View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Virtual Table: A Framework for Online Teamwork, Collaboration, and Communication

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Virtual Table: A Framework for Online Teamwork, Collaboration, and Communication
Language: English
Authors: Endersby, Lisa, Phelps, Kirstin, Jenkins, Dan
Source: New Directions for Student Leadership. Spr 2017 (153):75-88.
Availability: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Virtual Classrooms, Teamwork, Cooperation, Computer Mediated Communication, Influence of Technology, Skill Development, Communication Skills, Leadership, Competence
DOI: 10.1002/yd.20231
ISSN: 2373-3349
Abstract: This chapter reviews the complex relationship between technology and leadership, focusing on how technology affects the development and demonstration of skills in communication, teamwork, and collaboration. The chapter also proposes a framework for identifying and assessing key leadership competencies in the digital space.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1252678
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFI47DE27Z_6a9F1lFaZEJ_AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDCwMLHa-_jfokSUWAIBEICBm5yDx7kNzKlUq4cZ5kW0YyOS4-cG0TiLs3rsT7ZyEcXSe8Darzo2a7bzJ2X7OiaUQtOv2P-uNSX2KQXy_IHSBHMeCNXqQL7RGeJlLTjeBYp7eP6su2-Jl4IDrylN-hVFJGZj2yXOPVm3Q3FpKxZsCCzxzYjTHns9oTDc-2m8Ad4_j6mbMux3LnG5IPnPpCXM_d_ASXMj3DQ9vfOz
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0121289873;[i75m]01mar.17;2018Jul09.11:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0121289873-1">The Virtual Table: A Framework for Online Teamwork, Collaboration, and Communication. </title> <p>This chapter reviews the complex relationship between technology and leadership, focusing on how technology affects the development and demonstration of skills in communication, teamwork, and collaboration. The chapter also proposes a framework for identifying and assessing key leadership competencies in the digital space.</p> <p>The impact of technology on leaders and leadership development in higher education is no longer a rare, one‐off event. A leader cannot solely be identified by the loudest voice at the table or the most towering presence in the room as anyone with an Internet connection and a computer (or smartphone or tablet) can type or text their way to a leadership role or emerge as a leader (Yoo & Alavi, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>] ). A diversity of technology platforms and tools have created a new space for collaboration and teamwork we have termed the “virtual table”—a place in which both students and educators must be grounded in knowledge, yet innovative in their approach to learning, often simultaneously and without a foundational set of guidelines. Leaders must also contend with a virtual table that exists in multiple “rooms” and can seat multiple people for a variety of purposes.</p> <p>This chapter recommends relevant implications for practice by focusing on leading a team using digital technology around a virtual table. To narrow the scope of this chapter, leadership is conceived of as the behaviors of any individual (both with or without formal authority) who seeks to influence the direction of the group. Further, this chapter focuses on exploring the gaps in practice‐oriented literature related to (a) power and platform (how leaders can gain, maintain, and lose traditionally held indicators of power online); (b) presence (how leaders build and maintain an active, highly visible presence online and whether this constant visibility is necessary for effective leadership); and (c) participation (how leaders actively engage with a team that may be able to remain productive without their constant, vigilant attention).</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-2">Considerations of Virtual Leadership</hd> <p>In practice, leadership can be defined as “a solution to the problem of collective effort—the problem of bringing people together and combining their efforts to promote success and survival” (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>] , p. 96). The workplace and the classroom provide valuable spaces for the emergence and nurturing of attitudes and competencies in support of this collective effort—teachers, students, workers, and bosses have ample access to a diverse set of resources while working toward a common goal. Leaders are identified based on frequent, overt displays of leadership behaviors. Additionally, their status (positional or otherwise) is continuously reinforced in the social hierarchy of the office or classroom. In the face‐to‐face (F2F), physical environment, leaders have ready access to the formal structures and informal, assumed social dynamics that allow them to capture and maintain their high status or influence within the group.</p> <p>However, many of these structures, networks, and social cues can be greatly enhanced or be noticeably absent within a virtual setting. Emerging as a leader online, often in the context of online learning communities, can mean emerging as an opinion leader capable of using one's “superior status, education, and social prestige … to influence followers” (Li, Ma, Zhang, & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>] , p. 43). Social network researchers describe this phenomenon as the “majority illusion” (Lerman, Yan, & Wu, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>] , p. 1). A number of contagious behaviors, such as the spread of fads, memes, social norms, or public opinions, are often precipitated by a small group of central individuals (i.e., opinion leaders) whose behaviors are more easily spread to the larger population due to their central location and large audience. However, centrality is just one indicator of status within social networks. An individual who is seen as having a high level of expertise in a particular area, combined with personality traits often ascribed to a leader (e.g., extroversion and assertiveness) (Katz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>] ), can also attain the status of opinion leader in a virtual space. Satisfaction with and trust in the ascribed opinion leader, however, can vary based on different settings, with research supporting the continued importance of matching a leadership style (e.g., transactional or transformational) to task type (e.g., short‐term projects) across F2F, hybrid, and online work environments (Hoyt & Blascovich, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>] ). The judgment of a leader as a content expert is also challenging in the virtual environment, with the majority of research surrounding opinion leaders as experts focusing on the possession of technical knowledge that can be easily confirmed as right or wrong (e.g., Wikipedia, Google). The interplay of perceived expertise and the socioemotional status markers of leadership represent emerging opportunities for leadership development in an online environment.</p> <p>Interactions in the online space can often be devoid of the valuable social cues that permeate more emotionally and personality‐driven leadership styles. In many cases, group members may use pseudonyms to feel a sense of safety in their interactions and conversations, hoping to mitigate the risk of damaging their “real life” reputation (Ross, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>] ) while simultaneously making it challenging for a leader to develop strong social ties and, consequently, a more authoritative virtual presence.</p> <p>A virtual leader must also work to demonstrate their authority without the benefit of recognition or response from others from more traditional signals of power. Effective virtual leadership, then, requires the careful coordination and intersection of the social underpinnings and knowledge‐sharing networks because members of online communities will often seek out and establish social connections in order to share knowledge in an environment based on trust and care (Von Krogh, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>] ). Virtual leadership is further complicated by notions of distributed leadership wherein an online community could identify multiple members as leaders in a space devoid of traditional behavioral indicators of hierarchy and more commonly understood organizational structures (Purvanova & Bono, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-3">Standards and Competencies for Virtual Leadership</hd> <p>As student learning and success transcend physical and virtual domains, leadership development must be considered and supported equally across both physical and digital environments. In all aspects and on all platforms, the virtual enactment of leadership has additional complexity such that competencies related to group initiation, motivation, and maintaining the structure of a (physical or virtual) team require personal reflection and awareness of one's collaborative interactions in the digital space (Mukherjee, Lahiri, Mukherjee, & Billing, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref10">17</reflink>] ). Accordingly, a discussion of virtual team leadership must be grounded in an understanding of leadership as it applies to this unique context. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>] ) developed a series of standards for multiple functional areas in higher education, including student leadership programs, in an attempt to narrow the scope of leadership development for practical use by educators and administrators and reflect good practices in student leadership programming. As leadership research and practice continues to evolve, technology has played a role in reforming and envisioning how leadership programs are developed, facilitated, and assessed.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-4">A Continuum for Team Virtuality</hd> <p>Although it may be easier to describe virtual teams in comparison to in‐person teams, the reality is that most teams, regardless of place or setting, engage with technology in some capacity. Rather than considering only the binary distinction of virtual or F2F groups, team virtuality should instead be considered along a fluid continuum. On the online extreme, team members are remote and meet exclusively through text and/or video conferencing software. On the F2F extreme, team members engage in the physical space such as a classroom, but may still use collaborative tools, such as Trello or Google docs, to organize their work. In between are hybrid teams; for example, blended learning classrooms or collaborative student groups who may meet a few times F2F and also conduct much of their daily business through technology.</p> <p>In each of these cases, where the team is situated along the continuum has important considerations for leadership, for virtual leaders, and for the different ways leadership dimensions—such as social power and prestige, topic expertise, and adaptive facilitation—may be expressed. The need for virtual leadership competency could therefore be enacted differently based upon where the team is situated within the range of virtuality (Table [NaN] ).</p> <p>6.1 A Continuum of Team Virtuality</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th align="center">Online</th><th align="center">Hybrid</th><th align="center">Face to Face</th></tr><tr><td /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td>Social Power and Prestige</td><td>Power gained through status as opinion leader</td><td>Physical signals of power or assigned position of authority</td><td>Physical (traditional) signals of power</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Online environment influences expressions of power</td><td>Prestige partly based on frequency of communication</td><td>Assigned position of authority</td></tr><tr><td>Topic Expertise</td><td>Veracity of content compared to other widely available socially constructed knowledge</td><td>Online tools provide valuable medium to quickly review large volumes of information</td><td>Veracity of content measured against established knowledge of team and members</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Face‐to‐face interactions can offer additional opportunities to evaluate content</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Adaptive Facilitation</td><td>Technology can help (e.g., efficiency) and hinder (e.g., capacity) effective facilitation</td><td>Demands frequent shifts in facilitation style(s) to account for movement between online and face‐to‐face environments</td><td>Relies heavily on visible body language and other cues to adapt facilitation style</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Facilitator must be skilled in both use of technology and facilitation across virtual platforms</td><td>Demonstration and identification of important social cues for adaptive facilitation vary between settings</td><td>Challenges can be mitigated with on the spot strategies</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In considering these dimensions of virtuality, we can see that a number of guidelines put forth by the CAS ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>] ) standards are just as important to develop in real as in virtual space. And, although we stand to learn from how virtual competencies such as process orientation, cultural and geographical considerations, accessibility, engagement, and communication are assessed in other contexts, no measurable criteria exist to assess virtual student leadership specifically. The following section of this chapter integrates the key considerations emerging from dialogue around student leadership and technology competencies into a framework through which educators can begin to assess these skills across the multivariate contexts in which leadership and virtual collaboration occurs.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-5">Virtual Leadership Considerations</hd> <p>Given the continuum of team environments and technology described previously, what does a “successful” or a “functional/productive” virtual team look like? Imagine a group of students, collaborating to solve a problem or complete a specific task. The task itself—whether academic or social in nature—is less important than how individuals engage in the collaborative process: what technologies they choose to use, what skills they employ, and the environment in which they interact. First, the group must, by direction of a leader or collaboratively, decide on the appropriate information and communication technologies (ICTs) to meet and work through the problem or task. To be effective, this decision‐making process must consider a number of dimensions: (a) access and power dimensions of technology, (b) social and technical processes, (c) engagement and inclusivity of group members, (d) adaptability, and (e) how the entire process will be facilitated. For example, what does it mean to have a conversation about the goals of the group and align them to technological resources? Although a Google doc may be ideal for certain tasks, what about when trying to delegate subtasks, reach consensus, or brainstorm? Moreover, what are the implications of each technological decision for privacy, security, engagement, and capturing members’ contributions? Likewise, what outcomes are affected if members are unfamiliar with, or do not fully understand, dimensions of a technology they are supposed to employ?</p> <p>The following section introduces a Virtual Leadership Competency Framework, designed with great intentionality to develop key dimensions of leadership for students who will be called to lead in virtual environments. Although the CAS ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>] ) standards have helped provide teaching, learning, and assessment strategies for leadership development programming, a gap exists in translating these guidelines into virtual settings. For example, in an exploratory study among leadership courses, Jenkins ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>] ) found online courses weighted group assessment strategies 12th (out of 17), compared to in‐person courses that weighted similar strategies of group work and group presentations the heaviest. All other factors remaining the same (e.g., course type or subject matter), why are instructors excluding group work in their online classes? Are aspiring leaders who take online classes less expected to work in virtual teams? Of course not. It is our responsibility as leadership educators to identify emerging techniques and innovative approaches to teaching in virtual environments (Andenoro et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>] ). The Virtual Leadership Competency Framework (Table [NaN] ), represents an initial operationalization around how to assess and evaluate students’ skill development around virtual leadership and collaboration.</p> <p>6.2 Virtual Leadership Competency Framework</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr valign="bottom"><th>Leadership Competency</th><th align="center">Assessment and Evaluation</th><th align="center">Pedagogical Application</th></tr><tr><td>Adaptive facilitation</td><td><p>Provides coaching and support for group to adopt/implement new technologies</p><p>Shows awareness of different technological dimensions</p><p>Incorporates appropriate tech platforms according to team needs</p></td><td><p>Problem‐based learning to pair ICTs with social variables and team goals</p><p>360‐degree feedback</p><p>Case studies that highlight implications of ICTs on processes and group dynamics</p><p>Simulation or role play to reproduce virtual team conflicts and/or communications</p><p>Team‐building activities, simulation, and role‐play games</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Understanding of technological amplifications of power</p></td><td><p>Reflects critical understanding of how technological tools may inhibit or promote normative assumptions</p><p>Combats technological solutions to societal challenges</p><p>Recognizes technological affordances may privilege and obscure different types of group participation</p></td><td><p>Include examination of technological components within case studies of leadership</p><p>Provide historical, illustrative examples of how technology has empowered or disempowered social action</p><p>Uncover and debrief dominant assumptions about technology connected to collective action and engagement</p><p>Comparing and contrasting social media platforms with respect to power, influence, social justice, and access</p><p>Consider examples of power and influence in virtual settings</p></td></tr><tr><td>Recognition of integrated social‐technical processes</td><td><p>Respects individual and team concerns around privacy and security on technology‐enabled platforms</p><p>Supports team learning around technology use</p><p>Initiates team practice and reflection around technology</p><p>Respects and recognizes individual differences in technological skill</p><p>Considers social context and group norms around technology use</p><p>Evaluates how well technology used matched group dimensions</p></td><td><p>Challenge technical solutions to team challenges</p><p>Identify and bring attention to technocentric thinking</p><p>Role model team learning processes within classroom</p><p>Small group breakouts and discussion</p><p>Host technology shares for peer teaching by team members</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nuanced understanding of technology</p></td><td><p>Shows an understanding of the benefits and challenges of ICTs</p><p>Chooses platforms and applications based upon understanding of group dimensions</p><p>Sets expectations within group around technology use, team planning, and individual member characteristics</p></td><td><p>Include technology choice and competency options within self and peer evaluations</p><p>Discuss how enacted leadership roles may appear in virtual settings</p><p>Address frequency, responsibility, and expectations around communication</p></td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0121289873-6">Virtual Leadership Competency Framework</hd> <p>The framework guides leadership educators to integrate emerging technology standards with proposed virtual leadership competencies by providing suggestions for assessment and pedagogical application. Motivation for the framework was not so much if students will be engaging with others through technology, but rather how can we best prepare them to do so while considering power and platform, presence, and participation.</p> <p>The integration of technology centers upon four key considerations of virtual leadership competency represented in the framework: (a) adaptive facilitation, (b) understanding technological amplifications of power, (c) recognition of integrated social‐technical processes, and (d) nuanced understanding of technology.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-7">Key Consideration #1: Adaptive Facilitation</hd> <p>The adaptive facilitation required for virtual leadership competency is reflected in the ability of team leaders to support and facilitate team processes. This involves developing in students an understanding of and orientation toward the four key considerations when enacting leadership within virtual settings. It is not enough to encourage the use of “appropriate” technology; which technology is “appropriate” is determined by team factors as well as individual competency and familiarity with the technology at hand.</p> <p>Collaborative technologies do not support collaboration if team members do not see them as collaborative (Orlikowski, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>] ). Furthermore, team technology choice and, ultimately, team performance are affected by a number of team characteristics, including digital literacy proficiency, comfort level, and mental models around technologies. In order to increase the effectiveness of technology, team characteristics must align with their collaborative use. The team communication tool, Slack, will not be effective if not all team members are familiar or comfortable using it. However, it is often too easy to make assumptions about technology proficiency, efficacy, or access in today's digital age.</p> <p>Adaptive facilitation that considers group dimensions around technology is an important leadership role and skill set in virtual team settings. For example, supporting team learning through motivation, practice, and reflection has been found to overcome obstacles around new technology adoption (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>] ). As a result, the development of adaptive facilitation competencies can be supported by helping students develop awareness for social support roles around technology adoption and how to use them within their group, as well as building awareness of differences among technologies that may affect group work. From an education standpoint, these competencies can be developed through inclusion of adaptive facilitation dimensions through problem‐based learning, team building applications, and reflection, among others, which encourages development of awareness toward technology, and technological implications for group work among students.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-8">Key Consideration #2: Understanding Technological Amplifications of Power</hd> <p>As with F2F leadership development, attention to power dynamics are just as important, if not more so, for virtual settings, given assumptions about technology and the lack of overt social cues. A major assumption to challenge is related to the dominant narrative of technocentrism within modern society. Technocentrism (Papert, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>] ) is a belief in the power of technology reflected in discourse that promotes scientific and technical solutions as the solution to societal problems. How often do we see commercials presenting the newest app, gadget, or device as changing lives? How many times have we heard, “Isn't there an app for that?” as a solution to a personal challenge? The danger in such thinking is that when technology dominates, it is easier to privilege technological competency and knowledge over other types of wisdom, contribution, or social processes. This mindset often glorifies the cult of technology and positions technology as the salvation to those less fortunate, a position that minimizes, undervalues, and potentially oppresses the intended recipient group.</p> <p>Power dynamics are also at play in the different compositions of social relationships enabled through technology. Flexible work assignments, contractual labor, and part‐time work enabled by information technology (IT) may hold benefits for workers, as has been found in research in virtual work, but can also shift the power relationships between capital and labor (Castells, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>] ). Virtual team members may not only become less visible to their teammates but they also become less visible to those in managerial roles and, subsequently, may lose bargaining power as well as experience feelings of physical, mental, and social isolation. Classic work exploring IT in the workplace illustrates how choices around technology could either serve to centralize managerial power or enhance employee participation and intellective skill development (Zuboff, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>] ). If the goal of leadership is to support collective effort, it is therefore important to understand how technology is being used, for what purposes, and how social relationships may be affected.</p> <p>Another consideration for power manifestations is related to digital traces left by virtual interaction. As educators, do we use knowledge of student's time logged into Blackboard as a proxy for participation? Is being able to see team members’ contributions through Google docs unequivocally a good thing? Technological tools advertised to aid teamwork, may, in fact, create behaviors where team members use technology to monitor each other's work. Such hybrid systems of surveillance are enabled by the creation of digital trace data, which may conflate quantity with quality and privilege certain types of participation over other, less trackable, contributions. Without examining assumptions around technology, we may too easily be convinced of its positive neutrality and benefits to group work and lose a more holistic view of teamwork processes that leadership education strives to make known to students. Technology is not a neutral tool; rather, it serves as an amplifier for forces within the system depending upon its use (Toyoma, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>] ). Therefore, drawing attention to the different ways power can manifest through technology, educators can help develop critical thinking to fight the dominant narrative of technocentrism and help students question simplistic technical solutions to more complex processes.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-9">Key Consideration #3: Recognition of Integrated Social‐Technical Processes</hd> <p>The third consideration reminds us that technical and social processes are intimately connected (MacKenzie & Wajcman, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>] ). Consider the smartphone. If you asked a classroom of students to describe their phone, why they have it, how they used it, what apps they had installed, or query other uses you would likely get diverse answers. These answers reflect the ways technology is integrated into our daily lives, and how its use shapes, and is shaped by, the social relationships and social structures in which students engage.</p> <p>There is no uniform, one‐size‐fits‐all adoption of technology across contexts. Instead, technology use is reflective of the unique needs, environments, and skills of individuals within the social system in which it is embedded. Indeed, even the adoption of technology is a social process (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>] ) dependent upon social structures, opinion leaders, and social norms. In supporting virtual group work, consideration of social processes must be considered to leverage technological potential. For example, social forces of homophily, that is, the tendency of people to associate with similar others, can limit the broadcasting potential of social media technologies (McPherson, Smith‐Lovin, & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>] ). Virtual communication is bounded by the communities and social groups to which you belong, and, just like in real life, people tend to hang out online with other people who are like them. As a result, online communities often serve as echo chambers for homogenous and polarized groups, which supports the dissemination of certain information while simultaneously constraining the spread of others.</p> <p>Application of technology does not free us from consideration of social processes. Virtual teams are often seen at a disadvantage compared to face‐to‐face teams, given the low media richness of digital communication compared to in‐person communication. However, findings have shown that as virtual teams gain experience working with one another, they can catch up to the benefits of F2F teams (Alge, Wiethoff, & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>] ). Therefore, understanding how social dynamics engage in virtual spaces, and considering them along with technology choices, is an important question for digital leadership. Competencies that support the appropriate use of technology need to simultaneously consider the underlying social dynamics in which the technology is embedded. Development of this competency involves intentional inclusion of technological skills, familiarity, and understanding within the group, rather than blanket assumptions about technology or technical solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-10">Key Consideration #4: Nuanced Understanding of Technology</hd> <p>The final question brings us to the consideration of group dimensions that factor into the use of appropriate technology. Knowledge of the myriad applications, programs, software, and platforms is not enough; it is also important to understand the benefits and drawbacks of each choice. Ultimately, this knowledge will be used to identify and employ appropriate technology strategically in support of group work.</p> <p>Different technological applications and platforms have different strengths and weaknesses based upon their design and inherent affordances. Social media, for example, offer ease and convenience of disseminating information quickly to large groups of individuals, while also being limited by homophily, lack of personalization and direct action, and potential for information overload. The choice of what application to use may vary based upon a number of group dimensions that help align appropriate technology with immediate group needs. The model of task–technology fit suggests that a fit between task, technology, and individual characteristics determines performance (Goodhue & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>] ). Extrapolated to the group level, it is therefore important to understand not only the task the group is trying to accomplish but also individual characteristics of team members. Is the task information related? Does the group need to reduce uncertainty by gathering information around a particular issue? Or is information available and a decision needs to be made on the best course of action? Does the team need to exchange information (conveyance) or attempt to uncover the meaning of information (convergence)?</p> <p>Depending on the needs of the group around specific tasks, different media choices and organizational work strategies would be more or less appropriate. Low media synchronicity technologies, such as email or texting, are more appropriate for conveyance, whereas high synchronicity technologies are better suited for convergence, though this may decrease over time as groups become more familiar (Dennis & Valacich, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>] ). Virtual leadership competency should therefore include appropriate choice of technology, acknowledging its inherent benefits and drawbacks, with awareness of the social and structural factors that still may impede its effective use.</p> <hd id="AN0121289873-11">Conclusion</hd> <p>The act of leading virtual teams, and the greater art of leadership, look different online. Without the more traditional markers of leadership, it has become increasingly challenging for students and administrators to find and maintain a seat around the virtual table. For students in organizations, virtual teamwork does not offer traditional indicators of status, leaving potential and positional leaders to compete with a myriad of other people and platforms for attention and authority. Instead, in the digital space, distributed power is now the truest measure of a leader. Creating and maintaining a strong virtual presence in the shadow of constant and competing demands for attention is now less a measure of a leader's visibility and more their ability to critically examine and present information in a way that indicates critical thought and meaningful reflection. Leaders and all members of a virtual team can take advantage of emerging technology that makes engaging across previously impermeable boundaries easier and faster. The opportunities for the effective distribution of power inherent in a diverse team are also important tools for navigating the challenges that arise in bringing together people and perspectives that, previously, were unable or uninterested in interacting.</p> <p>Higher education administrators are guided in their own development by standards and assertions of competencies they need to best lead, educate, and facilitate programs. Most notably, the revision of the ACPA: College Student Educators International/NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs (2015) included a stand‐alone technology competency, emphasizing the importance of technology in influencing competency development while also supporting the continued practice of multiple essential skills. This competency highlights the complex intersections of leadership and technology as students (and administrators) must simultaneously develop skills in both areas while remaining sensitive to the cyclical impact each domain has on the other.</p> <p>The complexities of virtual leadership are a newer phenomenon; administrators must now contend with competing demands for student attention while also learning to navigate these same spaces as potential platforms for learning and development. The ACPA/NASPA technology competency highlights this dynamic well, giving equal space to skills related to troubleshooting software or hardware challenges as for critically assessing information shared online (ACPA/NASPA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>] ). For both professionals and students, the use of technological tools means engaging with others in a space lacking overt social cues and context, which can support various functions and serve multiple purposes (often simultaneously). Although the ACPA/NASPA technology competency looks specifically at educational technology competencies, it does not address leadership development with the same specificity. However, the synthesis between competencies in student leadership development and collaborative technology is arguably the next frontier.</p> <p>New research in the field will lend itself to opportunities for situating learning outcomes related to leadership (e.g., interpersonal communication, collaboration, and conflict management) in this virtual world. Administrators must now consider how the tools that make their data management more efficient can also greatly affect their pedagogy in what they teach, how they teach it, and how their students interact with them, their peers, and the information they share. What tools will we use to build the seats for our team? Who will be able to, or want to, sit at the table we construct? Future research could include how power dynamics influence the building of and seating at the virtual table, particularly from a social justice lens in how these tools and spaces are accessed. Leadership identity must now also broaden to include one's digital identity, and future scholars will explore how these pieces of ourselves and our student leaders intersect. Textbooks and other resources will need to be updated to reflect this changing reality, and including digital identity and mentorship as part of leadership development programming will become a necessary part of how we educate leaders to exist, and thrive, in this new setting. The pursuit of power and presence is no longer a solitary, upward climb; virtual teamwork has, and will continue to, demand leaders whose reach is lateral as well as lofty, and who can welcome the influx of information, ideas, and individuals who will crowd their virtual table.</p> <ref id="AN0121289873-12"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>ACPA : College Student Educators International & NASPA: Student Affairs Professionals in Higher Education. ( 2015 ). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. Washington, DC : Authors. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA%5fNASPA%5fProfessional%5fCompetencies%5fFINAL.pdf">http://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA%5fNASPA%5fProfessional%5fCompetencies%5fFINAL.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. ( 2003 ). When does the medium matter? Knowledge‐building experiences and opportunities in decision‐making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26 – 37. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Andenoro, A. C., Allen, S. J., Haber‐Curran, P., Jenkins, D. M., Sowcik, M., Dugan, J. P., & Osteen, L. ( 2013 ). National Leadership Education research agenda 2013–2018: Providing strategic direction for the field of leadership education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://leadershipeducators.org/ResearchAgenda">http://leadershipeducators.org/ResearchAgenda</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Castells, M. ( 2011 ). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1 ). Oxford, UK : John Wiley & Sons. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. ( 2015 ). CAS professional standards for higher education ( 9th ed. ). Washington, DC : Author. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. ( 1999, January). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. In proceedings from HICSS‐32: The 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA : IEEE Computer Society Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref17" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. ( 2001 ). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685 – 716. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref26" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. ( 1995 ). Task‐technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213 – 236. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. ( 2003 ). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678 – 715. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref14" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Jenkins, D. M. ( 2016 ). Teaching leadership online: An exploratory study of instructional and assessment strategy use. Journal of Leadership Education, 15 ( 2 ), 129 – 149. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://journalofleadershiped.org/index.php/volume-15-issue-2/431-teaching-leadership-online-an-exploratory-study-of-instructional-and-assessment-strategy-use">http://journalofleadershiped.org/index.php/volume-15-issue-2/431-teaching-leadership-online-an-exploratory-study-of-instructional-and-assessment-strategy-use</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref2" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. ( 2008 ). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96 – 110. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref5" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Katz, E. ( 1957 ). The two‐step flow of communication: An up‐to‐date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 61 – 78. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref4" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Lerman, K., Yan, X., & Wu, X. ( 2016 ). The “majority illusion” in social networks. PLoS ONE, 11, 1 – 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147617 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref3" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Li, Y., Ma, S., Zhang, Y., & Huang, R. ( 2013 ). An improved mix framework for opinion leader identification in online learning communities. Knowledge‐Based Systems, 43, 43 – 51. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref22" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>MacKenzie, D. A., & Wajcman, J. ( 1999 ). The social shaping of technology. In D. A. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology ( 2nd ed., pp. 3 – 27 ). Buckingham, UK : Open University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref24" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>McPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. ( 2001 ). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415 – 444. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref10" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Mukherjee, D., & Billing, T. K. ( 2012 ). Leading virtual teams: How do social, cognitive, and behavioral capabilities matter ? Management Decision, 50, 273 – 290. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref16" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Orlikowski, W. ( 1992 ). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398 – 427. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref18" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Papert, S. ( 1990 ). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html">http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref9" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. ( 2009 ). Transformational leadership in context: Face‐to‐face and virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343 – 357. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref23" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Rogers, E. M. ( 2010 ). Diffusion of innovations ( 4th ed.). New York, NY : The Free Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref7" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Ross, D. ( 2007 ). Backstage with the knowledge boys and girls: Goffman and distributed agency in an organic online community. Organization Studies, 28, 307 – 325. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref21" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Toyoma, K. ( 2015 ). Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York, NY : Public Affairs. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref8" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Von Krogh, G. ( 2002 ). The communal resource and information systems. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 85 – 107. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref1" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. ( 2004 ). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: What do emergent leaders do? Information and Organization, 14, 27 – 58. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref20" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Zuboff, S. ( 1988 ). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY : Basic Books. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lisa Endersby; Kirstin Phelps and Dan Jenkins</p> <p></p> <p>Lisa Endersby is a doctoral student exploring professional development in online communities of practice at the University of Windsor. She is past national chair of the NASPA Technology Knowledge Community. Among her numerous publications and presentations is a recent chapter in Leadership 2050: Critical Challenges, Key Contexts, and Emerging Trends, by the International Leadership Association (ILA). Lisa is coeditor of “Pause for Pedagogy,” a monthly article series in the ILA newsletter exploring innovative pedagogical practices and strategies in leadership education.</p> <p>Kirstin Phelps is a PhD candidate at the iSchool at the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign whose research interests include the intersection of information, technology, and leadership, with particular emphasis on social network methods. Previously, she served as an assistant director at the Illinois Leadership Center at the University of Illinois.</p> <p>Dan Jenkins is director and assistant professor of leadership and organizational studies at the University of Southern Maine. His research interests include leadership education, pedagogy, curriculum design and assessment, distance learning, and critical thinking.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1252678
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Virtual Table: A Framework for Online Teamwork, Collaboration, and Communication
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Endersby%2C+Lisa%22">Endersby, Lisa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Phelps%2C+Kirstin%22">Phelps, Kirstin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenkins%2C+Dan%22">Jenkins, Dan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Student+Leadership%22"><i>New Directions for Student Leadership</i></searchLink>. Spr 2017 (153):75-88.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Virtual+Classrooms%22">Virtual Classrooms</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influence+of+Technology%22">Influence of Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Skills%22">Communication Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership%22">Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competence%22">Competence</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/yd.20231
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2373-3349
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This chapter reviews the complex relationship between technology and leadership, focusing on how technology affects the development and demonstration of skills in communication, teamwork, and collaboration. The chapter also proposes a framework for identifying and assessing key leadership competencies in the digital space.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1252678
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1252678
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/yd.20231
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 75
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Virtual Classrooms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influence of Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competence
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Virtual Table: A Framework for Online Teamwork, Collaboration, and Communication
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Endersby, Lisa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Phelps, Kirstin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenkins, Dan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 2373-3349
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 153
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Student Leadership
              Type: main
ResultId 1