Leading Virtual Teams: Hierarchical Leadership, Structural Supports, and Shared Team Leadership Julia E. Hoch and Steve W. J. Kozlowski “Michigan State University Using 2 field sample of 101 virwal teams, this research empirically evaluates the impact of aden hierarchical leadership, strstr supports, sd shared eam leadership on team peformaae. Building on Bell and Korlowsk's (2002) work, we expected stracural suppers and shared tem cedeship tobe ‘more, and hierarchies leadeship tbe les, srogly elated team performance whes tums were more ‘nual im nature. A prodictd, sls fom maceration analyses indiatd that te extent to which tans ‘were move vital atlensated relations between hitarchcal leadenip snd tam performance but strengthened relations for stectural supports and team performance. However, shared team leadesip ‘vas sgificanty related totem performance regardless ofthe degree of vrualty. Result are discussed atsorwndbinad gscesto bias nO in tems of neoded resca pracealimplistion for leading viral tari ‘extensions for understanding lenership procares in virtual teams and Keywords: team virtual, vital team leadership, sractral supports, shared team leadenbip, team perormance Virtual teams work together over time and distance via elec~ tronic media to combine effort and achieve common goals (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002) Although surveys indiate that fewer than 50% ‘of companies used virual teams in 2000, by 2008 over 65% stated that their reliance on virtual teams would “mushroom” in the future. Moreover, among companies with over 10,000 employees, the use of virtual teams was projected to be 80% (itep, 2006, 2008). Concurrent with this growth in the use of virtual teams, the literature on virtual teums has been increasing (Cheshin, Rafaeli, Bos, 2011; Hill, Bartol, Tesluk, & Langa, 2009; Majchrzak, Mal- ‘otra, Stamps, & Lipnack, 2004, Martins & Shalley, 2011; Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, Jimene7-Rodriguer, Wildman, & ‘Shuffler, 2011; Peles & Karren, 2009; Sarker, Anju Sarker, de Kirkeby, 2011; Shin, 2004) [Bitar Nore Pasondo Salas eered ee the ation eto for his ale — SWIK. “This ancl was published Online Firs December 3, 2012 Jia F, Hoch, Scho! of Hama Resourses and Labor Relations, Mick= igan Siate University, Steve W. J. Kerlowski, Departmen of Paehology, Michigan Stace Universi. “The first author would ike lo acknowledge the Geman Research Fone daxioe (Grant No. 141261, U. Konrad, PI) for fing tha, in par, provided sepport during her detoraldsertation retetch and Dr. Kena far serving te Chair of her doctoral these committee. Nonehces, ny spsions, findings, ané conclusions or recommendations expressed ate those ofthe authors and do aot necessarily refect the views ofthe DEG. Comespondence coneering hit article should be addested to Julia F ‘Hoc, who is tow at California State University, Norridge, Collegeof Business and Economics, Deparment of Mstagement, Juniper al JHADIG, 13111 Nontof Steet, Northridge, CA 91350, orto Steve W. 1 Koviowiki, Michigan State University, Deprteat of Psychology, 308 Psychology Building, Eas: Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: julabochéesun co jehochl @igmal com or sevekonZmes edt Most research has focused on the advantages and disadvan- tages of virtual teams. Relative to face-to-face teams, benefits attributed to the use of virtual teams include the ability to compose & team of experts flung across space and time, in- creases in staffing Mexiility to meet market demands, and cost savings from reduced travel (Kirkman, Gibson, & Kim, 2012; Kirkman & Malthieu, 2005; Stanko & Gibson, 2009). Disad- vantages include lower levels of eam cohesion, work satisfac- tion, trust, cooperstive beh ‘ment to team goals; all factors that ean negatively impact team performance, In Tight of these concerns, it is surprising that relatively limited research attention has been directed towaed virtual team, leadership (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kirkman etal, 2012; Mar- tins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004; O'Leary & Mortensen, 2010; Siebdéraht, Hoegl, & Ersst, 2009). Team leadership is regarded asa key mechanism for minimizing motivation and coordina- tion losses and maintaining team effectiveness when they are virtual (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Malhotra, Majchraak, & Rosen, 2007; Martins et sl, 2004; Zigurs, 2003), However, one particular concer is that traditional hierarchical Teadership processes are expected to be disadvantaged in virtual teams because of the luck of face-to-face contact. Thus, some scholars have suggested that hierarchical leadership processes may need, to be supplemented in virtual teams as a way to augment team effectiveness (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2000; Bell & Kozlow= ski, 2002). The purpose of this research is to investigate the ‘impact of team leadership on team performance in teams thst span degrees of virtuality, Although this perspective has heen. proposed in the theoretical literature, it has not been examined, empirically. In particular, we examine the extent to which structural supports and shored team leadership supplement hi- crarchical leadership and the extent to which these relationships are moderated by the degree of virtuality , social control, and commit-LEADING VIRTUAL TEAMS 391 ‘Theoretical Development seadership in Vietual Teams ‘There is consensus among scholars tht virtual teams are more Aifiult to lead than face-to-face teams (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Duarte & Snyder, 2001; Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Hinds & Kiesler, 2002; Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). As a consequence of the lack of face-to-face contact and geographical dispersion, as well as the (often) asynchronous nature of communication, its more difiett for team leaders to perform traditional hierarchical leadership Dehaviors such as motivating members and managing team dy~ namics (Avolio et a, 2000; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Purvanova & Bono, 2009), It has been argued that leader influence can be extended by having leadership augmented by new media (Avolio & Kahsi, 200% Avolio etal, 2000) and that team leaders simply hhave to learn how fo use and apply those media propery. Findings fom empirical research show dhat geting virtual teams to function equivalently to face-to-face teams requires virtual team leaders t0 invest much more time and effort Purvanova & Bono, 2009), although showing more initiative, trying harder, and investing ‘mare time and energy might not always be feasible ‘Some scholars suggest that leadership Functions should be sup- plemented by providing structural supports (Bell & Kozlowhi, 2002; Hinds & Kiesler, 2002; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2003). For example, structuring rewards to provide incentives for perfor- ‘mance should result in higher motivation. Another suggested ap- proach is to supplement leadership by distributing leadership to team members (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Sharing leadership with team members is based on the premise that leadership should not be the sole responsibility of a hierarchical leader, but should be collectively exercised by empowering and developing individual team members (Kitkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). ‘Although this view of leadership challenges in virtual teams has| consensus inthe literature, it has not been subjected to empirical verification, With respect to improving team performance, itis important to understand the extent to which the influence of hierarchical leadership is atteguated (or not) as team virtuality increases. Moreover, ifthe influence of hierarchical leadership is diminished a is suspected, then the extent o which it can be supplemented by structural supports and shared team leadership (and, potentially, other supplements) becomes a eritieal target for ‘theory and research extensions “To examine these istues, our conceptual model treats hierarchi cal leadership, structural supports, and shared team Teadership as inputs to wam performance. The madel is illustrated in Figure 1 ‘The basic premise of our approach is that supplementing hicrar- chical leadership with shared leadership and structural supports will be more relevant when teams are more virtual in nature. Thus, the degree of team virwality is predicted to moderate the relation- ships between hierarchical leadership, structural suppons, and shared team letdership with team performance. There are two notable aspects of the model. Fis, itis foeused on ‘he contribution of these input factors to team performance, The model does not focus on mediating processes at this stage of the ‘esearch, The primary reason fr this focused approach i to enable a clear evaluation of the moderating eects of vitality onthe cote butions of hierarchical leadership, structural suppor, and shared leadership to team performance, Second, the inputs are conceptual- + Rowa Syte + Gopive Tam Laing 1 Ateine Fam opp igure [lls of srstural suppots, hirtcicalletdersip, and shared team leadership is predicting tem performance, moderated by team wits. ined as distin higher-order factors or construct composites, rther ‘than unitary constructs. This allows each of the inputs tobe concep- ‘ualized as a composite of established consiucls, For example, hie archi Teadership is represented by ansormational leadership, leader-member exchange, and supervisory mentoring, Each ofthese onstruts, as core aspects of hsrarcical leadership, is supported by a body of theory and empirical research with established measures. Using established constructs and measures of hierarchical leadership input factors allows ust clearly asess the potential supplementary influence provided by structural supports and shared ledership. The same conceptual and measurement approach using established com- snue's and measures is applied to strctursl supports and shared leadership. ‘Team Virtuality ‘With the growth and evolution of virtual teams during the past ecade, researchers have focused on the conceptuslizaton and measurement of team virtuality (eg., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; iinds, Liu, & Lyon, 2011; Kirkman & Malthieu, 2005). In early esearch, itwality was treated a3 distnelly categorical; researeh- crs applied simple dichotomous characterization of vires and {ace-o-face teams, More recently, however, scholars have asserted ‘that this simple characterization glasses over a variety of nuanced, dimensions that underlie a range of differences in the degree of virtuality (Gibson & Gidbs, 2006; Irwin & McClelland, 2003; Kirkman et al, 2012; MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002; Mesmer-Magns et al, 2011), Whereas early conceptual izations focused exclusively on geographic distribution, subse- quent conceptualizations added electronic. communication and noted differences between the use of asynchronous and synchro- nous communications (eg, Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Empirical research, accordingly, refers to both the facets of geographic dst- bution (¢4,, O'Leary & Cammings, 2007; O'Leary & Morensen, 2010) a8 wel asthe relative amount of e-communicetion media usage (Gait, Sawyer, & Neale, 2003; Kirkman et al, 2004; Mesmer- ‘Magnus etal, 2011) as indicative of “team virtuality.” This is now the established approach to conceptualizing virtuality.392 HOCH AND KOZLOWSKI However, virtual teams increasingly span national boundaries and éifferences in cultural background are becoming more impor- tant to consider as an aspect of virtuality (Hinds ot al, 20115, Staples & Zhao, 2006; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007), Indeed, Hinds tal (2011) ertieized the lack of inclusion of national and cultural difterences in conceptualizations of virtuality. As “organizations are increasingly compelled to establish a presence in multiple countries a8 a means of reducing labor costs, capturing specialized expertise, and understanding emerging markels .. . they often sreate conditions in which workers must collaborate across na- tonal boundaries" (Hinds et al, 2011, p. 136). Accordingly, re searchers need to pu the global back into “global work” by considering cultural differences. Resoarch is increasingly considering cultural differences as an imponant component of virualiy in globally dispersed ams (eg, Chen, Kirkman, Kim, Farh, & Tangrala, 2010; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Tsui etal, 2007). Based on this evolving view of vitality, our ‘couceptalization comprises geographic distribution (eg. O'Leary & Cammings, 2007), relative amount of e-communiction media usage (eg. Kirkman et al, 2004), and cultural diversity (eg. Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Hinds et al, 2011; Tsui et, 2007) as an addition tothe established components of team viruality. ‘The Role of Hierarchical Leadership in Virtual Teams Hierarchical leadership reflects formally designated leedership (Easley, Hmeleski, & Pearce, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Yuki, 2010). Two well-established leadership theories rel evant to hierarchical leadership that have been widely supported in the empirical literature are ausformationel leadership and leades~ member exchange (LMX). Both transformational leadership ‘Puller, Paterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Krocek, & Sivasulamaniam, 1996) and LMX (eg. Gersiner & Day, 1997; Graen & UhlBien, 1995) ate strong predictors of individual and team performance, Moreover, tans- formational leadership and LMX are the most prevalent ap- proaches used in research on virtual teams (e.g, AVolio et al, 2000; Hambley, O”Neill, & Kline, 2007; J. M. Howell & Hall- Mersnda, 1999; J. M. Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005). Although it ha received les attention, we post that supervisory career mentoring (eg, Kram, 1985) is an important leadership technique in viral teams. Supervisory career mentoring is related to career outcomes such as salary level, promotion rate, and job satisfaction, as well as to objective and subjective performance (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Scandura & Ragins, 1993; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991), Transformational leadership, LMX, and supervisory carcer mentoring are the three primary constructs that comprise hiera- chical leadership in the model First, transformational leadership (¢.., Bass, 1985, 1998) has been found to enhance performance in a wide range of organiza- tional settings (Fuller eta, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). Transformational leader behaviors are aimed at inspir- ing follower motivation and stimulating them steich theie apabilties and to go beyond typical performance (iudge & Pi colo, 2004). However, these forms of leader behavior have also ‘been posited to have weaker relations for virtual teams (Hambley tal, 2007; 3. M. Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; 1, M, Howell al, 2008), Interpretations of leader behavior as transformational are likely facilitated by eves that are more difficult to transmit, exchange and job design ox productivity and satisfaction “Tesing & dus atachnent made. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 10913, 0 1016/0030-507382)902557 Gren, 1, & Uslbien, M. (1995). Relaonsip-based apprsch f lead ‘ership: Development of leaer-member exchange (LNX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level ml-domsi perspec- tive. The Leadership Quarter, 6, 219-247. doi 10.1016, 1048- sas3(o5)00365 GGifth, TL, Sawyer, J. & Neale, M.A. 2003). Vitualness and “knowledge in teams: Managing the love wile of e-ganizations, ind ‘viduals, and information techology- MIS Quarterly, 27, 265-28) ‘Guzzo, RAs & Shes, G. P.(1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in ergunizations. Palo Alo, CA: Consulting Paychologits Hambley, LA, O'Neil, TA. Kline, TJ. B. (2007). Vital seam leadership: The eects of lash syle and communication medium fon cas sntersction sys até ostomaes, Organizational Behavior and Iman Decision Proceses, 103, 1-20, do+10 1016} obhdp.2005 09 004 | ‘Hamilton, 3. A., & Scandure, TA. (2003), E-mentorng: Implications for ‘orguizationalleaming and development ima wired word. Organza- tional Dynanies, 31, 88402, do 10,1016S00%-2616(02)01286 ll, SN, Bano, KM, Teshuk P. E., & Langa, GA. (2009). Organi atonal cotent and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the develop tment of trust and collaborative behaviors in compuler- mediated groups Organizational Bekavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 187— 201, do:10 1016) abhdp 2008 0.002, Hinds, Pd Kiesler, 8. (2002), Disibuted work, Cambri, MA: MIT Pros Hinds, P, Liu Ld Lyon 1.2011, Pting the global in global work: An imereutral las on the practice of cross-national collaboration, The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 138-188, éoi:0. 108019416520 2011.586108 Hoc, JE. (in pros), Shared ladeship atd innovation: The vole of ‘ertcal leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Busness and Poyehotogs: Hoogl, M., & Gomucnden, H.C. (2001) Teamrk gut and the sucess ‘of imovtive projects: A thetetenl concept and empirical evidence Organization Seiene, 12, 438-449, dis 128Tirse 12.4435, 10635 Hotmann, D. A, & Stever, A. (1996). A erosulevel investigation of actors infucncingunsefe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Payhol- ny. #8, 07-339, do 10.111, 1744-6570. 1996,601802.x Hollingshead, A.B, & McGrath, JF. (1995. Computer-asited groups ‘A catical review ofthe empirical rescarch. ln R.A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Wi), Toom efocivness and decison making i organisations (pp. 146-18), San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass, owl, 1M, & Hall-Merenda, K. (1998) The ts that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leader- ‘hip, and distance on predicting fllower performance. Journal af Ap lied Paychology, 44, 60694, di:1010370021-9010.845680 Howel, 5. M, Neufeld, D, J, & Avo, B, 1 2005) Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance wih busines wait pet= formance. Die Leadership Quarterly, 16, 273-285, doi: 10.1016 League 2005.01. 008 Howell JP, & Dorfman, PW. (1981), Subsite for leadeip: Test of 2 consact. Academy’ of Mavagement Journal, 24, TI4228. doi toas07as6171 Howell 1. P., & Dorfnan, P. W. (1986) Leadership and substitutes for leadership among professional and non-professional workers. Jour= hal of Applied Bekavioral Science, 22, 2946, dov10.1177 ‘0218853N602200106 ‘Hep. 2006, May 3) Beyond vital teams. Retieved from bpsiwaw ‘ep comtrendwatchers'200605105/beyond-virial-tesme ‘ep. 2008, September 4). Viral teat naw realy: Two out of three ‘companies Say they will rely more on vinual teams in the future Retrieved from hitp:/wew-iep.com/news/2008/09/04/virual teame-now.areaily Twin, JR, & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative conseoueness of Uichotomixing cookinioes predictor variables, Journal of Market Re search, 40, 36-371, do:101809}ink¢- 403 36619237 Jarvenpaa, SL 2004), Toward conceptualized theories of ust The role of trust in global viral teams. Information Systems Research, 15. 250-261, doi 10.1287 10400028 Jarvenpaa, 8. L, & Leidner, D. E, (1999), Commaniction and tust ia lobal vital Yams, Orgenzation Science, 10, 91=15.do0.1287) fe.106791 Jags, TA, Pieol, RF (2004). Tansformtionl and transaction! leadership: A mete-anafytic test of ther relative validity. Journal af Applied Pechology, 89, 185-168, do, 1037/0021-9010 9.5.78 Jang, D-L, & Sosk, J.J. 2002), Teaasformasional leadership ia work groups The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, nd olectve-fficacy fo poceived group performance. Small Group Research, 38, 313-336 ‘410.1177 10496402033003002 Kacmar, K. M, Wit, L. A, Zivnuska, S, & Gully, SM. 2003). The Interactive effet of lealer-mamber exchange and commuricalion fx quency om performance ratings. Journal of Applied Paychologs, $8. "164-72. do 10,10570021-5010 884 T64 Kab, SS, Sok, J.J, de Avoio, BJ (200) Bets of leadership tle, ‘sonyniy, and rewards on creavtyrlevant processes and outeaes inn electnic eeting system context. The Leadership Quarterly, 1. 299-524, do 10 10161048.9883(03)0049.5 Kanuwatanzchai, P., & Yoo, ¥- (2007. The impact of knowledge coor dination on virual team performance overtime, MIS Quarter 31, 755-108, ‘espe-Fucier, E.C., & Asbhanasy, NM. (2001), Communicating rst ‘worthiness and ollng fst im inerorgniational virial ongeniza Sons, Journal of Management, 27, 235-254 ‘or, 5, (1977). Substitutes for ladeship: Some implication fr oxgan= ‘zatina! design. Organation and Administrative Sciences, 8, 135-146. ere, §, & Jenner, JM. (1978) Sbsties for eadersbip: Their meaning ad seasuremeat. Orgamzatinal Belavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-3. do 10,10160030-5073(78)90023-5 Kieier,S, & Cursing, JN. (2002), What do we know abou: proximity402 and distance in work groups? A legacy of rescareh In P. Hinds & 8 Kiesler (Fa), Distebucd work (p. STH80). Cambs, MA: MIT Pros Km, B. L, Gibson, ©. B, & Kim, K (2012), Across borders and technologies Advancement i virtal teams research, In S. W. J Kozlowski Hd), Oxford handbook of organizational pechology (Vol 2, pp. T89~858). New York, NY: Onford Unversity Pres Kirkman, BL. & Malheu, J. E2008). The dimensions and antecedents ‘of team vitality. Jounal of Management, 31, 700-118. do:10.1177) ‘0149206305279113 Kirkman, B. L, Rosen, B, Tasik, P.E, & Gibson, C, B. (2004), The impact of tem etopowermsent on virtual tam performance: The tod- erating role of faces-iceineraction. Academy of Management Jour na 7, 175-192. di10.2307/20158571 {lein, KJ, Bhs, PD, Kozolowski, S, W. J, Dameren, Gavia, M.B, Gali, M.A,” Bligh, M. C, (2000). Mutileve analytial techniques: Commonaities, diflernees, and continsing gestions. In K J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eis), Mutilevel theory, research and ‘methods in organzaions: Foundations, extensions, and now directions (pp. 512-853), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J, & Bell, B.S. Q2003). Work groups and tcams in ‘orgunizations. In W. C. Bonpaa, D.R.lgen, & RJ. Kiosk’ (Has), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational pspohology (pp. 333-875), New York, NY: Wiley Kozlowski, $, W-2, & lgen, DR (2006), Enbacing te eflectiveness of work groups and teams, Psychological Sefence in the Pubic Interest, 7 rei) Kozlowski, $.W. J, &¢ Klein K. J (2000). A male approach theory ‘and retest i organiznons: Conte, emporl 0 emergent Dro cesses. In K. J. Klein & S. J. Kozlowski (Eds), ueve! theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundation, extensions, and new dretions (pp. 3-90) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Kram, KE. (1985). Mentoring at wark Glenview, IL: SeotForessan and ‘Company. Kone, 8, Zale-Meds, E., Wacker, , Kolbe, M, Spake, DR. & Grote, (G. (2010). Lealersip in anaethsie tum: The mos effective leader ship is shared. Quality and Sofery Health Care, 19, 1-6, do 0.1136) ashe 2008 030262 Lipmack, J, & Stamps, 3. (2000). Virtual teams: People working arass boundaries with techvoogy. New Yots, NY: Wiley. Lome, KB. Kroeek, K.G., & Sivasubramanim,N. (1996). Effectiveness ‘cores of transformational leadership and ansactona eeéership: A smeta-analyc review ofthe MLA literature. The Leadership Quarter 7, 385-9, di0.1016/81088-9848(96}90027-2 MacCallum, X.C., Zhang, S. Poacher KJ, Rucker, D-D. 2002}.On the practic of dchotomization of quuntiasve vaables. Payhologial Methods, 7, 1940 di:10.1037/1082989X.7.119 Majehaaky A, Moots, A, Stamps, J, Lipnse, J. 2004, May). Cn aaence make tam grow stronger! Harvard Business Review, 19 Mathotr, A, & Majbraak, A, (2004), Eabling knowledge cretion in farang teams: Best practices for IT sapport and knowledge sharing Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 75-88, do}'10.1108 Iers27os10sss96 Malhotra, A, Majchrzak, A. & Rose, B (2007). Leading virtual teams The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 0-10. 60:10 5468) AMP.2007. 24286168 ‘Manz, C.C. (1986), Sleleadsship: Towacd an expanded thoory of se inuenee proceses in organizations. The Academy of Management este, 11, 585-600. Mains, LL, Gon, LL, & Maynard, M.T. 2008), Vital teams What do we know and whore do we go fom here? Journal of Manage ment 40, HOSR'S,di10 1018) j.2008 05,002, HOCH AND KOZLOWSKI Martins, LL, & Shalley,C.B.(2011) Creativity in vinual work: Effects of demographic ditfxences. Smal! Group Research, 42, 536-61. di: TOT Tr/toasas6410397582 ‘Mayo, M, Meng JR, 4 Pastor, J.C. (2008). Shared leadership in work ‘ears. In C. L. Peace & J.'A. Conger (Eés), Shared leadership Reframing the hows and why of Iadership (pp. 193-214), do-104138) 9781452229539 29 MeGrath, 1. F. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirement for lead ership raining, Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commision, OF fice of Career Development Moha, A, Smith, B.R. Disoa, AL, & Roberson, B. (2006) Disubuted Teadership in teams! The network of leadersip perceptions and tem performance. The Leadership Quarters, 17, 282-268. do: 10-1016} eagua 2006.02.00 Mesmer-Mogsus, J. R, DeChurch, L.A. Jimenez-Rodsiguez, ML, Wilt ‘as, J, & Shuffler, M. (2011) A metaanastic investigation of vr ality and information sharing in teams. Organtzatonal Bobasior and human Decision Process, 113, 214-225, $010 1016) bhp. 2911 ‘02.002 Morgeson, F. P Dafus, D. S, & Kasam, FP. (2010), Leadership ia teams: A functional approach fo understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 48, S=38..éoi 10.1177 1149206300547376 Neck, CP, & Houghton, J.D. 2006), Two decades of soieadership ‘theory and researc, Joureal of Manageral Psychology 21, 10-298 di 10rosoz6s39e0610663007 Noe, R. A. (1988). An invstgntion of the dteminants of success signed mentoring relalionshps, Peronsel Pcholgy, 1, A87=479, bo: 10.11115.17446570. 1988 800638.x (O'Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial temporal, and confguttonslcharcerscs of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-482, O'Leary, MB, & Morensso, M. (2010), Go configu): Subgroups, ‘imbalance, and isolates in geography dispersed teams. Organization Selene, 21, 15-131. do 10 1287/0, 1090.034 Cuofh C, & Kozlowski, S. W, I. (95). Te rle of mentoring inthe ‘information gathering proceses of newcomers daring ely orgenirae Sonal socsliaton. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170-183. da 19,1006 v50.193.1012 Pearce, CL. (2004, The fuze of leadership: Combining vars! nd haod ladeshp to transform knowledge work. Academy of Manage iment Executive, 18 47-57. doi 1054651 AME 200412680298 Pearee, CL, & Conger, J A. 2003) Shared leadership: Reframing the hove and whys of leadership. Taousand Otks, CA: Sage Pearce, CL, Manz, C.€. (2005). The aw silver bullets of ladesip: ‘The importance of self and thived letderip in knowledge ork, Organizational Dynamics, $4, 130-140. doi: 10.1016) oxadyn 2065.03 08 Pearce, CL, Sims, HP, J. (2002), Versa ves sized leadership ‘st prices ofthe effectiveness of change znagement ams: An ttaminaion of aversive, dietvs, transactional, iansformationa, and ‘empowering lesderbebwiors Group Dynamice: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6. 72-191, doi 10.10371089-2699,62.172 Pearce, C1, Yoo, Y., 8 Alavi, M 2008) Leadership, social work and ‘vial teams: The relative influence of vera vers shared leadership in the nonprofit seer. In RE. Riggio, S Smit-Ort, & J. Shakely (As), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 180-203) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, eves, L, & Karten, 8.1. 2009) An examination of the oles oF trust and futional diversity on viwal team performance ratings. Group & Organization Management, 34479804. —Soi:10-1177) as9601107312170 Pods, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1998). An examination of the Divehometne propetis and nomelogieal vay of some revised andLEADING VIRTUAL TEAMS 403, ‘educed “substitutes fo leadership” scales, Jownal of Applied Paychal- ‘gy. 79, T2=T13, doi19.103710021-9010,79 5.702 Podeskot®, P.M, MaeKeos, S, B, a Borne, W, H, (1996). Mitte ‘analysis ofthe relationships between Ker and Jemicr's subsets for leaderahip and employee job atiides, role perceptions, and perfor mance. Juma of Aplied Psychology. 1, 380399, di 10.103710021- S010 4380 Purvanove, R. K, & Bono, J E. (2008) Transfarmasonal leadership in comext Face-urface and veual tears. The Leaderthp Quarter, 20, 343-357, di 10-1016} leaqua 2009 03.008 Riley, S,& Wrench, D. (1985). Mentoring aang wom lawyers. Jw ral of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 374-886, doi10.1111).1555- Tete 1985 009134 Ringe, C. M., Wende, 8, & Will, A. (2008). SmarPLS (Version 20.83). Revved fom hp:/wwwsmarplsde Sombamurhy, V, & Chia, W. W. (1994) The effects of group attitudes toward alcrative GDSS designs on the deision-making performance ‘of computer-supprted groups. Decision Scences, 25, 215-241. do: To.11114.1340-8915.19942901840.8 Sarker, S, Anuja, M, Saker. S, & Kisheby, S. (2011). The role of communication and ust im global veal teams: A social netvork perspective Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 273-309, fh: T0.27S3MMIS0742-1222280109 Seandara, TA. & Rogns,B.R(1993) The effects of sex and gender role ‘ovienation on mentorship in male-dominated cceupaions, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43. 281-265, doi10.1006vbe.1993.1046 ink, My Cropanzano, R, & Rupp, D. F202}. Organization souctrs and fies perceptions: The riodersting eects of orgziza- inal level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decivion Process 89, 881-905, doi10.101630749-5978(02)00034-1 Seer, A. (1989) Teammember exchange quality. A new eonsit foe role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Taman Decision Processes, 43, VRHL3S, Shotony.K. ML, & Grown, SG. (2002) Coworker exchange: Relationships ‘between coworker, leader-member exchange, and wok aides. Jew hal of Applied Psychology, A7, 582-548, di.0.1037/0021-9010.873 ‘902 Shin, (2008), A perzn-envronment ff model fr vinual organizations Journal of Management, 30, 725-745, di 10,1016) 2008 0,002 Sica, Hocgl M, & Ens H. (200). How to manage vital teams MIT Sloan Management Review, 80, 63-89 Sos, 1.1, Avalio,B.1, & Kaha, .S. (1997) Bes of leadership style and anonymity x group potency and effetvenes in group deesion support syste envionment. Journal of Applied Paichoogy, 82. 89 108, doi t0.105710021-9010.82.1.89 Suro, T-L, & Gibson, C. B. 2009). The role of cultural elements in View teams. In RS. Bhagat & RM. Steers (Fs), Cambrulge Jandbook of culture, organization, and work (pp. 272-308). oi Io tor"cnos ost ISet 131.012 sa Staples, B, & Zhao, L. (2006) The effets of cultura divest in viral teams versus face-to-face teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 385-406, doi 10.100710726-006-9042-« ‘Townsend, A. M, DeMari, S.M, & Henrickson, A. R998). Virual ‘ears: Technology andthe workplace of the faze Academy of Man agement Executive, 12,1728 ‘Tous, AUS. Nifdiar, SS, 4 Ou, A. Y. (2007), Crossrail, eas ‘ltralorgaizaonal bshivior research, advances, emp, and recam- sendations. Jowrral of Management, 38, 426~478, do:t01177 149206307500818 ‘Tyran, KL, Tyean, CG, & Shepherd, M. (2008) Exploring emersing leadership in vil teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G, Coken (Fé, Viral teams that work: Creating condition or virtual team efetve. ress (pp. 183-195). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Van Der Vest, G, $, Fimans, B, & Van De Vliet, F. (2000), Team ‘embers affective respons opatcmns of intragroup interdependence tnd job complexity. Jounal of Management, 26, 833-655, Wayne, 8.1, Shore, LM, & Liden, RC. (1997). Perceived organiza ‘onal support and eade-aemer exchange: A socal exchange per- spective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, S111, di-102307 ama) Whitly, W-1., Dougbony. TW. & Dreber, GF. (1991). Relationship of caedt mentoring and socioeconomic origin ta manages” and proes- ‘onas” early caoer progress, Academy of Management Journal. 34, 5331-880, dov10.2307/256485 Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S, & Grud, R. (1999). Communication paltoms a6 determinants of organizations idemeation ia Virual ‘organization Organization Science, 1, 777-790, do: 10 1287s. 106 7 ‘Wandece,R. (2002), Buehrung und Zusammenarbeit Eimer unernehoer- fiche Fuchrungslehre (Leadeship and collaboration’ Organizational leadership istaction] (4th ed). Neawiod, Germany: Keitel ‘Yall, G. 2010) Leadership i ongantatins (1th el). Englewood CHM, ‘Nk Prontice-al. Zaceaco, S.J, & Bader, P. (2003) Fleaership and the eballenges of Teading teams: Miniszig the bad and maximizing the good. Orga- izational Dynamics, 81, -¥T1-387. dois10-1016/S0060. 2016(02}00120.8 Zacesze, SJ, Rian, AL, & Macks, M. A. (2001), Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-683, doi-10 1016/8048 9845(01)00093-5 igus, 1. (2003). Leadership in vewal teams: Oxymoron or oppoctuniy? Organizational Dynamics, 3/, 339-351. do'10 1016150090. 2o16(2)00132-8 Received August 27, 2011 Revision received July 9, 2012 ‘Accepted July 18, 2012