Final Paper - Final Draft

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).
Along with perception connotations, these group/team roles and the expectations members of the group have of them, have correlated effects and influence on the group, “the expectations attached to roles can have a marked influence on group” (Meade, 2009, Chap. 5). The roles influence how and whom the group sees as leader, determine perceived level of power of an individual and can cause conflict for an individual if they hold several roles within several groups and they have conflict with each other (2009).
It is important to note, that group roles come in two types, the roles appointed by an organization, “formal roles” and the roles that concern themselves with the function of the group, “informal roles” and not all informal roles are apparent in every group except for the leader role, “no single informal role is found in all or even in most groups with the probable exception of leader” (Meade, 2009, Chap. 5). The informal and formal roles are separated into three types, task, and maintenance and disruptive. The task roles are roles that control productivity and movement toward completion of task and goals; the maintenance roles concern themselves with the social aspects of the group and maintaining “cohesiveness of the group;” disruptive roles are roles that reflect the “(Me-oriented)” attitude that shows itself in actions produced to specifically benefit oneself, “the central function is to focus on the individual” (2009). The chart provided by Lynn Meade (2009) is representative of an explanation of the individual functions of both formal and informal roles:




Types of Group Roles
Task Roles

Extract the maximum productivity from the group

Moves the group toward the attainment of its goals
Initiator-contributor-Offers lots of ideas and suggestions; proposes solutions and new directions
Information seeker- Requests clarification; solicits evidence; asks for suggestions and ideas from others.
Opinion Seeker- Requests viewpoints from other; looks for agreement and disagreement
Information Giver- Acts as a resource person for the group; provides relevant and significant information based on expertise or personal experience
Clarifier-Elaborator-Explains, expands, extends the ideas of others; provides examples and alternatives
Coordinator-Draws together ideas of others; shows relationships between facts and ideas; promotes teamwork and cooperation
Secretary-Recorder-Serves group memory function; takes minutes of the meetings; keeps group's records and history
Director-Keeps group on track-guides discussion; reminds group of goal, regulates group activities
Devil's advocate-Challenges prevailing point of view for the sake of argument in order to test and critically evaluate the strength of ideas, solutions, or decisions.
Maintenance Roles

Focus on the social dimension of the group

The central function is to
gain and maintain cohesiveness of the group
Supporter-Encourager-Bolsters the spirits and goodwill of the group; provides warmth, praise, and acceptance of others, includes reticent members in discussion
Harmonizaers-Tension reliever-Maintains the peace; reduces tension through humor and by reconciling differences between members.
Gatekeeper-Expediter-Controls channels of communication and the flow of information' encourages evenness of participation' promotes open discussion
Feeling-Expresser-Monitors feeling and moods of the group; suggestions discussion beaks when mood turns ugly or when energy levels lag.
Disruptive Roles

Serve individual needs or goals (Me-oriented) while impeding attainment of group goals.

The central function is to focus on the individual
Stagehog- Seeks recognition and attention by monopolizing conversation; prevents others from expressing their opinions fully; wants the spotlight
Isolate-Deserts the group; withdraws from participation; acts indifferent aloof; uninvolved; resists effort to be included in group decision making.
Clown-Engages in horseplay; thrives on practical jokes and comic routines; diverts members attention away from the serious discussion of ideas and issues; steps beyond the boundaries of mere tension reliever
Blocker- Thwarts progress of group; does not cooperate; opposes much of what the group attempts to accomplish; incessantly reintroduces dead issues makes negative remarks to members
Fighter-Controller-Tries to dominate group; competes with members; abuses those who disagree; picks quarrels with members; interrupts to interject own opinions into discussion.
Zealot -Tries to convert members to a pet cause or idea; delivers sermons to group on state of the world; exhibits fanaticism
Cynic-Displays sour outlook (a person who smells the flowers and looks around for a coffin)' engages in fault finding; focuses on negatives; predicts failure of group
Chart from: Lynn Meade Website, Small Group Home Page, COM 2503 Notes, Chapter, 5

All of these roles establish themselves in the leadership emergence process during which individuals are vying for ownership of the roles, “individuals initially make a bid to play a role;” individuals own the role when “group endorsement occurs . . . and the member settles into the role” (Meade, 2009, Chap. 5).
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:
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, non-verbal behaviors, etc.), 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:
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)
It is from the completion of this role identification process that a leader emerges.
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:
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, the 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).



New View on Leadership Emergence
A new way to view leadership emergence and vying for role identification is provided by Lynn Meade (2009) who takes the unusual direction of mentioning what an individual shouldn’t do to be a leader rather than concentrating on what they should do. She provides a set of “shalt not” commands that specifically correlate to and individual seeking and maintaining the role of leader:
How not to become a leader
Thou shalt not show up late or miss important meetings;
Thou shalt not be uninformed about a problem commanding the group's attention;
Thou shalt nor manifest apathy and lack of interest by sluggish participation;
Thou shalt not attempt to dominate conversation during discussion;
Thou shalt no listen poorly;
Thou shalt not be rigid and inflexible when expressing viewpoints;
Thou shalt not bully group members; and
Thou shalt not use offensive and abusive language. (Chapter 5)

She suggests that avoiding these bad habits and concentrating on conforming to the groups “norms, values, goals” and displaying the “proper motivation to lead,” are all actions an individual should take to emerge as a leader (Chapter 5).
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.
TYPES OF LEADERSHIP DESIGNATION
Appointed
Appointed leaders are leaders who are designated by a hierarchal system, i.e., organizational chart within an organization. These leaders are in the leadership role because their position or organizational title places them there; leadership and additional team role identification is determined by a higher authoritarian designation. In appointed leadership situations, although several members may demonstrate ability to lead, the designated leader adopts and utilizes the behaviors normally recognized as those of position-determined leaders (first speech, organization of task, discussion leading, etc.), and considers them duties (Wickham & Walther, 2007). Therefore the appointed status is of higher concern than subsequent duty behaviors, “in assigned leadership, the assigned status precedes the associated behaviors (2007, p. 3).
Emergent
Emergent leaders are leaders who are placed into position by the perceptions of the other members of the group and/or team. They emerge through an emergence process wherein the members, through group interaction and examination individual member’s leadership behaviors (cues of ability to be leader) take place; when completed a single member emerges as accepted leader by the group. This leader is therefore, willingly chosen and accepted, “emergent leader, a group member who is perceived by the other members through the process of interaction to be in command, as a director or facilitator, whom they willingly accept (Wickham & Walther, 2007, p.4). Therefore in emergent leadership, role identification is a member-shared designation.
LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE
Real World Groups
Pattern and Cues
Real world leadership emergence is based on a pattern of leader emergence, whereby; a leader emerges by a distinct elimination process conducted by all members of the group. This elimination process is conducted on possible leadership candidates in the group until one individual remains thus becoming the leader. The emergence process is a system of steps that examine and evaluate leadership cues, (communication, expressions, appearance, gestures, intelligence, skill set, personality, task efficiency, and social skills); this evaluation is essential in “formulating their leadership ratings” (Stein, 1975, p. 129). These ratings are based on verbal (and non-verbal cues within the context of two areas, task coordination and likability; individual’s verbal content is more important for evaluation of task related cues and non-verbal content more important for likability cues; “in other words, in detecting a coordinator, the words that were spoken by the group members were more important than physical appearance, posture, facial expressions, gestures, and so on. In perceiving liking, the nonverbal behaviors and appearance were more important than spoken words” (1975). Therefore, the cues examined within the scope of the pattern of emergence process determine role identification of leader in real world groups.
Leadership Emergence Pattern Process Applicability
Because the process of leadership emergence consists of the shared “information, ideas and recommendations” of the group, the concept of cue examination as applied to the leadership emergence pattern process in real world groups, is one of eliminating potential leadership candidates; this is done according to demonstration of negative cue perception by members of the group (Anderson & Wanberg, 1991, p.8). It is the leadership candidate who contributes positive emphasis on applied pattern process cues who emerges as leader, “emergent leaders tend to express more positive, approving behaviors” (1991, p. 8). The emergent leader is also the individual who is considered the best choice because he/she projects the highest level of positive demonstrated behavior cues in the verbal and non-verbal areas in the context of accepted task and likability, “the general tendency for groups is to accept as leader the person who provides the optimum blend of task efficiency and sensitivity to social considerations” (Meade, 2009, Chapter 5).
Lynn Meade, (2009) provides an example of how negatively demonstrated cues can be projected by potential leadership candidates within the group and a suggested application of a linear elimination process determined by highest to lowest level of negativity per cue behavior:
· Quiet members are among the first eliminated./Those who talk most are perceived initially as potential leader material;
· The member who express strong, unqualified assertions are also eliminated;
· The uniformed, unintelligent, or unskilled are next in line for elimination;
· Those who are bossy or dictatorial and those whose communication style is irritating or disturbing to other group members are eliminates. (Chapter 5).
Thus, examination of cues (positive and negative geared toward task and likability) and applicability to an emergent pattern process serves as the catalyst that produces an emergent leader for a group.

Virtual Groups
Virtual groups entertain a leadership emergence process like the real world groups do; however, because virtual groups are of digital existence, the patterns and examined cues of real world leadership emergence processes have been transformed into digitally founded cues and must therefore, be looked at as comparison of both real world and virtual environment.
In order to understand how this happens, it is important to know what a virtual team/group is. A virtual team/group is one that functions not in the traditional face-to-face model, but in a digital context, Poole & Zhang define virtual team/group features as “the key defining features of virtual teams are these: (a) Their members are dispersed and do not conduct much work face-to-face and (b) most interaction between members is mediated by ICTs” (as cited in Wheelan, 2005, p. 364).
Pattern and Cues
Virtual leadership emergence is also based on a pattern of leader emergence; however, the virtual emergence process utilizes cyber-based behavior cues in place of the real world cues to determine leadership role identification. Whereas, real world cues are based on the verbal and non-verbal behaviors of communication, expressions, appearance, gestures, intelligence, skill set, personality, task efficiency, and social skills, virtual cues are geared toward digital technology criteria such as number of posts, utilization of technology, communicative skill (messaging in e-mail, etc.). Even the visual non-verbal behavioral cues examined in the real world face-to-face environment, although not physically present, can exist in the virtual sense with the utilization of cyber symbols that reflect emotion, the “purpose of the Emoticon is to textually present the nonverbal cue of facial expression that one would present to their group members if they were in a face-to-face conversation” (Kelly, Davis, Nelson & Mendoza, 2208, p.2381)
It is important to realize, that although the digitally mediated emergence process to determine group roles and leader can be envisioned within the outline of the real world pattern, the two are essentially different in applicability for this reason as stated by Poole and Zhang, “technology, including the growth of internet working, developments in information and communication technologies (ICT’s)” (as cited by Wheelan, 2005, p.363). This is because the traditional concepts of the real world group (face-to-face) emergence process are transformed and utilized in digital context (cyber-based fashion). Anita Blanchard (2004) suggests that “CMC characteristics determine virtual community behavior” and “these characteristics are believed to have some influence on behavior as compared to FtF interactions” (p. 4). The chart below provided by Anita Blanchard (2004) provides examples of the digital-related technologies that enhance and influence virtual communication and therefore, have a direct correlation of determining behavioral cues within a virtual leadership emergence pattern:
Virtual Community
Description
Access
Examples
Asynchronous
Listservs
Group email discussion.
Email account. Must initially join group to receive messages. Only members can receive messages from the listserv.
EvalTalk: professionals interested in program evaluationSurvivorShip: Recovery group for victims of childhood abuse

Newsgroups
Group discussions similar to listservs except that messages are stored in a central location.
Must go to particular newsgroup site through Internet (e.g., Usenet), direct dial in, or specific Internet Service (e.g., AOL).
sci.psychology.misc: for discussions about psychology.rec.arts.tv.soaps: for soap opera fans
Synchronous
Chatrooms
Real-time discussions loosely based on particular topic or interest group
Must belong to service with this capability. Search through "rooms" or "channels" to find topic or group of interest.
Beyond Planet Earth: for people interested in astronomy30+: for people over 30 years old.

MOOs
Real time discussions and activities loosely based around particular topic. There is movement around a MOO, and participants interact with "objects."
Telnet to specific MOO. Can maneuver through rooms or areas.
MediaMOO: MOO for professionals interested in media research. Set up as a series of office buildings. LambdaMOO: Well-known social MOO set up as a house.
Table 1. Characteristics of various types of virtual community technology. Note: The names for these communities sometimes vary. Listservs are also known as majordomos; both names refer to the software that runs the technology. Newsgroups are also known as bulletin boards. Chatrooms developed from Internet Relay Channels (IRC). MOOs are similar to other virtual communities known as MUDs, MUSHes, and MUCKs. (p.4).
Comparison of Cues
The chart below will provide comparison of the real world verbal and non-verbal cues and how they are utilized in a cyber-base fashion:
REAL WORLD GROUP
VIRTUAL GROUP
Verbal Cues

Speaking

Engagement in Task

Emotion – (tone of voice, etc.)


Intelligence – (quality of information given verbally to the group concerning task, goals, etc.)

Social Skills – (manners, adhering to group norms, etc.)

Task Efficiency – efficiency in completion and quality of productivity

Personality – level of charisma, kindness, empathy, etc.
Cyber Based Cues

Posts

Number of posts.

Use of Emoticons (visual symbols that reflect emotion, smiley faces, frowns, etc.)

Quality of information in posts



Adhering to virtual group norms (type of posts, tone of writing, etc.)

Efficiency in completion and quality of posted or attached work

Tone of posts, use of emoticons, language of posts, etc.
Non-Verbal Cues

Expression – facial, (smiling, frowning, etc.)


Appearance


Gestures


Personality


Use of emoticons to express smile, frown, etc.

Virtual appearance aspect – how well posts set up, quality of wording, etc.

Use of emoticons and/or words to express momentary gestures

Use of Emoticons and word expressions
In virtual environment, symbols, such as emoticons, can serve in various functional roles for cue process.


Virtual Leadership Emergence Pattern Process Applicability Comparison
As explained previously, leadership emergence is the culmination of shared information ideas and recommendations of a group, the concept of cue examination and applied to the leadership emergence pattern process and is one that eliminates potential leadership candidates according to demonstration of negative cue perception of the other members. It is also noted that it is the person who shows in the most positive rating within this perception that becomes leader. Virtual groups go through the same process. The chart below depicts a comparison of virtual environment applicability to the real world applicability and clarifies how the process of the traditional real world group leadership emergence pattern provided by Meade (2009), can be utilized to work within the context of digital applicability for a virtual group.
Quiet members are among the first eliminated.



Those who talk most are perceived initially as potential leader material
Those who have a lack of posts, least number of posts, and too much extended time between posts are eliminated first.

Those who were first to post, provided on-going quality posts, and had least amount of time between posts are perceived as potential leaders of virtual group
The member who express strong, unqualified assertions are also eliminated
The poster who provided posts with most irrelevant material were ignored and eliminated.

“the individual with high communication competence, will emerge as the leader” (Sarker, Grewal, Sarker 2002, p.3).
The uniformed, unintelligent, or unskilled are next in line for elimination
The poster with lack of technical proficiency for posting, lack of quality of material in posting, lack of “internet conversation technique” (Kelly, Davis, Nelson, Mendoza, 2008, p. 2381).

The poster who presented an intelligence of the Internet culture was perceived as potential leader of the virtual group, “interpretation of this web savvy is as a cultural intelligence. The culture of the Internet has its own language (emoticons and initializations), conventions, and social structure” (p.2381). Presentation of this knowledge gives one and advantage over other members of the group as leader.

Because they are usually single-mindedly focused on technology, “individuals with high technical ability were less likely to emerge as leader” (Sarker, Grewal, Sarker (2002).
Those who are bossy or dictatorial and those whose communication style is irritating or disturbing to other group members are eliminates. (Chapter 5).

Those who utilize capital letters (represent shouting) are rude in wording and/or context of written posts, those writing inappropriate responses, etc. are eliminated.

Those showing interpersonal skill as demonstrated by technical proficiency and professionalism of posts are considered leader material.
The chart shows a virtual utilization of Meade’s linear highest to lowest level of negativity per cue behavior system, provides method of cue examination (positive and negative geared toward task and likability) for groups in the virtual environment. Thus, virtual applicability to the face-to-face leadership emergence will result in role identification of leader.
CONCLUSION
Due to the continuing process of digital convergence and globalization, and the ability for world-wide connectedness, virtual groups/teams are becoming the new normal for social, cultural, technological and industrial communication and productivity processes. This paper shows its reflected impact within the context of the transformation of the traditional mediums of communication (spoken word, written word, gestures, emotions, etc.) within the scope of leadership emergence processes in groups/teams. It is apparent that real world leadership role identification emergence cues are transformed into virtual leadership emergence role identification cues, within the group/team context. The cues therefore, exist and are utilized in both real-world and virtual environments. The traditional foundation of real world communicative abilities and functions used to formulate a pattern and criteria used by group members in the leadership emergence process, are transformed to digitally applicable abilities, functions, pattern and criteria in virtual environments.

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.

Collaboration and Participation Traditional Leadership Theories and Bottom-Up Consumer Driver Challenge to Branding

Chapter 4 - Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?

Summary of Reading

This chapter delves into the ideology of convergence and how it has evolved the traditional “grassroots” methods of creativity. Originally creativity and the sharing of ideas, methods, and processes experienced a much greater closed captive audience. Quilting bees passed the craft down to others; people became apprentices to learn a trade, etc. These original types of passing and sharing of creative innovations, skill and new ideas are now experiencing the availability of mass audience and the opportunity to share their ideas with everyone, no longer is creativity restricted waiting for that big break; now individual creativity as a way to experience instant notoriety. The chapter also discusses the ramifications of this and how it develops a consumer up influence on existing brands and the ongoing battle of producer vs. fan over the amount of freedom and creative license consumers can take with producers existing ideas.

Key Ideas

1) The web is a tool utilized by mass members of society as a “distribution channel” for original-grassroots traditions and new individualistic cultural based products by everyday mass audience. For this reason, the web has created an atmosphere of extensive consumer-based participation that has created a controversial relationship between producers trying to protect their branding and consumers who are enthralled with their product and utilize it for creative purposes.

2) The traditional foundation of grassroots folk culture was strengthened and built by passing down of skills, etc. from members of the communities from many countries and a blending of cultures, now, convergence has created a culture where the avenue of “media conglomerates” becomes foundation where participation and commercial exist together. This phenomenon puts additional power in the hands of consumers who now have the ability to choose how, when, where and if they will share their grassroots creativity within the contexts of produced brands; web gives amateur consumers an avenue into the public spectrum.

3) This avenue to public has created a conflict between producers wanting to protect their brands and ideas and the consumers who feel the necessity and the right of sharing creative license with the existing brands. This conflict has led to many types of tactics for protection, laws, games, fanforums and the conflict continues to exist. Many producers are finding that the traditional ideologies of leadership in a transformational sense, allowing consumers to actively participate and feel ownership is reaping benefits for all; it is allowing grassroots creators to actively participate in things that are culturally important to them. Producers are finding that collaboration style of this conflict management is a positive for their bottom-line.

4) Convergence has created a gray area for producers and consumers when it comes to how to regulate the amount of participatory levels and what rules they should all play by.

5) It is clear that producers need consumers and consumers need producers, that fact is indisputable.

Difficult or Challenging Concept

I really enjoyed this weeks reading and really didn’t find the concept hard to understand, however, I would like to know, once a product or brand is released to the mass audience of the public, can producers really say hey its mine. They are the ones that made the money by mass production and distribution, so in essence, they created their own monster. It’s a two-way street; convergence makes them money but also gives them the risk of loosing their hold on license.

Questions

What leadership concepts to you recognize in producer handling of this new evolution of bottom-up culture?

Do you feel, as they seem to be finding, that collaboration is the best means of conflict management in this situation?

Does this means of mass distribution of grassroots culture take away from the original concept passing down traditions one to another, does it spoil this concept?

Relation to Paper

This week’s reading relates to my paper with the concept of solving of virtual group conflict with traditional theories of leadership management. The chapter recognized collaboration, transformational leadership theory (allowing consumers ownership and participation), etc.

Article 1

Overview and Summary

Why the Digital Computer is Dead – Chris Chesher

The information in this article is the perception of Chesher that the term digital is obsolete and we should instead consider “invocational media” because the new media is relating to the ability to gather information with the click of a mouse or as its termed, “call things up” (1).

Key Ideas

1) Personal choice, perception, decision of task from the person calling up the information, choices and the objectives are what determines the use of information once it is gotten from the context in which it was put together or “gathered.” Therefore, computer is “invocator.” The “invocator” is responsive to the direction, choice, and commands of its user.

2) Technology and magic is correlated and is described as the proof that the older, “non-modern” forms of culture exist but are now manifested in computerized presentation (7). The older forms of culture have taken on a newer more modern ambiance and this can be pulled up, examined, utilized, etc. with a click of a mouse (magic). All the attention is then placed on what information the user chooses to call up, not on how they got it. Just as in magic, it is said that, “the hand is quicker than the eye” (11).

3) The act of the “invocator” or user calling up the information brings with it a power to the person doing the clicking allowing them to determine how things will be and what the meaning and utilization for what is called up will be. They will take existing information and apply it to their own use, thus, reinventing, transforming, and changing what the original information may have been meant for. Each click of the mouse is a process, gathering, reading, interpreting, utilizing, and putting into action user perception and concept of what the information is for. This process converges the regular cultural ideologies and practices we have and utilize. The e-mail message is an example of this, it is a form of technology with communication (social cultural aspect) results.

4) Another important key is that “invocation” converges and utilizes culturally recognized materials and know how within its system. As explained by the author e-mail uses the idea of mailboxes, addresses, etc. like the post office. Another example would be text messaging which uses a language all its own, similar to the old idea of morse code or Indian code during the war.

Challenging Aspect

The most challenging aspect for me was to recognize and use the new terminology; to develop and reprogram my brain to this new way of thinking of something I haven’t given much thought to accept that it was always there and termed what I’ve always known it to be termed. This author in his/her own right was transforming what I normally and culturally expected to be used as terminology and references to a whole new word that took the process (which remains what I know it is) and transformed it into a new ambiance for me; out of my norm into another even though the norms of the process for me didn’t change. I think this was the whole idea of the article and it happened to me as I was reading it, very clever.

Questions

1. In what way, is this prevalent today especially among the younger generation who are growing up with different and more modern “invocations” of existing culturally driven medias?
2. Will this transformation of the old culturally accepted manifestations of language, etc. become the norm and will that diminish the art of language and the joy of the written word or will it always remain the foundation for new media.
3. Will this invocation become the foundation for the new generation because cultural “continuities” are modernized?
   
   Relation to Paper
   
   This article is actually directly related to the concept of my paper. My paper concerns leadership emergence and its cues in the virtual world. Here to, accepted cultural norms are transformed into a more modern usage; these norms are the leadership emergence cues that are found in face-to-face groups as they are presented in the world of the virtual group. They exist but take on new technological concepts within the process. It happens in my real world every day. My daughter texts me and the word and language I’m used to is presented in a shorter text language all its own; the meaning of the messages are the same, however, their appearance is different.
   
   Article 2 Overview and Summary
   
   The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical – Walter Benjamin
   
   The information in this article the transformation of art within the contexts of the technological and mechanical world; it is like the first article, however, looks at a different medium to describe it, (art). Art viewing becomes quantity at a click of a mouse, a click of a remote, a push of a button, however, the ambiance and cultural implications of its original place, originality, etc. is somehow lost in its technological manifestation of viewing.
   
   Key Ideas
   
   1) The nature of any kind of art is transformed when presented within the context and content of mechanical means, medias, etc.
   2) The audience of art forms identify with the mechanical median in which it is presented, not necessarily with the original intent of its creator.
   3) The new mechanical mediums allow normal everyday people to become artists in their own right (authors, if you think of blogging, directors and camera men if you think of Youtube).
   4) The nature of the beast is that newer and newer creations will appear and demands will carry them further and further and make them available to its public in an instant and provide art to the masses.
   5) The masses viewing the art reserves the right of perception as to why and how they are looking at it and the right to determine its meaning to them.
   6) The original art is preserved but its viewed and shared by the masses.
   
   Challenging Aspects
   
   The one challenge was reading this article, at first I was concerned with what it had to do with anything. Then as I got into it the challenge became what do I need to pull out of this thing. What I determined for myself was that the ideology presented was that anything is preserved in its original form but it is in the eye of the beholder as to the meaning it has for them. With the mechanical world allowing us, as part of the mass, to view and be exposed to art both on the viewing and creating end (blogs, Youtube, e-books, etc.) it is expanding arts perception and choice of meaning. Again a reaffirmation that convergence is transforming, changing and challenging our existing foundational cultural norms on a constant basis bringing them into the new world of consumer usage and control.
   
   Questions
   
   1) Does the presentation to masses preserve just the physical property and is something taken away from the artist’s original hopes for its meaning?
   2) Do societal demands of intact cultural foundations, wage its own war against this new technology?
   3) In what ways does society transform its thinking in order to gain insight and a glimpse of culture of art within the realms of viewing as part of the masses?
   
   Relation to Paper
   
   This article like the last incorporates the idea that societal foundations of cultural existence remain, however, its ideologies are presented to the masses, quickly, easily, and are open for interpretation. Again my paper looking at the existing foundational norms for leader emergence in a transformed way of virtual emergence is experiencing this same type of transformation. The foundation exists but is evolving to adapt to the technological world.

Cyber-based Leadership Cues

Revised Thesis Statement

There is a cyber-based cue leadership emergence process in virtual communities and this process emulates the traditional leadership process in context; however, virtual communities utilize unique cyber-based cues to recognize virtual leadership. These cues work within the context of medium convergence and serve to enhance, regulate, and maintain the cohesiveness of the communities; the presence and strength of such cues determines a community’s effectiveness.

Introduction

I contend that because these virtual communities are relevant to convergence models and its noted concepts, their intricacies, as a community group, recognize and follow practice of the traditional hierarchical concept of emergence of leadership while utilizing the new and exciting mediums of today’s cyber-based societal communication.

This traditional leader-role emergence within the confines of the on-line CMC virtual community, utilizes cyber-based context and tasks as cues to determine leadership selection rather than the normal face-to-face verbal and non-verbal cues of leadership determination utilized in real-world groups. These cues are found in a convergence of mediums and their usage plays an important role in the cyber-based context that is utilized to determine virtual community leadership selection.

Article Summaries

Yoo, Y. and Alvi, M (2003). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do?
Information and Organization, Vol(14)1, January 2004, pp. 27-58.
Doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2003.11.001, Retrieved March 6, 2009.

This article was based on a study that examined the “behaviors and roles that are enacted by emergent leaders” in virtual groups (Yoo & Alvi, p.1). It provided definition of leadership within the virtual context, described the challenges affiliated with the cyber-based cues of virtual leadership, and gave the ideology of leadership perspective within the scope of the traditional leadership emergence cues of traits, behavior, and contingency.

It is in direct correlation with paper subject matter.

Guastello, S. (2004). Non-linear dynamics and leadership emergence. The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol(18), 4, August 2007, pp. 357-369
Doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.005, Retrieved March 6, 2009.

This article looks at the cyber leadership emergence process within the context of virtual groups and the systems concepts of non-linear dynamical systems concepts (NDS, attractors, tension reduction, goal realism, tasks, hierarchy,) as they relate to virtual group structure.

It is directly related to my paper because it clarifies that structure does exist within virtual groups and looks at several cyber-base cues that support leadership emergence and formation and maintenance of structure for the group. It also presents the LMX leadership theory within the scope of cyber-based traits.

Johnson, C. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice.
The Internet and Higher Education, Vol(4)1, 1st Quarter 2001, pp. 45-60
Doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00047-1, Retrieved March 6, 2009.

This article examines current literature and virtual communities within the concept of network technologies and the group’s communication and collaboration techniques. It explains that just because a virtual community is formed and exists does not mean that a set “community of practice” will evolve. Research suggests that task-based learning and need must be present for them to do so. It also shows that the absence of face-to-face contact within web-based tools can be advantageous because it diminishes and suppresses traditional group behaviors. It further explores the hindrance of virtual groups (lack of response time, cultural difference, non-related discussion content, etc.).

It is important because it gives a foundation for virtual group consistency and formulation through the utilization of network technology which can provide an understanding of technological foundation of cyber-based cues for emergent leadership.

CONTROLLED AUDIENCE????

Two great articles bringing up a very good point after our recent discussions in class, are on-line formats that profess to be open forums for entire public participation really open to all?


Obama takes questions from online participants
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_online

Is this a form of directed partipation so that possible messages of support are weighted in favor of whomever is controlling the venue?


Ensuring a friendly audience for online town hall
Politico

Ben Smith Ben Smith – 33 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/31179

Politicians Trying Out The YouTube Culture

YouTube 'spammed by US Congressmen'

YouTube, the internet hosting site, is being flooded with cringe worthy video messages from US politicians, it has been claimed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5009465/YouTube-spammed-by-US-Congressmen.html