University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT THAT INCORPORATES
E-LEADERSHIP: THE “E” FACTOR IN LEADING IN AN ELECTRONIC (VIRTUAL)
WORK ENVIRONMENT

by
Jenny J. Lim

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Jenny J. Lim

ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my seven year old daughter, Alexandria. Your boundless
energy, inquisitive mind and ability to care are the foundations of all you will achieve in your
life. Leadership and e-leadership will inevitably become a part of your meaningful life.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the USC OCL program and those inspiring
individuals who have assisted me in the completion of this doctorate. Dr. Patricia Tobey, who
served as my dissertation chair, provided an infinite amount of positive energy and support.
Dr. John Slaughter and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, who served on my dissertation committee,
provided their valuable time, guidance and support. Dr. Don Murphy, who served as my
Capstone Assistant, provided the much appreciated feedback and suggestions. I also want to
thank my USC OCL instructors and fellow students who helped shape and make this learning
experience memorable.
Most importantly, I want to thank my family, Dion and Alexandria. I missed many
events and practices throughout this process. Thank you for understanding and supporting me.
I could not have completed this program without you.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Introduction to the Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem 2
Organizational Performance Goal 3
Purpose of the Project and Questions 4
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal 5
Definition of Key Terms 5

Review of the Literature 7
Need for Effective E-leadership 7
As Technology Advances, Virtual Teams Will Continue to Grow 9
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 10
Knowledge 10
Motivation 20
Organization 25
Interactive Conceptual Framework 34

Data Collection and Instrumentation 37
Interviews 37
Data Analysis 40

Findings 41
Participating Stakeholders 41
Knowledge Findings 42
Motivational Findings 50
Organizational Findings 55

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 59
Knowledge Recommendations 59
BDMs Need to Know How to Use, Perform, and Apply IT Programs for
Communication in the Virtual World (P) (Sociocultural) 62

v
BDMs Need to Know How Digital Literacy Impacts E-Leaders (C; Social Cognitive
and Information Processing Theory) 63
BDMs Need to Analyze Their Role in Interactions and Relationships With Others as it
Pertains to Trust in the Virtual World (Metacognitive; Information Processing Theory) 64
BDMs Need to Know the Nature of Networks and Relationships (D-C; Sociocultural) 65
Motivation Recommendations 68
BDMs Need to Possess Self-Efficacy to Believe They Can Learn About E-Leadership
(SE) 70
BDMs Need to be Interested in Being an Effective E-Leader by Being Present in the
Virtual World (Interest) 71
BDMs Need to Value Effective E-Leadership as a Goal (Expectancy Value) 72
Organization Recommendations 73
The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Trust to Develop E-Leaders 75
The Organization Needs to Have a Participative and Open Culture of Communication 76
The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Learning on E-Leadership 79
Conclusion 80

References 82

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders With Sampling Criteria for Interview Participating
Stakeholders 102

Appendix B: Protocols 103
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness 105
Appendix D: Implementation and Evaluation Plan 108
Appendix E: Survey Immediately Following Training (IT Component) 120
Appendix F: Survey Immediately Following Training (Soft Skills Component) 121
Appendix G: Instructor Observational Checklist and Assessment 122
Appendix H: Quarterly Survey 123
Appendix I: Confidence Levels- IT Component and Soft Skills Component 124
Appendix J: Ethics 125
Appendix K: Limitations and Delimitations 126
Appendix L: Informed Consent Form 127

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 33
Table 2: Twelve Interview Questions and its specific KMO category, along with Type of
Question 39
Table 3: Interviewee Statistics 42
Table 4: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 60
Table 5: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 69
Table 6: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 74
Table 7: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 109
Table 8: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 110
Table 9: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 111
Table 10: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 115

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for E-Leadership Development 36

viii
Abstract
This study evaluated e-leadership and focused on the Business Directorate Managers
(BDM) at a research and development organization, where a new flexible work program was
introduced and implemented. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation and
organizational (KMO) framework was used and applied to analyze and validate the KMO gaps
and influences. The purpose of the study was to examine the knowledge and motivation of the
BDMs as it related to the interaction between the organizational culture and context. Qualitative
interviews were conducted and simultaneously recorded, then transcript analysis followed and
was used for data collection. The data gathered was used to analyze and ultimately validate the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that were supported in literature. This
study found that the BDMs did not know how to use, perform and apply Advanced Information
Technology (AIT) and were not motivated to have effective e-leadership as a goal. The study
also revealed that the organization did not provide sufficient resources to maximize effective e-
leadership with a flexible work program. As an evaluation study, the lack of an effective e-
leadership program revealed the organizational gaps in providing technology and training
resources, and gaps in BDM knowledge and motivation. In order to address these gaps, a
recommendation based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model with an implementation and
evaluation plan is provided.

Keywords: e-leadership, leadership, remote working, technology, virtual working
1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Leadership development is critical for organizational performance (Al-Asfour & Lettau,
2014; Bel, 2010; Carmeli et al., 2010; Day, 2001; Deschamps, 2005; Getha-Taylor et al., 2015;
Prokopeak, 2018). In 2012, United States companies spent almost $14 billion on leadership
development (Loew & O’Leonard, 2012). Leadership development was mentioned as both a
current and a future priority by over 500 executives in the United States, and two-thirds
identified it as their top concern (The Conference Board & McKinsey, 2012). Developing the
next generation of leaders was the top challenge for more than 1,000 C-level executives
worldwide (Global Leadership Forecast, 2018). Although more money is spent on leadership
development than any other area of corporate training, 71% of organizations do not feel their
leaders can lead their organization into the future (Brandon Hall Group, 2015).
Leadership spending and the value placed on leadership development by executives does
not clearly address whether electronic (e-leadership) should be or is included. While there is rich
and abundant literature on the topic of leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1984; Conger, 1991;
Conger, 2004; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Kanter, 2003; Kotter, 1990; Marta et al., 2005;
Northouse, 2015; Schein, 2017; Yukl, 2006), empirical research on e-leadership is still in its
infancy (Avolio et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018; Oh & Chua, 2018; Savolainen, 2014). The most
current and commonly accepted definition of e-leadership is defined as “a social influence
process embedded in both proximal and distal contexts mediated by Advanced Information
Technology (AIT) that can produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and
performance” (Avolio et al., 2014, p. 107). Accordingly, technology plays a central role in e-
leadership (Avolio & Dodge, 2000; Gurr, 2004). This study seeks to close the e-leadership
development research gap by addressing key attributes of effective e-leadership as it relates to

2
the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, and what an effective e- leadership
development program should encompass in a flexible virtual work environment.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Vertical Unlimited (VU) is a pseudonym for a research and development institution
in the United States. VU has a single headquarter office to conduct almost all its research and
development. Its mission is to drive advances in science to enhance innovation. There are over
6,000 employees at VU: approximately 4,500 scientists and engineers and approximately 1,500
business professionals. The business side of the organization is taking innovative leaps by
exploring a flexible work environment where the employees work remotely, away from the
traditional office space. At VU, over 950 employees or 15.8 % are working remotely (VU,
2018). Of the 950 employees, 395 or 41.5% are working remotely in the business segment (VU,
2018). Given that VU’s organizational context and mission is to enhance knowledge and
innovation, a specific focus for organizational performance should incorporate e-leadership and
development to reflect the organization’s mission. An organization that values leadership
education and development enhances performance (Getha-Taylor et al., 2015). Leadership is
significant to direct the organizational performance goals and impact commitment to a team
(Clinebell et al., 2013).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Many organizations offer flexible work arrangements, such as teleworking, where
employees work remotely, and the results are delivered to a business location through work
activities requiring information technology (Alsharo et al., 2016; Taskin & Bridoux, 2010).
Flexible work agreements are executed between the organization and individual, resulting in
individuals who are not physically in the same location, yet have the goal of completing a team

3
project, task, or initiative with little to no physical face-to-face contact (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;
Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Krumm et al., 2016). Theory and research posit that while the goals
of effective leadership have not changed, effective leadership in an online workplace requires
different skills and knowledge as compared to a traditional physical workplace (Avolio & Kahai,
2003; Kahai et al., 2007; Savolainen, 2014). Yet effective leadership online is a challenge
because of the transition from face-to-face (F2F) physical interactions to no or little F2F physical
interactions (Saafein & Shaykhian, 2013; Savolainen, 2014). Accordingly, given the growth of
flexible work agreements at organizations, it is important that effective e-leadership be evaluated
because leadership impacts the effectiveness of an organization’s performance goals.
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2025, VU will be an enhanced version of itself by having a leadership education and
development program that incorporates e-leadership and development in a virtual work
environment, where VU will be known not only for what it does, but how it does it. One of the
three main strategic initiatives from VU’s Implementation Plan 2025 is innovation infiltration at
all levels, which incorporates VU’s values, beliefs and character that make the organization
unique. Innovation infiltration can be achieved through open interchange, thinking differently
and exercise of imagination. The standard for successful achievement will be whether or not VU
is maximizing its organizational mission, given its culture that values thinking differently, by
incorporating an e-leadership development program. The degree to which VU is maximizing its
organizational mission will be measured by analyzing motivation, knowledge and organizational
influences through various follow up interviews and surveys.

4
Purpose of the Project and Questions
VU has a goal of being a leader in its industry, to be known for innovation for its work in
what it does and how it does it. To accomplish this, VU needs to integrate an e-leadership
education and development program. Thus, the purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree
to which VU is achieving its organizational goal of being a research and development leader by
evaluating how e-leadership is perceived and understood at VU. The analysis will focus on
knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) influences related to achieving this
organizational goal. While a complete evaluation project would focus on all VU stakeholders, for
practical purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are the business directorate
managers (BDMs). As such, three questions guide this study:
1. What is the stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation related to VU achieving the
organizational goal of having a leadership education and development program that
incorporates e-leadership and development in a virtual work environment?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context as it relates to the
stakeholder knowledge and motivation that either facilitates or limits VU from achieving
its organizational goal of having a leadership education and development program that
incorporates e-leadership and development in a virtual work environment?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to achieve its organizational goal of having a
leadership education and development program that incorporates e-leadership and
development in a virtual work environment?

5
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
While the comprehensive efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of
the overall organizational goal of a VU leadership development program that incorporates e-
leadership, it is important to evaluate where the BDMs are with regard to the performance goal.
Notably, the BDMs have the largest number of employees with flexible work arrangements,
which means the employees have executed flexible work contracts with the organization,
committing to work from a remote location, while agreeing to fulfill the responsibilities and
obligations of their employee role. Each BDM leads from eight to over one-hundred twenty
employees. At VU, approximately 950 employees are working remotely. Out of the 950
employees working remotely, 395 employees or 41.5% of the employees are working remotely
in the business directorate. Given that 395 out of 950 employees or 41.5% of employees are
working remotely in the business directorate, the stakeholders of focus for this study will be the
BDMs, who are the business directorate managers who lead the organization’s business
operations. The stakeholder’s goal, supported by the executive council, is that, by 2020, the
organization will evaluate current leadership education and development activities and have an
implementation plan that will address e-leadership education and development.
Definition of Key Terms
Advanced Information Technology (AIT)- The tools, techniques and knowledge that
enable people to participate in organizational activities through collection, processing,
management and display of data and knowledge (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio, 2014; Desanctis &
Poole, 1994). This researcher understands AIT to be the effective use of technology that enables
individuals to apply technology effectively.

6
Business Directorate Managers (BDMs)- The stakeholders of this study who have at
least ten years of career management experience and lead groups of seven to over 120 employees
in the business directorate of the organization. The BDMs are experienced managers who are for
the most part new to the having their employees work away from the office.
Digital Literacy- Digital literacy is more than just knowing technology, digital literacy is
the ability to understand technology utilizing cognitive skills to evaluate and perform tasks
effectively and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments (Alkali & Amichai-
Hamburger, 2004; Berardi, 2017; Ng, 2012). A digitally literate individual demonstrates skills
that allow them to adapt to new technology quickly and effectively while demonstrating the
ability to continue to expand their technological knowledge as well as an awareness of social-
emotional components (Ng, 2012). This researcher understands digital literacy to mean the
technical knowledge needed, coupled with an ability to decipher and make key judgements in the
application of technology in virtual relationships. It is in essence AIT, but an added dimension
of understanding the social-emotional components.
E-leadership- “A social influence process embedded in both proximal and distal contexts
mediated by Advanced Information Technology (AIT) that can produce a change in attitudes,
feelings, thinking, behavior, and performance” (Avolio et al., 2014, p. 107; see also van Wart et
al., 2016 ). This researcher understands e-leadership to encompass leadership, but adding the
complex component of technology, which impacts the individual influence process differently
than in a face-to-face environment.
Leadership- A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2015). This researcher understands leadership to be a
complex process with many dimensions, including a key attribute of leadership to include

7
understanding people and how and why they communicate and act the way they do, and where,
vision, direction and inspiration guide individual behavior.
Review of the Literature
Leadership is the most essential element for organizations to change their culture (Burke,
2010; Yukl, 2006). An organization that values leadership education and development enhances
performance (Getha-Taylor et al., 2015). Leadership capacity has its roots in three primary
arenas: genes, early childhood development, and adult experience; however, the characteristics
of effective leadership can be developed and taught (Connaughton et al., 2003; Doh, 2003;
Frank, 1993; Getha-Taylor et al., 2015; McCauley & Velsor, 2004). Since effective leadership
can be taught, organizations need to consider different types of innovative work environments
and develop their leaders with skills, attributes, and behavioral characteristics necessary to lead
their teams (Igartua et al., 2010). The organizational culture plays a central role where a culture
of learning and a strategy for leadership development can maximize organizational performance
(Day et al., 2014; Seidle et al., 2016; Senge, 1990). Leadership development, which could
include a combination of coaching, classroom instruction, feedback, and experiential training has
a significant impact on leader performance (Seidle et al., 2016).
Need for Effective E-leadership
Leadership is important, and specifically leadership development is important and should
distinguish the similarities and differences of key attributes of leading between the traditional
F2F setting and the virtual world (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2014; Igartua et al., 2010).
While the objectives of leadership (vision, direction, inspiration) have not changed, with the new
AIT, effective leadership in a virtual workplace is different and requires different skills and
knowledge than in a physical traditional workplace (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Avolio et al., 2014;

8
Kayworth & Leidner, 2002; Kerfoot, 2010; Pulley et al., 2002; Savolainen, 2015; Van Wart et
al., 2019). In fact, given the rise of organizations that have workers work remotely, e-leaders
must rely on various forms of AIT, including electronic communications (Avolio et al., 2000;
Van Wart et al., 2019). E-leaders can change attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and
performance (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2014). Yet the study of e-leadership remains
scarce and is behind in its practice, as advances in information technology at organizations have
surpassed the practice and science of leadership (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2003; Roman
et al., 2019; Van Wart et al., 2019). Van Wart et al. (2019) surprisingly assessed that there has
not yet been an attempt to identify from studies a comprehensive list of elements that could
constitute an operational definition of e-leadership that can be tested and refined. Moreover,
Roman et al. (2019) recently evaluated that given the dramatic shifts in digital progress in society
to date, it is puzzling that the topic of e-leadership “has received limited scholarly attention . . .
with fledging literature with macro-theoretical proposals” (p. 853). Even with the limited
empirical studies on e-leadership, the need for effective e-leadership exists. A tool to address this
need is organizational ambidexterity, which is used to describe an organization’s aligned
competency, ability, and efficiency, and is required given today’s business demands while
adapting enough to change for tomorrow (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Nosella et al., 2012; Wu
& Wu, 2016). This organizational ambidexterity is needed to address e-leadership development
in organizations. The ability of an organization to utilize and benefit from its competencies and
at the same time explore new opportunities represents the core of organizational learning (Rosing
et al., 2011).
Effective virtual leadership and the leading of virtual teams are critical for the success of
organizations (Colfax et al., 2009). Successful organizations require an openness to change. It is

9
important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relationship to the performance goal of
having a leadership development program that incorporates e-leadership development in virtual
teams for two primary reasons. First, technology continues to advance and evolve, yet e-
leadership understanding is lacking (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2004; Van Mart et al.,
2019, Tashiro et al., 2012). Next F2F employer/employee relationships have evolved into
reliance on digital relationships and presents different types of challenges (Avolio, 2005). The
real test of effective e-leadership is the ability of the e-leader to create a sense of community and
aliveness of its members, without the benefit of F2F contact (Wenger et al., 2009). Hence, e-
leadership matters, and its application must be incorporated into a leadership development
program to maximize organizational performance (Getha-Taylor et al., 2015; Igartua et al.,
2010).
As Technology Advances, Virtual Teams Will Continue to Grow
As technology advances, organizations will continue to grow with personnel dispersed
across global locations as traditional F2F teams are replaced by virtual teams (Ahuja, 2010;
Avolio, 2005; Cisse & Wyrick, 2010; Kirkman et al., 2004; Lipnack & Stamps, 1999). Research
also supports that, beyond a desire, there is a need to grow personnel in dispersed locations to
compete and survive in today’s technologically infused society (Berry, 2011; Guzman et al.,
2010; Siebdrat, Hoegl, & Ernst, 2009). Leadership and technology possess what Avolio et al.
(2000) calls a recursive relationship, each affecting and being affected by the other, each
transforming and being transformed by the other. As such, technology and leadership work in
tandem, in reliance upon each other reciprocating and relying on each other. Accordingly,
organizations must address what constitutes effective virtual teams to satisfy organizational
performance goals (Berry, 2011; Singhal et al., 2014). Organizations with employees who are

10
remotely located and form virtual teams have a competitive advantage because effective
management and leadership of virtual teams saves organizations money by increasing
productivity (Guzman et al., 2010; Siebdrat et al., 2009). However, conducting business in the
virtual world also presents challenges in terms of meeting an organization’s performance goals.
There are communication challenges, trust challenges, performance challenges, and job
satisfaction challenges due to the lack of personal interactions and dynamics found in traditional
physical F2F settings (Maynard et al., 2012). Yet through e-leadership development, e-leaders,
virtual teams and ultimately the organization can flourish.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge
E-leadership is a fundamental change in the way leaders and followers relate to each
other in organizations (Avolio & Kahai, 2003). In an online workplace, it is the technology that
impacts this relationship (Avolio, 2005; Kahai et al., 2007). A key concept of e-leadership is the
need for AIT, which are the tools, techniques and knowledge that enable people to participate in
organizational activities through collection, processing, management and display of data and
knowledge (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio, 2014; Avolio et al., 2000; Desanctis & Poole, 1994). E-
leaders need to know how to use, perform and apply AIT. However, AIT encompasses not the
mere use, but knowing how AIT affects leadership because leaders need to know how to
appropriate technology and understand how technology impacts leaders (Avolio, 2001). This, in
essence, is digital literacy, which includes the technical, cognitive and social-emotional
perspectives of learning with digital technologies (Ng, 2012, p. 1066). Thus, the literature review
will focus on particular aspects of knowledge and skills that influence the stakeholder goal of an
e-leadership development program.

11
Knowledge Influences. Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the significance of employees
possessing the knowledge and skills to perform their job as directly related to achieving
productivity goals. Knowing that e-leadership is different from traditional leadership is factual
knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) provides four categories of knowledge: (a) factual knowledge is
discrete, isolated content elements and the understanding of “what;” (b) procedural knowledge is
how to do something, the understanding of “how”; (c) conceptual knowledge involves complex,
organized forms of knowledge and relies on the individual to determine the relationships
between pieces of information through prior knowledge and is understanding the patterns and
relationships between parts of information, or the ability to link various pieces and stages of data;
and (d) metacognitive knowledge is awareness of and knowledge about one's own cognition, the
understanding of “self.” The literature review will focus on particular aspects of knowledge and
skills that influence the stakeholder goal of a leadership development plan that incorporates e-
leadership.
BDMs Need to Know How To Use, Perform, and Apply AIT for Communication in the
Virtual World. E-leaders need to know how to become competent in virtual communication
media, such as email, instant messaging, text messaging, video, GoogleDocs, and Dropbox, as
well as know how to use these media to develop the work relationships that are otherwise found
in F2F relationships (Avolio et al., 2000; Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003; Savolainen, 2014; Wright,
2015; Zigus, 2003). This is procedural knowledge. AIT advances in various forms of technology,
such as internet and email and is the key component that distinguishes leadership from e-
leadership (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio, 2014). AIT are the tools, technique, and knowledge that
enable multi-party interactions by collecting, retrieving and displaying data and knowledge
(Avolio et al., 2000). In the virtual world, communication takes center stage as the key to

12
effective performance (Keyworkth & Leidner, 2002). Thus, sharing and exchanging information
through AIT can be empowering to both the leader and the follower and can foster improved
virtual relationships (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio, 2014; Hammel, 2009).
Information richness theory suggests that communication media vary and physical F2F is
the richest medium (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Fan, Chen, Want & Chen, 2014). The concept of
lean media, which is where communication is not maximized because individuals cannot see or
hear each other, such as instant messaging, makes it difficult to manage virtual teams and can
negatively impact performance (Connelly & Turel, 2016). However, since physical F2F is not
possible with virtual workers, e-leaders need to tackle unique challenges in the virtual world,
which include instant communication availability, gaps in responses and misunderstandings that
arise from such gaps, a lack of common context to interpret messages, and a lack of a way to
observe or oversee team members (Balthazard et al., 2009; Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Roy,
2012; Snellman, 2014). Kerfoot (2010) discussed the communication planning and skills needed
for a virtual leader, which includes a plan to ensure that participants feel connected in
communications, such as virtual meetings. The e-skills needed for virtual meetings, include
establishing the expectation for follower involvement, distributing material in advance and
ensuring followers can contribute (Kerfoot, 2010). In addition, just as important is that the
participant possess a feeling of being connected to the team and organization (Kerfoot, 2010).
Yet there is also the concern of communication overload, which is exacerbated in the virtual
world because traditional F2F meetings are taken over by electronic mediums, such as excess
amounts of email (Rennecker & Derks, 2012). Therefore, an e-leader must be creative in her
solutions to address virtual communication challenges (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Van Wart et
al., 2019).

13
Communication can be both synchronous and asynchronous (Avolio et al., 2000). For
instance, an example of asynchronous communication is the nature of email, which allows time
and space, whereby e-leaders take time to create deliberate messages and a response may or may
not be immediate, whereas synchronous is communication in real-time, such as a telephone
conversation (Fan, et al., 2014). Virtual communication incorporates both synchronous and
asynchronous communication and can be challenging because of communication overload and
the “constant contact” (Avolio et al., 2014, p.119). Moreover, communication strategies, such as
active listening and being open in communication need to be understood to help develop stronger
relationships between leaders and followers in online settings (Savolainen, 2015). As such,
effective e-leadership requires adaptability to change and flexibility such that the e-leaders
effectively responds to the new rules of competition in the virtual world (Annunzio, 2001;
Kissler, 2001). Further, e-leaders need to know that social media or online communities can
greatly reduce perceived remoteness and positively influence the leader-employee relationship
(Avolio et al., 2004; Weisband, 2008).
Although the focus is not on e-leaders, but rather virtual team members, Morgan et al.
(2015) found that team members could build relationships in virtual teams but at a slower pace
than traditional F2F settings. More important than the method of communication is the frequency
of communication, which had the greatest effect on team performance, along with periodic F2F
meetings or teleconferencing, which improves relationship-building (Morgan et al., 2014).
However, inconsistent communication among virtual team members negatively influences trust
and cooperation (Morgan et al., 2014). Similarly, e-leaders need to be cognizant of AIT use and
communication as they attempt to e-lead.

14
Yet, just as in F2F work environments, e-leaders need to understand that communication
needs to be tailored to the recipient of the communication. Fan et al., (2014) conducted an
experimental design with a pre-test and post-test with virtual workers on communication
methods and styles. The research finding include that e-leaders needs to tailor their
communication methods based on the follower’s work behavior, as some employees require
specific instructions, whereas others do not (Fan et al., 2014). Specifically, e-leaders need to
provide appropriate communication, where specific instructions should be the goal with task
oriented work, and for creative work, positive encouragement is communication is needed (Fan
et al., 2014).
With regard to using, performing and applying AIT, the research associated with general
leadership is that the knowledge and skills associated with leadership can be taught (Conger,
1991; Connaughton et al., 2003; Doh, 2003; Frank, 1993; McCauley & Velsor, 2004; Murphy &
Johnson, 2011). As with sports or music and other performance competencies, the knowledge
and skills required for leadership can be taught and learned, and leadership studies is an area of
study in its own right (Connaughton & Quinlan, 2003; Ruben, 2003). While natural leadership
talents do matter, they are not as significant as being taught (Connaughton et al., 2003). Yet
while leadership can be taught, each leader should learn to apply a particular leader theory and
individually research findings in a way that blends with the individual’s own personality, skills
and values (Connaughton et al., 2003). Similarly, although there is no definitive literature on
whether e-leadership can be taught, a similar logic can be applied to e-leadership- that e-
leadership on AIT use, performance and application can be taught.
BDMs Need to Know How Digital Literacy Impacts E-Leaders. Digital technology is
increasingly delivering boundary-less work environments, where leaders play an important role

15
in knowing the significance of digital technology (Liu et al., 2016). BDMs need to be digitally
literate by knowing how different communication media interact in a virtual workspace and be
able to determine the relationships between various pieces of information. This is conceptual
knowledge. AIT advances in various forms of technology, such as internet, email, and virtual
teams (Avolio et al., 2014). The use of digital technology can either positively or negatively
impact e-leadership influence, depending on who the e-leader is and the e-leader’s mechanisms
for transmission and the technology being used (Kahai et al., 2013). The American Library
Association (2019) provides that digital literacy is “the ability to use information and
communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring
both cognitive and technical skills” (p. 1). Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2006) defined digital
literacy as a representation of a person's ability to perform tasks effectively in a digital
environment where information is represented primarily through a computer. Yet, digital literacy
is both technical ability and the cognitive and social-emotional ability to learn with digital
technologies (Ng, 2012, p. 1066). A successful digitally literate individual demonstrates skills
that allows for quick adaption to new technology, as well as an awareness of social-emotional
components that impact the individual and relationships (Ng, 2012). Thus, digital literacy is
more than just knowing technology; digital literacy is the ability to understand technology
utilizing cognitive skills to evaluate and perform tasks effectively and then apply new knowledge
gained from digital environments (Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger, 2004; Berardi,2017; Ng,
2012). It is understanding and creating a digital environment that leads to high levels of
leadership effectiveness (Roman et al., 2019). In essence, this is what Avolio et al. (2000)
examined, which is how e-leaders affect technology and appropriate and manipulate technology
to direct behavior. Once the use performance, and application of AIT is understood, e-leaders

16
need to make critical decisions about which technologies to adopt for effective use to their
impacted people (Liu et al., 2018).
In particular, an example of digital literacy is using Google G Suite. The technical skill is
using the Google G Suite, but digital literacy is the skill to critically evaluate which program
would be the most effective for a particular project. Another example is conducting an internet
search. Being able to search is a technical skill, but digital literacy is the ability to select the right
browser (Firefox, Explorer, Chrome), then select key terms, analyze sources, and possibly
determine potential bias from the search findings. Thus, possessing IT skills is not necessarily
the same as being digitally literate. The mere exposure to digital tools and technologies does not
equate to knowledge of how to use these effectively. In essence, digital literacy is leveraging
AIT that is appropriated and impacted by how the technology is interpreted by the user (Avolio
et al., 2014; Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006). In short, e-leaders will need to play a more
proactive role in creating knowledge structures that will enable maximization of AIT (Avolio et
al., 2000) and ultimately becoming digitally literate.
Avolio (2001), in a seminal article on e-leadership, stated that past leadership research
has not focused on issues of leadership in organizations where work is mediated by AIT. E-
leaders need to know how to appropriate technology and how technology impacts leaders, which
suggests digital literacy is a key component of effective e-leadership (Avolio, 2001). Technical
requirements have increased at all levels for leaders who are expected to be competent with new
information and communication technologies (Avolio et al., 2014; Groysberg, 2014). Avolio et
al. (2014) reassessed leadership literature almost fifteen years later. Avolio et al. (2014) stated
that the study of e-leadership remains at “very nascent stages of development” (p. 105), and they
suggest that it has actually widened in recent years: “Advances in AIT and its appropriation at all

17
levels of organizations and societies have far outpaced the practice and science of leadership.”
(p.105). In alignment with digital literacy, Annunzio (2001), in citing Eric Marcus, stated that
today, leaders need to be “digital alchemists,” a leader who turns a business that was created in
the Industrial Age into the Digital Age (p. 35).
In one of the few surveys on e-leadership, Pulley et al. (2002) surveyed 546 U.S. business
leaders across a variety of industries and conducted thirty-five follow-up interviews to learn what
these business leaders believed were important skills to be effective in the virtual world. They
essentially found that there were five paradoxes and dilemmas that was associated with use of
information and communication technology: 1) Swift versus mindful (information and
communication technology allows swift decision making, but this presents a dilemma of relying
on automatic responses, rather than taking time to consider a thoughtful response); 2) Individual
versus community (while there is increased autonomy, this presents the dilemma of how to
create ways to balance autonomy without feeling too isolated); 3) Top-down versus grass roots
(information and communication technology facilitates input into decision making from all
levels, yet there is the dilemma of how to decide when to use control, while increasing
collaboration); 4) Detail versus the big picture (the amount of information increasing, yet there
needs to be an ability to see trends and future direction, which presents the dilemma of how to
sift through the voluminous data, so that it is meaningful); and 5) Flexible versus steady (while
there is change and uncertainty with use of information and communication technology, a sense
of direction is still important, which presents the dilemma of how to maintain focus and purpose
where continuous change is imminent)(Pulley et al., 2002). These five paradoxes and dilemmas
incorporate the foundational thread of digital literacy because digital technology has added a
layer of leadership challenges to e-leaders, yet e-leaders need to be able to understand these

18
challenges, which is different in the virtual environment. Thus, BDMs need to know the
significant impact of AIT and be digitally literate to be able to make appropriate e-leader
decisions in the virtual world.
BDMs Need to Analyze Their Role in Interactions and Relationships With Others as it
Pertains to Trust in the Virtual World. BDMs need to know the importance of building trust in
a virtual workspace because trust is recognized as a critical leadership skill (Yukl, 2010). This is
metacognitive knowledge because BDMs need to have an awareness of and knowledge about
their own cognition to know how trust is used to develop relationships. Trust is the foundation of
almost any relationship and it of paramount importance in e-leadership (Avolio et al., 2000;
Avolio et al., 2004; Berry, 2011; Dirks, 2011; Guinea et al., 2005; Mayer & Gavin, 2005;
McEvily et al., 2003; Savolainen, 2015; Williams, 2007). According to Greenberg et al. (2007),
trust can develop quickly in a virtual environment, but it can be fragile. Yet, it is unclear whether
physical distance in a virtual world impedes the relationship between leaders and their followers
(Gajendran & Joshi, 2012). Gajendran and Joshi (2012) suggest relationships are developed and
trust is increased with frequent communications. What is clear is that there must be an
established trust and honesty between the leader and followers (Savolainen, 2015). Savolainen
(2014) in her virtual leading qualitative study of five large business organizations found that e-
leaders may need to make more efforts to build relationships with followers because of the
infrequent physical presence, missing body language, gestures and tone of voice in AIT.
Savolainen (2014) concluded that trust is paramount, as trust is the emotional glue between an e-
leader and follower, whereby in e-relationships, the interaction is what impacts the e-
relationship.

19
BDMs Need to Know the Nature of Networks and Relationships. BDMs need to know
that networks and relationships matter and are fostered differently in a virtual workspace. This is
both declarative and conceptual knowledge because it is knowing that networks and relationships
matter, but it is also conceptual knowledge because understanding the nature of networks and
relationships is complex, organized forms of knowledge and relies on the individual to determine
the relationships between pieces of information through prior knowledge. Conceptual knowledge
relies on the individual to determine the relationships between pieces of information through
prior knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Specifically, BDMs need to know that
innovation involves relationship ties because the subject organization is a research and
development organization where innovation is valued. It is knowledge based on understanding
relationships between individuals that are within their own unit and within their organization
(Tortoriello et al., 2012). Networks and ties promulgate innovation (Tortoriello et al., 2012).
Yet e-leadership is “a fundamental change in the way leaders and followers related to
each other within organizations and between organizations” (Avolio & Kahai, 2003, p.15).
Kayworth and Leidner (2002) in their study of MBA students, where twelve virtual teams were
set up to complete a task over a five week period, found that there was different emphasis on
leadership roles in a virtual setting as compared with F2F settings. Specifically, they found that
communication with team members, building and maintaining a proper social climate were key
to the effectiveness of the teams (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002). In knowledge and technology-
based organizations, such as the subject organization VU, research supports the significance of
networks and relationships in influencing innovation (Hao & Feng, 2016; Perry-Smith &
Mannucci, 2017; Tortoriello et al., 2012). But networks and relationships are impacted
differently in the virtual world, as opposed to face-to-face settings (Avolio, 2005; Fan et al.,

20
2014; Kahai et al., 2007). Knowledge and skills encompass understanding the role of networks
and relationships in fostering innovation. While there are challenges that virtual team members
face with relationship building (Chrisentary & Barrett, 2015), effective e-leadership require a
strategy of understanding the importance of relationship skills for productive work relationships
(Avolio et al., 2000; Jawadi et al., 2013; Savolainen, 2015).
Motivation
Mayer (2011) provides that motivation is an internal state that sustains goal-directed
behavior. Motivation prompts and instigates the learner’s engagement in the cognitive processes
(Mayer, 2011). Motivational theorists focus on beliefs and affective factors (Rueda, 2011).
Motivational research and theory focuses on three primary dependent variables: 1) starting
(instigating) new behaviors; 2) persisting (sustaining) in the face of distractions once started on a
goal and; 3) investing mental effort in order to accomplish goals that are novel and complex
(Clark et al., 2006). Thus, motivation is the internal drive that fuels individuals to perform.
Clark and Estes (2008) succinctly address these three variables or facets of motivated
performance as: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is an individual
election to pursue action, rather than delay or procrastinate. In the midst of this active choice, it
is persistence despite competing interests that anchors an individual’s decision to continue
toward the goal. Mental effort is maximized when an individual is challenged with a fair
confidence level. These three facets are the influential constructs that guide motivational
analysis. Thus, to determine the motivation of BDMs with regard to learning about effective e-
leadership, it is important to understand their motivation gap (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation Influences. Motivation can account for 50% or more in achievement,
whereby aptitude is not as important as effort and self-regulation that influences outcome (Clark

21
& Estes, 2008). Moreover, knowledge and motivation need to be analyzed separately because
motivation problems cannot be solved with knowledge solutions and knowledge problems
cannot be solved with motivation solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The primary motivation
theories that impact this study are self-efficacy, interest, and expectancy value.
BDMs Need to Possess Self-Efficacy to Believe They Can Learn About E-Leadership.
Self-efficacy beliefs are the self-perceptions that individuals hold about their capabilities and are
the foundation for human motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment (Bandura, 1993,
2000). People with high self-efficacy approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather
than as threats to be avoided (Bandura, 1993). Higher levels of self-efficacy also result in
exhibition of higher levels of performance and commitment when difficulties arise (Bandura,
1993, 2000). Moreover, possessing and improving self-efficacy may improve work experience
and ultimately strengthen collective or group self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Li, 2013). Setting
clear, concrete, and challenging goals provides greater opportunity to experience
accomplishment and enhances self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). As a result, perceptions of
confidence can positively influence learning and motivation (Eccles, 2007).
In the virtual world, leaders need to be prepared to e-lead with a willingness to learn and
re-learn (Annunzio, 2001). New e-leaders need to be motivated to learn and re-learn, be
motivated by a sense of adventure to direct people differently in the virtual world, and inspire in
a different way (Annunzio, 2001; Avolio, 2014; Avolio & Kahai, 2003). For example, while
emails are sent more often in the virtual world, there needs to be motivation to fully embrace
technology to reach out to virtual employees in perhaps different ways (Avolio & Kahai, 2003;
Hamilton & Scandura, 2003). Also, e-leaders need to be motivated to influence their people who
have great potential for generating social capital- which is the quality of relationships and

22
networks that leaders and team members form in their operating environment (Zaccaro & Bader,
2003). Moreover, e-leader use of AIT influences self-efficacy. This means that the more one uses
AIT, the more one can believe one can connect with others, which can lead to increased levels of
self-efficacy and positive emotions (Avolio, 2014). As such, self-efficacy is increased when use
of AIT is increased because, the more one believes one can connect and use information
technology, the more confidence is built (Avolio et al., 2014).
Accordingly, BDMs need to possess confidence to want to learn (Tannenbaum & Yukl,
1992). In particular, BDMs need to want to learn about e-leadership because e-leadership is new
to VU. This leads to the need to gauge the scope or level of self-efficacy with BDMs because the
existence of self-efficacy is not an absolute yes or no, as there are levels or grades of self-
efficacy based on a particular task (Bandura, 1993, 2000). Thus, self-efficacy will guide BDMs
to intentionally act and drive them to learn about e-leadership to positively affect the
organizational performance goal. BDMs need to approach the goal of e-leadership as a task to
master.
BDMs Need to be Interested in Being Effective E-Leaders. Interest is associated with
learning and achievement (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2017). Schraw and Lehman (2009) found that
activating and building upon personal interest can increase learning and motivation. There are
two types of interest: 1) situational interest, which is spontaneous, in the moment, transitory, and
environmentally activated; and 2) personal interest (or individual interest), which is less
spontaneous, of enduring personal value, and activated internally (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2017;
Schraw & Lehman, 2009). The relationship between short-term situational interest and long-term
mastery and learning is impacted by personal interest (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Yet situations
powerfully influence peoples’ state of mind and behavior (Knogler, 2017). Nevertheless, both

23
situational and personal interest effect learning because interest increases motivation,
engagement and persistence (Schraw & Lehman, 2009).
BDMs need to be interested in effective e-leadership by: 1) being present with their
virtual followers; 2) being interested in e-social skills and creating a sense of online friendliness;
3) being interested in a pleasant work environment; and 4) being interested in team building for
accountability (Dahlstrom, 2013; Fernandez & Jawadi, 2015; Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008).
Moreover, effective e-leaders need to want to be present in the virtual community to effectively
communicate emotions (Avolio, 2014). Presence fosters cohesion and personal engagement in
online settings where nonverbal conversational cues, inclusiveness, and perceived social support
in individual interactions may become lost (MacLean, 2008). The inability of leaders to convey
their emotions accurately or to interpret those displayed by others can make it challenging to
connect with followers and energize them in the virtual world (Erez et al., 2008). Therefore,
BDMs need to be interested in being an effective e-leaders and want to learn about what that
means.
BDMs Need to Value Effective E-Leadership as a Goal. Motivational theory addresses
expectancy in terms of whether an individual can complete a task and value in terms of whether
the individual wants to do so (Eccles, 2007; Eccles et al., 1998). Expectancy value is a social
cognitive theory describing motivation wherein behaviors are directly influenced by an
individual’s perception of their environment, themselves, and the behavior itself (Eccles, 2007).
The expectancy is influenced by the internal desire to complete a task. The task is the value,
which is a strong predictor of active choice. There are four primary categories of value: 1)
intrinsic value, where at a personal level, the individual perceives the task as meaningful; 2)
attainment value, where there is importance placed on the task by the individual; 3) utility value,

24
where the task is useful to the individual to satisfy a goal; and 4) cost value, where there is
importance placed on the amount of time or effort needed for the task to reach the ultimate goal
(Eccles et al., 1998; Eccles, 2007, 2009; Rueda, 2011).
In application of the four primary values, BDMs need to intrinsically value e-leading as a
meaningful task. Also, BDMs need attainment value where e-leadership importance is placed by
the BDMs. Further, BDMs need utility value, and place e-leadership as a useful task. Finally
BDMs need to place a cost value on e-leadership to place value on the amount of time that would
be invested for e-leadership. BDMs need to believe that participating in e-leadership learning
will positively impact the performance goal. BDMs need to believe they can do the task of
learning about e-leadership. However, BDMs need to see the value in e-leadership development.
To gauge the expectancy value, a proper analysis of the individual’s motivational influence
assessment must be addressed. A leaders’ vision, attitude and behavior in valuing AIT
significantly influence employees’ perceptions of the benefits of IT innovation, and consequently
the adoption of IT (Orlikowski et al., 1995; Purvis et al., 2001). Accordingly, BDMs need to
value e-leadership as a goal because e-leadership incorporates AIT.
There is also intrinsic motivation which Covington (1999) believes include three positive,
affective elements: 1) pleasure taken in the learning (the action of learning); 2) self-satisfaction
for completing the learning successfully; and 3) pleasure from what is being learned (what is
learned) all separate from external recognition or reward. These three elements of intrinsic
motivation further support the value in expectancy value. Intrinsically motivated individuals
engage in a task or activity because they are interested in it and enjoy performing it. This is the
Eccles (2007) expectancy value theory, emphasizing the value of whether an individual wants to
do the task. In order for BDMs to value effective e-leadership as goal, they need to possess these

25
three affective elements.
Organization
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the significance of performance gaps caused by
inefficient, ineffective or wholly absent organizational processes and resources. Even if there is
high motivation and high levels of knowledge and skills, if the organization does not provide
sufficient support, the performance goals cannot be achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Consequently, organizational culture is the most important work process because it dictates how
the work or job is accomplished (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 107).
Organizational Influences. Organizations engaged in leadership development discover
many influences that need to be considered as they design their approach and strategies to
develop leaders (Day et al., 2014; Dionne et al., 2014). E-leadership can be shaped by the values,
norms, and practices shared by organizational members and the cultural values from which they
originate (Avolio et al., 2004). The culture sets the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions and
processes learned over time in an organization and is the pulse of life in an organization that
influences all aspects of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017). In this study, a
culture of learning and a culture of participative and open communication facilitates leadership
development. Yet, it is a culture of trust that is the foundation of effective organizational
performance, and it is the trust that supports the confidence of employees with regard to the
organizational goals (Lencioni, 2004; Rath & Conchie, 2009; Schneider et al., 1996). Ultimately,
the organization needs to have an effective leadership strategy grounded in a culture of learning
and trust that defines the competencies required for success.
The Organization needs to Have a Culture of Trust to Develop E-Leaders. An
organizational culture of trust is required for effective organizational performance. Creating and

26
keeping trust is significant in virtual organizations (Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Trust is positively
related to effective performance and is integral to motivating a team (Joshi et al., 2009).
Research indicates that trust can be developed more rapidly if trust is demonstrated within the
team and if a sense of shared identity is developed and becomes an integral part of the team
culture (Iacono & Weisbond, 1997; Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Iconmo and Weiband (1997) found
that regular and continuous communication lead to higher levels of trust. Specifically, trust
begins with the relationship between a manager and a direct report (Krosgaard, et al., 2002).
Trust is developed through specific interactions between individuals as both parties begin to
understand the intentions of behaviors and actions of the other (Krosgaard et al., 2002). The
actions that engender trust between a manager and a direct report are behavior consistency,
acting with integrity, sharing and delegation of control, openness of communication, and
demonstration of concern (Krosgaard et al., 2002). Further, Buckingham and Coffman (1999)
found that managers are a catalyst in organizational performance. The authors measured four
different kinds of business outcomes: productivity, profitability, employee retention, and
customer satisfaction. In measuring the strength of a workplace, Buckingham and Coffman
found that organizations must hold each manager accountable for what his employees respond to
on a questionnaire. Accordingly, in organizations, all managers should be evaluated by their
direct reports to assess trust (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).
Trust, although difficult to achieve, is crucial when workers are dispersed and not located
in the same place (Staples & Webste, 2008; Yakoleva et al., 2010). In the virtual world, the tools
for instilling and developing trust is technology, where if used appropriately, technology is the
expeditor of communications that can contribute to building trust (Malhortra et al., 2007).
Savolainen (2014), through qualitative interviews with virtual leaders, specifically addressed

27
virtual trust building and found that virtual trust building is tightly intertwined with the need for
technical IT knowledge and skills. In a virtual environment, IT programs require communication
strategies such as active listening and being open, and IT programs help develop stronger
relationships between leaders and followers (Savolainen, 2014). Moreover, Iacono and
Weisbond (1997) completed a study with fourteen virtual teams of undergraduate and graduate
students in three U.S. universities on a three week virtual project, where the results of their study
suggest that high levels of trust were maintained in teams that engaged in continuous and
frequent interaction. Continuous and frequent interactions are key because efficiency is
maximized and achieved, where also the continuous and frequent social interactions seemed to
increase their work effectiveness (Iacono & Weisbond, 1997). Another aspect of trust is
providing an environment where diversity and cultural differences are respected in the virtual
world, as in F2F (Roy, 2012; Snellman, 2014). This understanding of differences and respecting
differences is significant component of building a culture of trust at VU.
The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Communication That is Participative
and Open. Schein (2017) provides that a culture is what a group has learned to survive and
organize itself. Learning occurs when there is a gap, longing or feeling of being disconfirmed,
and it is through leadership that learning occurs because power is used to direct behavior toward
a particular purpose (Schein, 2017). Thus, leadership is the key to learning because a leader
makes decisions about the allocation of resources and type of technology to be used and is
responsible for building a learning organization (Schein, 2017; Senge, 1990). Three broad factors
are essential for organizational learning and adaptability: supportive learning environment,
concrete learning processes and practices, and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement
(Garvin et al., 2008). For the stakeholder group to achieve the performance goal, the organization

28
needs to foster concrete processes. In particular, according to both Hewlett (2016) and Kaigh et
al. (2014) soft leadership skills like knowledge sharing, listening, and emotional intelligence and
hard skills like situation analysis, planning, and change management are lacking in organizations
today. Ultimately, this leads to a culture of communication that is participative and open and
lends itself to creating a sense of community (Kerfoot, 2010). This sense of community is vital to
create a feeling of “aliveness” by the virtual community (Kerfoot, 2010). Wenger et al. (2002)
also discuses the need to create a sense of community to address isolated individuals and to
provide supportive interactions, helpful relationships, and sharing of ideas and opportunities that
will help virtual members feel a sense of connection.
A culture of communication is one that embraces communication, is participative, is
decentralized and deformalized, promotes open and symmetrical communication and dialogue,
embraces diversity and facilitates involvement in decision-making (Grunig et al., 2002). In a
study of professional communicators in 472 organizations, 46% said one of the biggest issues
they face is educating and engaging leaders and supervisors in their roles in employee
communications (Gay et al., 2005). Also, Smidts et al. (2001) found organizational effectiveness
involved open communication and employees being able to speak up, be listened to, and
participate. The researchers concluded that how an organization communicates internally is more
important than what is communicated in terms of building identification (Smidts et al., 2001).
Moreover, Connelly and Turel (2016) researched emotional authenticity with virtual teams and
found that online communication could be perceived as emotionally authentic. This is significant
because their research suggests that people can and do form impressions of others on emotional
authenticity, even when they cannot see or hear the other person (Connelly & Turel, 2016). Thus,
organizational effectiveness is determined by how well the social and technical systems are

29
designed to align with each other and the external environment (Trist, 1950, 1993, as cited in
Avolio et al., 2000).
VU requires a participative and open culture of communication and must understand the
value of e-leadership learning and development. For this study, a culture of open communication
requires training the stakeholder group to understand their role as e-leaders in employee
communications. This group and their actions in communicating internally need to be examined
and improved through training and development.
The Organization Needs to Provide E-Leadership Development Resources. Literature
review suggests the need for strategic alignment between AIT implementation and organizational
change, where investing in AIT as part of the organizational change process is important to
leverage organizational change (Avolio et al., 2000; Dennis et al., 2008; Gilley et al.,2009;
Henderson et al,.2011; Holt et al., 2007; Roman et al., 2019). Considering that F2F interactions
are live, physical interactions without mediated technology (Dennis et al., 2008), key aspects of
F2F interaction are often weakened or completely absent, especially visual cues, the immediacy
of feedback, and a sense of presence of self, others, and objects (Dennis et al., 2008).
Accordingly, the organization needs to provide tools that increase AIT to address this concern.
Organizations commonly deploy AIT to support the efforts of virtual teams in accomplishing
complex tasks requiring geographically-dispersed expertise and resources (Avolio et al., 2014;
Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012; Kahai et al., 2007; Liu et al.,2014; Roman et al., 2019). However, VU
has not deployed AIT other than what is available in F2F. Interestingly, Kerfoot (2010) posited a
different and positive view of solely relying on the listening factor as it relates to nurses and IT.
Specifically, Kerfoot (2010; citing and supporting Dinnocenzo, 2006) stated that an advantage of

30
only voice technology is that the individual will not be distracted visually and can concentrate on
the content of the message, where focus on a high level of listening that creates “seeing.”
Ultimately, leaders are responsible for learning and for building organizations where
people continually expand their capabilities to shape their future (Senge, 1990). Organizations
that have a systemic approach to leadership development and continuously improve their
approach are better positioned to have leaders prepared for the future (Day et al., 2014).
Organizations must invent in knowledge workers, increasing knowledge, skills and motivation
and treating them as assets is key to success (Clark & Estes, 2008). As discussed previously,
Avolio et al. (2000) examined how technology affects leadership and is itself changed by
leadership, especially as it relates to communication with AIT. In particular, the organizational
influence is the need to understand that “AIT and the social systems in which AIT are developed
and used, influence each other reciprocally” (Avolio et al., 2000, p. 618). In other words,
technology is both a cause and consequence of structures in organizations. When an organization
is AIT- enabled, it creates a new context to enable e-leadership, where the product is real-time
information availability, greater knowledge sharing with stakeholder and the use of the
information and knowledge can relationships (Avolio, et al, 2002). It is the organization that has
the key role to enable the e-leaders to use, adopt and learn AIT.
The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Learning on E-Leadership. An
organization that values leadership learning enhances organizational performance, and its
offering of leadership development is vital to organizational success (Al-Asfour & Lettau,
2014; Getha-Taylor et al., 2015). In a study of public sector leadership development, Getha-
Taylor et al. (2015) found that leadership development programs can enhance employee
conceptual and interpersonal competencies and aid knowledge capital for the future.

31
Leadership education emphasizes the need of self-awareness to enable leadership
development (Getha-Taylor et al., 2015; Quatro et al., 2005). Specifically, for learning to take
effect with this study’s BDM stakeholder group, the organization needs to have a culture of
learning on e-leadership, for the creation of a systematic approach to leadership development. A
culture of learning fosters leader development and encompasses an understanding that leadership
education is adaptive and engaged.
In earlier years, organizations promised employees lifetime employment, and leaders
were brought up within the ranks (Watkin et al., 2017). Leadership development programs
evolved from instruction-based learning to learning what was more reflective, 360-degree peer
evaluation, and executive coaching (Wuestewald, 2016). Wuestewald (2016) found that
organizations that provide and support learning increase the likelihood of learner development
and success. Accordingly, it is a culture of learning that embraces and supports leadership roles
within volunteer organizations is conducive to learning, testing, and evaluating new methods of
leadership and skill enhancement (Gordon & Gordon, 2017). Therefore, VU needs to provide a
culture of learning on e-leadership.
A culture of learning manifests in a different way with e-leadership because the
integration of AIT is the backbone for effective e-leadership. Avolio et al. (2000) studied the
organizational need to integrate AIT. The use of AIT is based on how the organization integrates
AIT to build working relationships. Learning is predicated on the adaptation to AIT, which the
organization needs, and the learning will predict how successful or unsuccessful the infusion of
new technology will be in an organization (Avolio, et al., 2000).
Moreover, Annunzio (2001) discusses the significance of a different “e”- the environment
(as opposed to “e” for electronic) where building an environment with a culture that is flexible to

32
retain the best, and remain competitive in an increasingly complex, high-tech world. Annunzio
(2001) captures e-leadership to mean an easy flow, and where adaptability and expediency are
needed to bring about key changes to the way organizations work. E-leadership is ultimately not
necessarily solely about connecting technology, but connecting people. This is what the
organization needs- a culture of learning on e-leadership, which includes not only electronic
leadership, but also connecting people within its environments.
Organizational Climate and Trust. Organizational culture has a great impact, but so
does climate. Unlike culture, an organization’s climate is observable in its policies, practices, and
rewards, which capture a subtle psychology of the workplace (Schneider et al., 1996). Because a
climate is observable, organizations need to create a climate based on what is valued in the
organization and that communicates what is to be believed and valued (Schneider et al., 1996).
According to Schneider et al. (1996), the four dimensions of climate are: 1) the nature of
interpersonal relationships, meaning whether the relationships are sharing and include trust or
there is conflict or mistrust; 2) the nature of hierarchy, meaning whether the decisions affecting
work and the workplace are made only by top management or are they made with participation
from those affected by the decision; 3) the nature of work, meaning whether the work is
challenging, boring, or rigid; and 4) support and rewards, meaning whether the standards of
excellence are widely known and shared.
In applying the four dimensions of climate (Schneider et al., 1996), an evaluation will
address the degree to which they align with the values of VU. With regard to the first prong of
interpersonal relationships and whether there is trust between BDMs and their followers, an
evaluation is needed to address whether the perceived trust is actual. With regard to the second
prong, there is a culture of collaboration at VU that suggests there is sufficient participation in

33
decision-making. Again, there will need to be an evaluation of whether the perceived
participation is true. With regard to the third prong, whether the work is sufficiently challenging
also needs to be properly evaluated. Finally, with regard to the fourth prong, whether the
standards of excellence are widely known and shared also requires proper evaluation.
Consequently, this study will address the degree to which climate aligns with the organization’s
values. In particular, the scope of trust will be thoroughly analyzed.
There is an abundance of managers at VU. In particular, in the business directorate and
the specific group of study, the ratio of managers to direct reports is as low as 1:8 and as high as
1:120. The BDM actions and behaviors directly affect a direct report’s work experience and trust
in the manager. Similar to Buckingham and Coffman’s (1999) measurement of managers, VU
managers should also be evaluated by their direct reports. This is significant because whether
trust exists will be evaluated, which, in turn, helps to determine the strength of the overall
organizational culture of trust. The division stakeholder group needs to understand the key role
managers play in generating trust for the organization as a whole. It is through leadership
training and, specifically, engendering trust that organizational performance goals will be met.
Table 1 shows the organizational mission and goal, and summarizes the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences.
Table 1
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
 Research and development to maximize science and innovation
 Make critical measurements to understand effective engineering
 Lead innovation through developing our people
Organizational Global Goal
By 2025, VU will be an enhanced version of itself by having a leadership education and development
program that incorporates e-leadership and development in a virtual work environment where it will be
known not only what it does, but how it does it.

34
Stakeholder Goal
By 2020, the BDMs will evaluate current leadership education and development activities and craft an
implementation plan that will address e-leadership education and development.
Knowledge Influence Motivation Influence Organizational Influence
BDMs need to know how to use,
perform, and apply AIT for
communication in the virtual world (P)
BDMs need to possess
self-efficacy to believe
they can learn about e-
leadership (SE)
The organization needs to have
a culture of trust to develop e-
leaders
(Cultural Model)
BDMs need to know how digital
literacy impacts e-leaders (C)
BDMs need to be
interested in being an
effective e-leader (INT)
The organization needs to have
a culture of communication that
is participative and open
(Cultural Setting)
BDMs need to analyze their role in
interactions and relationships with
others as it pertains to trust in the
virtual world. (M)
BDMs need to value
effective e-leadership as a
goal (EV)
The organization needs to
provide e-leadership
development resources
(Cultural Setting)
Knowing that networks and
relationships matter and can be
fostered (D/C)
The organization needs to have
a culture of learning on e-
leadership
(Cultural Setting)

Interactive Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 demonstrates how Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO influences relate and interact
with each other. Culture, which includes the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions and processes
learned over time, is the pulse of life in an organization and influences all aspects of the
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017). The “e” is the environment, as well as the “e”
being “electronic” as it relates to the need of the culture to address “e” leadership.
The stakeholder group’s knowledge is directly impacted by the organization’s ability to
provide a learning culture because leadership knowledge and skills can be taught (Connaughton
et al., 2003; Doh, 2003; Frank, 1993; McCauley & Velsor, 2004; Murphy & Johnson, 2011). E-
leadership skills can also be taught. The stakeholder’s motivation is also directly impacted by
both the culture of learning and culture of communication to foster e-leadership (Al-Asfour &
Lettau, 2014; Day et al., 2014; Getha-Taylor et al., 2015). Learning occurs through leadership
when there is a gap, longing or feeling of being disconfirmed (Schein, 2017). Therefore, the

35
organization directly influences the knowledge, skills and motivation of the stakeholder group,
and, thereby, indirectly influences the stakeholder goal.
Moreover, a participative, decentralized and deformalized culture of communication
provides a forum of effective knowledge sharing (Grunig et al., 2002). Specifically, through
relationship ties, knowledge sharing drives organizational performance and ultimately impacts
the stakeholder goal (Koudouovoh, 2015; Leibold & Voelpel, 2006; Nonaka, 1994; Polyani,
1966; Tortoriello et al., 2012). Thus, facilitating effective knowledge sharing and motivation
requires this type of culture of communication and one that values innovation leadership that will
and impact the stakeholder goal.

36
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for E-Leadership Development

Maxwell (2013) defined a conceptual framework as the system of concepts, beliefs,
assumptions and theories that supports and guides research. A conceptual framework
encompasses the key elements that frame the study and justifies research that is created and
constructed, not found (Maxwell, 2013). Moreover, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) view a
conceptual framework to be narrowly applied to beliefs and specific theories of a researcher’s
framework. Thus, as defined by Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a conceptual
framework is a focused map that navigates the flow of purposeful ideas on the problem of
practice and helps explain various relationships through research. In essence, a conceptual
framework is a systemized repository of puzzle pieces of data that intentionally directs the
primary ideas of this study.

37
The KMO influences are analyzed through the literature review as it relates to the
stakeholder goal to evaluate current leadership education and development activities and craft an
implementation plan that will address e-leadership education and development. The organization
and the stakeholder group’s KMO influences and the literature review direct the conceptual
framework of this research. Each of the KMO influences are separately analyzed, but the KMO
are not independent of each other, as they are related and interrelated. The stakeholders’
knowledge and motivation interact with the organization. The organization has a powerful
influence on the stakeholder’s goal. Specifically, a culture of trust is the core of effective
organizational performance and is paramount to enable employees’ confidence with regard to the
organization’s direction and performance goals (Lencioni, 2004; Rath & Conchie, 2009;
Schneider et al., 1996). This culture of trust impacts motivation that could lead to knowledge and
skill growth in e-leadership development (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2004; Berry, 2011;
Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). Furthermore, organizations that have a learning culture and a
systemic approach to leadership development, while continuously improving their approach, are
better positioned to have leaders prepared for the future (Day et al., 2014; Schneider et al., 1996;
Senge, 1990).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Interviews
This study used non-probability sampling, which is appropriate to solve qualitative
problems, such as discovering what occurs and the implications of what occurs (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In particular, the non-probability sampling is purposeful because the study
purpose was to discover, understand and gain insight from a sample from the most that can be

38
learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study sought to gain information from a rich sample to
learn about the importance of the inquiry.
The BDMs are the primary unit of analysis for the qualitative portion of this study. The
recruitment strategy was to locate a list of BDMs who oversaw two or more employees working
virtually. After much probing, it was discovered that no such document exists. The human
resources staff had a document that included general statistics on the percentage of employees
who executed flexible work agreements, but there was no segregated data on which BDMs had
employees who were working from home. Therefore, this knowledge was sourced from
preliminarily questioning managers at all levels who provided referrals based on their knowledge
or observation of BDMs that had employees who were working remotely. Based on a list of
about fifteen BDMs, this researcher contacted BDMs by phone or email to provide the relevant
background of this study and to solicit a commitment to participate in the qualitative interview.
From the list, nine BDMs agreed to participate in the interview.
An interview is a data-collection method in which an interviewer asks questions of an
interviewee. The strength of an interview is that the researcher can freely inquire further or probe
further, unlike a questionnaire (Johnson & Christiansen, 2014). Purposeful sampling focuses on
the identification and selection of individuals with the broadest range of experience and
perspectives with regard to this study’s questions (Maxwell, 2012). Table 2 presents the
questions asked of participants.

39
Table 2
Twelve Interview Questions and its specific KMO category, along with Type of Question
Electronic (or “e”) Leadership:

a social influence process embedded in both proximal and distal
contexts mediated by Advanced Information Technology (AIT) that
can produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and
performance. (Avolio et al., 2014, pp. 107; van Wart et al., 2016)

1) What, if any, is your understanding of e-leadership?
(Knowledge-Conceptual)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton-Opinion, p.118)

2) Describe a recent event that involved e-leadership skills.
(Knowledge-Metacognitive)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Strauss, et al.-Interpretative,
p.119)

3) Could you tell me of a recent exchange as a leader interacting with
your subordinates who work from home?
(Knowledge-Metacognitive)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton, Experience, p.118)

4) How do you think leadership skills, especially building trust, in the
traditional face-to-face environment are different or the same as e-
leadership?
(Knowledge-Conceptual)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Strauss, et al. Interpretive,
p.119).

5) Describe how you see yourself as a leader. What do you think your
skills are as a leader? Do you take time to assess yourself as a leader
(reflection)?
(Knowledge-Metacognitive)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton, Opinion, p.118)

40
Table 2, continued
6) Describe you how see yourself as an e-leader.
(Knowledge-Metacognitive)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton-Opinion, p.118)

7) Do you think leadership development through classes and training is
related to your leader development in any context?
(Motivation-Self-Efficacy)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton, p.118)

8) Describe whether you believe all managers should be trained in e-
leadership.
(Motivation-Expectancy)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton, Feeling, p. 188)

9) Do you think e-leadership development through specific type of
classes and training should matter for individual leader development?
(Motivation-Expectancy)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Strauss et al., Ideal, p. 119)

10) What role do you believe the organization plays in leadership
development? Is there a culture of learning?
(Organization)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Patton- Opinion, p. 118)

11) What is the role of trust in your leadership? What is the role of trust
as an e-leader? What do you think that means?
(Organization)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Strauss, et al.-Hypothetical,
p.119)

12) Describe whether the organization provides sufficient resources for
you as a leader.
(Organization)
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2018 citing Strauss, et al.- Interpretive, p. 119)

Data Analysis
The qualitative interviews were voluntary, and the participants openly offered valuable
insight into their KMO influences. As the principal investigator, this researcher obtained each
participant’s consent to be interviewed and recorded (Appendix L). Each interview was recorded
on Rev.com, and a digital tape recorder was used as a back-up. During each interview, this

41
researcher asked the twelve baseline questions and carefully probed with many follow-up
questions to seek responses related to the KMO influences. This researcher took each of the
interview transcripts from Rev.com and gave each interview a pseudonym to protect the
anonymity of the interviewee. The coding was based on participant responses, and common
themes were extracted, including lack of AIT knowledge and use, low-to moderate motivation
level to learn about virtual leading, lack of value placed on effective e-leadership, challenges in
leading virtually, challenges in building trust and the degree of organizational resources to
support e-leadership. An excel spreadsheet was created to organize and capture the emerging
themes and sub-themes, along with documenting key comments.
Findings
Participating Stakeholders
Every participant or 100% of the participants possessed over ten years of general career
management experience. Five of the participants or 55.5% possessed more than fifteen years of
general management experience. Also, five of the participants or 55.5% of BDMs had solely VU
management experience. Six out of the nine or 66.6% of BDMs also oversaw more than 30
employees. Thus, given the general seniority of the BDMs, their responses were generally deep,
rich and detailed, where their examples provided insights and observations that were substantive.
Table 3 provides the Interviewee Statistics, with pseudonyms used to protect the identity of the
participants.
However, given that the BDMs were generally more senior, they were accustomed to
leading in the traditional face-to-face environment. This posed an interesting conundrum where
the BDMs accepted the direction of VU in having a flexible work program. Yet the majority also
did not hesitate to state that their preference was to lead in a F2F work environment.

42
Table 3
Interviewee Statistics
Xavier Eleanor David Allison Troy Nancy Yasmine Kent Dan
Org. mgmt
exp./ total
career mgmt
exp.
16 yrs/
18 yrs
23 yrs 15 yrs
2 yrs/
11 yrs
10 yrs
22 yrs/
12 yrs
32.5 yrs/
22 yrs
20 yrs 16 yrs
Total # of
personnel
managed
38 33 30 7 30 >120 9 8 35
Percentage
of employee
that work
remotely at
least once a
week
80% 54.5% 50% 85.7% 80% 100% 100% 100% 5.7%

Knowledge Findings
From the knowledge literature and the conceptual framework on knowledge, the focus for
this qualitative research study is understanding whether BDMs know now to use, perform and
apply AIT to maximize communication, understand how digital literacy impacts leaders, how
trust is understood in the virtual world and that developing virtual relationships is different. The
knowledge findings generally support a gap in e-leadership knowledge that is rooted in personal
long-term preference for F2F interactions.
Lack of AIT Knowledge and Theme of Adverse Perception of Virtual
Communications. Seven out of nine or 77.7% of the Business Directorate Managers (BDMs)
need more in-depth procedural knowledge about how to use, perform and apply AIT to
maximize communication in a virtual world. Out of the interviews, only two BDMs have
received AIT training. But this training was self-initiated and self-imposed and not provided by
the organization. The first interviewee that had AIT training was Yasmine, who oversaw nine
personnel and was a manager whose group was the organization’s first pilot group to test remote
working. As the manager of the pilot group, she initiated research on her own on the

43
organizations that provided flexible work programs and learned about IT programs that would
help facilitate leading virtually. She believes in leveraging technology to “maintain a cohesive
team, remain connected and connected to the organization.” To maintain connection and
oversight, Yasmine stated, “I have a software program with a dashboard that monitors activity
and whereabouts. It’s actually standard in an industry that uses call distribution software.” The
second interviewee that had AIT training was David, who is an IT manager of over 30 years and
oversees 30 personnel. His personnel develops software. Given David’s background in IT, he
stated that he took it upon himself to learn about the IT tools that would benefit his people and
for him to lead virtually.
However, the other seven BDMs did not know how to use, perform and apply AIT to
maximize communication in the virtual world. In tandem, there is a theme of an adverse
perception of virtual working because of the perceived limitations of virtual working with
communications. Eleanor, a manager of over thirty-three years, stated she really does not know
now to connect anymore, given that most of her staff is working remotely. “Often times leaders
learn a lot about what’s going on the team, just by getting out an walking on the floor and talking
with people. Can’t do that virtually. How do you walk the floor virtually?” She admits she
primarily relies on email and the telephone to connect, but she added that there are, “consistent
opportunities for miscommunication. Even in email, someone can read an email sitting at home,
and the can read it one way and the writer meant it another. Because that person is taking those
words that they are reading by themselves and they have a different feel or tone to them.”
Eleanor appeared unsure of how to communicate and interact in the virtual world. Eleanor stated,
“reading people is different now. People are multi-dimensional, so the leader needs to know how

44
to connect, so that there is no misunderstanding.” But Eleanor is unsure of how this could happen
in the virtual world.
Allison stated she fully supports virtual working and managed a group at her previous
organization, where all the individuals worked virtually. She believes one of the real challenges
of virtual working is that there is heavy reliance on the written word. “Because with spoken word
people are not normally remembering every word, they are remembering a sense of meaning.”
Allison suggests that the “sense” of the meaning is diluted in the virtual world, and there is an
attempt to address this dilution by focusing on words. She states, “in the virtual work world we
tend to re-look at the words and we’ll continue to interpret those words from email or jabber. So
I’ll be much more . . . concise in my language.” There is also a sub-theme of heavy reliance on
written communications. Yet this heavy reliance on the written word focuses on the traditional
written form and does not consider non-written communication through AIT, such as use of
WebCam software programs.
Even though Xavier acknowledged, “You have to have the right tools, understand the
various tools, WebExes, video webinars, share screening, how to pass the ball back and forth,”
Xavier also acknowledged that he only uses the basics of what he thinks the organization offers
(email, Jabber, and WebEx). Xavier stated, “But there are so many IT challenges (equipment
breakdowns, malfunctioning of internet, poor reception areas) . . . I have these problems
regularly . . .” Thus, Xavier acknowledged needing to have the right AIT tools, but he also
acknowledged the limitation by focusing on the AIT medium of the internet itself and equipment
itself.
Also, Dan, a manager of over 25 years and with two employees that work from home at
least one time a week, said there is really no need to know new AIT for remote workers because

45
young people would rather be at work in a F2F environment. “Young people (10 years out of
college) would rather be seen. They're up and coming, they feel out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Not
one of them took the flexible work opportunity.” From Dan’s perspective, the lack of AIT use,
performance and application is because his people seem to deviate away from working in a
virtual work environment and as a result he feels he does not need to know how to use, apply and
perform AIT. Even with the two employees that work remotely, the primary means of
communication are telephone and email. As such, Dan believes he does not need to know about
how to use, apply and perform AIT.
Finally, Troy, who has over ten years of experience and manages 30 personnel admits he
does not know about IT tools. “There could be some things out there that I’m not aware of, or
that might improve. And I think some of it is too, that people need to know, and maybe
understand the virtual tools a little better.” But he added that he doesn’t know how to use tools
that may be out there because he does not know about them. Troy seems to be unsure about AIT
in general, let alone know how to use, apply and perform AIT. He thinks there could be “some
things out there,” yet he is unclear what that means.
Not Understanding Digital Literacy and Theme of Not Understanding the BDM
Role as a Virtual Leader. Nine out of nine or 100 % of the BDMs do not know how digital
literacy impacts leaders. A digitally literate individual demonstrates skills that allow them to
adapt to new technology quickly and effectively while demonstrating the ability to continue to
expand their technological knowledge as well as an awareness of social-emotional components
(Ng, 2012). While two of the BDMs initiated learning about AIT on their own for their
respective groups, they did not seem to fully understand the role of digital literacy as it impacts
them as e-leader. In fact, all the BDMs suggested they want to align with VU’s flex working

46
program, but the majority do not know what that means. Thus, a common theme that emerged
was not understanding their role as a virtual leader. For instance, Nancy stated that she hasn’t
thought of herself as an e-leader, but a leader, whereby the notion of being digitally literate did
not cross her mind. Nancy, who voluntarily used the word “communication” six times
throughout the interview believes, “The two most important leadership traits are communication
and flexibility.” With virtual working, she added that “The first issue is really getting the current
leaders on board with the virtual work concept. She admits she’s “not on board insofar as
understanding the true need of virtual work.” She wants to “get on board,” but she’s unsure of
what that means and how she will get there.
Out of all the participants, David is the manager with the most amount of IT experience
because his people area almost all in IT and most of his personnel write computer code. David
did have a position on what it means to e-leader, “leading versus virtual leading is not different.
You have to be able to “listen, looking for unspoken thoughts.” He stated it’s not different in that
“you have to be able to read in between the lines.” But David also discussed different software
that he and his team uses. For instance, they use the Slack software. “Slack is the name of some
proprietary software. And some of the attributes or the functions it that it operates similar to
Jabber, but you have different communication channels.” David goes on to state that it’s a tool to
interact and share. “It’s sharing screens and then sharing a quicker way to write code and see
each other’s code . . .” Interestingly, he stated, Slack is “anti-email.” It is a way of
communicating that is much more than the limitations of email. Out of all the BDMs, David
appeared to be the most knowledgeable about the virtual tools AIT, and appeared to want to
embrace being digitally literate, but is limited because the organization does not provide virtual
tools or programs or an opportunity to learn more about such virtual tools or programs. It appears

47
that David is limited and not maximizing the possibility of becoming digitally literate because
the organization does not enable him to embrace all he could pursue because he has to seek it on
his own.
Lack of Trusting Followers and Themes of Fear of Technology and Trust Before
Working Remotely. While nine out of nine or 100% of BDMs know that trust is essential to a
working relationship between the BDMs and followers, eight out of nine or 88.9% of BDMs
believe more trust is needed in a virtual work. Almost all the BDMs suggest that trust is different
in the virtual world and add that perhaps more trust is needed when employees work from home.
Xavier believes there is a connection between technology and trust, where people, especially
long time workers who have been around have reservations about technology. He stated, “It still
is really old school fear of technology, fear of trusting their employees.” Troy stated that there is
more trust that is needed for his employees that work from home. This is because, “workers may
get more side-tracked working away from the office the trust is different in the sense of “I’m
trusting that they’re working on getting the job done.” As such, technology functions as a barrier
to trust for some BDMs.
Nancy, who manages over 120 people, stated “If trust is present, then one can flex-work.
Can’t flex-work if there’s no trust . . . The two most important leadership traits are
communication and flexibility. HR policy is [working from home] up to two days. [My division]
limits to only one day.” Her rationale to limit flex working is that since her group is a service
organization in program management, working from home is not conducive to the work of her
people. “Our folks are co-located with the projects and the folks get the team meetings within
their project team. They're just constant[ly] going there for actions or questions and whatnot.”
As such, trust is needed to flex-work, but the nature of the work makes her hesitate to permit her

48
workers to flex more, as permitted by the organization’s flexible work program. Even if her
employees are truly needed to work with others in a F2F environment, Nancy has not given her
followers an opportunity to demonstrate that it could be possible. Nancy has assumed that it
would be not be possible to work successfully from home more than one time a week, so the
possibility of working remotely more is not even an option to consider. As such, while her
rationale seems to support that certain jobs are not conducive to working remotely, she has not
even given her followers an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. As such, she does not trust
her followers to work remotely to maximize what the organization provides.
Several BDMs believe that trust comes before the leader gives the employee an
opportunity to work from home. For instance, Allison stated, “You must have a connection to the
employee and know the employee before trust can happen. Trust comes when you have “limbic
resonance,” which according to her “is the need to have the connection with the person first.”
Yasmine stated she has “100% trust in her group.” But this trust was already established. “It
depends on the relationship you have with your staff. I have a relatively small group of very
senior individuals that have been with me for decades.” As such, where trust was established
before the organization’s flexible work program, the managers appeared to be more willing to
offer their followers opportunities to work from home. However, if trust has yet to be
established, the BDM is often hesitant to trust their followers to work from home.
Lack of Knowing How to Develop Virtual Relationships and Theme of a Lack of
Connection to Virtual Workers. Nine out of nine or 100% of the interviewees believe that
developing relationships is different. Motivating followers and developing followers is a true
challenge in the virtual world. All the BDMs acknowledged the challenge of developing
relationships and motivating followers. A theme of a lack of connection to virtual workers

49
emerged. Nancy, who manages over 120 employee stated, “You can’t really motivate when you
can’t see your personnel. I wish there were mood rings.” The suggestion is that the leader cannot
“read” their people to properly assess a situation or the feelings or attitudes of their employees.
Allison stated that there is for “need limbic resonance- comfort level/connection with employee.”
She stated that this comfort level and connection is a true challenge to build if you never physical
see the employee. She seems to suggest that there needs to be a relationship at some substantive
level so that the leader and employee know one another. Moreover, Allison stated that there is
“difficulty with constructive feedback in virtual communication . . . I think often times when a
person is being given constructive feedback, it is softer to hear it in person than to get an email or
to get a written document.” Allison believes that with difficult news, it is better left to be
discussed in a F2F meeting. She reasons, “because they can see your expression, they can follow
the body language, intention is somehow transmitted, even without being articulated.” As such,
with discussing difficult news, she makes an attempt to reserve those communications in a F2F
setting.
Further, Dan believes virtual working is limiting to the employee. “[The employee]
cannot get the same recognition from home. “ Dan stated that for his team, “young personnel
want to be seen by the right people. You can’t really do that remotely for promotional purposes
and recognition.” Interestingly, the type of communication matters. Xavier, who leads a division
of thirty-eight personnel stated that virtual communication actually reduces barriers for
communication. “When I’m using informal communication tools like Jabber or instant
messaging, I tend to be less formal . . . but with email or over the phone it’s a little more formal .
. . it’s opened up communication because it’s lowered some of the barriers, where there is fear to
communicate.” To Xavier, the informal channel of communicating through instant messaging,

50
like Jabber, can facilitate communication informally for quick questions and answers. Yet, as to
developing relationships, he still prefers F2F because the meetings are rich with interactions.
Thus, all BDMs do not know how to develop virtual relationships, and even if they did, they
seem to stop themselves from actually building virtual relationships because they see the option
to meet their followers in F2F meeting, which they greatly prefer.
Motivational Findings
All the participants conveyed that they want to be good leaders and all seemed to care
about their role as a leader and the influential role that a leader possesses. However, except for
David and Yasmine, the remainder of the BDMs have not given much thought to distinguishing
between F2F leading and virtual leading.
Lack of Confidence to Learn About E-Leadership and Theme of Looking to the
Past. Seven out of nine or 77.7% of BDMs are not confident that they can learn about e-
leadership. For example, Eleanor, who has over thirty-three years of management experience,
seems to doubt that she can learn, but in order to stay relevant as a leader, she believes she needs
to figure out a way. Eleanor believes learning is important, but she is not quite sure if she should
learn or can learn. Eleanor stated, “Staying relevant as a leader is important. Learning could be
helpful for those of us who have really kind of grown up through the older style of leadership. I
think it’s important for folks that are my age to be relevant.” Yet at the same time she stated, “I
just can’t walk over and talk to clear up a situation.” When I asked her why even a phone call?
Eleanor responded, “It’s not the same.” Eleanor stated, “I’ve been a manager for over thirty three
years. I’m used to interacting in a face-to-face situation and walking down a hallway. It’s just
not the same with the virtual relationship. I’m not sure I want to learn more.”

51
As another example, Dan, a manager of over 35 years stated, the organization policy if
you are working from home is “to stay on Jabber and all that stuff, which I don’t think I even
know how to use that stuff.” He reminisced about the days before remote working and placed
value on the past, and expressed he appreciated the traditional F2F interactions. As such, he
conveyed a lack of confidence in learning something new.
Many of the BDMs are very senior personnel, and the majority interviewed are on the
brink of retirement in the next couple of years. Their understanding of effective leadership is
important to them as they knew it. But it based on the interviews, their understanding of e-
leadership is lacking as they lack the confidence to learn about e-leadership because they prefer
the traditional F2F leading.
Not Interested in Being an Effective E-Leader and Theme of not Wanting to
Change. Five out of nine or 55.5% of BDMs are not interested in being an effective leader by
being present in the virtual world and not interested in connecting with their followers online.
Five of the BDMs are close to retirement and see the finish line on the near horizon. Thus, there
is a theme of not wanting to change. They are not interested in learning something new and do
not have an interest in learning more. Also, they are not really interested in being an effective e-
leader because there is a limitation with virtual relationships. For example, Troy stated, “You
can’t really have an open door policy when employees are working from home.” The lack of
personal interaction is what he misses. When you interact, “there’s a benefit when you interact in
real person. If you work 100% virtually, you “never get to know or meet each other or something
like that. That there’s something that you’re just not going to get, I think. Even with folks that
work from home twice a week, there is still a missing component with connection.” Troy

52
believes there is a lost opportunity to connect and talk, “usually folks come into your office and
want to just talk or a second and bring something up.” But that doesn’t happen anymore.
Dan is not interested in connecting online. “[I] do not need to leverage tech, even if I
know it, because certain meetings require face to face [meetings].” He is not interested in
connecting with followers- “I’m not motivated to learn about IT.” Allison stated “in person
connectivity matters . . . when you are in a 100% virtual environment, it limited because even if
you’re fantastic, as an employee, I measure your performance by seeing everything getting done
in a timely fashion.”
Some of the BDMs do not have a desire to be present because they limit their own people
from virtually working and are not interested in learning. For instance, Nancy only allows
employees to work from home only one time a week, whereas the organization policy is to
permit two times a week. As another example, Eleanor, who has over thirty-three years of
management experience, believes learning is important, but she is unsure if she should learn. To
Eleanor, there’s a cost-benefit analysis to learning, which in turn impacts interest. Eleanor states,
“Staying relevant as a leader is important. Learning could be helpful for those of us who have
really kind of grown up through the older style of leadership. I think it’s important for folks that
are my age to be relevant. . . but have to look at the cost/benefit.” The suggestion is that that cost
of learning about new AIT with the time commitment may outweigh the benefit of knowing new
AIT because the change is not worth it.
Yet some BDMs are interested in being present to virtual employees. David is interested
in being present because he is motivated in keeping his top employees who have expressed that
virtual working has made them stay at the organization. “What can we offer? We could offer
flexibility, we could offer some work life balance. . . So that was retaining. Employee retention

53
and quality employee retention. I know the top 25% in the teams I manage really appreciate and
do not consider going elsewhere because of [the flexible work program].” David is influenced by
what his employees value and want. This employees value and want to work in a virtual
environment. As such, he wants to do what he can to incentivize his top employees to stay and
not leave to places like Google. Also, David is confident that he can learn in an online
environment. “My domain is technology, where there are parts of the software life cycle
development that require some sort of in face conversations, but it’s situational. . . . if an effort is
clearly defined, scope’s defined, the schedule, budget, and resources and all that stuff, then
virtual working works.” But if it is not, “I try to listen as much as possible. Then I’m looking for
people’s unspoken thoughts.”
Lack of E-Leadership as a Goal and Theme of Wanting F2F and Immediacy. While
nine out of nine or 100% of BDMs are interested in being an effective leader, seven out of nine
or 77.7% do not have effective e-leadership as a goal. All the BDMs want to be an effective
leader, but they also acknowledge that leading from a distance is a challenge because there is a
lack of direct “natural” interaction in a virtual work environment. Many of the interactions are
not impromptu, but rather planned with limited visibility into the multi-dimensional employees.
None of the BDMs stated that they have e-leadership as a goal. In fact, five of the BDMs have
not even thought about leadership being different when virtually leading. As such, some BDMs
do not have e-leadership as a goal. For instance, Troy stated, if all my employees were working
from home, “I would be unmotivated because there is a lack of personal interactions. Also, Troy
does not seem to want to learn more about e-leadership because his job of making sure his
people are trained is not happening, “training my people becomes a challenge because senior
folks are not around.” Troy also sees a problem because “young personnel cannot be trained [by

54
senior personnel]. They want to learn from the folks that are usually older, tend to like, to have
the actual physical classes.” Dan, who has over thirty five years of management experience, does
not value virtual working, and does not value e-leading because he has only two employees or
5.7% working from home. Moreover, he states, "Difficult with flexing is debating when lone
voice; difficult to make a case virtually . . . certain jobs are more conducive to flex-working,
including manager jobs.” Dan was referring to a key meeting where he telephoned into the
meeting. He was the only person on one side of a position and the remainder of the attendees
were on the opposite side. He was suggesting that he could not convince or persuade
convincingly on the phone versus what could have been in a F2F because there were missing
cues and his inability to see and actually absorb the room and its people. Thus, he believes he
couldn’t make a convincing case about his position and that negatively impacted people’s
perception of him. He said he wants F2F, and only in rare situations will he have a meeting that
is a virtual setting.
Moreover, the immediacy of addressing a problem is a challenge in the virtual world.
Nancy stated, “Sometimes Jabbering and phones sometimes works, but the ease of just walking
down. And it solved it in two minutes than waiting for them to respond in an email. The
immediate sometimes helps. Not motivated because something is lost in the virtual world.”
As such, to these BDMs, virtual leading is too limiting, and thus having e-leadership as a goal is
a lofty and unpractical notion. To Kent, the human factor is missing with virtual employees. He
misses the “chit chat and catching up.” He prefers F2F and tells staff not to work from home on
certain days. It’s easier.” He does not seem motivated to have e-leadership as a goal because his
preference is F2F because there’s a greater connection, yet at the same time, he does not value
considering what opportunities there would be with the virtual environment.

55
Organizational Findings
Trusting Followers and Theme of Control and Out of Sight/Out of Mind. Five out of
nine or 55.5% BDMs do not fully trust their followers to work virtually. Yasmine and Kent
stated that trust must exist first before he would permit any employee to work away from the
office. Scott and Alex clearly conveyed that they trust their employees. Yet the reminder of the
BDMs find the trust factor to be complicated. Allison stated she feels she does trust her
employees to work virtually, but she has been a manager in her current role for only two years
and her employees were already working from home. However, she observed that other peer
leaders do not trust their employees to work virtually. “I think control is a manifestation of fear.
Feat that I’m not going to look competent, that I’m not going to be the best . . . trust is a huge,
huge issue. The idea that a person has to have their butt in a chair in order to be working is,
frankly, insane.” Allison offered that her fellow peers have failed in this respect because to her,
working is not limited to the office and desk at the organization. Rather, work is about getting it
done by believing in your employees to get the work done and in essence trusting them.
Xavier is concerned because the organization has not addressed the notion of “out of
sight, out of mind” mentality and that such is connected to trust. Xavier stated he does trust his
employees, but believes the organization needs to remove the out of sight out of mind thinking
when it comes to virtual employees. He stated, “It’s remembering that I have people out on the
field, a virtual team and balancing the workloads there. That’s one of the most common
concerns that managers are discussing.” Thus, it’s a lack of “presence,” where presence is
difficult to gauge, where the trust to enable employee growth becomes diminished. Thus, while
he claims he trusts his employees, the trust is somehow indirectly impacted by a lack of
presence. Further, trust is also about access and the ability to reach employees and for them to

56
get back within a reasonable time. Yet to Dan, there is no difference between virtually
communicating and F2F, especially if there is not so much oversight. To Dan, trust is access
(ability of the leader to reach virtual staff). Thus, while there are some BDMs that trust and want
to let go, there is the concern of other BDMs who do not trust and have a tight grip on
controlling their followers. Moreover, the organization has not addressed the cultural trust as it
relates to the flexible work program because the out of sight/out of mind perception has been
insufficiently addressed by the organization to enable follower presence and follower career
growth.
Participative and Open Communication and Theme of self-Imposed Limited
Communication. Seven out of nine or 77.7% of BDMs do not have participative and open
communication in the virtual world. The organization does not provide a culture of participative
and open communication because the organization does not provide alternative forms of
communication, other than email, telephone and jabber. Almost all communication between
BDMs and their followers is limited to email and the telephone, and not necessarily jabber.
BDMs freely stated that email and the telephone are the primary vehicles of communication used
with followers that are working remotely. Even with WebEx meetings, while the camera option
is available, attendees almost always dial in, with no camera. Troy stated, “Non-verbal
consciousness is required, but doesn’t exist.” Troy only uses email and the telephone to
communicate with his virtual employees. He stated, “In the virtual world, you can’t read body
language,” so in order to address this problem, he would wait until the employee was back at
work so he could have key F2F meetings. Nancy also limits communication of her virtual
followers to email and telephone. Thus, a consistent theme that emerged was that the BDMs
imposed limitations on themselves insofar as vehicles of communication, such that it would

57
result in participative and open communication with their followers. Almost all the BDMs still
used email and the telephone as the primary mode of communication when their followers were
working remotely. This limits communication and in essence limits the participative and open
communication that is needed for effective e-leadership.
Resources and Theme of Deficiency. Eight out of nine or 88.9% BDMs do not know
what resources are available to them to lead in a virtual environment. The single BDM that stated
she knows the resources available to her as a leader is Nancy, who initiated a pilot program for
her group to work remotely and researched AIT programs on her own. David, who is the
manager of the IT, answered that while he initiated AIT software tools on his own for his group,
he really does not know what the resources that are actually available to him from the
organization. Thus, it appears the organization has failed to provide the resources of training and
explanation of AIT opportunities to effectively transition in leading in the virtual world. Nancy
sees the disconnect insofar as rolling out a flexible work program, yet failing to provide the
resources to leaders. She stated, “The organization says flex-work, but cannot increase costs. For
example, the organization will not provide a monitor or docking station.” David echoed similar
comments, “My team has software, but the org[anization] does not have the technology to bridge
the virtual world. The currently technology that we have at [VU] would be more disruptive that
just audio . . .At [VU] we don’t have the software. We can’t see everyone’s team consistently.
We’ll get there, but we are not there.” Thus, the organization’s lack of resources has limited the
ability of the followers and leaders to use maximize work and communication in the virtual
world.
Learning and Theme of No E-Leadership Training. Nine out of nine or 100% of
BDMs have had no official organizational training on what it means to e-lead and to be an

58
effective e-leader. With the exception of Yasmine and David who have initiated their own AIT
resources for their respective teams, the rest of BDMs only use email, phone, jabber and WebEx
because the organization has not provided any AIT training to learn about effective virtual
communication. While Yasmine initiated AIT training, as her group was the pilot group for the
organization to test the waters with employees working from home, she recognized that the
organization did not role out AIT training to leaders. But she believes it is incumbent upon the
individual leader to learn AIT on their own and determine what would work best for their
particular group that would maximize virtual working and the virtual working relationship. For
instance, with Yasmine, she has a lot of oversight over her virtual employees because has a
software program with a dashboard that monitors activity and whereabouts. With some other
BDMs, they expressed disappointment that the organization did not fully think about the flexible
program roll-out, where training and programs would be incorporated to maximize the virtual
relationship. Nancy, summed up many of the BDMs thoughts on this, “There is not enough
leadership training.” Accordingly, the organization has not provided e-leadership training to
maximize e-leadership performance with the new flexible work program.

59
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, the recommendations with regard to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences will be discussed. An integrated implementation and
evaluation plan is provided in Appendix D and the survey and checklists that are used in the
evaluation plan are included in Appendices E, F, G and H.
Table 4 represent all the assumed knowledge influences and their probability of being
validated. The BDMs’ knowledge influences address the scope and degree to which they possess
knowledge and skills of AIT and its soft skills component. The knowledge influences were
validated based on the semi-structured qualitative interviews of BDMs and supported by the
literature review. The knowledge influences include the conceptual knowledge addressing the
what and how with procedural knowledge and the self with metacognitive knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002). Table 4 provides the influences that were validated along with the
recommendations based on theoretical principles.

60
Table 4
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated as a
Gap? Yes,
High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
BDMs need to
know how to
use, perform,
and apply AIT
for
communication
in the virtual
world (P)
V Y Social interaction,
cooperative learning,
and cognitive
apprenticeships (such
as reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction
of new knowledge
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006)
(Sociocultural)

Provide in-house training
workshops in IT programs
with opportunities for
demonstration and practice
of new programs that
incorporate
communication strategies
with simulated exchanges
to increase knowledge in
digital literacy.
Incorporate testimonials
from BDMs who know
how to use, perform and
apply AIT. Obtain
instructor feedback on
such demonstration and
practice.

BDMs need to
know how
digital literacy
impacts e-
leaders (C)

V

Y

Effective observational
learning is achieved by
first organizing and
rehearsing modeled
behaviors, then
enacting it overtly
(Bandura, 2005).
(Social Cognitive)

Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
(IPT)

Provide in-house training
workshops on how digital
literacy impacts leaders
with case studies with
models of effective e-
leaders discussing actual
experiences, with
instructor feedback, and
provide exemplars of a
digitally literate e-leader

61
Table 4, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated as a
Gap? Yes,
High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

BDMs need to
analyze their
role in
interactions and
relationships
with others as it
pertains to trust
in the virtual
world. (M)

V

Y

The use of
metacognitive strategies
assists in becoming
self-regulated (Baker,
2006)
(Information Processing
Theory)

Provide in-house training
in small group sessions
where BDMs analyze their
role in interactions and
relationships with others
on the topic of trust,
provide opportunities for
self-reflection, and reflect
on experiences in building
trust F2F and virtually,
while also providing
recommendations for
methods to build trust in a
virtual world. Incorporate
testimonials from BDMs
who have successfully
build this trust.
BDMs need to
know the nature
of networks and
relationships (D-
C)
V Y Social interaction,
cooperative learning,
and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as
reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction
of new knowledge.
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006)
(Sociocultural)
Provide in-house
information and training in
small group sessions to
analyze what networks and
relationships are in the
virtual world and discuss
and examine actual
networks and
relationships, especially as
it relates to online
presence. Demonstrate
approaches to building
networks and
relationships. Incorporate
testimonials from BDMs
who have successfully
developed such networks
and relationships.

62
BDMs Need to Know How to Use, Perform, and Apply IT Programs for Communication in the
Virtual World (P) (Sociocultural)
The results and findings indicated that seven of the BDMs need more in-depth procedural
knowledge about how to use, perform and apply IT programs to maximize communication in a
virtual world. BDMs need to know how to use IT to be effective e-leaders. A recommendation is
based on Sociocultural Theory. Social interaction, cooperative learning, and cognitive
apprenticeships (such as reciprocal teaching) facilitate construction of new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006). This suggests that providing learners with a training environment with other
BDMs where there is interaction and learning on how to use and apply IT computer programs,
along with teaching each other what they know, will enhance construction of new knowledge.
The recommendation then is to provide training workshops in IT software programs with
opportunities for cooperative learning with simulated exchanges. In these workshops BDMs
would practice new programs that incorporate communication strategies to increase knowledge
of IT programs. BDMs should also obtain instructor feedback on such demonstration and
practice. Thus, training workshops which incorporate cooperative learning, along with instructor
feedback, will increase in-depth procedural knowledge.
Leaders need to know how to appropriate technology to produce attitudes and influence
changes in followers’ performance (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2014; Avolio et al., 2009;
Kahai et al., 2007). An effective leader appropriates and leverages IT to influence the follower to
also become knowledgeable about using IT (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2014). Effective e-
leaders need to know how to become competent in the virtual communication mediums such as
email, instant messaging, text messaging, video, GoogleDocs, and Dropbox (Avolio et al., 2000;
Savolainen, 2015; Wright, 2015). Savolainen (2015) in a qualitative study interviewing five e-

63
leaders specifically addressed virtual trust building, but found that virtual trust building is tightly
intertwined with necessity of knowing technical IT skills. In a virtual environment, IT programs
are required for communication strategies such as active listening and being open (as opposed to
being withdrawn), and IT programs help develop stronger relationships between leaders and
followers (Savolainen, 2015). This evidence supports why BDMs need to become proficient in
IT programs through IT training workshops that will provide knowledge in the use, performance
and application of IT programs.
BDMs Need to Know How Digital Literacy Impacts E-Leaders (C; Social Cognitive and
Information Processing Theory)
The results and findings indicated that all of the BDMs do not know how digital literacy
impacts leaders. Digital literacy is more than just knowing technology because digital literacy is
the ability to understand technology utilizing cognitive skills to evaluate and perform tasks
effectively and actually apply new knowledge gained from digital environments (Alkali &
Amichai-Hamburger, 2004; Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006)). BDMs need more in-depth
declarative knowledge about how their actions or inactions in using IT and becoming digitally
literate influences their followers’ use of IT and becoming digitally literate. A recommendation
based on both Social Cognitive Theory and Information Processing Theory has been selected to
close this procedural knowledge gap. Bandura (2005) posited that effective observational
learning is achieved by first organizing and rehearsing modeled behaviors, then enacting it
overtly. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) provided that information learned meaningfully and
connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with prior learning. Thus, the recommendation is to provide training
workshops on how digital literacy impacts leaders with case studies with models of effective e-

64
leaders discussing actual experiences, with instructor feedback, and provide exemplars of a
digitally literate e-leaders.
Leaders interacting in the virtual world vary in effectiveness depending on how leaders
facilitate interactions based on IT (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2014; Avolio et al., 2009;
Kahai et al., 2007). The facilitation of interactions via IT embody knowing IT programs, but it is
more than knowing the IT programs (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2014) Effective e-leaders
not only adopt technology, but they make critical choices about which technologies to adopt for
effective use, where is a distinction between technology adoption and quality of technology
(Avolio et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018; Van Wart et al., 2017). In other words, the adoption of
technology is only the first step because use of the adopted technology depends on the e-leader
who will effectively use and integrate new technology for productivity and communication
(Avolio et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018). As such, BDMs need to know how leadership is impacted
in the virtual world, where BDMs will need to take into consideration how to use and select
technology to inform, monitor, and make decisions (Avolio, 2001; Avolio et al., 2000). It is the
BDM’s demonstration of IT knowledge and their ability to critically analyze IT use that impacts
the followers. This evidence supports that BDMs need to understand digital literacy to be
effective leaders.
BDMs Need to Analyze Their Role in Interactions and Relationships With Others as it
Pertains to Trust in the Virtual World (Metacognitive; Information Processing Theory)
The results and findings indicated that, while all of BDMs know that trust is essential to a
working relationship between the BDMs and followers, eight BDMs believe more trust is needed
in a virtual work environment. BDMs need to understand why trust is important in a virtual work
environment and that more trust is not required in a virtual environment. A recommendation

65
based on information processing theory has been selected to close this metacognitive knowledge
gap. Baker (2006) found that use of metacognitive strategies assists in becoming self-regulated.
Given that the organization has pursued flexible work arrangements with its employees, BDMs
need to learn that this change in the work environment does not necessarily mean there is a
change in trust. Providing BDMs an opportunity to analyze their own actions and reflect on their
own behaviors would support their development. The recommendation is to provide training in
small group sessions where BDMs analyze their role in interactions on the topic of trust, provide
opportunities for self-reflection, and reflect on shared experiences in building trust F2F and
virtually, while also providing recommendations for methods to build trust in a virtual world.
Trust is the foundation of almost any relationship and it of paramount importance in e-
leadership (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2004; Berry, 2011; Dirks, 2011; Guinea et al.,
2005; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; McEvily et al., 2003; Williams, 2007). According to Greenberg et
al. (2007), trust can develop quickly in a virtual environment, but it can be fragile. Savlavian
(2015) found in her study that to establish trust, knowing how to use technology improved trust
because the skills required the e-leader to mediate receive and interact with their followers
(Savlavian, 2015). The evidence supports that while the development of trust may be different in
the virtual world, trust is ultimately still the lifeblood of working relationships.
BDMs Need to Know the Nature of Networks and Relationships (D-C; Sociocultural)
The results indicated that all of the interviewees believe that motivating followers and
developing followers is a true challenge in the virtual world. BDMs need conceptual knowledge
about networks and relationships in a virtual work environment. A recommendation based on
sociocultural theory has been selected to close this conceptual knowledge gap. Scott and
Palincsar (2006) found that social interaction, cooperative learning, and cognitive

66
apprenticeships (such as reciprocal teaching) facilitate construction of new knowledge. The
recommendation is to provide information and training in small group sessions to analyze what
networks and relationships are in the virtual world and discuss and examine actual networks and
relationships. Instructors can encourage BDMs to interact with one another and demonstrate
approaches to building networks and relationships. Specifically, in order to effectively address
the development of networks and relationships, online presence should be explored.
E-leadership fundamentally alters how leaders and followers interact with each other
(Avolio & Kahai, 2003). In knowledge and technology-based organizations, research supports
the significance of networks and relationships in influencing innovation (Hao & Feng, 2016;
Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Tortoriello et al., 2012). However, networks and relationships
are impacted differently in the virtual world, as opposed to face-to-face settings (Avolio, 2005;
Fan et al., 2014; Kahai et al., 2007). Conceptual knowledge with regard to understanding the
value of networks and relationships by BDMs is a challenge in this study. While virtual team
members face challenges with relationship building, successful building of relationships can
occur (Chrisentary & Barrett, 2015).
Online presence literature on teaching is rich and provides guidance for BDMs. Some of
the following attributes that are relevant to have presence in an online environment to strengthen
networks and relationships and include: 1) setting the tone; 2) feedback as a communication
strategy and knowing how to connect; and 3) sharing a communication strategy (Garrison et al.,
2000; Richardson, et al., 2015; Sheridan & Kelly, 2010; Stone & Chapman, 2006; Vesely et al.,
2007). Richardson et al. (2015) in their exploratory case study research considered the
perspectives of thirteen instructors teaching in an online master’s program at a large Midwestern
public university.

67
First, their findings revealed and confirmed past research that by setting an approachable
and friendly tone through use of announcements and course biographies contributed to online
presence (Garrison et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 2015). Similarly, BDMs could also set the tone
to connect to their followers by establishing ground rules for communication and sharing their
work background.
Next, feedback as a communication strategy was significant because of the need to
provide feedback to discuss areas of improvement (Richardson et al., 2015). A theme that
emerged with the study of Richardson et al. (2015) was the importance of a communication
strategy, where the instructors viewed their feedback to students as a communication strategy.
The feedback demonstrated care and provided an opportunity to provide encouragement.
However, the degree of feedback depended on the students. For example, discussing and
improving score required more feedback with at risk students, whereas adept students received
positive reinforcement (Richardson et al., 2015). As such, BDMs should set a communication
strategy with their followers to create a sense of presence and ultimately develop their
relationships with their followers.
Finally, the sharing of a communication strategy establishes an understanding of expected
conduct online. Research supports that students felt instructor presence was an important aspect
of learning and want instructors that are available, provide feedback, listen to concerns and guide
them (Sheridan & Kelly, 2010; Vesely et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 2015). Similarly, BDMs
should establish a communication strategy to help foster their online relationship with their
followers and help their followers grow professionally.

68
Motivation Recommendations
The motivation influences in Table 5 represents all the assumed motivation and their
probability of being validated. The motivation influences by the BDMs address the scope and
degree to which BDMs possess motivation. The motivation influences were validated based on
the semi-structured qualitative interviews of BDMs, and supported literature review. BDMs need
to believe in achieving the task as well as to believe in their own abilities to succeed (Eccles,
2006; Pajares, 2006). Rueda (2011) adds that although knowledge of how to do something exists
that this does not mean that there is a will or want to do something. As such, the motivation
influences of self-efficacy, interest and expectancy value are examined. With self-efficacy,
strong self-efficacy beliefs motivate individuals to select and perform challenging tasks and
prioritize task completion over other competing alternatives (Pajares, 2006). With interest,
activating and building upon personal interest can increase learning and motivation (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009). With expectancy value, motivation is improved when the learners possess
positive expectancy or assumptions on doing well (Pajares, 2006). Table 5 provides the
influences that were validated, along with the recommendations based on theoretical principles.

69
Table 5
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

BDMs need to possess
self-efficacy to believe
they can learn about e-
leadership (SE)

V

Y

High self-efficacy
can positively
influence motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

Modeling and
feedback increases
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

Provide in-house training
sessions where BDMs
believe they are capable
of learning what is being
taught by seeing models
of successful e-leaders
and showing similarities
between BDMs and e-
leaders who have been
successful. BDMs should
be provided
opportunities after
training and instructor
feedback to learn the
more challenging AIT
with other BDMs that
have been successful.

BDMs need to be
interested in being an
effective e-leader
(INT)
V Y Activating and
building upon
personal interest can
increase learning and
motivation (Schraw
& Lehman, 2009).
Provide in-house training
sessions incorporating
engaging IT source
materials. Have the
instructor model interest
and provide models of
successful e-leaders.
Be explicit about the
value and relevance of
AIT.
Provide opportunities for
choice and control on
types of AIT.

BDMs need to value
effective e-leadership
as a goal (EV)
V Y Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of
the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
Provide in-house training
sessions, where the IT
software exercises are
clear and challenging,
but doable. Instructors
should provide accurate
but high expectations
and perceptions of
competence.

70
BDMs Need to Possess Self-Efficacy to Believe They Can Learn About E-Leadership (SE)
Seven out of nine BDMs are not confident that they can learn about e-leadership. A
recommendation rooted in self-efficacy theory has been selected to close this motivation gap.
Modeling and feedback increases self-efficacy and high self-efficacy can positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006). Moreover, Pajares (2006) posited that “learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success.” The recommendation then is to
provide IT training sessions that incorporate practice, modeling and positive feedback. BDMs
need to believe they are capable of learning what is being taught by seeing models of successful
e-leaders and showing similarities between BDMs and e-leaders who have been successful.
Training and instructor feedback will also provide opportunities for BDMs to learn more
challenging IT programs with other successful BDMs. These training sessions for BDMs will
improve communication and strengthen self-efficacy.
Motivation is an internal state that sustains goal directed behavior (Mayer, 2011). Clark
and Estes (2008) provide that there are three facets of motivated performance: 1) active choice;
2) persistence; and 3) mental effort. Self-efficacy influences motivation whereby beliefs are the
self-perceptions that individuals hold about their capabilities and are the foundation for human
motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment (Bandura, 1993).
As it relates to e-leadership, Avolio et al. (2004) found that self-efficacy increased with
user familiarity with IT. The more individuals familiarize themselves with IT and use of
mediums, such as the internet, the more they believe then can connect with others (Avolio,
2004). E-leaders need to be motivated by a sense of adventure to direct people differently in the
virtual world and be motivated to inspire in a different way (Annunzio, 2001; Avolio, 2014;
Avolio & Kahai, 2003). Hsu, Hou and Fan (2011) prepared a study examining the relationships

71
among creative self-efficacy, optimism, and innovative behavior. While their study was not
directly on point as it relates to e-leadership, they did study the role of innovative behavior,
which includes e-leading behavior. They collected data from 120 spa employees of a diet and
beauty salon company in Taiwan and found that employees with a high level of creative self-
efficacy demonstrate a high level of innovative behavior at work (Hsu, Hou & Fan (2011).
Moreover, optimism plays a moderating role as it relates to innovative behavior. Hsu, Hou & Fan
(2011) ultimately found that employees' creative self-efficacy is high, those with greater
optimism exhibit greater innovative behavior at work. Both Avoilio et al. (2004) and Hsu, Hou
and Fan (2011) suggest increasing BDM self-efficacy in learning IT would increase potential
approaches to virtual leading.
BDMs Need to be Interested in Being an Effective E-Leader by Being Present in the Virtual
World (Interest)
Five out of nine BDMs are not interested in being an effective leader by being present in
the virtual world and not interested in connecting with their followers online. This in turn means
lacking interest in learning about IT programs, which can facilitate “presence” in the virtual
world. A recommendation based on interest theory has been selected to close this motivation
gap. Schraw & Lehman (2009) found that activating and building upon personal interest can
increase learning and motivation. The suggestion is to direct the BDM personal interest of being
an effective leader by showing the connection of how being present in the virtual world makes a
BDM an effective leader. Personal interest can be activated by providing choices of relevant IT
programs and permitting BDMs to exercise some control and discretion over selecting such
programs. In the training sessions, incorporate real-life, original IT source materials that are
bright and engaging. Further, the instructor should model enthusiasm or interest, with an explicit

72
discussion about the value and relevance of learning IT programs in their role as a leader.
Moreover, there should be models of successful e-leaders and what can be accomplished with
connecting with followers online. As such, these approaches of activating personal interest by
providing BDMs choice and control, showing the connection between IT training and effective
leadership, and incorporating modeling of effective e-leaders can all increase interest.
Effective e-leaders need to want to “be present” within the virtual community to
effectively communicate in general and specifically to communicate emotions (Avolio, 2014).
Presence fosters cohesion and personal engagement in online settings where nonverbal
conversational cues, inclusiveness, and perceived social support in individual interactions may
become lost (MacLean, 2008). Interest is generated when there is explicit value and relevance of
the learning task for the learner (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). By providing the relevance of how
being present in an online environment is valuable in their role as a e-leader, it would appear
then, that increasing interest in being present in the virtual world is linked to being an effective e-
leader.
BDMs Need to Value Effective E-Leadership as a Goal (Expectancy Value)
While all BDMs are interested in being an effective leader, approximately seven BDMs
do not have effective e-leadership as a goal. A recommendation based on expectancy value
theory has been selected to close this motivation gap. Expectancy value is a social cognitive
theory describing motivation, where behaviors are directly influenced by an individual’s
perception of their environment, themselves, and the behavior itself (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
Pajares (2006) found that there is improved learning and motivation when the learners possess
positive expectancy or assumptions on doing well. It has been found that rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop

73
positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). The training sessions should provide BDMs
opportunities to maintain high expectations and perception of ability. The BDMs should be
assigned challenging, but "doable" exercises in IT software where there is clear instruction. This
type of instruction provides accurate information with high expectations and perceptions of
competence. Feedback provides opportunities to practice and be successful with the IT programs.
BDMs should be provided choice and control on the type of IT programs based on their comfort
level. Moreover, there should be quarterly meetings with BDMs where everyone supports each
other with their goals. The combination of specified training that incorporates clear instruction of
doable tasks, along with quarterly BDM meetings, will increase the expectancy value.
Annunzio (2001) suggests that e-leaders need to be prepared and have a goal to learn and
re-learn and be motivated by a sense of adventure with virtual leading. Specifically, given the
evolution of IT and IT growth, e-leaders should expect such continuous IT growth and have the
goal of understanding how structural features of IT impact dynamic interactions between
individuals and are in effect a necessity for effective leadership in the virtual world”(Avolio et al
2001; Elerbe et al 2013). It would appear then that increasing the expectancy value would
increase the BDMs’ motivation to have effective e-leadership as a goal.
Organization Recommendations
The organizational influences in Table 6 represents all the assumed organization
influences and their probability of being validated. Organizational culture impacts work and
change processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) added that organizational structure,
policies, practices, and cultural settings and models can influence an organization’s ability to
perform and meet its goals. The organizational influences were validated based on the semi-
structured qualitative interviews of BDMs, and supported literature review. The organization

74
influences include cultural model and cultural setting. Table 6 provides the influences that were
validated, along with the recommendations based on theoretical principles.
Table 6
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probabilit
y, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs
to have a culture of trust
to develop e-leaders
(Cultural Model)
Y Y Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders are
trustworthy and, in turn, trust
their team. The most visible
demonstration of trust by a
leader is accountable
autonomy. (Colquitt et al.,
2007 as cited in Starnes,
Truhon & McCarthy, 2010, p.
6)
(LEADERSHIP)
BDMs need to first
trust their followers by
giving them autonomy
and assume the
followers will do what
they say they will do,
until it is
demonstrated they are
not trustworthy.

The organization needs
to have a culture of
communication that is
participative and open
(Cultural Setting)
Y Y Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
encourage open lines of
communication
(LEADERSHIP)
Effective leaders are
knowledgeable about the use
of effective communication
skills to facilitate change and
enhance organizational
capacity. (Conger, 1991)
(COMMUNICATION)
The organization
should adopt multiple
communication
strategies
(writing/listening/web
cam) that are tailored
to the needs of
BDMs.

BDMs should be
visible and accessible;
get out from behind
the virtual desk to
observe and listen.
The organization needs
to provide e-leadership
development resources
(Cultural Setting)
Y Y Effective change efforts ensure
that everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed
to do their job, and that if there
are resource shortages, then
resources are aligned with
organizational priorities (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
(ORG CHANGE)
The organization
should provide the
resources, including
funding to support IT
training to align with
the new flexible work
program.
Table 6, continued

75
The organization needs
to have a culture of
learning on e-leadership
(Cultural Setting)
Y Y Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
facilitate creative and
collaborative problem solving.
Measurement of learning and
performance are essential
components of an effective
accountability system capable
of improving organizational
performance.
(ACCOUNTABILITY)
The organization
should recognize and
plan for learning that
is participative,
meaningful and
engaging.
The organization
needs to be
accountable to BDMs
by providing learning
that is measurable to
improve the flexible
work program and
ultimately
organizational
performance.

The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Trust to Develop E-Leaders
Approximately five BDMs do not fully trust their followers to work virtually. This lack of
trust leads to undeveloped and strained working relationships. A recommendation rooted in
leadership theory has been selected. The leadership theory states that organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders are trustworthy and, in turn, trust their team. The most visible
demonstration of trust by a leader is accountable autonomy. (Colquitt et al., 2007 as cited in
Starnes et al., 2010, p. 6). This suggests that BDMs should be trustworthy and in turn trust their
team to improve organizational effectiveness. The recommendation is for BDMs to first trust
their followers by giving them autonomy and assume the followers will do what they say they
will do, until it is demonstrated that they are not trustworthy. A culture of trust that is the
foundation of effective organizational performance (Lencioni, 2004; Rath & Conchie, 2009;
Schneider et al., 1996). Trust in intangible, yet it is a significant organizational requirement that
is developed through specific interactions between individuals, where there is an expectation that
the verbal words or the written statements can be relied upon (Krosgaard et al., 2002;
Savolainen, 2014; Yukl 2010). Trust is an imperative in the virtual world where building trust
and demonstrating trustworthiness matters (Breuer et al., 2016; Crisp & Jarvenpaa, 2013;

76
Savolainen, 2014). There are elements for trust building in the virtual world, which includes
trusting the followers and in tandem the leader being present, reachable and exerting efforts to
interact (Savolainen, 2014). Della Neve (2015) found that in the virtual world creating and
sustaining a bilateral relationship of trust is one of the key elements of organizational success.
Further, Gladys (2014) found that there were improved levels of trust when the leaders acted and
treated follower as a person, not a number. As such, it appears that the literature would support
the need for a culture of trust to develop e-leaders. Where the e-leaders first trust their followers
and team, organizational effectiveness is improved.
With regard to climate and specifically applying a dimension of climate as it deals with
the existence of trust, Schneider et al. (1996) suggest and examination to determine the degree to
which trust align with the values of VU. The results of this study suggest that some BDMs
perceived trust as actual, but only five BDMs stated they did trust their followers. While this is
more than half, there does not appear to be a climate of trust.
The Organization Needs to Have a Participative and Open Culture of Communication
Approximately seven BDMs do not have participative and open communication in the
virtual world. In fact, two BDMs freely stated that email and the telephone are the only vehicles
of communication used with followers that are working remotely. A recommendation based on
both leadership theory and communication theory has been selected to close this organizational
gap. With the leadership theory, organizational effectiveness increases when leaders encourage
open lines of communication. This suggests the scope of communication vehicles should be
understood and learned to achieve organizational effectiveness. The recommendation based on
leadership theory is that the organization adopt multiple communication strategies
(writing/listening/webcam) that are tailored to the needs of BDMs, which will lead to a culture

77
that is open and participative. With the communication theory, effective leaders are
knowledgeable about the use of effective communication skills to facilitate change and enhance
organizational capacity (Conger, 1991; Denning 2005; Levis 2011). This suggests the
organization provide BDMs opportunities to learn about effective communication in the virtual
world. The recommendation based on communication theory is for BDMs to be virtually visible
and accessible, while getting out from behind the virtual desk to observe and listen. Such actions
will lead to a culture that is open and participative in the virtual world.
The organizational culture encompasses the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions and
processes learned over time in an organization and influence all aspects of the organization’s
existence (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017). A culture of communication or one that embraces
communication is: participative rather than authoritative; structured in a decentralized and
deformalized manner; and promotes open and symmetrical dialogue (Grunig et al., 2002; Kahi et
al., 2007). Smidts et al. (2001) found organizational effectiveness where open communication
exists and where employees can speak up, be listened to, and participate. Participative and open
communication in the virtual world means utilizing and maximizing opportunities to use a
variety of vehicles to communicate, such as Jabber, Skype, Zoom meetings and other such
similar communication tools (DellaNeve, 2015; Grunig et al., 2002). At the organization of
study, the organizational culture lacks effective communication in the virtual community. In the
virtual world, the significance of technology to facilitate a culture of communication is one of the
vital organs for successful teams and ultimately organizational success (DellaNeve, 2015).
Communication through IT mediums is the heartbeat in the virtual world and as such requires the
organization to recognize that open and participative communication is significant (Kahi et al.,
2007). The literature cited supports the communication principle of Conger (1991), Levis (2011)

78
and Denning (2005) that effective leaders are knowledgeable about the use of effective
communication skills to facilitate change and enhance organizational capacity and that
organizational effectiveness increases when leaders encourage open lines of communication.
Therefore, it appears the literature supports the need for a culture of communication that is
participative and open.
In applying a dimension of climate as it deals with whether the decisions affecting work
and the workplace are made only by top management or are they made with participation from
those affected by the decision (Schneider et al., 1996), the results of this study suggest there is a
lack of collaboration at VU. This lack of collaboration includes insufficient participation in
decision-making by those who are affected by the decision.
The organization needs to provide e-leadership development resources. Eight BDMs
do not know what resources are available to them to lead in a virtual environment. A
recommendation is based on organizational change theory. The organizational change theory
provides that where effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then
resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). This suggests that the
organization should provide e-leadership development resources such as AIT and training to
effectively lead in a virtual environment. The recommendation then is for the organization to
provide the resources, including funding to support IT training to align with the new flexible
work program.
Organizations commonly deploy information technology to support the efforts of virtual
teams in accomplishing complex tasks requiring geographically-dispersed expertise and
resources (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2012). In the case of BDMs, the organization has not initiated

79
efforts in deploying information technology resources to support the followers working virtually
because the organization has not determined this to be a priority. Dennis et al. (2008) suggest
that key aspects of face-to-face interactions are often weakened or completely absent in a virtual
setting. This absence requires e-leaders to learn and rely on new mediums and rely on
organizational resources to develop e-leaders, such as technology integration via organizational
information platforms (Annunzio, 2001; Liu et al., 2018). As such, the literature supports the
necessity for the organization to provide e-development resources.
The Organization Needs to Have a Culture of Learning on E-Leadership
All BDMs have had no training on what it means to e-lead. A recommendation is based on
leadership theory and accountability theory. Leadership theory provides that organizational
effectiveness increases when leaders facilitate creative and collaborative problem solving.
Accountability theory provides that measurement of learning and performance are essential
components of an effective accountability system capable of improving organizational
performance. The recommendation is that the organization should recognize and plan for
learning that is participative, meaningful and engaging. The organization needs to be accountable
to BDMs by providing learning that is measurable to improve the flexible work program and
ultimately organizational performance.
Organizations need to provide opportunities to their people to increase capabilities to
shape their future (Senge, 1990). Organizations that have a systemic approach to leadership
development, and continuously improve their approach, are better positioned to have leaders
prepared for the future (Day et al., 2014). The culture of the organization can affect the degree to
which leadership characteristics such as reliability, social skills, integrity, trustworthiness, and
professional expertise, are dormant or enhanced (Liu et al., 2018). In the virtual world, there is a

80
need for e-leaders to undergo specialized learning focusing on e-leadership and information
technology to be effective leaders (Jameson, 2013; Zaccaro & Bader, 2003). Moreover, Van
Wart et al. (2017) asserts that one of the keys to effective e-leadership is continual learning. As
such, organization needs to have a culture of learning on e-leadership. This aligns with the
accountability theory, which provides that measurement of learning and performance are
essential to accountability that can improve organizational performance. Therefore, the literature
supports the necessity for the organization to recognize the need to plan for learning.
Learning e-leadership also means understanding AIT risks. The three main information
security risks in a virtual working environment are: (1) :breach of data confidentiality when data
is transmitted over the Internet; (2) compromise of system and/or data integrity in the
teleworking computing environment; (3) and breach of data confidentiality in the teleworking
computing environment (James & Griffiths, 2014).
Conclusion
This study examines e-leadership gaps at an organization that recently implemented a
flexible work program for its employees. The gaps were analyzed from the knowledge,
motivation and organizational framework of Clark and Estes (2008). The literature on e-
leadership rested primarily on theory, while qualitative empirical studies were surprisingly in its
infancy (Avolio et al., 2000; Avolio et al., 2003; Roman et al., 2019; Van Wart et al., 2019).
Based on the qualitative interviews and analysis of findings, this research suggests that the
organization has not provided enough resources to the BDMs to be effective e-leaders, and even
if the organization did provide sufficient resources, BDMs are not ready to embrace the new
virtual environment. There were many themes that emerged from the findings. First, with regard
to knowledge, there was the theme of BDMs not fully understanding their role as an effective e-

81
leader and the BDMs’ adverse perception of virtual communications and technology that impacts
their knowledge on how to use, apply and perform AIT. Next, with regard to motivation, the
theme of looking to the past and desiring the traditional F2F work environment emerged as
nearly all BDMs preferred F2F work environments and were not interested in effective e-
leadership and having e-leadership as a goal. Finally, with regard to the organization, there is a
culture of trust that is not maximized because the virtual environment complicates trust for
BDMs because of concerns, such as out of sight/out of mind. With the organization, resource
deficiency and a lack of a learning culture on e-leadership emerged.

82
References
Al-Asfour, A., & Lettau, L. (2014). Strategies for leadership styles for multi-generational
workforce. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(2), 58–69.
Alkali, Y. A., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital literacy.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 421–429.
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2016). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of
knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479–490.
American Library Association. (2019). Digital literacy. Retrieved from
https://literacy.ala.org/digital-literacy/
Annunzio, S. (2001). eLeadership: Proven techniques for creating an environment of speed and
flexibility in the digital economy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Association for Talent Development. (2013). ASTD’s 2013 state of the industry report. Retrieved
at https://www.td.org/insights/1642-billion-spent-on-training-and-development-by-us-
companies.
Association for Talent Development. (2016). ASTD’s 2013 state of the industry report. Retrieved
at https://www.td.org/insights/atd-releases-2016-state-of-the-industry-report
Atkinson, S., & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in managerial relationships. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18(4), 282–295.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. The
American Psychologist, 62(1), 25–33
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the “e” to e-leadership: How it may impact your
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325–368.

83
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and
practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining
transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1),
105–131.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449.
Avolio, B., Avey, J., & Quisenberry, D. (2016). Corrigendum to “Estimating return on leadership
development investment.” The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 911–911.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Balthazard P., Waldman D. and Warren J. (2009) Predictors of emergence of transformational
leadership in virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly 20(5): 651–663.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great Minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University.
Bandura, A. (2007). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Principles in Organizational Behavior (pp.
109–189). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

84
Bell, B., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective
leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–25.
Bennis, W. (1984). The 4 competencies of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 38(8),
14–20.
Berardi, I. (2017). Digital skills vs. digital literacy: What’s the difference? Retrieved from
https://www.teachaway.com/blog/digital-skills-vs-digital-literacy-whats-difference
Berry, G. R. (2011). A cross-disciplinary literature review: Examining trust on virtual teams.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(3), 9–28.
Brandon Hall Group. (2015). State of Leadership Development 2015: Time to Act is Now.
Retrieved from http://www.brandonhall.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&
Product_Code=IP15+-+State+of+Leadership+Development+2015
Breuer, C., Huffmeier, J., & Hertel, J. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-
analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as
moderators. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151–1177.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Burke, W. W. (2010). Organization Change: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Gefen, D. (2010). The importance of innovation leadership in
cultivating strategic fit and enhancing firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
21(3), 339–349.
Cascio, W. & Shurygailo, S. (2003) E-leaders and virtual teams. Organization Dynamics
31(4): 362–376.

85
Chong, D. (2013). The relevance of management to society: Peter drucker’s oeuvre from the
1940s and 1950s. Journal of Management History, 19(1), 55–72.
Chrisentary, J., & Barrett, D. (2015). An exploration of leadership in virtual communities of
practice. Management : Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in
Emerging Economies, 20(77), 25–34.
Cisse, A., & Wyrick, D.W. (2010). Toward understanding costs and benefits of virtual teams in
virtual worlds. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, 2185(1), 2234–
2239. Retrieved from http://www.iaeng.org
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Clark, R. E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in highly
complex learning environments. In J. Elen & R. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in
learning environments: Theory and Research (pp. 27-43). Oxford, Great Britain: Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Clinebell, S., Skudiene, V., Trijonyte, R., & Reardon, J. (2013). Impact of leadership styles on
employee organizational commitment. Journal of Service Science (Online), 6(1), 139–
152.
Colfax, R.S., Santos, A. T., & Diego, J. (2009). "Virtual leadership: A green possibility in
critical times but can it really work?",Journal of International Business research, Vol.8,
No. 2, pp 133‐139.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.

86
Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 5(1), 31–45.
Conger, J. (2004). Developing leadership capability: What’s inside the black box? The Academy
of Management Executive, 18(3), 136–140.
Connaughton, S. I., Lawrence, F. I., & Ruben, B.D. (2003). Leadership development as a
systematic and multidisciplinary enterprise. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 46-
51.
Connaughton, S. L., & Quinlan, M. (2003). Learning leadership competencies as campus
consultants. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Pursuing excellence in higher education: Eight
fundamental challenges (pp. 80–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Connelly, C. E., & Turel, O. (2016). Effects of team emotional authenticity on virtual team
performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–11.
Covington, M. (1999). Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of subject-matter
appreciation. Educational Psychologist, 34(2),
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams: Trusting beliefs and
normative actions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 45–56.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organization information requirements, media richness,
and structural design,” Management Science, 32( 5), 554-571.
Dahlstrom, T. (2013), “Telecommuting and leadership style”, Public Personnel Management,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 438-451.

87
Daly, E. (2006). Behaviorism. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/behaviorism/
Day, D. V. (2001), “Leadership development: a review in context”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.
11, pp. 581-613.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82.
DellaNeve, J. R., Gladys, A., & Wilson, B. (2015). Technology, trust, and Talent: The recipe for
fast-tracking a virtual team. The International Journal of the Arts in Society, 8(5), 393–
403.
Deschamps, J. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy and
Leadership, 33(5), 31–38.
Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., Yammarino, F. J.
(2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 6–35.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12(4), 450–467.
Doh, J.P. (2003), "Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators",
Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Eccles, J. A. (2007). Motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility for
learning and teaching. In R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Optimizing student
success in schools with the new three Rs (pp. 199–202). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

88
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3). New York, NY: Wiley.
Erez, A., Misangyi, V. F. , Johnson, D. E., LePine, M. A., & Halverson, K. C. (2008). Stirring
the hearts of followers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal of affect. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 602–616.
Fan, K. T., Chen, Y. H., Wang, C. W., & Chen, M. (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual
teams: Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(3),
421–437.
Fernandez, B., & Jawadi, N. (2015), “Virtual R&D teams: from e-leadership to performance,”
Journal of Applied Research, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1693-1708.
Frank, M. S. (1993). The essence of leadership. Public Personnel Management, 22(3), 381.
Gaines-Ross, L. (2014). Employee Activism: Why We Did It and What We Learned. Institute for
Public Relations. Online at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/employeeactivism-learned/
Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX,
communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1252–1261.
Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional
intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 23(2), 68–78.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2), 87–105.

89
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., & Gino, F. (March 2008). Is yours a learning organization?
Accessed at: https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
Gay, C., Mahoney, M., & Graves, J. (2005). Best practices in employee communication: A study
of global challenges and approaches. San Francisco: IABC Research Foundation.
Getha-Taylor, H. Fowles, J., Silvia, C., & Merritt, C. C. (2015). Considering the effects of time
on leadership development: A local government training evaluation. Public Personnel
Management;Thousand Oaks 44(3), 295-316.
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. and McMillan, H. (2009). Organizational Change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness, Performance Improvement Quarterly
21(4): 75–94.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson
Global Leadership Forecast (2018). 25 Research insights to fuel your people strategy Retrieved
from https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-the-global-leadership-
forecast/$FILE/ey-the-global-leadership-forecast.pdf
Gordon, P. A., & Gordon, B. A. (2017). The role of volunteer organizations in leadership skill
development. Journal of Management Development, 36(5), 712–723.
Greenberg, P., Greenberg, R., & Antonucci, Y. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual
teams. Business Horizons, 50(4), 325–333.
Groysberg B (2014) The seven skills you need to thrive in the C-suite. Harvard Business Review.

90
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guinea, A. O., Webster, J., & Staples, S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the virtual team literature.
Kingston, Ontario: Queens University, Industrial Relation Centre School of Policy
Studies.
Gurr, D. (2004). ICT, leadership in education and e-leadership. Discourse, 25(1), 113-124.
Guzman, J. G., Ramos, J. S., Seco, A. A., & Esteban, A. S. (2010). How to get mature global
virtual teams: A framework to improve team process management in distributed software
teams. Software Quality Journal, 18(4), 409–435.
Hamilton, B. A., & Scandura, T. A. (2003). E-mentoring: Implications for organizational
learning and development in a wired world. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 388–402.
Hao, B., & Feng, Y. (2016). How networks influence radical innovation: The effects of
heterogeneity of network ties and crowding out. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 31(6), 758–770.
Hewlett, S.A. (2016). Millennials: A new generation is reshaping the workplace. Inc. Retrieved
from: https://www.inc.com/sylvia-ann-hewlett/millennials-a-newgeneration-is-reshaping-
the-workplace.html
Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams:
The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous
communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.

91
Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Field, H. and Harris, S. (2007). Readiness for organizational change:
The systematic development of a scale, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science4 3(2):
232–255.
Hunsaker, P.L. and Hunsaker, J.S. (2008), “Virtual teams: a leader’s guide”, Team Performance
Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 86-101.
Hsu, M., Hou, S., & Fan, H. (2011). Creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior in a service
setting: Optimism as a moderator. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(4), 258–272.
Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997). Developing trust in virtual teams. Paper presented at the
Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences from the IEEE Explore
Digital Library. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49fb/0072ab1c85bbb6a2ec3c60c85594f1f9f24d.pdf
Igartua, J., Garrigós, J., & Hervas-Oliver, J. (2010). How innovation management techniques
support an open innovation strategy. Research Technology Management, 53(3), 41–52.
James, P., & Griffiths, D. (2014). A secure portable execution environment to support
teleworking. Information Management & Computer Security, 22(3), 309-330.
Jawadi, N., Daassi, M., Favier, M., & Kalika, M. (2013). Relationship building in virtual teams:
A leadership behavioral complexity perspective. Human Systems Management, 32, 199–
211.
Johnson, R. B., & Christiansen, L. (2014). Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches.
Educational Research (5th ed., pp. 223–245). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Jones-Kavalier, B., & Flannigan, S. (2006). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st
century. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(2). Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0621.pdf

92
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of
inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20(1),
240-252.
Kahai, S. S., Carroll, E., & Jestice, R. (2007). Team collaboration in virtual worlds. The Data
Base for Advances in Information Systems, 38(4), 61–68.
Kaigh, E., Driscoll, M., Tucker, E., & Lam, S. (2014). Preparing to lead: Finance professionals
are essential in narrowing leadership gaps. Corporate Finance Review, 19(2), 5–12.
Kanter, R. M. (2003). Leadership for change: Enduring skills for change masters. Harvard
Business Review, 81(11), 1–16.
Kayworth, T & Leidner, D. (2000). The Global Virtual Manager: A Prescription for Success,
European Management Journal, 18(2), 183-194.
Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 7–40.
Kerfoot, K. M. (2010). Listening to see: The key to virtual leadership. Nursing Economics,
28(2), 114–115.
Kirkman, B., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P., & Gibson, C. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on
virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 175–192.
Kissler, G. (2001). E-leadership. Organizational Dynamics 30(2), 121-133.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.

93
Knogler, M. (2017). Situational Interest: A Proposal to Enhance Conceptual Clarity. In P. A.
O'Keefe, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest; the science of interest (pp.
109-121, Chapter vi, 232 Pages) Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103–111.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krosgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312–319.
Krumm, S., Kanthak, J., Hartmann, K., & Hertel, G. (2016). What does it take to be a virtual
team player? The knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required in virtual
teams. Human Performance, 29(2), 123–142.
Lencioni, P. (2004). 5 dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Li, C. (2013) Does self-efficacy contribute to knowledge sharing and innovation effectiveness?
A multi-level perspective. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information
Systems PACIS Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/83d2/1beb8f7a2e731dce
017496ff0d8c19e58b50.pdf
Li, W., Liu, K., Belitski, M., Ghobadian, A., & O'regan, N. (2016). e-leadership through strategic
alignment: An empirical study of small- and medium-sized enterprises in the digital age.
Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 185-206.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Visual teams: The new way to work. Strategy and Leadership,
27(1), 14–19.

94
Liu, C., Ready, D., Roman, A., Van Wart, M., Wang, X. H., McCarthy, A., & Kim, S. (2018). E-
leadership: An empirical study of organizational leaders’ virtual communication
adoption. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39(7), 826–843.
Locke, E. A. (2003). The Blackwell Handbook of Principles in Organizational Behavior. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Loew, L., & O’Leonard, K (2012) Leadership development factbook 2012: Benchmark and
trends in U.S. leadership development, Retrieved from bersin.com.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.
Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance:
Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The Leadership Quarterly,
16(1), 97–120.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mayer, R., & Gavin, M. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop
while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888.
Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment – fad or fab? A
multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4),
1231–1281.
McCauley, D. C., & Velsor, D. E. (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of
Leadership Development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

95
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization
Science, 14(1), 91–103.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Mentimeter. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.mentimeter.com/
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66–74.
Morgan, L., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Wright, G. (2014). Leading effective global virtual teams:
The consequences of methods of communication. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 27(6), 607–624.
Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader
development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 459-
470.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3),
1065–1078.
Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational
ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic
Organization, 10(4), 450–465.
O’Connell, P. K. (2014). A simplified framework for 21st century leader development. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 183–203.

96
Oh, S. P. & Chua, Y.P. (2018) An Explorative Review of E-Leadership Studies. International
Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 2(1) 4-20.
Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K. and Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping Electronic
Communication: The meta-structuring of technology in the context in use, Organization
Science, 6(4): 423–444.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2014). Social network ties beyond nonredundancy: An experimental
investigation of the effect of knowledge content and tie strength on creativity. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 831–846.
Perry-Smith, J., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network
drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1),
53–79.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Prokopeak, M. (2018). Follow the leadership spending. Retrieved from
http://www.clomedia.com/2018/03/21/follow-the-leadership-spending/
Pulley, M. L., Sessa, V., & Malloy, M. (2002). E-leadership: A two-pronged idea. T + D, 56(3),
34-47.
Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.W. (2001). The Assimilation of Knowledge
Platforms in Organizations: An empirical investigation, Organization Science 12(2):
117–135.

97
Quatro, S. A., Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2007). Developing holistic leaders: Four
domains for leadership development and practice. Human Resource Management Review,
17(4), 427–441.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership: Great leaders, teams and why
people follow (pp. 79–91). New York: Gallup.
Rennecker J and Derks D (2012) Email overload: Fine-tuning the research lens. The Psychology
of Digital Media at Work. New York: Psychology Press (pp.14-38).
Richardson, J.C., Koehler, A., Besser, E., Caskurlu, S. Lim, J., & Mueller, C. (2015).
Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256-297.
Roman, A. V., Montgomery, V. W., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S., & McCarthy, A. (2019).
Defining E‐leadership as competence in ICT‐Mediated communications: An exploratory
assessment. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 853-866.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-
innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–
974.
Roy S (2012) Virtual collaboration: The skills needed to collaborate in a virtual environment.
Journal of Internet Social Networking & Virtual Communities, Article 629512.
Rotgans, J. L., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). The role of interest in learning: Knowledge acquisition
at the intersection of situational and individual interest. In P. A. O'Keefe, & J. M.
Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest; the science of interest (pp. 69-93, Chapter
xvi, 232 Pages) Springer International Publishing, Cham.

98
Ruben, B. D. (2003). Pursuing excellence in higher education: Eight fundamental challenges.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Saafein, O., & Shaykhian, G. A. (2013). Factors affecting virtual team performance in
telecommunication support environment. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3), 459–462.
Savolainen, T. (2014). Trust-building in e-leadership: A case study of leaders’ challenges and
skills in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Global Business Issues, 8(2), 45–56.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions
for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioculturaltheory/
Seidle, B., Fernandez, S., & Perry, J. L. (2016). Do leadership training and development make a
difference in the public sector? A panel study. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 603–
613.

99
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to
students in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4),
767–779.
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 50, 63–68.
Singhal, T. K., Garg, B., & Saxena, D. (2014). Organizational productivity through emotional
intelligence. Pranjana: The Journal of Management Awareness, 17(1), 47–55.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Snellman, C .(2014) Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Social and
Behavioral Sciences 110, 1251–1261.
Staples,D.S.,and Webster,J.(2008). Exploring the effects of trust,task interdependence and
virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Inf.Syst.J. 18,617–640.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual
Review of Psychology, 43(1), 399–441.
Tashiro, H., Lau, A., Mori, J., Fujii, N., & Kajikawa, Y. (2012). E-mail networks and leadership
performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
63(3), 600–606.
Taskin, L., & Bridoux, F. (2010). Telework: A challenge to knowledge transfer in organizations.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(13), 2503–2520.

100
The Conference Board, & McKinsey (2012). The state of human capital 2012- false summit:
Why the human capital function still has far to go. Retrieved from
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/organization/pdfs/st
ate_of_human_capital_2012.ashx
Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2012). Bridging the knowledge gap: The influence
of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge
between organizational units. Organization Science, 23(4), 1024–1039.
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., & Pierce, S. (2016). The rise and effect of virtual modalities and
functions on organizational leadership: Tracing conceptual boundaries along the e-
management and e-leadership continuum. Transylvanian Review of Administrative
Sciences, 12(Special Issue), 102–122.
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X. H., & Liu, C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-
leadership: Identifying the elements of e-leadership. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 80–97.
Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2017). Integrating ICT adoption issues into (e-)
leadership theory. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 527–537.
Vertical Unlimited (VU) Human Resources (HR) Flexible Work Agreements Statistics (2018).
Vesely, P., Bloom, L., & Sherlock, J. (2007). Key elements of building online community:
Comparing faculty and student perceptions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 3(3), 234– 246.
Watkin, D., Earnhardt, M., Pittenger, L., Roberts, R., Rietsema, K., & Cosman-Ross, J. (2017).
Thriving in complexity: A framework for leadership education. Journal of Leadership
Education, 16(4), 148–163.

101
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. (2009). Digital habitats; stewarding technology for
communities. New York: CPsquare.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide
to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotional management: A
threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of
Management Review, 32(2), 595–621
Wright, S. L. (2015). Examining the impact of collaborative technology skills training on virtual
team collaboration effectiveness. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 5(4), 6–13.
Wu, Y., & Wu, S. (2016). Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: A survey. Journal of
Business Research, 69(7), 2388–2396.
Wuestewald, T. (2016). Adult learning in executive development programs. Adult Learning,
27(2), 68–75.
Yakovleva, M.,Reilly, R.R.,and Werko, R.(2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual
to dyadic perceptions. J.Appl.Psychol. 95,79–91.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams:
Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 377–387.

102
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders With Sampling Criteria for Interview
Participating Stakeholders
As a part of the research design, the study’s population and sample needs to be
determined (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). VU is divided into nine Directorates, which includes the
Business Directorate. Within the Business Directorate, there are various business operations. The
participating stakeholders are BDMs. The selection of the BDMs is appropriate since the focus
of this study is on leadership development and e-leadership experiences. VU has implemented a
flexible work program that permits primarily employees in the Business Directorate to work
remotely. The BDMs is the stakeholder group because they are the leaders who work with
employees that work remotely and who are in a position to provide rich perspectives and
experiences on the KMO influences (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1.
Must be a leader in the Business Directorate reporting to the
Section Manager or higher

Criterion 2.
Must have e-leadership responsibilities with staff and projects

Criterion 3.
Must have at least one year experience in the current role with at least five direct
reports

103
Appendix B: Protocols
Interview Protocol. The interviews will be semi-structured and open-ended. It will
follow an Interview Guide addressing e-leadership with a consistent set of questions to be
addressed for each interviewee on the topic of e-leadership regarding knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences (Patton, 2002). The semi-structured open-ended interview
protocol permits the opportunity to delve, probe and further explore the subject matter (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) provides that an open-ended question provides significant
latitude to the interviewees and provides freedom to express themselves in content and manner
they feel comfortable.
Each interview will follow a structured open-ended format and scheduled for one hour.
The questions will be developed from the Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework to address
the problem of practice on e-leadership. The questions will focus on validating knowledge and
skills on e-leadership. In the absence of actual demonstration of knowledge and skills,
interviews provide a means to gather data to understand the knowledge and skills (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Interview Procedures. Twelve interviews are planned on a one-on-one basis for an hour
each, for 12 hours of interviews. The decision of 12 interviews is to strengthen confirmability
(field notes that can be traced and audit trails) and transferability (thick descriptions, with good
data that can be transferred to other situations; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Interviews will be
conducted at the organization that is being studied. Specifically, if the interviewee has an office,
the interview will be conducted in their office to provide the interviewee the comfort and
familiarity of their own office. However, if the interviewee does not have an office, then a
private conference room can be easily scheduled. It is important to provide a safe environment,

104
free of noise, commotion and satisfy the expectation of privacy. The interview data will be
audio recorded and a traditional legal notepad will be used to take notes along the way.
Before each interview, a personalized phone call will be made inviting the potential
participant to be an interviewee in the study. In the conversation, an explanation of the nature of
the study, that it is voluntary and that they can at any point elect to stop participating, and that
the entire process is discreet and will be handled with the highest confidence. This will be
followed by a date and time to be scheduled for the actual interview. A reminder email will be
sent before the actual interview and a follow-up thank you email will be sent to the
interviewees.

105
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and Trustworthiness. In qualitative research the researcher is the key
instrument of data collection and must ensure methodological rigor for the purposes of
dependability and logic in the process design and be able to confirm trustworthiness of the
study’s findings that is based on the original sources (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Maxwell (2013) provides that by virtue of the fact that the researcher exists, there is inherent
researcher bias as it is impossible to eliminate beliefs and perceptual lens that the researcher’s
tailored personal experiences bring to the study. However, the key is explaining the possible
biases and how the researcher will deal with it (Maxwell, 2013). The possible biases include
giving preferential treatment by the researcher because the researcher may know the interviewee.
Preferential treatment could be not adhering to the Interview Guideline that will be drafted for
this study by giving those participants the researcher knows more or less time or even lead
questions because the interviewer is familiar with the interviewee’s persona or work situation.
Thus, in addressing potential trustworthiness issues with preferential treatment, the strategy to
improve trustworthiness will be to diligently reflect and document during the interview process,
take copious notes addressing any potential concerns. Researcher integrity must be established
where strict discipline by the researcher must avail of neutrality. In qualitative research,
trustworthiness is the result of integrity (Maxwell, 2013). Credibility is established if the data
and findings are plausible, believable and accurate (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Triangulation. Triangulation is the first strategy to improve credibility (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Triangulation facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or
more sources. Triangulation of data sources means that there will be checks and cross-references
where the data will be compared to confirm perspectives with the interviews. The researcher's

106
dissertation committee, along with peer review and peer examination will be used to improve
credibility.
Reactivity. The second strategy to address credibility in the interview research design is
to neutralize the reactivity of the researcher. As a researcher conducting qualitative interviews,
reactivity or the influence of the researcher has on the setting is a key aspect that the researcher
must be cognizant of (Maxwell, 2012). What the interviewee states will always be influenced by
the interviewer and interview situation (Maxwell, 2012). Thus, since minimizing a researcher’s
influence is not a meaningful goal for qualitative research, it is important is to understand how
the researcher is influencing what the interviewee says and how this affects the validity of the
inferences the researcher can draw from the interview (Maxwell, 2012).
Member checking. The third strategy that will be utilized is member checking, where
there will be review of significant findings and key themes with four to five participants for the
opportunity to record their reactions and comments on the study’s preliminary findings
(Creswell, 2013). This means that the checking or validating of the interview data will further
strengthen the credibility of the research.
Transferability. The fourth strategy will be to utilize rich, thick description in describing
the research findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This fourth strategy will provide greater detail
and description of the context, to reinforce transferability. Transferability is the extent to which
the research findings apply to other situations, whereby the usefulness of the data is not
determined by the researcher, but rather the recipient of the data of the generated data (Lincoln &
Guba,1985). Field notes will be traced back to the original interview and an audit trail will be
transparent (Lincoln & Guba,1985). The use of quotes and other forms of data will support the
research findings for comparison and transferability (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

107
Confidentiality and Discrete Documents. The final and fifth strategy to maximize
trustworthiness explain and demonstrate the discreet process of this study with regard to
interview data collection and storage. Given that the topic is on e-leadership and what the
individual opinions and beliefs are, additional assurances must be provided to the interviewees
that the data will remain discreet. During the data collection, retention, and analysis phase of this
study, the researcher will demonstrate the confidentiality of data collected, identity traceable to
the source, and explain how the confidentiality in reporting data finding will be strictly
maintained throughout the course of the study, with data stored in secure information technology
resources.

108
Appendix D: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The model that provided the structural framework for the implementation and evaluation
plan is the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World
Kirkpatrick Model is based on Dr. Don Kirkpatrick’s original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of
Evaluation, which provides an analysis in the following sequential order: Reaction (Level 1),
Learning (Level 2), Behavior (Level 3), and finally Results (Level 4) (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006). Yet the New Kirkpatrick Model presents the four levels in reverse, where the first focus is
actually on Level 4, which are the results the organization is looking to attain, followed by Level
3, which is identifying the behaviors stakeholders need to demonstrate for achieving these
results. Learning in Level 2 and Reaction in Level 1 are then presented in support of critical
behaviors in Level 3 and to ultimately achieve the goals in Level 4 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). In short, this researcher views the implementation and evaluation plan to be the essential
two slices of bread of a sandwich. Without the two slices of bread to provide the base and top
structure, the inside alone is left in disarray and incomplete. Similarly, without an
implementation and evaluation plan, any goal lacks structure and is incomplete. Thus, the New
World Kirkpatrick Model provides the framework to an effective implementation and evaluation
plan(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators. Table 7 shows the proposed Level 4: Results
and Leading Indicators in the form of metrics and methods for both external and internal
outcomes for BDMs. The internal outcomes represent leading indicators and the results
anticipated from training and development programs. When BDMs satisfy training objectives
and demonstrate effective e-leadership skills, the achievement of desired outcomes is possible.

109
Table 7
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased positive reputation
being an organization with
strong virtual leadership
The number of positive responses
from sponsors and partners

Solicit data on sponsor and partner
perception at annual conferences

Increased sponsor
acknowledgment of effective
BDM virtual leadership
Frequency of positive BDM virtual
leadership mentions in Sponsor All-
Hands

Solicit data at Sponsor All-Hands
Increased recognition by
similarly situated research
organizations
Number of positive comments Solicit data at annual meeting
Internal Outcomes
E-leadership training established Number of sessions offered Session completion record
Increased BDM confidence in
virtual leading
The number of responses where BDM
e-leaders state they are confident in
virtual leading

Solicit quarterly interview data on
confidence of e-leaders

BDMs trusting their followers
who work remotely
Number of followers who feel they are
trusted by their BDM

Number of BDMs who believe they
are trusting their followers
Survey followers who work remotely
on a quarterly basis to gauge potential
trust growth
Improved BDM IT
communication abilities

BDM positive responses to
IT communication ability

Follower positive responses to BDM
IT communication ability
Compare before training and after
training survey results on IT
communications

Increased follower
confidence/satisfaction of BDM
e-leaders
Results on questions related to
follower confidence/satisfaction on
BDM

Set aside quarterly follow up with
followers to assess
confidence/satisfaction

Level 3: Critical behaviors. Critical behaviors are the degree to which participants
apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The stakeholder of focus are the BDMs completing the e-leadership training.

110
The first critical behavior is that BDMs must demonstrate IT communication competence by
using different software programs to communicate. The second critical behavior is that BDMs
demonstrate trust to their followers who work virtually. The third critical behavior is that BDMs
demonstrate effective virtual work relationships and interactions.
Table 8
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
IT software
communication
competence with
followers
Number of different
software programs used
to communicate and
frequency of use

The HR learning team will
track BDM IT program
usage and track comfort
level
Every month for 3
months and quarterly
thereafter
Trust followers to
work virtually by
permitting virtual
working to the
maximum permitted
in organization
policy
Number of followers who
believe that BDMs trust
them to work remotely

HR learning team will track
follower perception of trust
by BDMs

Evaluated once before
the training and
quarterly thereafter
Effective virtual
work relationships
and interactions,
with online presence
Number of followers who
believe they have a good to
excellent virtual work
relationship and interactions
with their BDMs
HR learning team will
monitor follower responses
in spot evaluations
Evaluated once before
the training and
quarterly thereafter
Improved
communication with
followers
Number of followers who
believe communication has
improved
HR learning team will track
the number of responses
Evaluated one month
after the training and
quarterly thereafter

Required drivers. BDMs require the support of the HR training team and the
organization to reinforce what they learn in the training and to encourage them to apply what
they have learned to become effective e-leaders. The required drivers are under two primary
categories: support and accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The required drivers to
support the behaviors are reinforcement, reward and encouragement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,

111
2016). The required driver to support accountability is monitoring (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). These four required drivers are needed to maximize the Level 3 behavior, where BDMs
applied what they learned in training. Table 9 shows the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of BDMs.
Table 9
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Refresher training and practice with
checklist of confidence levels on use of
computer programs and feedback from
instructors
Quarterly 1,2,3,4
IT software job aid Ongoing 1,3

Encouraging
Collaboration with other BDMs to learn
about what has worked and what has not
worked and share specific tips on what has
worked
Quarterly 1,2,3
Feedback from HR follower data and share
specific comments in private conversations
with BDMs
Quarterly 1,2,3
Coaching by instructors specifically
addressing what has worked and why it has
worked
As needed 1,2,3

Rewarding
Executive Council acknowledgment at All-
Hands of contribution to the Organization
Bi-annually 1,2,3
Recognition of e-leaders through nomination
by followers
Annual 1,2,3

Monitoring
Meeting review with instructors on progress Bi-annually 1,2,3
Interactive bilateral Q&A with where
questions to BDMs are sent to instructors
and instructors send questions to BDMs
As needed 1,2,3

112
Organizational support. To monitor the required drivers to ensure implementation, the
organization will need to support the following: 1) Resources and funding for instructors and
AIT to train BDMs; 2) Instructors who will summarize the critical behaviors and required drivers
necessary to successfully implement the changes; and 3) The Executive Council who will
allocate time to address virtual leading, along with its related issues.
Level 2: Learning. There are five components of Level 2 Learning: knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Learning evaluates the
degree to which BDMs will acquire these five components of the intended knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their participation in the training (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) elaborate on the knowledge component,
where there are four levels of knowledge dimensions that learners can acquire that takes
knowledge from the concrete to abstract in the following order: factual, conceptual, procedural
and finally metacognitive. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) further delineate the cognitive
process dimension with categories of the cognitive process from lower thinking skills to higher
thinking skills in the following order: remember, understand, apply analyze, evaluate and create.
Thus, the learning goals incorporate specific knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive) that further incorporates different levels of thinking skills that are ultimately
fueled by motivation (attitude, skills, confidence) (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, the BDMs will
achieve the Level 2 Learning:
1. Apply IT programs for communication in the virtual world (P)
2. Understand how digital literacy impacts e-leaders (C)

113
3. Analyze their role in interactions and relationships with others as it pertains to trust in the
virtual world (M)
4. Apply the nature of networks and relationships (D-C)
5. Believe BDMs can learn in an online environment (SE)
6. Be interested in being an effective e-leader (INT)
7. Value effective e-leadership as a goal (EV)
Program. The stakeholder learning goals listed in this section will be achieved with a
program that is engaging, well-developed and focused on the BDM e-leadership gaps. There will
be two primary components to this training: 1) the IT software component, where actual software
programs will be introduced, learned and practiced; and 2) the soft skills component, where
learning about trust, communication and relationships in the virtual world will be thoughtfully
examined for similarities and differences.
With regard to the first component of IT software training, this technical training will be
conducted by reputable and knowledgeable IT professionals. E-modules will be prepared as
introductions for the IT component and will be used as a springboard for live sessions with IT
software instructors. In this first component there will be practice and use of IT software
programs. The IT software training component will capture four to six hours of various IT
software training that will be focused on virtual communication technologies, with quarterly
reinforcement sessions, for a period of one year. After the one year mark, there will be annual IT
refresher training for one to two hours that will capture the latest software updates, along with
new IT programs.
With regard to the second component of virtual soft skills, the topics covered include
building trust, effectively communicating and building relationships. This second component of

114
the training will be taught by respected leadership experts who are well versed in the distinctions
and intricacies of virtual leadership to guide BDMs on understanding the knowledge and skills
required to be effective e-leaders. It is anticipated that training for this component will capture 10
to 12 hours of interactive time with the instructors, along with quarterly reinforcement and
evaluation sessions for a period of two years.
Upon the completion of these two training components, on a monthly basis, the BDMs
will self-monitor two to three key virtual interactions that trigger the application of what they
have learned and document the experiences. Such key interactions will be documented as a part
of an informal self-assessment to be discussed at the quarterly virtual soft skills for
reinforcement and evaluation.
Evaluation of the components of learning. It is important to evaluate learning to assess
the BDMs’ absorption of declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge. The evaluation
of learning assesses the scope and degree of what the BDMs have learned through the two
components of training, which will incorporate confidence checks. There is increased focus and
participation when learners know that there will be a confidence check (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006). Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) categorization of the knowledge
component of factual, conceptual, procedural and finally metacognitive is relevant to evaluate
learning because there needs to be an understanding of the type of knowledge to properly
categorize the learning. Moreover, Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) cognitive process
dimension on thinking skills is also relevant to evaluate learning because it assesses the degree to
which the thinking skills are demonstrated. Real-time evaluations in the two components of
training will be used with an interactive tool called “Mentimeter.” Mentimeter is a new
interactive training tool that solicits live time feedback from participants during the training,

115
where the instructor can pose any question to the attendees and the attendees respond in real time
on an app (Mentimeter, 2019). This multi-lateral communication with the attendees can provide
real-time data on knowledge absorption and pulse the participants on interest, among other
various aspects of the training (Mentimeter, 2019). Ultimately, evaluation of learning is
important because BDMs need to be confident on what they have learned to apply the knowledge
and become effective e-leaders. Table 10 lists the evaluation methods and timing for the
components of learning.
Table 10
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks indicating competencies in
the first component of the training- IT software
with application tests and examples, along with
real-time pulse checks with the Mentimeter app

Throughout the first component of the
training session
Knowledge checks through the training sessions
in the second component- soft skills that
incorporate case studies and discussions with
other BDM attendees, along with real-time pulse
checks with the Mentimeter app

Throughout the second component of the
training session
Knowledge checks using IT software aids Ongoing

Procedural Skills “I can do it right n o w .”
During the training sessions BDMs will
demonstrate to each other what they have learned
with simulated exchanges
Throughout both components of the
training sessions
Feedback from followers Ongoing
Feedback from Instructors Throughout both components of the
training sessions

Attitude “I believe this is w or thwhi le.”
Discussions with other BDMs on the value of the
training
Throughout the training

116
Instructor observations of BDMs involvement in
training activities, discussions and participation

Throughout the training
Pulse the BDMs utilizing real live feedback with
Mentimeter tool
Throughout the training
BDM post-training assessment on the value of
the training

At the end of the training

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback Throughout the training
Pulse the BDMs utilizing real live feedback with
Mentimeter tool

Throughout the training
Self-reflection After the training

Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create an informal BDM personal action plan During training
Commitment confirmation through informal
instructor meetings
Quarterly

Level 1: Reaction. Level 1 Reaction is the degree to which BDMs find the training
favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs (Kirpatrick & Kirpatrick, 2016). Reaction
embodies three critical measuring components: engagement, relevance and customer satisfaction
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These key measuring components will be measured
individually, then collectively assessed to comprehensively evaluate total BDM reaction. Table
11 provides the components to measure reactions to the BDM training, incorporating pulse
checks with the Mentimeter tool (2019).

117
Table 11
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Asking meaningful questions During training and follow-up sessions with
expert instructors
Training session evaluation During training and also one week after
training completion
Instructor pulse check During training

Relevance
Feedback and discussions with Instructor One week after training
Relevance survey

During and also one week after training
completion

Customer Satisfaction
Instructor pulse check During training
Satisfaction survey One week after training

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the IT component and
soft skills component sessions, Level 1 Reaction data will be collected by the instructors to
ascertain the level of BDM engagement, relevance and satisfaction (See Appendix E and
Appendix F). The individual competency levels will indicate BDM understanding of knowledge
learned. During the training sessions, informal observations and discussions will take place with
instructors to further assess BDM engagement and affirm understanding of BDM’s role in
effective e-leadership (see Appendix G). Moreover, the Mentimeter tool will be utilized during
the training sessions to pulse the attendee reaction (Mentimeter, 2019).

118
For Level 2 Learning, data will be gathered to assess BDM knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence and commitment to the training and learning both the IT and soft skills component,
with surveys (See table on Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program, Appendix
E and Appendix F). Instructor observations will also be gathered (see Appendix G).
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. After the trainings, on a
quarterly basis, BDM participation and feedback will be reviewed by the instructors in
conjunction with the organization’s HR and reported to the Executive Council. The
demonstration of all four levels of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) training evaluation
will be provided in a survey. See Appendix H. Level 1 Reaction on engagement, relevance and
satisfaction will be determined by a survey. Similarly, BDM demonstration of Level 2 e-
leadership knowledge and skills will indicate the confidence and value of the training will also
be determined by a survey. The Level 3 critical behaviors in demonstrating use of IT
communication software, trusting virtual workers and exercise of virtual communication will be
assessed through both surveys and follow-up discussions with instructors. The Level 4 results
and leading indicators will also encompass a survey, which will include selecting a list of IT
software programs used and asking BDMs if they have the understanding and resources to do
their job.
Data Analysis and Reporting. .The Level 4 goal is for an effective e-leadership
development program. In order to achieve these results, there must be reports on the findings
from the instrument surveys. As such, on a quarterly basis, the instructors, in conjunction with
HR will track the number of BDM surveys completed for each of the two components of training
(IT and soft skills). They will then evaluate, summarize and average the survey results. A high

119
level overview of the IT confidence level and the soft skills confidence levels will be provided.
See Appendix I .
Summary. The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be
used to plan, implement and evaluate the recommendations to maximize attaining the BDM goal
and organizational goal. Level 4 of this model measures the final results, Level 3 focuses on
required behaviors of BDMs to reinforce the learning, Level 2 Learning evaluates the degree to
which BDMs will acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment,
and Level 1 confirms a positive reaction by BDMs. These four levels of Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick (2016) provide a solid framework to plan and develop an effective e-leadership
program.

120
Appendix E: Survey Immediately Following Training (IT Component)

For each of the questions below, select the response that best characterizes your assessment of
the statement.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
I was satisfied with the training on
IT software

The IT training has given me
confidence to apply what I learned
to my virtual team

I am committed to applying what I
learned with my virtual team

I found the feedback from the
instructors during the training
sessions valuable

I found the exercises and practical
application during the training
sessions valuable

I believe I can apply the new IT
skills

The training was worthwhile to
learn about IT and the importance
of IT in leading virtually

121
Appendix F: Survey Immediately Following Training (Soft Skills Component)
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
I was satisfied with the training on
e-leadership skills

The training has given me
confidence to apply what I learned
with my virtual team

I am committed to applying what I
learned with my virtual team

I found the feedback from the
instructors during the training
sessions valuable

I found the exchanges and case
studies with fellow BDMs during
the training sessions to be valuable

I believe I can trust my employees to
work virtually

The training was worthwhile to learn
how to effectively communicate
with my virtual team

I believe the training will improve
my relationships with my virtual
team

122
Appendix G: Instructor Observational Checklist and Assessment
Purpose: This Observational Checklist and Assessment is for the Instructor (for both the IT
component and the soft skills component) to use when observing BDMs at the half-way mark of
trainings to determine the level of reaction and learning. Instructor Comments may include
observations that support the rating when assessing BDM learning needs, interests and
understanding effective e-leadership.

Rating Scale
1= Effective BDM targeted behavior
2= Moderate BDM targeted behavior
3= No BDM targeted behavior

Targeted Behavior Rating Instructor Comments
BDMs are engaged and actively participating in
the training

BDMs appear confident based on the questions
and answers provided

BDMs are demonstrating understanding of the
materials

BDMs responses show they find the material
relevant

BDMs questions and comments show they are
satisfied with the material and learning

123
Appendix H: Quarterly Survey
For each of the questions below, select the response that best characterizes your assessment of
the statement.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
I used the IT software programs that I
learned at the training

I have successfully applied what I
learned in the second component
(soft skills) of the training

I have observed a positive difference
in my interactions with my virtual
team

The IT component of the training has
improved my performance as an e-
leader

The soft skills component of the
training has improved my
performance as an e-leader

Due to the training, I believe my
perception of virtual workers has
improved

I have confidence in using different
communication mediums with my
virtual team

124
Appendix I: Confidence Levels- IT Component and Soft Skills Component

125
Appendix J: Ethics
The PI is responsible to ensure that the research does not injure the human subjects, and
is fully aware of the safety, dignity and privacy of the participants (Glesne, 2011). Potential
ethical issues were carefully considered, including the research methodology, given the
relationship of this PI to the participants is not one of superiority or supervision, but rather
business acquaintances, which may include potential bias, given the familiarity each other’s
business reputation across the organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, while this PI
was acquainted with six of the nine participants (Xavier, Eleanor Troy, Yasmine, Kent and Dan)
the business interactions with each acquainted participant were at most two to three times a year.
The PI met the remaining three participants (David, Allison and Nancy) for the first time in this
study.
All the participants in this study were well informed of the study and in control of their
level of participation. All the participants were informed of their control and their level of
participation. Each participant executed an informed consent. Permission to record
participants was obtained prior to the compilation of data. Participants were also reminded that
they can withdraw or refrain from answering at any time within the entire process.

126
Appendix K: Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are influences that the researcher cannot control that may place restrictions
on methodology and ultimate conclusions. The first limitation is to clarify that the instrument
utilizing the interview protocol were pilot tested with a comparable interviews because this
interview protocol has not been rigorously field tested. Also, because the administration of data
gathering with interview questions were used only once in this study, the significant of a pilot
test is paramount. The second limitation is that all interview data were self-reported data that
may include bias. Participants may have not been fully forthright, conveyed experiences only in
part or simply not been forthright. In addition to the limitations, this study has a few
delimitations. The organization for this study is quite unique because of its established reputation
and accomplishments in science and engineering. Thus, generalizing to other research and
development organizations may not transfer well. Further, the researcher may be creating an
additional delimitation in the study’s findings with the focus on only one stakeholder group
being the primary focus of investigation. There may be other stakeholder groups that could
provide additional information and relevant experience, but such will not be pursued because the
scope is limited.

127
Appendix L: Informed Consent Form

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

Competency in a blended workforce: an evaluation study of contracted labor development challenges

PDF

Data-driven culture in the consumer goods industry

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

Maximizing leadership development in the U.S. Army: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Lim, Jenny J. (author)

Core Title Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/02/2020

Defense Date 01/24/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag e-leadership,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,remote working,Technology,virtual working

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Slaughter, John (committee member), Wilcox, Alexandra (committee member)

Creator Email jennyjslim@gmail.com,lim450@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-279025

Unique identifier UC11674915

Identifier etd-LimJennyJ-8241.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-279025 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LimJennyJ-8241.pdf

Dmrecord 279025

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lim, Jenny J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA