological and industrial foundations. This impact is reflected in the transformation and utilization of traditional medias (e.g., spoken word, written word, TV, Radio, etc.) in the digital context of the virtual world (e.g., the World Wide Web {blogging, fanforums, organizational teams, etc}, Internet, Blackberry’s, etc.).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this paper is to explain the concept of leadership emergence cues, in the context of digital technologies. That is, the pattern and criteria considered by group members in the emergence process. This explanation will compare the virtual process with the traditional real world process. It will show that the concepts of, participatory culture, collective intelligence, and advancing technological culture, (WWW and Internet, etc.) experienced by and with the convergence process are experienced by organizations and virtual formed groups who have altered traditional leadership mergence cues to those of a cyber-based nature (computer, technological based) criteria while maintaining the traditional foundation of real world leadership emergence cues.

Importance of Paper

Although considerable research has been conducted on leadership emergence cues in the virtual context, it is important to take it to the next level, within the scope of the leadership emergence process comparing virtual teams and group process with the real world process. This will show the change in the traditional leadership emergence process to one of digital capability usage.
This next step in virtual leadership examination is important because, it is the “crucial differentiator” in determining mediocre and high performance is the development of leaders who can function in the virtual world (Caulat, G. 2006, p. 2). Leadership in the virtual context allows organizations and/or groups to determine and address the risks and challenges found in their digitally founded strategies for the operational, financial, technological, and communicative aspects of their performance (KPMG, 2008, p.38). It also allows them to function successfully in the new collective and participatory nature of the digitally driven market. The realization of the important role of virtual leadership and its emergence process, will allow for the dodging of “potential pitfalls” and lead to the “path to success in the digital world” (p. 5).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Real World Leadership Emergence

Much of the literature on real world leadership emergence is based on the ideology of role identification, “the process in which leaders are identified and accepted is a process of role identification” (Karriker, 2005). The concept of role identification plays itself out within the confines of team structure within organized entities. Katz & Kahn (1978) as cited by Joy Karriker (2005), define organizations as open systems consisting of roles that have an emphasis in two areas, “the contrived nature of human organizations, and the unique properties of a structure consisting of acts or events rather than unchanging physical components” (1). Karriker suggests that within the Katz & Kahn framework, “acts, behaviors, and events provide the structure of groups” and these are what substitute for an organizations physical hierarchy and create the “dynamic nature of a group or team (2005, p. 1). These formulated groups, according to Arrow & McGrath (1995) as cited in Karriker are a “system: a complex pattern of dynamic relations among a set of people (members) using a set of technologies to accomplish a set of purposes-in-common” (2005). Therefore, the foundational structure of a group is a patterned web of relations termed a “dynamic occurrence” and the emergence of leadership is “essential to, and occurs as part of, the development of a particular form of group, the autonomous team (Karriker, 2005). Once teams are formed, the combination of relations and situational aspects interact formulating the leadership emergence process; the individual chosen for the leadership role will emerge as “leader as the situation demands” (Karriker, 2005).
Concerning this leadership role, the emergence process in literature concerns itself mostly with the leadership role and the culmination of perceived notions of other members of the group, “historically, emergent leadership has been investigated by operationalizing the phenomenon as the extent to which an individual is perceived by others” (Anderson & Wanberg, 1991, p.1). Secondly, leader emergence is often determined by this vote of confidence from other members of the group as determined by the additional dynamics of “control parameters – asymmetry, bifurcation and bias” (Guastello, 2007, p.358). These control parameters according to Guastello (2007) were best presented within the concept of the Swallowtail Catastrophe Model; a model that distinguishes the asymmetry, bifurcation and bias parameters:

There is a table for this information, does not paste correctly but shows correct on paper
Indicator
Creative problem solving groups
Production groups
Coordination-intensive groups
Asymmetry
Bifurcation
Bias
General participation and control of the conversation incl. gatekeeping, initiating following, harmonizing facilitating the ideas of others, task orientation consideration of other players’ interests, concern for solution quality.
Giving information, creative ideas, competitive behavior concern for solution quality.
Unknown
Tension reduction incl. harmonizing, giving information, goal realism.
Creative and task control, controlling the conversation
Unknown
General participation and control of the conversation; incl. gatekeeping, initiating, following, creative ideas, facilitating the ideas of others.

Verbal vs. non-verbal working conditions
Task control
Summarized from Guastello (2005) and Guastello and Bond (2007) as cited in Guastello (2007, p.362).

According to Guastello’s application of the Swallowtail parameters, leadership emergence process is both conceptual and based on experience and observation where task and creative control within the situations determine a yes or no vote of confidence for individual as leader (2007, p. 366-367).

Another important aspect to the leadership emergence process is the first impression perceptions, (judgment of group behavior, personality, level of expertise, problem solving, skill of communication, that influence the parameters in each individual group situation; these perceptions show that the psychological thought process of all group members plays a role in leadership emergence, “first impressions indicate that different psychological variables were operating as control parameters in each type of situation” (Gaustello, 2007, p.366). These psychological variables manifest themselves in the application and search for traits of members of the group that signify leadership capability, “one recurrent themes, nonetheless, was that a thick constellation of characteristics or behaviors contributed to parameter” (p. 366). What this is saying is, those that emerge as leaders in the real world leadership emergent process are those individuals who are conceptualized by the rest of the group members to be individuals who are not afraid to speak, speak with clarity, provide valuable information for task, show support for the group, permeate presence of power in that they can produce or offer more than others, shows active involvement through participation, etc. “leadership involves a free exchange of information, ideas, and recommendations” and . . .those that “can be oriented towards others” . . .and “who express support kindness and sympathy” will be perceived as one who can lead (Anderson & Wanberg, 1991 p.8 of 11).

An additional and important part of this phenomenon to note is that many times members of a group and/or team call upon their prior experiences of the leadership emergence process to influence their perceptions; this adds a culturally-based variable to the already situational-based dynamic of the process, “members, who have seen leadership emerge in the past, and who bring their own set of culturally based expectations to the group, draw upon leader behaviors demonstrated in past emergence processes and cultural conditioning to shape their perceptions of current leader behaviors” (Karriker, 2005). Thus, the successful emerging leader will have been chosen not only on situation and perception criteria, but, cultural criteria as well, “the extent to which leaders emerge successfully is a factor of not just their traits, but also the applicability of those traits to the members’ situational and culturally based expectations” (2005).

After exploring literature on a conceptual basis it is important to examine literature for a leadership emergence on an operational level of group and/or team development as well. An examination of leadership emergence offered in an operational context through role identification by Joy Karriker (2005), is based on Bruce Tuckman’s revision of his 1965 team process model of the four development stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing of groups and/or teams, “revisiting of the original five-component (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning) model in favor of the realm-based model that emphasizes only the storming, norming, and performing phases” (Tuckman & Jensen (1977) as cited by Karriker (2005) p. 1).

Role identification within the scope of the storming stage of group/team development (the struggle for place in the group through presentation of cues and position, “a role-sending and role-taking process, in which members attempt to influence each other based upon their expectations for the roles of the group” Katz & Kahn [1978] as cited by Karriker [2005]), occurs when individuals members begin to interpret the “expectations, actions, and reactions” of others in the group (Karriker, 2005). This stage of development is completed when the action of influencing for the acceptance, modification or rejection of expectations has ended and role designation of leader is completed, “in deciding whether to accept, attempt to modify, or reject others’ expectations, each member is influential in the designation of roles, including those of the leader” (2005).

The identification of role in the norming stage (the stage where consistency of behaviors is agreed upon by the group; the back and forth vying for power has ended) comes from the agreement of a collective set of member expectations for leader behavior is determined giving potential leaders a chance to react with leader role behaviors, “in the norming phase of the integrated model, as individual expectations are signaled to the group, a collective consensus regarding expectations for leader behaviors emerges. It is this team-level expectation to which potential leaders react with actual leader behaviors” (Karriker, 2005). This operational stage of the leadership emergence process ends when team consensus has been reached for norms of leader behavior and a leadership role emerges “the team consensus mediates the relationship between individual member’s expectations and leader behaviors,” and has an amount of influence in promoting task behaviors leading to the performing stage, “behavior patterns give the emerged leader a certain amount of latitude in migrating to more task oriented behaviors, as typically demonstrated in the performing phase” (2005). This stage has determined the member who will serve their role as leader.

Role identification in the final development stage of performing (the stage that begins when, “the emerged leader, already legitimized, now behaves in accordance with the team’s normalized expectations to direct the team’s task performance”), is now directed toward the performance of task, not, the behavior directed identification variables in the storming and norming phases, “in the performing phase, the leader exhibits behaviors related to the actual performance of the task at hand” (Karriker, 2005).

Although the cycle of role identification in the operational context of the leadership emergent process seems complete at the end of the performing phase, there is all probability the cycle can begin again, (recycle itself), should the need arise due to situational or relational aspects that will cause the revisiting to the “dynamic occurrence” or development of the group and or team stage; during this recycling process the leadership emergence role identification process can alter and change due to the new requirements presenting themselves, “change is indicative of the interaction-based leadership emergence process as different groups cycle through the storming, norming, and performing phases at different rates based upon continuous definition and redefinition of their needs for leadership” (Karriker, 2005). Guastello (2007) has described the recycling and revisiting process in this way:

(this is long quote) set apart as necessary on the paper: "particular leaders that emerge in a given situation will be predicated on the task complexity, information requirements, performance verifiability, and group’s preferences for dominant, considerate or radical thinking on the part of their leaders. It is also apparent that the type of task governs what traits or behaviors are most relevant for leadership emergence. (p.360)

Virtual Leadership Emergence

Because computer-mediated communication, (CMC), is making virtual groups/teams an everyday occurrence, examining the literature on the dynamics of virtual leadership emergence is essential. Hiltz & Turnoff, 1992; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Tan et al., 1998; Robers, 1986; Strassman, 1985; Nyce & Groppa, 1983; and Huber, 1990 explain its importance:

Long quote set off "CMC raises the possibility of revolutionary social and structural changes in the ways people communicate and relate to each other, potentially easing access to both information and people. Research has found CMC to cause efficient information flow in vertical and horizontal direction, increased ability to access coworkers, and increased availability of information internal and external to the organization." (as cited in George and Sleeth, 2000, p.287)

Additionally, CMC’s increased usage creates the necessity for virtual leadership emergence processes to stand in substitute for the traditional hierarchal modes of the process, “emergent leadership as a substitute for organizational hierarchy point to a need for organizations to revisit and rethink leadership, particularly emergent leadership in a CMC environment (George and Sleeth, 2000, p. 288). This information is important because electronic communication plays a very important role in the virtual leadership emergence process, “communication through electronic media can augment and possibly contribute to leadership emergence” (Yoo & Alavi, p. 51).

Unlike the real world leadership emergence process, the virtual leadership emergence process removes the non-verbal (sight related) psychological variables or cues that play a part in perception of leader, “CMC systems eliminate nonverbal cues that are generally rich in relational information” (George and Sleeth, 2000, p. 290). The virtual leadership emergence process replaces the leader traits found in both the conceptualization and operational perspectives explained in the real world section of the review with cyber-based cues.

The virtual leadership emergent process, like the real world, is conducive to role identification, however, the criteria for determination is cyber-based. Yoo and Alavi (2003) identified three cyber-based roles that they considered to be “behavioral patterns” in selection of leadership role by virtual groups, they are: initiator, scheduler, and integrator, “we identified three roles (behavioral patterns among emergent leaders . . . initiator, scheduler, and integrator” (p.40). All of these roles are instrumental in providing structural foundations for the group and serve as the reflection of difference between real world and virtual cyber-based cue differences.

A member who becomes initiator attains this role by virtue of expediency of initiating the beginning of structuring for the team through messaging for the virtual team and by assuring that his/her messages are geared toward the organization of the team/groups activity, “the first message from each of the emergent leaders (whether or not it was the first message of the team) showed the initiation of structuring behavior and included concrete suggestions for how to organize the team’s activities” (p. 40).

The role of scheduler in virtual leadership emergence process is determined by the member who sets the temp for the teams activity, (this can include scheduling conference calls and electronic messages, “the emergent leaders of six teams (all except Team 7) took the initiative of setting up the temporal rhythm of the project by coordinating the scheduled conference calls for the team. . . and “seemed to have used those calls as a major coordination mechanism” (Yoo & Alavi, 2003, p. 41). The coordination mechanism for temporal structure kept teams on track for task completion. Those emerging in the leader role also more times than not arranged for the follow-up reminders, “emergent leaders scheduled, set up, and often sent reminders for these conference calls” (p.41). Therefore it is safe to assume that members who provide coordination structure to the group and manage it may emerge from the virtual leadership process in the role of leader.

During the virtual leadership emergence process, those emerging in leader roles were very often the members who personally received, correlated, made-ready and submitted work completed by other team members as finalized product; they were designated role of integrator, “in particular, the emergent leaders personally compiled the final document and thus, became the central hub for the task completion” (Yoo & Alavi, 2003, p.43). Although integrators compiled the work into a finished product, they did not control or dominate content submitted; they concentrated on their own area of the content, “emergent leaders did not play the dominant role in terms of providing the necessary domain expertise, (p.47).

It is important to note the behaviors (variables/cues) that are present in the real world leadership emergence process that according to Yoo and Alavi (2003), do not come into consideration, they are, socio-emotional behaviors (relationship behaviors) and technology management behaviors (addressing technological short comings and problems), “socio-emotional behaviors did not distinguish emergent leaders from the rest . . .it was not the emergent teams leaders who primarily addressed the technology-related uncertainties: in most cases, it was the collective behavior of all team members” (pp. 46-47).

According to Ghislaaine Caulat (2006), virtual emergent leaders, like real world emergent leaders, must have the conceptual behaviors that make a good leader, they are:

Be a relationship builder;
Be a facilitator of social and work processes
Be a care taker
Be a communication designer
Align group structure, technology and task environment
Have sharpened listening skills and learn to listen not only to what is said/written but also to what is not said/written. They need to learn to listen to the worlds as well as the voice, the intonation, the speed of the delivery, etc. In each conversation there is a huge richness of data about the speaker and we only understand a little part in face-to-face. Virtual leaders need to learn how to understand the rest. (p.5)

Here suggestion of aligning group structure, technology and task environment is supportive of the scheduler, initiator and integrator roles described in information presented by Yoo and Alavi (2003).

As much of the literature has focused on the ideology of role identification within the process of real world and virtual team and/or group leadership emergence processes, very little has emphasized cue comparison. The interest is mainly focused on emergence within the confines of the boundary of the type of team studied, therefore, it is important to examine emergence cues (determining factors for choice of leader) in a comparison format to show how changes in media’s structures due to the result of digital convergence and globalization has impacted on the societal, cultural, social, technological and industrial foundations of the leadership emergence process in groups and/or teams. This impact is reflected in the transforming of real world emergence cues to cyber based cues; transformation that does not alter the ideological foundation of role identification, but, adapts it to the digital technology state. The questions are, what are the real world emergence cues that were transformed and how are they applied to virtual leadership emergence processes.