Abstract
Orientation: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) necessitated remote work, giving rise to enforced virtual teams. This shift created new complexities and paradoxes that leaders were compelled to address.
Research purpose: This study aimed to theorise the identity work involved in reconstructing role identity when leaders transition to leading COVID-19-induced virtual teams.
Motivation for the study: There is limited empirical research on the identity work of leaders during transitions to virtual leadership necessitated by external crises such as a pandemic.
Research approach/design and method: A qualitative, constructivist grounded theory approach was employed. Data were collected through 18 online interviews and analysed using grounded theory and Gioia methodology.
Main findings: The study used an adaptive process model with four conditions of emergence to theorise identity work. During the disequilibrium phase, COVID-19 created identity tensions through virtual paradoxes. In the amplification phase, these tensions led to role complexities. This triggered the recombination or self-organisation phase, where leaders began to claim their virtual leadership identity through behavioural complexity—balancing transactional and transformational practices. In the stabilising feedback phase, this claimed identity was validated by team members.
Practical/managerial implications: In crisis-induced virtual settings, leaders can adapt their roles effectively by employing both transactional and transformational behaviours to navigate complexity.
Contribution/value-add: This study presents a novel view of role theory by proposing that roles function as complex adaptive systems. It introduces a grounded model using the concept of ‘complex adaptive agency’ to explain the identity work leaders undertake when transitioning to virtual leadership during crises.
Keywords: constructivist grounded theory; COVID-19-induced virtual teams; complex adaptive systems; identity work; role identity; virtual paradoxes; virtual leadership.
Introduction
Virtual working conditions, which have been expedited by the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, triggered the research interest in exploring what the identity work entails when leaders of co-located teams reconstruct their role identity as leaders of virtual teams. With the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, organisations were required to mandate employees, who were currently working in co-located contexts, to work remotely without creating the necessary organisational readiness for these shifts to virtual working conditions. Furthermore, ‘COVID-induced virtual teams’ (Mahadevan et al., 2024, p. 262) were formed almost overnight in response to an external crisis, thereby introducing new challenges and opportunities in the way work was conducted. In lieu of these unplanned changes, people were required to work from home in circumstances where readiness to fulfil work responsibilities remotely was not always in place and the willingness to work remotely was also not necessarily agreed upon.
In the context of this changed landscape in which work was done, leaders were confronted with challenges such as providing an enforced virtual environment suitable for achieving high performance, managing team members’ digital well-being when they experienced technology fatigue or struggling to manage work-life boundaries in a context where there was a blurring of domestic, work and home-schooling challenges or when people have no or low virtual work self-efficacy (Chamakiotis et al., 2021; Harunavamwe & Kanengoni, 2023; Stoker et al., 2022). Unplanned change because of a crisis also requires leaders to process a vast amount of complex information often entailing contradictory viewpoints (Wittmer & Hopkins, 2022). Furthermore, because of the crisis context, management needs to take on a tactical approach to facilitating the change, which includes making speedy decisions under pressure, having an adaptive capacity that allows for flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances (Wittmer & Hopkins, 2022) and ‘utilising fluidity in leadership style (balancing between controlling and directive, and engaging and compassionate)’ (Hayes, 2021, p. 76). This fluidity in leadership style during a crisis is also described as finding a balance between the paradoxical leadership tensions of agentic or task-orientated behaviours (such as planning and clarifying) and communal or relational-orientated behaviours (supporting and empowering) (Eichenauer et al., 2022).
In addition to these paradoxical tensions that emerge when leading people through a crisis, it has been noted in previous research that virtuality introduces virtual paradoxes that virtual leaders need to address (Cousins et al., 2007; Purvanova & Kenda, 2018). There is, however, little to no research regarding the virtual paradoxes that occurred in COVID-19-induced virtual teams and the subsequent responses by leaders to address these paradoxes in order to lead the virtual teams through this crisis while maintaining performance. The research that this paper is based on aimed to address this gap.
Research aim and questions
The research aim for this study was to theorise what the identity work of leaders entailed when transitioning to virtual teams, with a specific focus on how they redefined their role identity to manage the paradoxical tensions that occurred in COVID-19-induced virtual teams. To achieve this aim, the following research questions were formulated:
What are the paradoxical tensions that leaders need to manage when their roles change from leading co-located teams to leading COVID-19-induced virtual teams? How do leaders respond to the paradoxical tensions posed by virtuality when reconstructing their identity as virtual leaders? What identity work do leaders do when transitioning from leading teams in co-located contexts to leading teams in COVID-19-induced virtual contexts?
Literature review
This preliminary literature review clarifies what is understood by identity, roles, identity work, and the effect of paradoxes on individuals’ role identity. It is not an exhaustive review of literature relevant to this research topic to allow for the emergence of new concepts as the research progresses (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Gioia et al., 2012).
Theoretical perspectives on identity
Role identity theory and social construction of leadership were used as the theoretical underpinnings of this research. According to role identity theory, the sense of self is constructed via the roles that one is scripted into and the expectations that are associated with each role (Brown, 2021; Caza et al., 2018). Role identity theory focuses on people’s role-related behaviours. Roles mediate the behaviour of people and define the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable and what the expected behaviours are within the scope of a given role (Ashforth, 2001; Hogg et al., 1995; Järventie-Thesleff & Tienari, 2016; Simpson & Carroll, 2008; Stryker & Burke, 2000). According to Chreim et al. (2007), there is an intimate relationship between role and identity, describing it as two sides of the same coin. Leadership is positioned as a social role, where the leadership role not only defines one’s identity as a leader but also the related behaviours relevant to that role (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016).
Sociological perspectives to inform one’s understanding of a role include the functional role theory, which defines normative expectations of any given role (Biddle, 1986). These normative expectations result in the institutionalisation of roles. Another perspective, the symbolic interactionist role theory, views roles as emerging because of role descriptions being negotiated between individuals (Ashforth, 2001; Biddle, 1986). According to Simpson and Carroll (2008, p. 30), these negotiated role descriptions are, however, dependent on the ‘interplay of a fairly predictable, static social order’. The institutionalisation of roles and the static social order that influence role constructions lead to defining roles as being relatively stable across a duration of time, which by implication also means that role identity remains fixed (Järventie-Thesleff & Tienari, 2016). Simpson and Carroll (2008) critique this view of roles, stating that it lacks critical reflection on how the complexities of organisational life shape and [in]form roles. They argue for redefining the role construct by describing it as ‘inherently unstable and perpetually “becoming”’ (Simpson & Carroll, 2008, p. 44). This description of role fits more suitably with the contemporary view of identity, as both are seen to be emergent and incomplete.
Identities and roles are thus co-evolving and impact each other (Brown, 2017; Hogg et al., 1995; Järventie-Thesleff & Tienari, 2016; Simpson & Carroll, 2008). Although roles provide an anchor for identity that sustains a sense of continuity for the individual, roles can be reinterpreted and translated into new meanings. This is done through not only the micro-level intersubjective interactions between actors but also the macro-level influences that change the social order in organisations (Chreim et al., 2007). Identity work is therefore set in motion once role meanings are disrupted (Ashforth, 2001; Miscenko & Day, 2016).
A central assumption relevant to identity work is the notion of agency. Even though roles define certain expectations regarding behaviours and the exchanges with others relevant to this role, individuals do have agency (Ibarra et al., 2014). This agency is found in an individual’s capacity for reflexive thinking and sense-making whereby identities are actively worked on, both intrapersonally and through social interactions with others (Brown, 2021). Agency refers to the capacity of an individual to make choices about their own identity, which in turn are claimed through the specific actions they display in the interaction with others. The social nature of identity work, where an identity is claimed by the leader and in turn granted by the follower, is elaborated on by the social construction of leadership theory of DeRue and Ashford (2010). Here, identity work is also viewed as a socially constructed process whereby the leadership role needs to be recognised by the follower. The social construction of leadership identity takes place in the process of a person claiming his or her role as a leader by taking certain actions to assert their identity as leaders. Granting happens when the follower recognises the leadership identity through his or her actions that are displayed in the relationship with the leader. It is a recursive and mutually enforcing process, where a positive spiral of such a process results in the validation of identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010).
In the context of this study, role meaning was disrupted, and identity work was activated when leaders’ role description changed to being leaders of COVID-19-induced virtual teams. This research explored what the new role challenges were that required leaders to adopt new behaviours to claim their identity as virtual leaders.
Virtuality-as-paradox framework
Virtual working conditions introduce new complexities to leaders as they must adjust their style and behaviour to deal with the lack of or limited face-to-face contact with team members. In the virtual environment, leaders are required to have a depth of understanding in collaborative technology but are also challenged with finding ways to keep team members engaged, coordinate virtual team tasks, facilitate team processes remotely, develop and maintain trusting relationships without the benefit of physical presence, and address the paradoxical tensions introduced by virtuality (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Liao, 2017; Malhotra et al., 2007; Purvanova & Kenda, 2018). Chamakiotis et al. (2021) also noted that in the COVID-19 context, virtual teams pose additional challenges to the virtual leader, such as managing the digital well-being of team members to avoid Zoom fatigue, technostress and role conflict (such as working from home while assisting children with home schooling) as well as finding a healthy work-life balance.
Organisational paradoxes are defined as ‘interdependent contradictions which persist over time and reflect back on each other’ (Berti & Pina e Cunha, 2023, p. 863). Paradox thus gives rise to opposing poles (Lewis, 2000). These opposing poles can be viewed as tensions or contradictions. In general, paradoxes tend to emerge in the face of complexity, such as the organisational context and the contradictory tensions it poses to leaders when managing their teams. These contradictory tensions include having to engage in opposing behaviours such as concurrently performing transactional and transformational tasks, displaying empathy and assertiveness, offering structure and being empowering, being task and relational orientated as well as acting as both a leader and a manager (Purvanova & Kenda, 2018). However, when working virtually, additional contradictory tensions occur that are unique to the virtual context.
Several studies have identified and discussed the paradoxes that occur in virtual teams (Cousins et al., 2007; Cuganesan, 2017; Dubė & Robey, 2008). Purvanova and Kenda (2018), for example, categorised the different paradoxes found in virtual teams as the technology-dependent paradox, the geographic dispersion paradox and the human capital paradox. They noted that each of these three paradoxes introduces several paradoxical tensions.
The gap that was identified in the virtual paradox literature related to the fact that the context of forced virtual work, as was in the case of COVID-19-induced virtual teams, was not considered sufficiently. Having worked face to face before the pandemic and being forced to work remotely introduces virtual work conditions that are uniquely different from those of virtual teams that are established because of the strategic benefits they offer to the company. Considering the paradoxical tensions that virtuality introduces, the role of a virtual leader holds certain paradoxical expectations regarding their behaviours and how they manage their team members. In this regard, Denison et al. (1995) refer to behavioural complexity as an ability of leaders to display multiple and contradictory roles while still retaining credibility among their subordinates. In the face of virtual paradoxes, behavioural complexity can entail leaders responding by either blending the tensions to achieve synergistic solutions (Purvanova & Kenda, 2018) or viewing the tensions as trade-offs resulting in addressing change by focusing on one tension at the cost of the other (Berti & Pina e Cunha, 2023). This study therefore focused on identifying the paradoxes and related tensions that occur in COVID-19-induced teams and what the identity work entailed for leaders who had to reconstruct their role identity amidst the paradoxical tensions that occurred.
Research design
Research approach
This study was positioned in a constructivist-interpretive paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Ontologically, the constructivist paradigm is viewed as a ‘becoming ontology’, where meaning making about reality is an ongoing process (Grandy, 2018, p. 176). As a non-positivist approach, constructivism holds the relativist view that there is no universal truth, as reality or truth is constructed and not discovered. Realities are therefore viewed as local, multiple, conflicting and always open to change. Epistemologically, constructivism views meaning making as an intersubjective process between the researcher and the participants. Research conducted in this paradigm is described as a dialogical practice, where the research conclusions are the result of the intersubjective process of the lived experiences of both the researcher and the participants (Grandy, 2018).
This research aimed to achieve an interpretive understanding of the identity work that leaders engage in when their role identities are in flux. These interpretative understandings result in ‘generalisations [that] remain partial, conditional and situated’ (Charmaz, 2011, p. 366). Similarly, Gioia et al. (2022, p. 233) state that interpretive research does not aim ‘at generating a “correct” answer to a research question (that’s what positivist or functionalist research does), but rather at generating a plausible, defensible (abductive) explanation of how and/or why a phenomenon occurs’.
Research strategy and method
Being ontologically relativist and epistemologically subjectivist, constructivist grounded theory finds alignment with the philosophical paradigm where ‘realities are multiple and the viewer is part of what is viewed’ (Charmaz, 2011, p. 366). A constructivist grounded theory was therefore used as a strategy for enquiry, and the analytical strategies of a constructivist grounded theory approach and the Gioia methodology assisted with the robustness of the developing theory (Gioia et al., 2012).
Research setting
In both companies that were included in this study, their employees were required to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The companies provide technology solutions, products and services related to the processing of information, communication networks and digital transformation. None of the team leaders who participated in this study or their team members had worked from home before the pandemic. However, some of the teams did work remotely at client sites.
Entrée and establishing researcher roles
‘Insider assistants’ (Salmons, 2012, p. 17) not only assisted with gaining access to the organisations but also with recruiting participants and establishing credibility for the study among potential participants. Participation in the study was voluntary. Once participants indicated interest in partaking in the study, they were asked to provide written informed consent before commencing with the interviews.
Research participants and sampling methods
A non-probability approach to sampling (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005), specifically purposive sampling and theoretical sampling (Charmaz & Henwood, 2017; Silverman, 2013), was used. This study commenced with purposive sampling by identifying research participants before undertaking the study. As the interviews progressed, theoretical sampling was used whereby participants were selected that would provide the best possible information for the development and theorising of a grounded theory.
The study was conducted at the individual level, with the following inclusion criteria: (1) being appointed to either senior or line management positions and (2) their leadership role had shifted from leading co-located teams to leading COVID-19-induced virtual teams.
Two rounds of sampling were conducted. During the first round of purposive sampling, 10 people were interviewed. Interviews were transcribed and coded whereby the open coding process resulted in the identification of relationships between codes and the creation of initial categories. Thereafter the second round of theoretical sampling took place, resulting in interviewing another eight people. Here the interviews were used to further test and build on the initial code set. The iterative process of data gathering and analysis was done until theoretical saturation (Charmaz & Henwood 2017) was reached, and once reached, no more interviews were conducted. A total of 18 interviews were conducted.
Data collection
Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews. The interviews were conducted virtually by using the Microsoft (MS) Teams video-conferencing technology. The research protocol that was used was first piloted by interviewing one person, whereafter a few adjustments were made to the questions. The questions were formulated to first probe for general ideas on what constitutes leadership qualities in co-located contexts compared to virtual contexts. Thereafter the focus shifted to a more personalised experience by exploring the challenges and opportunities they had to address as virtual leaders, what strategies they used to claim their role identity as virtual leaders, their perceptions on how team members granted their role identity as virtual leaders and lastly, what virtual paradoxes occurred in the COVID-19-induced virtual teams.
The comparative and iterative process that was followed between data collection and analysis assisted with collecting data that was relevant for informing the theorising process (Birks & Mill, 2011; Edmondson & McManus, 2007).
Data recording
The interviews were audio-recorded, and with the assistance of the MS Teams transcription technology, the interviews were transcribed. Transcribed interviews were reviewed by the primary researcher by listening to the recordings to not only ensure accuracy but also assist with immersing and gaining familiarity with the interview data.
Data analysis
Emergence, constant comparison and theoretical sampling were the three foundational pillars of grounded theory (Holton, 2018), which guided the analysis process. To ensure the grounded theory emerged from the empirical data and was not informed by pre-existing hypotheses, a coding process was followed that allowed for the process of abstracting the first-order data (informant-centred data) to second-order themes and aggregated dimensions (theory-centred data) (Gioia et al., 2012, 2022). Atlas.ti was used to aid in the coding and analysis process. This coding approach entailed a process of open coding, axial coding, selective coding and theory development (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During open coding, a first-order analysis was conducted to identify informant codes. These codes were reviewed to identify similarities and differences to group the data into categories, which in turn resulted in the formulation of second-order themes. Selective coding was done by identifying and interpreting the interrelationships between second-order themes that had emerged during axial coding, which resulted in the creation of second-order aggregated dimensions. This coding process assisted with moving beyond producing descriptive accounts of the data to raising the data to a conceptual level. Following such an approach to data analysis enabled the process of creating codes from the data and from the codes to creating categories and from the categories to creating concepts. Thereafter, these concepts were compared with studies found in the literature to support the sense making of the data (Charmaz & Henwood, 2017; Holton, 2018). An iterative process between collecting and analysing data was followed that allowed for constant comparison to take place, whereby the new data were compared with previously analysed data and conceptual memos until the point of theoretical saturation. To reach theoretical saturation, theoretical sampling was followed with the intent to gather data that would enrich and expand on the already identified categories until theoretical saturation takes place and a plausible theoretical explanation for the identity work of COVID-19-induced virtual team leaders could be defined.
Strategies employed to ensure data trustworthiness and quality
The trustworthiness of the research was supported by synthesised member checking (Birt et al., 2016), whereby all the research participants were asked to review the second-order themes. This request was done via email, and only one participant responded by affirming the themes as well as adding additional reflections. The quality criteria relevant to the grounded theory methodology as defined by Holton (2018) and Lomborg and Kirkevold (2003) were also adhered to namely fit, workability, relevance, and modifiability. This fit criterion was addressed by ensuring that the conceptual codes and categories emerged from the data and not from preconceived codes or categories from extant theory. The workability and relevance criteria were met by developing an emerging, grounded theory. This grounded theory remains open to change should new data be identified, thereby meeting the modifiability criterion.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Pretoria, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (No. EMS215/21). This study followed an ethical protocol that included ensuring informed consent, protecting the privacy of participants, affirming the right to withdraw at any time from the study should participants wish to, avoiding harm to any research participants and safeguarding research data and avoidance of conflict of interests (Jeanes, 2017; Tracy, 2010).
Results
The findings are discussed according to the aggregated dimensions and their related second-order themes that were identified during the data analysis process.
Virtual paradoxes and related tensions
It is a well-established fact that COVID-19 disrupted traditional ways of work, requiring leaders to manage and lead their teams remotely. In this remote environment, five virtual paradoxes and related tensions were identified in the context of COVID-19-induced virtual teams, namely the collaboration, productivity, role identity, technology, and work-life paradoxes. Within each of these five paradoxes, several tensions were at play.
In the collaboration paradox, tension was experienced between coordinating team efforts and optimising task autonomy in the virtual environment:
‘At one time you want the people to own autonomy, and work on their own. But at the same time, you want them to work as a team.’ (P14, Executive Manager, Male)
In the productivity paradox, leaders encountered the tension between autonomy and efficiency of team members where the virtual environment creates the opportunity to work independently yet also introduces the challenge to support efficiency when limited contact with and delayed access to support slows down the timely execution of tasks:
‘The new way of managing is output-based where people work autonomously in executing work. It is not based on seeing people. I still feel there’s value in seeing people. How they respond, how they approach things in order to guide them if improvement is needed.’ (P17, Executive Manager, Female)
‘It was very close proximity with my team. … I could hear them and I understand what’s the problem. Bring it here. Let me help you. … Now things stand still until we can make [virtual] contact with each other.’ (P6, Senior Manager, Female)
The role identity paradox emerged when leaders encountered the tension between the personal and professional in the virtual environment. The pandemic crisis introduced the challenge of managing performance despite the disruption that the pandemic caused in people’s personal lives:
‘And being emotionally supportive and more empathetic. But at the same time, I’ve got to be stern to some degree because we’re expected to deliver at the end of the day.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female)
In the virtual environment, the technology paradox introduced the tension between the dissemination of information and the value gleaned from informal, impromptu interactions:
‘When it comes to communication about work and tasks and saying things that people need to hear, that was much more improved. I suppose the one area where things … let’s call it the softer kind of communication where it suffered. When somebody pops into the office drinking a cup of tea … It’s amazing how many times important things are communicated that are actually of use to you in a work environment …’ (P2, Senior Manager, Male)
The main characteristic of the work-life paradox is the instance where team members struggled to maintain a healthy boundary between work and nonwork or family. Leaders were required to assist their team members in managing the tension:
‘I think the one in terms of finding balance. So, the expectation is that you must keep working, but I’m also asking them at the same time to find time to rest and take care of themselves.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female)
Role complexities amid the virtual paradoxes
The paradoxes and the related tensions that emerged in COVID-19-induced virtual teams introduced role complexities for virtual leaders. These leadership role complexities can be categorised as change-orientated, task-orientated and relational-orientated complexities.
Change-orientated complexity in the context of the newly formed COVID-19-induced virtual teams required leaders to support team members to adjust successfully and perform in the virtual environment:
‘For me, the biggest challenge was managing a team of people that are not used to being managed remotely.’ (P7, Executive Manager, Male)
Themes related to this complexity included guiding team members to find work-life boundaries, encouraging them to navigate their digital conduct and facilitating remote work readiness.
Relational-orientated complexity is about establishing and maintaining mutual trust and cooperation among team members and their leaders. This is especially important in virtual team contexts where there is reduced contact between the leader and team members:
‘Communicating that, I as a leader, trust you to manage your time remotely because I can’t see you working. That was another big challenge – how you manage the trust versus non-trust factor because there are people who are going to abuse working from home and not be productive and then there are those that are on the complete opposite scale who will be too productive but not look after themselves and their families.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female).
Leaders were also challenged with ‘humanising’ communication technology as a way to maintain collegiality in the team:
‘There’s a big loss in communication. I mean body language is one dimension of it. But there’s simply a bigger distance in online communication than in face-to-face communication. You feel a little bit removed. And interaction – it’s more clinical. I would say that it simply doesn’t carry as much information as would be carried in a face-to-face interaction.’ (P3, Senior Manager, Male)
Task-orientated complexity typically focuses on the coordination and monitoring of team members’ work processes to ensure team performance. The virtual leaders had to navigate the complexities of not only fostering employee engagement but also managing technostress caused by communication overload and the uncoordinated use of information and communication technology (ICT):
‘We had to motivate people a little bit more because we were impacted by the pandemic and that also had its impact on people’s well-being etcetera … So it was, how do I as a leader help manage all these different contexts so that I can get the best out of people while they’re working remotely.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female)
The role complexities that emerged due to the virtual paradoxes in COVID-19-induced virtual teams, destabilised the leadership role construct. To remain effective in their role as leaders, they were required to respond by developing a repertoire of varied and complex sets of behaviours as a way to claim their identity as virtual leaders.
Identity claiming
Virtual leaders used practices inclusive of both transactional and transformational leadership styles as solutions to not only address the role complexities that occurred because of the paradoxes that emerged in the COVID-19-induced virtual teams but also claim their roles as virtual leaders.
Active management-by-exception and contingent reward are the transactional practices that leaders used to claim their leadership identities in the virtual environment. Active management-by-exception happens when the leader monitors team members’ work execution to identify and correct problems timeously to maintain good performance (Avolio et al., 1999). In the COVID-19-induced virtual teams, leaders had to be intentional with soliciting feedback to ensure they could offer the required support to team members and monitor progress:
‘Before COVID, I would just let them come to me and give me an update. But I found with the full remote, I had to solicit a lot more feedback to keep on par with everything that was going on remotely.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female)
When focusing on contingent rewards, the leader ensured that the team understood what was expected from them and clearly defined what performance management would entail, thereby assisting with not having to micromanage people in the remote environment:
‘I told them I don’t care much what you do with your time. What is more important for me is the outputs and the achievements and the results of what they were doing.’ (P3, Senior Manager, Male)
Charisma or inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration are the transformational practices that leaders used to claim their leadership identities in the virtual environment. Charismatic or inspirational characteristics include communicating an inspiring vision and sense of purpose to followers and consistently modelling ethical conduct (Avolio et al., 1999). The leaders claimed their role as virtual leaders by communicating a message of inclusion and reliability:
‘To maintain and establish the culture whereby its inclusive and everything gets communicated, communication was done, quite often. I made sure that everyone knew what is happening. Although you are not physically there, but you feel like you are there … So hence the frequent communication.’ (P13, Manager, Female)
Intellectual stimulation happens when a leader encourages people to critically reflect on and question approaches to problem-solving and decision-making and thereby improve innovation (Avolio et al., 1999). The leaders of COVID-19-induced virtual teams triggered intellectual stimulation by empowering people to make decisions:
‘I started giving my team the power to make decisions because normally if they needed something they would come to me as a manager and say I need XY and Z, whereas now my managers could make a decision without me in the picture. I wanted to show them decision-making and start building with the trust and letting my manager start being accountable for their staff.’ (P6, Senior Manager, Female)
Individualised consideration refers to leaders who show concern towards each member of the team as well as focusing on understanding the unique needs and developmental or growth opportunities of the followers (Avolio et al., 1999). Practices pointing to individualised consideration included checking in to see how people are coping with working remotely amid a crisis and responding accordingly by being flexible in expectations yet also applying empathetic accountability:
‘Being more empathetic – it’s not something that we typically do too well when we’re in an office environment because you sort of leave your emotions at home. Having been fully remote, you’re managing your emotions in your work environment which is your home office. And it’s all about how we strike the balance between not being so empathetic that people drop the ball, but you’re showing that you do care, you do understand, but you also expect them to still perform.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female)
From the data above, it becomes apparent that the leaders displayed behavioural complexity between transactional and transformational behaviours to claim their identity as leaders of COVID-19-induced virtual teams. To solidify their new role identity as virtual leaders, the data also show instances where the leaders experienced their team members verifying their role identity through practices of identity granting.
Identity granting
Identity granting and verification happen when cues received from people affirm the successful enacting of a claimed identity (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016; DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Implicit followership theories (IFTs) are used to categorise the granting behaviours by team members. IFTs are assumptions leaders make about the behaviours of followers. These behaviours can be classified as followership prototypes that include behaviours such as enthusiasm, good citizenship and industriousness (Sy, 2010; Whiteley et al., 2012).
In this study, enthusiasm was shown by way of directly or indirectly recognising the impact of the leader’s behaviour in ensuring work performance despite navigating disruptive changes:
‘After five weeks of implementing what I think is necessary for our team to be functional and effective, the team has basically come back and said “Thank you. We needed that.”’ (P9, Executive Manager, Female)
Good citizenship behaviour included following the leader’s directives, remaining accountable to the leader in getting the job done, showing up on time and participating in online meetings:
‘If I asked for something to be done, it would be done. And if they weren’t able to do it, I think they would manage my expectations.’ (P5, Executive Manager, Female)
Industriousness included working hard and an attitude of wanting to go above and beyond expectations:
‘My team did very well during COVID, we kept things together. We performed – we had zero customer escalations, whereas other departments had escalations – they had to stop counting.’ (P11, Executive Manager, Female)
The enthusiasm, good citizenship and industriousness displayed by team members are viewed as the practices that granted leaders their role identity as leaders of COVID-19-induced virtual teams. It is viewed as stabilising feedback, thereby validating the leader’s emergent role identity in the virtual environment.
Discussion
An abductive approach to using theories was followed, whereby theories were identified as theoretical warrants to back the plausible claims made based on interpretations of the data (Ketokivi & Mantere, 2021). Complexity theory, specifically complex adaptive systems (CAS), was used to understand and describe the identity work of leaders of COVID-19-induced virtual teams. Drawing on complexity theory, certain assumptions are made about complex environments. The first assumption is that complex systems are open systems that are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. The second is that in CAS, the interaction between the system and its environment is non-linear and leads to unpredictable outcomes and behaviours (Clarke, 2013; Maquire, 2011). Plowman et al. (2007) note that a CAS includes characteristics such as sensitivity to changes, the adjusting of behaviour to the environment in unpredictable ways, a fluctuation between stability and instability and emergent actions in response to disequilibrium.
Based on these assumptions and characteristics, this research makes the novel proposition that roles within organisations are viewed as a CAS, and thereby they exhibit CAS principles such as emergence and self-organisation (Rosenhead et al., 2019). Because identity theory links identity with a role, transitions in role effect changes in identity (Ashforth, 2001; Miscenko & Day, 2016). By positioning the leadership role as a CAS, it assisted with addressing Simpson and Carroll’s (2008) call to transform theoretical constructions of role to ensure that it resounds with contemporary views on identity as a complex and dynamic social process. However, positioning roles as a CAS extends Simpson and Carroll’s (2008) view of roles as an intermediate boundary object by including considerations of the effects of the wider macro environment on the reconstruction of roles. Furthermore, CAS provides a useful lens to understand how the leadership role adjusts in response to the complexities posed by the virtuality-as-paradox framework. The novel approach of viewing roles as CAS allows for the shaping of new role meanings in response to changes in the environment, which in turn influences the emergence of a new role identity. Furthermore, positioning roles as a CAS allows identity to be defined as an ongoing process that is continuously under construction (Brown, 2021).
To understand the identity work that leaders do, the adaptive process as described by Uhl-Bien (2021) was used as a framework to interpret the observed patterns in the data within a broader academic context. As emergence and self-organisation are given in complexity theory, it is important to note what Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009, p. 619) define as the four conditions for emergence, namely (1) disequilibrium state, (2) amplifying actions, (3) recombination or self-organisation and (4) stabilising feedback. Uhl-Brien (2021) uses these conditions to propose an adaptive process that drives a system to a new adaptive order. This adaptive process provides the framework upon which the identity work of leaders of COVID-19-induced virtual teams was conceptualised. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical model that emerged from the data. This model defines the identity work of leaders as complex adaptive agency and includes four phases of identity work, namely disequilibrium, amplification, recombination or self-organisation, and stabilising feedback.
 |
FIGURE 1: Complex adaptive agency – A grounded theoretical model for identity work. |
|
According to Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009, p. 620), the state of ‘disequilibrium reflects a major disruption in system behaviour’. The COVID-19 pandemic served as the external pressure that put leaders into disequilibrium, disrupting their role identity as they had to shift to leading COVID-19-induced virtual teams. This is called the disequilibrium phase in the adaptive process (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009; Uhl-Bien, 2021). The virtual paradoxes that appeared in these teams can be viewed as causing a further sense of disequilibrium to the role identity of the leader, as these virtual paradoxes posed adaptive challenges that were not present when they were leading their teams in face-to-face environments. In response to these adaptive challenges that emerged in the disequilibrium phase, leaders were confronted with role complexities that required new ways of thinking and/or behaving, thereby putting their role identity in the amplification phase. Here the need to adjust their role identity was amplified, as leaders were required to find a resolution to the role complexities that arose amid the paradoxical tensions. The next phase of the identity work process, which entails emergence, takes place, whereby the system reorganises itself into new patterns of interaction. Lichtenstein and Plowman (2009) call this the recombination or self-organisation phase. The recombination or self-organisation phase took place where leaders used behavioural complexity as an identity work tactic to address the role complexities and paradoxical tensions. These adaptive solutions, including transactional and transformational practices, can be viewed as identity claims that leaders used to claim their role identity as a virtual leader. However, as mentioned by DeRue and Ashford (2010), the identity work of leaders also entails a component of identity granting, whereby team members grant the virtual role identity to leaders. In the adaptive process framework, this identity granting is viewed as the final phase, namely stabilising feedback, whereby the claimed identity of virtual leaders is granted by team members through their display of followership prototypical behaviours. The reconfigured identity of virtual leaders is validated by team members and incorporated into the team.
The grounded model that materialised from this study revolves around the concept of complex adaptive agency to describe the identity work leaders do when transitioning from co-located contexts to enforced virtual contexts. This model is mapped to the four stages of generative emergence (Lichtenstein, 2014; Uhl-Bien, 2021). This novel view on the identity work of leaders allows for the leader to be constructed as an agent who, in response to the virtual paradoxes as adaptive challenges, faced role complexities in their position as a virtual leader. Their identity work is described as a process of engaging in adaptive emergence practices to claim their identities as virtual leaders. This model also looks at identity verifications as a mechanism for stabilising feedback, whereby team members grant managers their role identity as virtual leaders.
Based on this model, two propositions are made:
Proposition 1: Roles are CAS that interact with their environment, resulting in the emergence of adapted role behaviours.
Proposition 2: The identity work of leaders entails complex adaptive agency when the leadership role is confronted with role complexities because of virtual paradoxes.
The theoretical and practical implications of these propositions are discussed next.
Theoretical implications
In conjunction with the empirical data, complexity theory – specifically CAS – was used to warrant the theoretical claims regarding roles. Complex adaptive systems respond dynamically to disequilibrium in their environment through emergence, resulting in self-organisation (Clarke, 2013; Maquire, 2011; Rosenhead et al., 2019; Plowman et al., 2007). This study adds a novel view to role theory by proposing that roles are CAS that respond to the disequilibrium in their environment, resulting in the emergence of adapted role behaviours. With this first proposition, this research responds to the call by Simpson and Carroll (2008) to transform theoretical constructions of role in order for them to resonate with identity as a dynamic and complex social project of becoming instead of being (Brown, 2021). Simpson and Carroll (2008) redefine role as a boundary object that serves as an intermediatory device for identity construction. This notion allows for the broadening of current theorising about roles to include CAS theory. When reflecting on complex systems as being impermanent, it can be concluded that ‘their boundaries must always be considered in flux, transitional, at the edge of change’ (Porter & Córdoba-Pachón, 2014, p. 251). This study thus builds on Simpson and Carroll’s (2008) construction of roles by positioning roles as a CAS, whereby the formation of identity within complex systems emerges as a result of the role’s interaction with a turbulent environment. Theorising a role as a CAS anticipates non-linear yet new emergent responses to the external environment that is in a state of disequilibrium. In this study, for example, the chaos that the COVID-19 crisis introduced to organisations, whereby their leaders had to unexpectedly manage their teams virtually, resulted in the emergence of behavioural complexity unique to the context of COVID-19-induced virtual teams. Viewing roles as CAS allows for the emergence of new role constructs, which in turn influence the emergence of new identities. This theorising extends Simpson and Carroll’s (2008) interpretation of roles as boundary objects that are shaped through intra- or intersubjective interactions. In this study, roles are redefined through complexity theory, which can be a useful lens to understand the becoming position of roles in response to the complexity that emerges in the virtuality-as-paradox framework.
The second proposition states that the identity work of leaders entails complex adaptive agency when the leadership role is destabilised, and a new role identity emerges that entails behavioural complexity between transactional and transformational practices. By using the theoretical lens of CAS, this study contributes to the body of knowledge regarding how leaders respond to the challenges and opportunities that virtual paradoxes pose to them when leading teams virtually. It views roles as CAS and offers the view that leaders, as agents in this system, display complex adaptive agency. The findings showed how, through complex adaptive agency, leaders can address the paradoxical tensions that the virtual leadership role encountered by displaying behavioural complexity between transactional and transformational practices. This study thereby contributes to the debate ‘on whether identities and identifications are chosen by resourceful and autonomous beings or ascribed to individuals by historical forces and institutional structures’ (Brown, 2017, p. 308). Complexity theory warrants the complex adaptive agency claim, whereby agents have the agency to make calculative and (mostly) pragmatic choices to shape their preferred role identity in response to the complex role tensions that the virtual environment introduces. It classifies role identity as dynamic, perpetually in the process of becoming through the capacity for reflexive thinking of the agents, and their interactions with followers who verify their identity claims. Agency allows for individuals to reconstruct and adapt role identities that will allow the role to maintain its purpose and efficiency within the complexity posed when leading COVID-19-induced virtual teams.
Practical implications
This study contributes to the practice of virtual leadership, specifically in contexts where teams are forced to work remotely because of an external crisis. It creates awareness for managers of the role complexities that emerge in response to the virtuality paradoxes and sheds light on how leaders can adjust their roles in the virtual environment by applying behavioural complexity between transactional and transformational practices. This awareness can be used by team leaders and human resource (HR) managers in the post-COVID workplace to initiate conversations about remote working conditions where both the leaders and their team members have not been screened or trained to work virtually.
Limitations and recommendations
The granting of the emerged leadership role was explored via the participants’ perceptions as to how their team members verified their role identity. The data used in this study is thus self-reported, which can be viewed as biased. However, this study was designed to review the identity work the leader engaged in, which justifies the use of self-reported data. Future studies can include interviews with the team members to glean insight into their opinions and experiences as to how their virtual leaders claimed their role identity and how team members granted the role identity of leaders.
This study did not explore the extent to which the emerged leadership role impacted team performance and success. It therefore does not make a distinction between successful and unsuccessful emergence and the leadership practices that are associated with either one (Plowman et al., 2007). It is therefore recommended that future research consider reviewing successful and unsuccessful role emergence in the face of mandatory work-from-home requirements. Such a study can be conducted in a longitudinal timeframe to determine how the emerged role impacts team performance.
Conclusions
This study contributes to identity theory as it offers insights regarding how leaders reconstruct their roles as virtual leaders to accommodate the complexity that virtual paradoxes pose. The leadership role is a CAS, and leaders who display complex adaptive agency can interact with the environment to adjust and respond to what is required from that specific role, thereby enabling teams to execute their tasks effectively.
Acknowledgements
This article is partially based on the author, E.C.’s PhD thesis entitled, ‘Virtual Team Leadership Identity Work’, towards the degree of PhD in Organisational Behaviour in the Human Resource Management Department, University of Pretoria, South Africa, with promoters Prof. Karel Stanz and Dr Karen Luyt, received November 2024.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. The author, K.S., serves as the Editor-in-Chief of this journal. The peer review process for this submission was handled independently, and the author had no involvement in the editorial decision-making process for this manuscript. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.
Authors’ contributions
E.C. completed her PhD on the identity work of virtual leaders and wrote this manuscript based on findings from her doctoral thesis. K.S. and K.L. were the PhD promoters and contributed methodologically and conceptually to the design and findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, E.C., upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder or agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Ashforth, B.E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ashforth, B.E., & Schinoff, B.S. (2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062322
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789
Berti, M., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2023). Paradox, dialectics or trade-offs? A double loop model of paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 861–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12899
Biddle, B.J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Birks, M., & Mill, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage.
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Brown, A.D. (2017). Identity work and organizational identification. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(3), 296–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12152
Brown, A.D. (2021). Identities in and around organizations: Towards an identity work perspective. Human Relations, 75(7), 1205–1237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726721993910
Caza, B.B., Vough, H., & Puranik, H. (2018). Identity work in organizations and occupations: Definitions, theories, and pathways forward. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2318
Chamakiotis, P., Panteli, N., & Davison, R.M. (2021). Re-imagining e-leadership for reconfigured virtual teams due to COVID-19. International Journal of Information Management, 60, Article e102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102381
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.K. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 359–380). Sage.
Charmaz, K., & Henwood, K. (2017). Grounded theory methods for qualitative psychology. In C. Willig, & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–29). Sage.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
Chreim, S., Williams, B.E., & Hinings, C.R. (2007). Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of professional role identity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1515–1539. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28226248
Clarke, N. (2013). Model of complexity leadership development. Human Resource Development International, 16(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.756155
Cousins, K.C., Robey, D., & Zigurs, I. (2007). Managing strategic contradictions in hybrid teams. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 460–478. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000692
Cuganesan, S. (2017). Identity paradoxes: How senior managers and employees negotiate similarity and distinctiveness tensions over time. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655482
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R.E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
DeRue, D.S., & Ashford, S.J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.K. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Sage.
Dubė, L., & Robey, D. (2008). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information Systems Journal, 19(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00313.x
Dulebohn, J.H., & Hoch, J.E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004
Edmondson, A.C., & McManus, S.E. (2007). Methodological fit in management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586086
Eichenauer, C.J., Ryan, A.M., & Alanis, J.M. (2022). Leadership during crisis: An examination of supervisory leadership behavior and gender during COVID-19. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(2), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211010761
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., & Hamilton, A.L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K., Eisenhardt, K., Feldman, M., Langley, A., Lê, J., Golden-Biddle, K., Locke, K., Mees-Buss, J., Piekkari, R., Ravasi, D., Rerup, C., Schmid, T., Silverman, D., & Welch, C. (2022). A curated debate: On using ‘templates’. Qualitative Research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(3), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221098955
Grandy, G. (2018). An introduction to constructionism for qualitative researchers in business and management. In C. Cassell, A.L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 173–184). Sage.
Hayes, N. (2021). Facilitating unplanned change in organisations. Masters Dissertation, University of Pretoria. UPSpace Institutional Repository.
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., & White, K.M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787127
Holton, J.A. (2018). From grounded theory to grounded theorizing in qualitative research. In C. Cassell, A.L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 233–250). Sage.
Harunavamwe, M., & Kanengoni, H. (2023). Hybrid and virtual work settings; the interaction between technostress, perceived organisational support, work-family conflict and the impact on work engagement. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 14(2), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-07-2022-0306
Ibarra, H., Wittman, S., Petriglieri, G., & Day, D. (2014). Leadership and identity: An examination of three theories and new research directions. In D.V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organization (pp. 285–300). (Oxford Library of Psychology). Oxford University Press.
Järventie-Thesleff, R., & Tienari, J. (2016). Roles as mediators in identity work. Organization Studies, 37(2), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615604500
Jeanes, E. (2017). Are we ethical? Approaches to ethics in management and organization research. Organization, 24(2), 174–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416656930
Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2021). What warrants our claims? A methodological evaluation of argument structure. Journal of Operational Management, 67(6), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1137
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712
Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010
Lichtenstein, B.B., & Plowman, D.A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.006
Lomborg, K., & Kirkevold, M. (2003). Truth and validity in grounded theory – A reconsidered realist interpretation of the criteria: Fit, work, relevance and modifiability. Nursing Philosophy, 4(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-769X.2003.00139.x
Mahadevan, J., Reichert, T., Steinmann, J., Stärkle, A., Metzler, S., Bacher, L., Diehm, R., & Goroll, F. (2024). COVID-induced virtual teams: A phenomenon-based framework and methodological advice for studying novel events. Central European Management Journal, 32(2), 262–283. http://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-12-2022-0244
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.
Maquire, S. (2011). Constructing and appreciating complexity. In K.A. McHugh, & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), The Sage handbook of complexity and management (pp. 65–92). Sage.
Miscenko, D., & Day, D.V. (2016). Identity and identification at work. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(3), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615584009
Plowman, D.A., Solansky, S., Beck, T.E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D.V. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.004
Porter, T.B., & Córdoba-Pachón, J.R. (2014). Constructing sustainability in organisations: Identity and boundaries in complex adaptive systems. International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 2(4), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCLM.2014.064454
Purvanova, R.K., & Kenda, R. (2018). Paradoxical virtual leadership: Reconsidering virtuality through a paradox lens. Group & Organization Management, 43(5), 752–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118794102
Rosenhead, J., Franco, A., Grintd, K., & Friedlande, B. (2019). Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), Article e101304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.002
Salmons, J. (2012). Cases in online interview research. Sage.
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Simpson, B., & Carroll, B. (2008). Re-viewing ‘role’ in processes of identity construction. Organization, 15(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508407084484
Stoker, J.I., Garretson, H., & Lammers, J. (2022). Leading and working from home in times of COVID-19: On the perceived changes in leadership behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211007452
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P.J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 3(4), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695840
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001
Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Uhl-Bien, M. (2021). Complexity leadership and followership: Changed leadership in a changed world. Journal of Change Management: Reframing Leadership and Organizational Practice, 21(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1917490
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S.K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006
Wittmer, J.L.S., & Hopkins, M.M. (2022). Leading remotely in a time of crisis: Relationships with emotional intelligence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211053531
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
