Author

Melissa Davidson

Submission
Institute of Organization
Science

REMOTE LEADERSHIP:
Thesis Supervisor
Elke Schüßler

STUDYING THE CO-

January, 2023

CONSTRUCTION OF
LEADERSHIP IN
VIRTUAL TEAMS

Master s Thesis
to confer the academic degree of

Master of Science
in the Master s Program

Leading Innovative Organizations

JOHANNES KEPLER
UNIVERSITY LINZ
Altenberger Straße 69
4040 Linz, Austria
jku.at
DVR 0093696
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
2. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Constructionist Approach - Leadership ............................................................................. 7
2.1.1. Leadership Communication ................................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Leadership in Interaction ........................................................................................ 9
2.2. Followership .....................................................................................................................10
2.2.1. Follower-Centric Theory of Leadership................................................................10
2.2.2. Followership Theory .............................................................................................11
2.3. Virtual Leadership ............................................................................................................12
2.3.1. Remote Communication.......................................................................................13
2.3.2. Remote Leadership ..............................................................................................14
2.4. Synthesis .........................................................................................................................14
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................15
3.1. Units of Analysis ..............................................................................................................16
3.2. Method of Data Collection ...............................................................................................17
3.3. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................18
4. Findings ...................................................................................................................................20
4.1. Leader – Follower Dynamics ...........................................................................................21
4.1.1. Leader – Follower Personal Relationship ............................................................21
4.1.2. Open Communication ..........................................................................................22
4.1.3. Facilitation & Support ...........................................................................................25
4.2. Leader-Follower Identity ..................................................................................................27
4.2.1. Identification with Company; Team, Virtuality, and Goals ...................................27
4.2.2. Follower as a Leader ............................................................................................29
4.3. Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................31
5. Discussion ...............................................................................................................................33
5.1. Contribution to Existing Research ...................................................................................34
5.2. Implications for Further Research ...................................................................................34
5.3. Practical Applications ......................................................................................................35
5.4. Limitations ........................................................................................................................37
6. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................38
7. References ..............................................................................................................................39

January 9, 2023 K12127088 3/42

1. Introduction

In an increasingly virtual world, many companies are opting to take some or all their operations
online. Online communication tools such as Slack and Zoom have replaced the conference room
and shifted the way workers communicate with each other as they continue their work outside of
an office. Despite this significant shift in the structure of work, little attention has been paid to the
inertia of remote work vs. on-site work. While there are many suggestions for how to run a remote
team from a wider lens, such as communication tools and general “rules of thumb for leadership,
many of the important aspects of this work have been ignored. Such a structural shift in work
surely would contribute to a shift in many of the other foundational aspects of the workplace and
should be considered accordingly. One such foundation is the leader/follower dynamic. More
specifically, how leadership is co-created by members of a remote team and how the virtuality of
the team might contribute to this construction. Just as understandings of team and leader
dynamics are important in traditional work settings, it is equally if not more important in remote
settings to be able to make suggestions for how to run a remote team efficiently and effectively.
As we continue to adjust our attitudes, tools, and habits to remote work, we should also adjust our
understanding of the co-construction of leadership.

It is worth noting that, in general, the concept of the co-construction of leadership itself is a scarcely
studied topic. Leadership theories have been typically characterized by varying degrees of
influence of the leader/follower, and the focus is largely on the leader. Most of the leading research
has been focused on “leader-centric views of leadership which position leadership as the driving
force for results and place the spotlight primarily or solely on the leader above all. The other
intriguing side of the leadership coin is the follower; a largely forgotten but necessary player in the
process of leadership. While there has been a growing body of research on the follower and
followership, the complexities and influence of the follower is generally an afterthought or
supplement to the leader. Furthermore, while few research the role and importance of the follower,
fewer study the cocreation of leadership by the leader and follower. There are, however, scholars
who advocate for the inclusion of the follower and the joint production of leadership by leader and
follower (Shamir, 2007, Carsten et al., 2010). Therefore, it is imperative not only that the co-
construction of leadership itself should be more of a topic of interest, but that due to the evolving
nature of work the context of remote work should be taken into consideration as well.

I approach the topic of the co-construction of leadership through a constructionist lens, which
largely perceives leadership to be co-created by relationships among people through interactions
to produce leadership and outcomes. (Barge & Fairhurst, 2008, Carsten et al., 2018). I draw
connections to some of the fractions of leadership research that highlight the importance of these
relational aspects of leadership, specifically the leadership in interaction and leadership
January 9, 2023 K12127088 4/42
communication perspectives. The idea of “leadership in the interaction, which considers the
emergence of leadership at the micro level of interaction, and how actors are positioned or position
themselves in the interactions that constitute leadership (Clifton et al., 2020) is especially relevant
to this study. This perspective views leadership from a wide lens that includes even the mundane
interactions between leader and follower that contribute to leadership. A similar but separate
perspective is the communicative approach to leadership, which deconstructs the central, defining
role of communication in leadership. There are varying views in the literature regarding
communication and leadership, and I pull from those that consider communication to be
transmissional, meaning-centered, and relational. (Connaughton, 2014). These aspects are
especially relevant to virtual teams because the fundamental shift that happens between in-person
and virtual teams hinges upon communication and interaction as the very nature of transmission
of information changes when a team works remotely. It is widely accepted that the leader is central
to the understanding of leadership, but the same weight has scarcely been given to the follower
in this understanding. While the constructionist approaches mentioned above typically
acknowledge the follower more than traditional leadership research, it is important to supplement
these constructionist approaches to leadership with follower-centric research which acknowledge
and privilege the role of the follower (Carsten et al (2018) to bridge a gap that exists in the research
in this area. My study of the coconstruction of leadership is underpinned by the understanding of
remote teams to account for any specificities that might emerge when we consider the co-
construction of leadership in an in-person vs. remote setting. Therefore, I draw parallels to some
of the research mentioned previously to include general leadership research in a remote team
(Malhotra et al., 2007, Rose 2020) and communication-centered research in a remote team
(Arvedsen & Hassert, 2020).

Informed by the previously mentioned research topics, I present the research question: How is
leadership co-created by leaders and followers in a virtual setting? I will take a grounded approach
via narrative and semi-structured interviews to identify behaviors, interpretations, and interactions
in the context of virtual teams as they relate to the co-construction of leadership. I aim to contribute
to the research by identifying and providing examples of behaviors, interpretations, and
interactions exhibited by the leader and the follower that might generally play out in various
moments in a remote work environment. Through these, I expect to be able to identify core
concepts to explain the co-construction of leadership and present them as a basis for further
research on remote leadership.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 5/42

2. Theoretical Framework

With the shift in work and attitudes about remote work, studies suggest there will be a similar shift
in what it means to work. According to a Deloitte study following the disruption of the Covid-19
pandemic, attitudes about remote work have changed, and more people are becoming
comfortable with the idea that some or most work will happen online (Deloitte, 2021). While
companies have been engaged in virtual teams for quite some time now, widespread remote work
is a relatively new phenomenon, and there is a significant gap in the research about most aspects
of work in this environment. While it appears that there are several general ideas about leading a
virtual team and the effects of remote communication tools to lead them, a gap in the research is
the nuances of leading virtual teams, specifically how leadership looks in practice in a remote work
environment and in what ways it might differ from leadership in person. Because remote work
changes the nature of work in many ways, logic follows that it would also change the way that
leadership is enacted and understood. To bridge this gap, leadership research should aim to
reapproach the previously created notions of leadership through the lens of a remote team.

In the field of leadership research in general, there are two clear blind spots to be considered. The
first is the very notion of leadership and the assumptions on which previous research has based
their understanding. The bulk of the research in this field has a narrow focus on leadership as, for
example, a matter of personal influence or something to be arrived at or accomplished and
positions the leader as a driving force. Recent scholars, however, have broadened their scope of
leadership understanding to consider the process of leadership as a social construction. This
perspective considers leadership to be “something that happens, or which is enacted, performed,
accomplished or something similar. In other words, leadership is not a destination or single
definable characteristic or action, it is a social construction that can ebb, and flow based on the
actions, behaviors, and individuals that are involved in shaping it. The second gap clearly lies in
focus on the follower. While there are approaches that include and/or privilege the role of the
follower, the research lacks a complete picture of the follower and the follower s involvement within
the team and leader/follower dynamic. With such a focus on leader-centric perspectives of
leadership, research needs to include and understand the follower in the same capacity it has the
leader, both as a standalone topic and the follower within the context of the leader/follower
dynamic. (Clifton et al., 2020)

To take a grounded approach to studying this topic from a constructionist lens, I aim informed by
the relevant research on three levels. First, I include the constructivist approaches to leadership
which focus on the co-construction of leadership in some capacity and are founded in the notion
of leadership as a process. These approaches are typically neither leader nor follower centric and
present a nuanced view of the relational aspects of leadership which contribute to its construction.
January 9, 2023 K12127088 6/42
This includes the perspectives of leadership communication and leadership in interaction. Second,
I seek out the little research that exists on followership as a standalone topic, as follower
perspectives are rarely considered yet crucial to this topic of the cocreation of leadership.
Therefore, as a scarcely studied topic, it is important to include this to supplement the large body
of existing research on the leader in leadership, and I include both follower-centric theories of
leadership and followership theory alone. Third, as this is a study of virtual teams, I include
research that considers the characteristics of leadership in virtual teams specifically, namely
remote communication tools and remote leadership. Each of these concepts can and should be
studied extensively on their own, but I present them together because they are intrinsically
connected in modern work. One cannot separate leadership studies from virtuality and therefore
we must consider all in this thesis.

2.1. Constructionist Approach - Leadership

Approaches to leadership research have largely been characterized as leader-centric and typically
focus on the power, influence, and/or characteristics of leaders. This approach of the leader as
the “motivating entity primarily considers the pull of the individual to create outcomes (Carsten et
al., 2014). On the other hand, follower-centric approaches to leadership do include the importance
of the perspective and influence of the follower in the process of leadership, but still, place the
focus on the leader. (Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007) Where these approaches meet is the constructionist
approach to leadership, which considers leadership and followership as socially constructed in
interactions between individuals. (Carsten et al., 2013) Leadership from this perspective is ever-
evolving, and as Hernes (2008) asserts, there are no finished, static entities: rather, there is only
endless processes. In this research, leadership is constantly established and reoriented in the
space between the leader and the follower. This can take place in various situations between
individuals, which are summarized in this section. Both leadership communication and leadership
in interaction focus transcend traditional leadership understanding by focusing on the fluid,
complex processes and interactions between leaders and followers through communication and
interaction.

2.1.1. Leadership Communication

Those who consider leadership from the communication perspective largely categorize leadership
as neither leader nor follower centric. Instead, these perspectives typically understand leadership
as a fluid process of mutual influence, rather than a singular category or achievable endpoint
(Langley et al., 2013). From this standpoint, we cannot separate leadership and followership from
the complex systems in which they exist. Tourish (2014) describes this as “networks of interactions
between organizational actors ; the many ways in which humans experience communication come
to play in each interaction between a leader and follower. Integral to this system is the central role

January 9, 2023 K12127088 7/42

of communication. Some key points to the communication-centered view of communication are
that leadership communication is both transmissional and meaning-centered, that it is a diverse
global phenomenon, and that is alive with the potential for reflexivity (Connaughton & Fairhurst,
2014). The act of sending, receiving, and attaching meaning to communication is instrumental to
the building of leadership, and therefore becomes the focus of the construction of leadership
between the leader and the follower.

Much of the communication perspective today can be described as having adopted the systems
model of communication, which considers the multidirectional influence of communication. A
systems model of communication considers the “basic life process of communication as the
exchange of information in the way meaning is intended, created, and interpreted between
individuals including both intentional and unintentional meanings (Gigliotti & Ruben, 2016). Each
actor in communication brings to the table a unique perspective that inherently contributes to the
communication process. This widened view of communication allows us to include the countless
factors that may be at play in a leader/follower dynamic and the ways in which these factors
influence each other. Communication does not exist outside of leadership, but rather plays a role
in shaping and reinforcing it by every individual involved. Communication transcends the titles of
leader and follower and is complex, dynamic, and unpredictable (Reuben & Stewart, 2016).

At a basic level, leadership communication has historically included the relaying of information to
followers by leaders. As leaders have a crucial role in the leader/follower dynamic of agenda
setting they are often the gatekeepers in the information that receives attention and the ways in
which the information is communicated. In a similar way, leaders become the “managers of
meaning as they shape the interpretations of the information being shared (Smircich & Morgan,
1982). Leaders can have a huge impact on the ways in which certain information is shared, the
meaning given to the information, and the interpretation of that information. On the other hand,
scholars agree that the leader does not exist in a vacuum, and the transition and formation of
information also depend on the follower to whom it is being transmitted. The very framing that the
leader chooses to give is itself framed by the leader s audience. When and how the leader chooses
to communicate is itself influenced by the needs and perspectives of the follower. Equally as
importantly, the creation of meaning depends also on the needs and interpretations of the follower.
Some have described this dual-sided communication as “leader as docent which presents the
leader as the broker of information, and the follower as the active recipient of it. The leader acts
as the decider and sharer of what when and how information is communicated, but they are
informed by the unique perspectives of the followers. The transition of the meaning is only as
important as the extent to which they are received; the leader controls the interaction, but only to
the point that the follower is engaged. (Gigliotti & Ruben 2016). This balanced view of

January 9, 2023 K12127088 8/42

communication between the leader and the follower paints the picture of a process that is crucial
to the leader/follower dynamic and consistently and equally influenced by both members.

2.1.2. Leadership in Interaction

A fraction of the process perspective of leadership includes the understanding of leadership in

interaction. While this perspective does inherently include communication, it also takes into
account all other “human aspects of interacting; the “mundane, seen but unnoticed discursive
and material artful practices through which our social world is produced (Clifton et al., 2020). This
perspective includes all levels of interactions including behaviors, relationships, and identities
which both contribute to and are shaped by the process of leadership. Approaching leadership
through this lens means every aspect of these interactions is important to the construction of
leadership and can be studied accordingly.

A piece of this perspective is the focus on leader and follower identities, how they are constructed
and reinforced through interactions with each other, and how these identities ultimately influence
the process of leadership. From this lens, leader/follower identity and the values and assumptions
attached to the role are influenced by interpersonal relationships, and such social identities are
constructed through actions and/or situations that reinforce them. Relational identities are
“negotiated and constructed in interaction rather than as an individually held concept or self-
categorization (Larsson, 2017). In other words, individuals do not experience their identities as
defined and static. Instead, these identities are pieced together by interactions with their peers.
Often, this can be situated in a physical and tangible way, for example, the leader with their own
office or specified seat in the room. This can also be negotiated in interpersonal interaction.
Larsson and Lundholm (2013) outline a specific instance of relational identities through what they
call a “situated collective identity whereupon the fluidity of identity can be shaped through
belonging to a group engaged in accomplishing a goal or finishing a task. Their study revealed
that, in pursuit of a common goal, actors situate themselves within the context of their group rather
than their roles as leader/follower, and use words like “we to signal their collective unit and mutual
authority regarding the task at hand. Nielson (2009) considers this construction of identity through
the context of company culture and position on authority and considers it to be the leader s job to
communicate culture, expectations, and authority through everyday interactions. Schnurr (2009)
argues that even the act of teasing between leader and follower is a way to signal and reinforce
power dynamics because of the singular, leader-to-follower direction of the teasing. In each of
these examples, the concept of identity is signaled or reinforced and becomes a fluid entity held
and created by each actor involved.

A fraction of this perspective is the relational social constructionist perspective, which defines
leadership as “developed, constructed, and confirmed in ongoing relational processes (Endred &

January 9, 2023 K12127088 9/42

Weibler, 2017) This perspective considers interactions between leaders and followers in the
context of the relationship between the two. The core of this idea is that individuals act in an
embedded context and that the interaction and relationship quality of the leader and follower is a
significant factor. Not only does the interaction shape the identity, but so does the relationship
between the leader and the follower.

2.2. Followership

As a standalone topic followership is scarcely studied, certainly not to the same extent as leaders
and leadership. There is, however, an emerging body of research that positions the follower as an
entity to be researched in and of themselves. From this perspective, researchers privilege the role
of the follower by studying the qualities and attributes of followers, and the impact that followers
can have (Carsten et al., 2013). Approaches to followership vary and challenge the traditionally
held notions of leading, as they place the spotlight on the follower (Shamir, 2007). There are some
varying approaches to understanding followers and followership, that can largely be categorized
by defining the role of the follower in the leader/follower dynamic. The follower-centric theory of
leadership, while highlighting the role of the follower, still places the central emphasis on the
leader. Followership theory, however, aims to understand the follower alone, therefore
categorizing the follower as a central figure in the leader/follower dynamic. In this section, two
follower perspectives are outlined. First, the follower-centric theory of leadership which considers
the leader through the lens of the follower, and second is followership theory, which places the
spotlight on the follower and their influence.

2.2.1. Follower-Centric Theory of Leadership

Follower-centric theories of leadership do consider various perspectives of the follower, but

primarily as they relate to the leader or the act of leading. These perspectives consider the follower
as an entity to be acted upon by the leader or a tool for shaping the leader. Where leadership
research highlights the traits and actions of the leader in leadership, follower-centric theories of
leadership have highlighted the traits and actions of the follower in affecting the leader s ability to
achieve leadership. The key distinction to make in the understanding of the follower-centric theory
of leadership is the perceived role of the follower. Here, the follower is a supporting actor versus
an active participant in the creation of leadership. As early as 1995, Jim Miendl posited a follower-
centric theory of leadership, in which the inputs, mechanisms, and outputs of followers helped to
construct leadership. This work, expanded upon by later scholars, is a way to understand the
leader through the lens of the follower and their contributions. Follower-centric theories also
consider leadership behaviors and the ways that they can play out in the context of the following
role. This can be “shared leadership (Pearce & Conger 2003) and “self-leadership (Lovelace,
Mand, & Alves, 2007) whereupon the follower engages in leadership and leadership behaviors

January 9, 2023 K12127088 10/42

outside of their role as a follower, thus supplementing the leader in their role. These perspectives
also consider the traits and attitudes of the follower as they relate to leadership. For example, one
study found that agreeableness and extraversion in followers positively contributed to
transformational leadership (Schyns & Felfe, 2006). Another study considers the negative
perceptions and outcomes of followers of aversive leadership styles (Bligh et al., 2007). Other
such perspectives consider the differentiations of followers based on their reactions to leader
behavior. (Schyns, 2019).

2.2.2. Followership Theory

An emerging yet scarcely studied perspective is followership theory, which places the follower as
a central contributor to achieving outcomes. These perspectives consider followership to be “a
relational role in which followers have the ability to influence leaders and contribute to the
improvement and attainment of group and organizational objectives. (Carsten et al., 2010) In
other words, the spotlight is placed on the follower as an equally, if not more, important perspective
as the leader in and of themselves. Because our view of followership comes primarily from leader-
centric, role-based views of following which romanticize leadership, the connotations associated
with followers have not always been positive (Carsten et al., 2014). However, these evolving
perspectives privilege the unique and influential role of the follower.

The two primary perspectives from which followership is typically considered are constructionist
and role-based views. As discussed in the previous section, constructivist views categorize
leadership and followership as “generated in the cognitive, attributional, and social identity
processes of followers (Carsten et al. 2010), and therefore rely on both leader and follower
perspectives to paint a full picture of leadership. Role-based views, on the other hand, consider
followership primarily in the context of hierarchical roles. These are more congruent with traditional
leadership theories, as they simply “reverse the lens to understand the follower from the same
perspective as they would the leader (Shamir 2007). This includes focusing on various aspects of
the follower and following. Much of the research on followership is focused on follower behaviors.
In line with traditional passive stereotypes of the follower, some research has focused on the
natural tendency to submit to leaders when in a followership role, and what this looks like when
enacted in a professional setting. In the study conducted by Carsten et al. (2010) followers
reported that they “carry out orders or “[do] things the leader s way. From this perspective, the
tendency of the follower to engage in submission to the leader is important. On the other hand,
scholars also consider followers agency to resist the orders of the leader. For example, some
scholars have studied the followers response when faced with unethical asks (Carsten & Uhl Bien
2013) or abuse from a superior (Tepper et.al 2001), and their ability to transcend these submissive
behaviors to advocate for themselves. Additionally, scholars have considered the intentional,
deliberate ways that followers proactively behave to achieve goals (Ashford & Grant 2008) or
January 9, 2023 K12127088 11/42
strategically influence, shape, and define their leaders (Ferris et al 2003). These perspectives can
be described as granting followers power and agency, even in submission, despite their role in the
hierarchy.

In addition to behaviors, followership theory also categorizes characteristics, styles, and implicit
followership theories of followers. Much like many of the traditional perspectives on leadership
consider these aspects of leaders and leading, the traits and characteristics of followers are a
piece of followership theory. There are a handful of typologies posed for the follower, based on
several factors identified to be of interest in some capacity. Ira Chaleff (2008) posed the idea of
the “ideal follower based on varying levels of challenge to the leader: implementer, partner,
individualist, and resource. Kellerman s (2008) typology based on follower engagement has five
types of followers: isolate, bystander, participant, activist, and diehard. Howell and Mendez (2008)
pose follower types based on role orientations; interactive, independent, and shifting roles. This
also includes possible negative influences and behaviors of followers. For example, Sanders et
al. (2019) discuss the “dark triad traits, and how these traits when possessed by followers might
negatively affect outcomes. Follower values and interpretations of themselves and their role are
another key point of followership research. For example, followers role orientations, or how they
perceive and enact their roles as followers, have been a topic of followership theory. An empirical
study by Carsten, Uhl-Bien, and Jaywickrema, (2013) studied the varying views that followers had
in their own roles in their organization and dynamics with the leader. Similarly, implicit followership
theories, or IFTs, consider the views on followership held by both leaders and followers and how
these can contribute to the leader/follower interpersonal relationship as well as achieving
outcomes. Sy (2010) studied the implicit theories about and held by leaders and followers, and
noted that positive IFTs are associated with positive effects liking, trust, and satisfaction.

2.3. Virtual Leadership

Companies have opted for remote work long before COVID-19, however virtual work became a
necessity with the onset of COVID-19 and has continued to gain popularity among companies and
workers. The sudden shift in the work environment came as a shock initially to some but has
eventually gained widespread acceptance among many workers (Greenstein 2021). There is
some debate about the long-term acceptance of working remotely, but studies suggest there will
be an overall adoption of remote work, citing decreased cost, multiple perspectives, higher
potential for innovation, and flexibility as just some of the benefits of remote work (Ochieng &
Zuofa, 2021). Despite the steadily increasing adoption of remote work, there does not appear to
be a large body of intentional, in-depth research on virtual leadership and how this may differ from
in-person leadership. While there is some literature on virtual leadership and the general
functioning of remote teams, there does not appear to be a robust selection of literature on the

January 9, 2023 K12127088 12/42

unique day-to-day experience of working or leading virtually. The current bulk of the research on
remote teams seems to be as they relate to the sudden shift in remote work as a response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. While this is certainly a compelling perspective, much of this research
focuses on details of the sudden shift from in-person to remote work during a crisis and does not
accurately represent the nuances of remote-first companies and teams that are intentionally set
up to utilize remote work. In this section, the two most common topics of remote teams are
included: remote communication and remote leadership.

2.3.1. Remote Communication

A virtual team, as coined by Gibson and Cohen (2003), is a functioning team that is geographically
dispersed and relies on technology mediated communication to accomplish tasks. With this
definition in mind, it is no surprise that the bulk of remote research focuses on communication and
the use of communication tools utilized by remote teams. In fact, in debates centered around the
pros and cons of working remotely, many of the arguments against point to difficulties in
communication as a drawback for remote teams (Boehe et al., 2017; Blessner et al., 2019). As
communication inherently relies on competent interactions and shared understandings
(Henderson 1987), the breakdown that can occur across dispersed teams and time zones can be
a significant disadvantage for running a team remotely. Nonetheless, advances in communication
and understandings of how this dispersion can affect team members are relevant to this topic.
When discussing remote communication, the two main points in the topic of remote
communication are interpersonal communication between team members, and tools utilized to
facilitate communication in remote teams.

The virtuality of teams can have a huge effect on the relationships and relational communications
of the employees. Positive work relationships have been shown to be meaningful for
organizations, as these relationships have been shown to increase well-being, decrease employee
turnover, and have an overall positive effect on work performance. Relational communication
underpins many aspects of relationship building in a team, and the ability to create this has been
found to have effects on various aspects of communicating including conflict resolution, support,
and mentoring. (Blomqvist et al 2022). Not only can this influence the happiness and well-being
of employees, but it can also affect their access to projects and career advancement. Cristea &
Leonardi (2022) studied the effects of “face time with key decision makers in distributed
companies, and the difficulties workers can face if they are never or rarely in person and forging
relationships with individuals who could help in their career advancement.

Especially as remote work becomes more prevalent, a focus on tools used to communicate
between teams and team members is also of importance. According to a study of 1,269 Intel
employees, the geographical distribution of the team was not a significant obstacle to

January 9, 2023 K12127088 13/42

performance, but the incongruence of communication tools used to facilitate essential job activities
was the most significant obstacle to job performance (Chudoba et al 2006). Proper utilization of
communication tools is necessary for functioning dispersed teams. The ability to communicate
effectively via virtual communication competency is said to have a positive effect on productivity.
This depends on both the methods of communication and the competency by the individual
(Henderson, 2008). A study conducted by Arvedsen & Hassert (2020) Identifies the influence that
information and communication technology objects can have on the ability to effectively facilitate
virtual interaction to convey meaning and establish direction and alignment.

2.3.2. Remote Leadership

While the existing literature is relatively scarce, there is a small body of research that include
general suggestions on how to run a remote team and musings of remote effectiveness. Much of
this includes the construction of the team and the practices which support it. This can aptly be
summarized by the assertion that leaders must “overcome member feelings of isolation, build team
cohesion, establish norms of collaboration and knowledge sharing, and motivate team members
to make a major commitment to the team s mission. (Majchrzak et al 2007). Much of the research
tends to point to the geographical dispersion as a key aspect of remote work, rather than practical
applications for remote leadership. For example, (Boehe et al 2017) suggests a framework for
understanding virtual leadership based on location, distance, and time, focusing on aspects like
local communities, complexities of geographical dispersion, and location-based communication to
understand remote work. Another study identified technology integration, management of virtual
resources, project governance controls, stakeholder engagement, and organizational drivers as
the five overarching themes for successful virtual project management teams (Blessner et al.,
2019). In summary, while there is an attempt to understand remote teams there is currently a
significant gap in the research that would produce actionable suggestions for running a remote
team.

2.4. Synthesis

The three sections of theoretical background included in this section; constructionist approach-
leadership, followership, and virtual teams, represent the two overarching themes of the research
in this paper. The first, is the co-construction of leadership which largely considers the process of
leadership acted upon by both leaders and followers. This position, which challenges traditionally
held views on leadership, considers the areas which both the leader and the follower contribute to
leadership. Therefore, leadership perspectives are considered which study both the leader and
the follower, and followership perspectives which privilege the role of the follower. Communication
and interaction perspectives are identified as the spaces which leadership is co-created from the
constructionist perspective. These are founded in leader/follower interactions including all

January 9, 2023 K12127088 14/42

instances of communication (communication perspective), and all human aspects of interaction
(interaction perspective). Also included is the follower perspective, both as it relates to leading and
leadership (follower-centric theory of leadership), and as a standalone topic that privileges the role
of the follower (followership theory). Understanding of the follower provides more insight into the
role of the follower and helps to understand the typical role played by the follower in an area where
so much focus is placed on the leader. Through consideration of leadership perspectives which
include the follower, and followership alone, a framework of understanding is established which
includes the space between the leader and the follower where co-construction may take place.
This helps to inform an approach which is neither leader nor follower centric but exists in the
mutual influence of the leader and the follower. In summary, the co-construction of leadership is
informed by followership and social constructivist perspectives of leadership as each present a
perspective that considers each member of a leader/follower pair and their contribution to the
process of leadership. The second major theme in this research is virtual leadership, an evolving
and yet hardly well-rounded topic, but nonetheless instrumental to this paper. This topic suggests
that remote work hinges on communication as a key factor in the leading and functioning of remote
teams, as communication is the significant link between members of a remote team. Also included
are the overall suggestions on the running of remote teams which seem to point to creating
connections and establishing norms to abide by in the team. The research on virtual teams and
virtual leadership is surface level and missing nuance, however there is some insight here which
creates a foundation for further research on remote teams. Through consideration of the research
on this topic, the gaps in the research can be effectively identified. This gap in the research lies in
truly recognizing the factors that contribute to the cocreation of leadership in virtual teams, and it
is clear that in order to establish a deep standing on this topic, it is crucial that these factors are
first identified.

3. Methodology

While the existing literature suggests general instances in which leadership may be co-constructed
by leaders and followers, fails to identify specific instances in which this co-construction may occur
in a remote environment. This research aims to be able to provide examples of this cocreation by
answering the question: How is leadership co-created by leaders and followers in a virtual setting?
To accomplish this task and attempt to identify specific instances of the co-creation of leadership
by leaders and followers, a qualitative, grounded theory approach was deemed to be most
appropriate. This study was approached with the goal of being able to identify behaviors,
interpretations, and interactions that might contribute to the co-construction of leadership in virtual
teams, and present core concepts which constitute the co-construction of leadership by leaders
and followers.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 15/42

 3.1. Units of Analysis

The total sample included four LFPS, a total of eight individuals actively employed in SaaS
companies in the restaurant point of sale, education, energy, and information technology industry.
The researcher sought out pairs employed within the software as a service (SaaS) technology
sector. Specifically, team members had to be actively employed and work in a fully remote or
hybrid capacity where fully remote is defined as work that is conducted completely through virtual
means with teams never or rarely meeting in person including teams that are in the same area
and teams that are geographically dispersed. Hybrid refers to teams who spend a portion of their
time in a formal office, and a portion at home or in the field. From this criterion, four “leader/follower
pairs (LFPs) were identified, which consist of a leader and a follower, where leader is defined as
a person employed in a formal leadership role within an organization, and follower is defined as
someone who reports directly to the leader. LFPs who had been on their current team and
leader/follower dynamic for at least six months were selected.

The sample included varying levels of follower responsibility; some followers themselves hold
formal and informal leadership roles within their team while others were lower on their team
hierarchy. The sample also included various demographics and did not control for age, gender, or
experience level as a relevant factor in the research. Sample selection was open to both hybrid
and remote teams, but ultimate sample included LFPs from remote first organizations. Sample
also included different teams within the industries including sales, customer service, and
information technology. Participants for this study were conveniently sampled from the
researcher s own personal and professional network and contacted via Linkedin, Facebook, email,
and text message.

LFP Demographics

LFP Industry Leader Title Follower Title Virtuality Department

LFP- Pilot Information Founder & Implementation Hybrid Saas
Technology CEO Team Lead Implementation
LFP - 1 Education Director of Account Executive 100% Sales
Technology Sales Remote
LFP - 2 Energy Chief Product Software 100% Product

Technology Officer Engineer Remote,

LFP - 3 Information Founder & SVP of Sales 100% Sales &

Technology CEO Remote Operations

January 9, 2023 K12127088 16/42

 LFP - 4 Restaurant POS Strategic Strategic Growth 100% Customer

Growth Team Manager Remote Service

Manager
Table 1: LFP Demographics

3.2. Method of Data Collection

The primary source of data collection for this study was interviews, specifically a combination of
narrative and semi-structured interview questions to identify behaviors, interpretations, and
interactions that might constitute leadership in the dynamic of an LFP. Questions were formulated
with two goals in mind: to lead participants to uncover their thoughts, opinions, and identifications
to their own and their counterpart s role, and to encourage participants to outline specific scenarios
and instances of interactions and interpretations with their leader or follower counterpart. Based
on participant responses, both planned and unplanned follow up questions were asked to
encourage elaboration and illicit detailed accounts of these scenarios. An identical questionnaire
was used for the leader and the follower in the LFP, with some verbiage changed to match the
role in question.

Prior to official start, the researcher conducted three pilot interviews with members who belonged
to the sample group. Revisions to questionnaire were enacted between each round based on
content of elicited answers and feedback from participants regarding clarity of the questions
posed. The final questionnaire consisted of eleven questions and four background questions:
fifteen questions total. Questionnaire was intended to be live for interviews with LFP (pilot),
however it became apparent during these interviews that the questionnaire required further
modifications to account for content and time constraints. Following interviews with LFP (pilot),
edits were made to the questionnaire, and one additional pilot interview was conducted based on
these edits. Final questionnaire also consisted of eleven questions and four background questions
for a total of fifteen questions.

Prior to the recorded interview, the researcher gathered information about participant job titles,
tenure, general job functions, and the industry which they work. Each member of the LFP was
interviewed separately, with no reference to the answers of their leader/follower counterpart.
Planned time frame for interviews was one hour, and actual interview times ranged from 45 to 70
minutes. Participant interviews were conducted and recorded via Zoom, an online video
conferencing platform. Some interviews were conducted via voice and video, and others were
conducted using only voice. Interviews were then transcribed using an online transcription tool
called Trint, which automatically transcribes responses via audio upload. Interview transcriptions
were manually edited for accuracy and authenticity, as well as proofread twice following initial edit.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 17/42

After initial edits, an additional editing round was conducted to eliminate filler words (um, you
know, like, etc.), repeated words, and other unclear sentence structure for a result of a verbatim
transcription. Final edited interview transcripts uploaded to an online qualitative analysis tool called
Delve, where the coding process occurred.

3.3. Data Analysis

Analysis of this data was approached through open and axial inductive coding. In the first round
of coding with LFP1, codes were organized into three general categories based on the initial
research question: behaviors, interactions, and interpretations. Initial coding resulted in 50
snippets in interactions, 35 snippets in interpretations-other, 33 snippets in interpretation-self, and
25 snippets in behaviors. Some snippets were in more than one category. Once codes had been
organized into these general categories, the second round of coding from LFP1 involved naming
the behaviors, interpretations, and interactions more specifically, and these codes were
referenced and added to during coding of each LFP. Coding of each LFP resulted in 69 total codes
Which were narrowed to 16 general categories, and finally five core concepts, outlined in Table 2.

Codes & Core Concepts

Round 1 Round 2 Core Concepts

Sense of caring
Humility Caring Behaviors
Understanding
Being Present
Collaboration
Work Dynamics L-F Personal Relationship
Power Dynamics
Autonomy
individuality
Trust Personal
Personal
Casual
Negative reaction
Miscommunication
Communication Interpretations
Interpretation of Motivation
Interpretation of meaning
Approach to Communication
Open Communication
Communication norms How Pair Communicates
Communication Preference
Disagreement
Open Communication/Honesty Open Communication
Communication Styles

January 9, 2023 K12127088 18/42

 Coaching
Feedback to Follower Open Feedback & Coaching
Feedback to leader
Rely on Leader
Reactive/Proactive
Advocating Leader Proactivity
Delegating
Pick up slack
Acknowledgement of F Strength
Self Strength - Leader
Self-Improvement - Leader
Leadership Skills
Problem Solving
Lead by example
Decision making
I am/ My Role - Leader
Facilitation & Support
Listening
Leader Support
Encouragement
Motivating
Task-oriented
Specific how-to
Day to day
Micro Manager
Job duties Motivation to Complete Tasks
Check ins
Strategize
Drive Results
Rely on Follower

Personal Identity
Core Company Values Identification with Company
Company Growth
Other Contribution to Team/Goal
Self Contribution to Team/Goal
Hierarchy
Identification with
Working together Identification with Team
Company; Team, Virtuality,
Resilience
& Goals
Cross-Functional
Complete the team
Flexible
Comparison To Other Job
Identification with Virtuality
Like remote work
Boundaries

January 9, 2023 K12127088 19/42

 L Perceives F as Leader
L Names F Strength L Perceives F as Leader
F Accomplishment?
Self-Strength - Follower Follower as Leader
I am/My Role - Follower
F Perceives Self as Leader
I am Leader/I Lead
Facilitate Personal Goals

Table 2: Codes & Core Concepts

4. Findings

The interviews with leader-follower pairs revealed five core concepts in understanding behaviors,
interpretations, and interactions that contribute to the cocreation of leadership in virtual teams:
leader-follower personal relationship, open communication, identification with company, team, &
goals, and follower as a leader. The first three concepts constitute the leader follower dynamic,
including interactions that showcase some of the ways which leaders and followers behave with,
relate to, and understand each other. The first concept, leader-follower personal relationship refers
to the cultivation of a close relationship that emerges in the leader follower dynamic which is
relevant to the enacting of leadership. In some ways linked to the leader-follower relationship is
the next core concept, open communication. This concept refers to the ways that leaders and
followers communicate in a virtual setting, specifically how they maintain openness and honesty
when discussing work matters which is heavily influenced by level of virtuality. Finally, the
leader/follower dynamic includes facilitate and support, which broadly refers to the followers acting
as a trusted resource to accomplish goals, and the leaders playing a supporting role in order to
effectively accomplish goals and tasks. The last two core concepts focus on leader/follower
interpretations and are comprised of how individuals understand themselves and each other in the
context of their respective roles and contributions. Identification with company; team, virtuality,
and goals is a summary of both the leader and follower s characterization of themselves and their
satisfaction with this characterization, as well as an overall assessment of their opinion of the
company and its goals and virtuality. Lastly, follower as a leader outlines the ways in which the
follower transcends their role as a follower by identifying more with their formal or informal
leadership roles and engaging in leading behaviors granted by the leader. We understand this
concept on two levels: the follower perceiving themselves as a leader, and the leader perceiving
the follower as a leader. Taken as a whole, these core concepts help to paint a picture of remote
leader/follower pairs and how they each contribute to the construction of leadership in a remote
environment through their construction of their dynamic and their identification with their roles and
company.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 20/42

 4.1. Leader – Follower Dynamics

4.1.1. Leader – Follower Personal Relationship

One of the most compelling themes that emerged in the research was the elements of the personal
relationship cultivated by the LFP. Each of the LFPs interviewed described, in some capacity, a
personal relationship that underpinned and positively contributed to their work relationship and
ability to carry out responsibilities. This personal relationship is exemplified in LFP categorizations
of their relationship, the casual nature of conversations and other interactions outside of the
workplace, and feelings toward each other that would typically occur in the context of a personal
relationship. An important aspect of this personal relationship is that it appears to be mutual, with
each member of the LFP mentioning it in some way. Additionally, it also appears to be dependent
on and influential to work and the working relationship, and often cyclical; when the LFP has a
good working relationship it contributes positively to the personal relationship and vice versa.

The LFP personal relationship can be understood first in the context by which they identify and
describe the relationship. The words that the individuals in the LFPs use to describe their
relationship is “friends “close and “casual, and this is supported by interactions described in the
interviews. LFP3, for example, despite having not met prior to working together, describe a very
close relationship that has evolved over the five years they have worked together:

LFP3 - F “… we're very close friends outside of work as well…

LFP3 - L - “I was in his wedding. We've gotten to know each other well over the last five
years.

LFP3 exemplifies their relationship both by the language used to describe it, and an example o f
an interaction outside of work indicating a personal element. LFP3 – F names their relationship as
“close friends , and LFP- L presents an example which cements their closeness, as being in
someone s wedding is an honor typically reserved for the individual s closest family and friends.
The almost familial relationship described by LFP3 does not appear to be representative of the
typical LFP personal relationship, but it is an example of the spectrum of relationships that can
emerge within an LFP. In addition to the outright naming of the relationship, the LFPs describe a
relationship where they care about each other, recounting instances of caring about or attending
to each other s well-being. Many of the leaders and followers pointed to discussing this as an
intentional part of meetings and one on ones, both in the context of feelings about work and
feelings in the other s personal life. LFP4-L shares an example of this caring:

January 9, 2023 K12127088 21/42

 LFP4 - L “I'm friends with her. Her partner is gone in another country, in London with Toast
and I was like, LFP4 - F, if you get lonely, we can Zoom and we can have a cocktail after
work. Or I tell her to eat. She doesn't eat she works and works and works, I'm like what did
you eat today?

LFP4-L names the friendship, as well as describes two instances of caring for LFP4 – F. First,
LFP4 - L acknowledges a knowledge of and caring for LFP4 - F s feelings about their partner s
absence and takes steps to help her. Second, she expresses a genuine concern for LFP4 - F s
health and well-being in her inquiring about LFP4-F s meal choices. LFP4 - F points to this
example as well in her interview:

LFP4 – L Checking on me to make sure I'm okay because I wasn't eating for a couple of
days. She's going to send me some protein powder. That's very nice of her.

As exemplified in the exchanges and descriptions of the LFPs, a personal relationship emerges in
the LFP dynamic. These personal relationships are mutual; none of the members of the LFPs
reported a one-sided relationship in caring or personal interactions, and despite the range of
relationship levels of the LFPs studied, there was evidence of personal relationships in each
interview.

4.1.2. Open Communication

Perhaps because of or a reason for their close personal relationship, LFPs also reported open
communication as a significant piece to their interactions. This was especially prevalent in
conversations about virtuality and remote communication between the team. This became evident
both by the content that is being communicated, and the way in which it gets transmitted while in
a remote team. This open communication was also two-sided, as both leaders and followers
discussed similar levels of comfort in being open and honest with each other in various ways. The
common themes that emerged from the interviews were the ability to be totally honest and the
tendency to strive to establish formal or informal communication norms to facilitate communication
in the LFP as well as the team as a whole.

Leaders and followers each recounted instances where their ability to be open and honest with
each other about many aspects of work and life were significant in their dynamic, and outlined this
as generally important and present piece of their dynamic. The ability of both actors to be candid
and authentic about true opinions, work experiences, information, and feedback appears to
contribute positively to leadership in these teams. Each LFP mentioned in some capacity an ability
and willingness to enter discussions authentically and described situation where this authenticity
was crucial in one way or another. This necessarily involves authenticity in telling the, often

January 9, 2023 K12127088 22/42

difficult, truth to one another when it comes to feelings, performance, and job satisfaction to name
a few. LFP4 – F describes herself as very open and honest, with no qualms in sharing her
perspective, and this pair exemplifies the ways this honesty can influence performance:

LFP4 - F “This is where we're running into some pain. This is things that have been
challenging for us as a team and LFP4 - L trusts me to bring that to her and be very
transparent about the challenges that we're facing.

LFP4 - L “For me, it makes things a lot easier for me to manage LFP4 – F because I know
that she's not going to hold anything back. I know that whatever we leave on that meeting
is everything is left on the table. We have a great rapport where she feels comfortable
telling me the good, the bad, the ugly. And she's not afraid. And she is completely open
about that.

As LFP4 – L describes, one of the values of openness from the leader perspective is the ability to
gather all the necessary information for a given task or situation to be able to make informed
decisions and lead the team effectively. As LFP – F insinuates, he leader can only be effective in
their decisions if they are informed of the challenges of their team. From the perspective of the
follower, this openness can ensure that the needs of the team and the individual are met and allow
them the space to advocate for themselves or depend on the leader to advocate for them. A key
interaction in which this mutual openness often plays out is in the instance of feedback. At a basic
level, feedback allows individuals to be aware of their opportunities for growth, so it is very
important that these areas be acknowledged, however communicating can be emotionally charged
and difficult to do. LFPs point to their ability to be open and transparent as an important dynamic
so that they are able to communicate this appropriately. Additionally, many of the LFPs describe
the importance of feedback both to and from the leader:

LFP1 - F “…More recently, I really tried to think about how my feedback can shape her as
a manager based on what I need.

As LFP1 - F points out, two-way feedback is important for each member of the LFP. While
feedback is often positioned as unidirectional from the leader to the follower, feedback to the
leader is also depended on so that the leader can serve their team in the best way possible. For
this to be possible, both members need to feel empowered to deliver unfiltered, honest feedback
to each other.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 23/42

Another crucial part of this openness that emerged, especially when we considered the context of
remote teams, is the establishing and understanding of communication norms, which act as a
framework for virtual communication. This can be both formal or informal, implicitly or explicitly
stated, and often revolves around the communication tools used by the team. It appears that the
establishment and adherence to these norms can be crucial to the pair s ability to function
cohesively.

Implicit communication norms mentioned by the LFPs typically included descriptions of the
communication tools employed by the pairs, such as the frequency and purpose of use, or the
meanings generated by them. Slack, an online instant messaging platform, was mentioned as
being used by each of the LFPs, and each presented their own description of how/when/why the
tool should be used. In some cases, as will be discussed in the following section, the expectations
for this tool were explicit, however many simply describe a norm that emerged from its use. An
interesting point made by some of the LFPs was the importance of language and meaning that
could get communicated this way. For example, in their interviews LFP1 shared two separate
instances in which a miscommunication occurred via Slack and a norm emerged as a result. In
one case, LFP1 – L described a time where information was shared with the intention of input,
and a decision was made without LFP1 – F having the opportunity to share their opinion. This
frustrated LFP1 – F, who describes the experience of feeling left out:

LFP1 - F “So I think that what ended up happening was that people respond to Slack at
different... It's like if you're not in a meeting, you might respond right away type of thing.
And so that things could maybe get resolved before all voices are heard.

In this case, the team variation of responses based on time and space was sporadic and depended
on numerous factors. When this caused some friction, LFP1 account that the norm shifted to avoid
another instance like this from occurring again. In another situation, the actual language and
punctuation used by LFP1 – L when relaying important information to LFP1 – F caused a
misaligned interpretation from both. LFP1 – F describes:

LFP 1 - F For example, I'm an exclamation point person. She's a no punctuation person.
Things can get easily miscommunicated in that way, but a lot of our conversations take
place there. And if it's something that is going to be pretty in depth, we'll usually hop on a
zoom and talk through it face to face.

LFP1 - F describes the disconnect that can happen when communicating via a written
communication tool like Slack. She talks about being aware of the style of the other, and the

January 9, 2023 K12127088 24/42

tendency to communicate “face to face to eliminate the possibility of this miscommunication.
While neither has formally spelled out exactly when they will use Slack versus Zoom, they created
an informal norm together based on past experiences that each will adhere to when necessary.

Explicit communication norms were also present in the LFP dynamic, and typically involved formal,
expressly stated rules for how/when/why the tool should be used. In the case of LFP2, they
describe the rule they set for themselves that when meeting, they would always keep their camera
on. Other explicit norms can be more in depth and involve multiple team members or departments.
For example, LFP3 s company began in person, transitioned to remote because of COVID-19,
and they opted to remain working in a remote capacity moving forward. This transition presented
some unique challenges for them, especially when it came to setting boundaries between work
and personal life. In response to this challenge, they convened to explicitly state “rules to abide
by when communicating via online communication tools such as specific language to use when
Slacking after hours, and when to expect a response:

LFP3 - F So we had set hours of when Slack was able to be used and when you should
expect a response to actually come back your way. And if a Slack message was sent after
hours, you would have to start off the message saying no reply necessary until tomorrow.
People started working different hours, whatever was convenient to them. For us we didn't
care. If you got your work done and we're able to do it well, do it, but needed to make sure
there were boundaries put in place for that to happen.

As evident in LFP3 – F s example, an explicit rule for communication norms became necessary
as the team settled into working remotely to establish clear boundaries and expectations for
response. Interviews with LFPs suggested that both formal and informal rules for communication
were present, and influential to harmonious work and boundary setting between the pair.

4.1.3. Facilitation & Support

One of the themes that emerged in the interviews was the dualistic nature of the LFP relationship
in which the leader facilitates, and the follower carries out. The LFPs describe a relationship in
which the follower is relied upon to complete a set of tasks or accomplish a goal, and the leader
enables this in some capacity. Each contributes to this dynamic by delivering on their respective
roles and expectations which are equally important to the pair s success. The follower s role in this
dynamic is characterized by carrying out the responsibilities well and being trustworthy enough to
be depended on by the leader. In return, the leader supports the follower in whichever way is
needed, and advocates for the follower when necessary to upper management or during customer
interactions. This is a different dynamic than the previous core concepts, as the co-construction
does not depend on equal input from the leader and the follower, but rather a meeting of each

January 9, 2023 K12127088 25/42

responsibility. However, despite the differences in their respective role, the cocreation lies in the
space where each role meets and is equally dependent on each party delivering on their part. This
is a balance that is struck by both leaders and followers in their ability to act and facilitate.

A significant piece of the puzzle is the tendency of the leader to play a facilitating role, enabling
the follower to do their job well and at times acting as almost a background actor in accomplishing
tasks and goals. LFP2 – F mentions “I like to think of it as he s the brains and I m the brawn
indicating a dynamic where the follower carries out the task, and the leader supports, often by
planning, strategizing, and advocating. Leaders identify themselves as a facilitator and engage in
facilitating behaviors, using language like unblocking, supporting, problem-solving, and removing
points of friction for the team to describe this action of enabling the follower to accomplish their
task:
LFP2 - L “I'm a problem solver for the team. And if there if the problem is anything from a
specific technical task to a financial one or to whatever it is, I'm going to do what I can to
help them out and figure it out.

As suggested by LFP2 – F s statement and further exemplified by LFP4 - F, followers also

recognize this as the role of the leader as well and depend on the leader to carry it out:

LFP4 - F “She sees us very much as individuals and it doesn't feel like she's like, I'm here
to make sure that you hit your goals. Like, she's very much like, I'm here to make sure that
you feel supported and whatever I can do to help support you in any way I can.

The leader also contributes to this construction by advocating for the follower in various capacities.
Both leaders and followers describe the perceived importance of the leader as an advocate,
especially when it comes to interactions with upper management. LFP 4 – L outlined a recent
situation in which upper management attempted to enact some unrealistic goals on her team.
LFP4 – L met this with some resistance, and after gathering feedback from the team, advocated
for the team to get the goals changed. In a similar instance, LFP2 – F describes feeling
overwhelmed by the tasks given to him and the initiative LFP2 – L took to ensure his feelings were
heard and dealt with appropriately:

LFP2 - F And I also felt like at the time I was given too many tasks to do as a single person
and that I needed more people on the team. And he was very proactive on everything I
said…And then he also went on his own to constantly follow up with other leadership in
the company to make sure my concerns are addressed.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 26/42

The crucial part the follower plays in this dynamic is the action of effectively accomplishing what
needs to be accomplished. This necessitates that the follower goes beyond a simply doing their
jobs, and acts as a trusted resource on which the leader can depend. Followers discuss their
tendencies to go above and beyond their expressly stated job duties, and/or the motivation to do
their job extremely well. Followers tend to understand their responsibilities and appear to be
motivated to be dependable and/or exceptional in their ability to deliver. LFP1 - F describes a time
when LFP1 – L was out of work for an extended period, and they took it upon themselves to
perform at the optimal level in LFP1 – L s absence:

LFP1 - F “Yeah. I mean, I think during that time I was really just trying to make sure I was
bringing in as much as possible, doing everything I needed to do that I knew she was going
to ask of me.

The leader s role in this dynamic tends to include coaching to help the follower accomplish what
they need to accomplish. LFP1 – L describes her role as a coach and mentor and stresses the
importance of being the best leader she can be for the team and LFP1 – F echoes this sentiment
in describing LFP1 – L s role as a coach and mentor. This is especially important when the leader
possesses experience and expertise that the follower does not. In the case of LFP1, LFP1-F is
new to sales still working on her skills in this area, so LFP1-L s ability to coach her is instrumental
to her ability to sell. On the other hand, this dynamic can also be the opposite when the follower
may have more knowledge or experience, and the leader relies on the follower s input in various
ways. Some leaders even look to their follower as a relied upon resource for areas where they
might fall short in terms of knowledge or experience. For example, LFP 2 – L admits to having less
experience in the more technical aspects of the job than LFP2 – F, and often looks to LFP2 – F
for advice and expertise when he runs into issues. Similarly, LFP4 – L notes that LFP4 – F has
been their company longer than she has and while she is confident in her experience leading,
often looks to LFP4 F to be a sounding board regarding things like company norms, people, and
processes.

4.2. Leader-Follower Identity

4.2.1. Identification with Company; Team, Virtuality, and Goals

A significant theme that emerged in both leaders and followers were their identification with the
company including their team, the virtuality, and overall goals of the company itself. Broadly
speaking, this described the way in which the individuals positioned themselves within the bigger
context of their organization, and whether they were happy with this assessment. This
identification with their work environment and whether they viewed it favorable seemed to be
January 9, 2023 K12127088 27/42
significant in each individual s interaction with each other. The leader and follower s overall
identification with certain aspects of their company appeared to have an influence on their
interactions and behaviors with each other, and their ability to co-construct leadership in this way.

Often, both members of the LFP described themselves and each other not only within the context
of their own dynamic but within the context of their contribution to the team. When asked about
what the other brings to their work, each individual in the LFP was quick to point out a strength
that the other brought to the job and the team. LFPs used language like “their superpower is…
or “they are incredible at… to describe how the other contributed to the team and appeared to
genuinely appreciate what the other had to offer. Individuals also identified their own strengths
and were confident in what they brought to the team:

LFP2 - F “What I bring to the table is constant improvement. I would say. And that is
something which I truly believe in. And that has resulted in when I first started about that
as where we are, we use a much higher. much higher value of technology which we use
now has come back to what we did before. So, yeah, definitely that.

Leaders and followers also heavily align themselves with the company, specifically, its goals and
core values. While these are typically set at the high level of the company, both leaders and
followers appeared to strongly identify with these goals and values and consider themselves to
play a significant role in building and enforcing them. For example, both members of LFP3 point
to the core values of the company as important, and refer to them as key pillars to success:

LFP3 - L “If you have the right ideas and the right work ethic and an ownership mentality,
which is one of our core values, then you could achieve great things and move up quickly
up at LeagueSide.

LFP3 -F “And what is a huge, huge pillar of our core values here at LeagueSide is we
always are to assume positive intent. So feedback that's provided is all met with positive
intent and to make sure that we're becoming the best versions of ourselves.

This alignment with company values indicates a strong identification with the company, and this
plays a crucial part in motivating leader and followers to accomplish tasks. This plays out both in
their motivation, as well as their guiding values with each other.

In a similar way, LFPs also appear to care deeply about the success of the company goals. The
members of LFP4 exemplify this in similar ways: they are passionate about achieving the goals

January 9, 2023 K12127088 28/42

that the company sets out to achieve. LFP4 – L is highly motivated to lead her team to success,
and she describes herself as “results driven and aims to drive “actionable results for the
company. LFP4 – F also cares deeply about her ability to deliver results for the company:

LFP4 - F “But I also want to make an impact for the company and the way that the different
departments relate to each other. So as a as an IC I want to make the biggest impact that
I can for the company. And I dedicate my entire self to achieving that on every level I can
figure out.

The LFPs also reflected on the nuances of working remotely versus in person, and most of the
LFPs interviewed mentioned their satisfaction with remote work in some capacity. Many of the
LFPs, specifically the followers, point to flexibility as a significant advantage to remote work. LFP1
– F mentions her ability to start work earlier and end later in order to be able to take care of her
children, and LFP3 – F cites the ability to exercise whenever his schedule allow it as huge
advantages to working remotely. LFP2 – F strongly prefers remote work, stating that he would go
back to in person, if necessary, but the moment someone suggested remote he would “just pack
[his] bags. LFP1 – F describes the ability to choose freely how and when she accomplishes her
tasks:

LFP1 - F “I'm trying to say that I like having a choice every morning. Of: I think I'm going
to do this first and this first. I think flexibility is too general of what I'm trying to describe.
But choice maybe which I don't feel like I've had an in-person roles and so me I really as a
remote worker I fully try to take advantage of that.

This liking of flexibility points to overall satisfaction with their work environment and appears to
contribute to the satisfaction of work for leaders and followers.

4.2.2. Follower as a Leader

A significant interpretation that emerged in the research was the concept of the follower as a
leader, which played out in the appearance of leadership identities, behaviors, and responsibilities
of the follower. Whether the follower held a formal leadership role or not, they tended to identify
most with their leadership roles, titles (formal or informal), and responsibilities when asked about
their contribution to their team. At the same time, leaders also point to these factors when
describing the contribution of the followers and describe create formal and informal leadership
opportunities for the follower in the context of the team.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 29/42

The followers in the respective LFPs hold varying leadership roles within the company and their
team. Despite being the follower in his relationship with LFP3 – L, LFP3 – F holds a high-ranking
leadership role in the context of the company and appears to primarily understand his roles and
responsibilities in the context of his own leadership. Even when asked about the aspects of his
role as a follower, he tended to describe himself in terms of his leadership activities. LFP2 - F and
LFP4 – F hold informal leadership roles within their team, meaning they oversee individuals in
some capacity without necessarily having authority over them or a designated leadership title from
the company. Despite their lack of formal leadership roles, LFP2-F and LFP4 – F also strongly
identify themselves with whatever informal leadership role they have within their team. When
asked about their roles and responsibilities, these followers use language like “I m a pod leader,
or “I have a more senior role to describe themselves and their responsibilities. Leaders echo this
sentiment and identify followers as leaders or having leadership within the teams, saying things
like “she s the tribal leader or “he s a selfless leader. For example, as LFP2 – F has grown within
his role and his company, he has been given the opportunity to help shape processes and delegate
to new and contract employees that their company works with. Both LFP2 - L and LFP2 - F would
describe LFP2 - F as a leader; when ask if, despite not having a formal leadership role, LFP2 - L
considered LFP2 - F to be a leader, he answered absolutely he did. LFP2 - F describes his day to
day in terms of his leadership responsibilities as well as his other tasks which he completes. We
see in this example the mutual identification of the follower as a leader:

LFP 2 - L: As the team has grown, he's taken on a big leadership role in shepherding the
software development side of the company. The team members that we bring in to help
get them up to speed on our practices, our processes, our software as a general
statement.

LFP2 - F: I have more time in the company and the new developers are new, so I kind of
act like, delegating them tasks. So really working with them, stuff like that. But I still do
work on the projects apart from my every day, apart from my actual development hours.
So have people or other developers within the team who I work with and who I guide every
aspect.

In addition to the identification of the follower as a leader, we see examples where followers
engage in leadership behaviors granted by the leader. For example, LFP1 - L discuss how LFP1
– F s role is about to shift in the upcoming months. In order to facilitate a smooth transition, the
pair are very intentional about how it will take place. LFP1 – L has actively involved LFP1 – F in
the details of this change because she wants her to have an active voice in the definition of her
new role. In the case of LFP4, the leadership opportunity granted by the leader is exemplified by

January 9, 2023 K12127088 30/42

the informal role given to LFP1 – F. In her informal role as a pod leader, LFP4 – L is described as
a trusted resource that LFP4 - L can depend on to gather the insights of the team. She consistently
turns to LFP4 - F for insight into how the team is feeling, and insight into the best route to take
when it comes to the team. LFP4 - L also includes LFP4 - F in important initiatives and
conversations with upper management and seeks out her advice when it comes to important
strategic decisions:

LFP4 - F So she added me to this meeting with some leadership. She wanted me to be in
on it because I'm taking the lead on some of the communications to the customers. So she
wanted me to be part of that.

The tendency of the follower to identify and describe themselves as a leader speaks to the mutual
creation of leadership and what leadership means in the context of the LFP. By engaging in
leadership and identifying themselves as a leader, the follower helps to redefine leadership and
what leadership looks like for the team. In the same way, the leader allows this by delegating to
the follower, and reinforcing the followers assessment of their own identity as a leader. This mutual
shift in leading between the leader-follower pair is an example of how they co-create their own
definition of leadership.

4.3. Summary of Findings

The overall themes identified paint a picture of a leader follower dynamic that is not bound by
traditional notions of leadership and followership and is influenced by both the leader and
follower in many ways. Neither leaders nor followers exist in a vacuum and are shaped and
reinforced by each other to create a kind of cycle on which this co-construction is constantly
being built. The leader/follower dynamic in general is a significant factor in this co-construction,
and is comprised of a personal relationship, open communication, and a consistent action of
facilitation and support from the leader paired with the dependability of the follower. Consider
this example shared by LFP2 – F, which exemplifies both a scenario and the importance of the
leader/follower dynamic in this section:

LFP2 - F “So somebody on LinkedIn reached out to me that we have. My company is a

startup. And I have friends who work in big tech companies. So I always thought since I
had never interviewed in a big tech company, I just wondered what it would be to crack it
or how would that be? somebody on LinkedIn a while ago reached out to me saying, hey,
we have an opportunity, do you want to interview? I didn't really want to take the job, but I
just wanted to see if I could do it. And I cleared the interview, and I rejected the offer
because I was like, it's fine. I really I like what I'm doing right now. And I told that to LFP2

January 9, 2023 K12127088 31/42

 - L. I was like, listen LFP2 - L, I just because we have a great relationship, our relationship
in general. I just wanted to let you know that this happened. I gave an interview and I
cleared it, but I did not take the job. And he was obviously relieved, but he was like, what
can we as a company do better so that, if there are any concerns or any loopholes that
you want to talk about. And I did tell him that I felt like I wasn't getting paid enough for one,
which is completely understandable because it's a small company. And I also felt like at
the time I was given too many tasks to do as a single person and that I needed more people
on the team. And he was very proactive on everything I said. And he really…I told him.
And then he also went on his own to constantly follow up with other leadership in the
company to make sure my concerns are addressed.

Despite being offered a better job with better pay, LFP2-F declined based on a respect for LFP2-
L, a value of their relationship, and a satisfaction with his company and job. It was also because
of this that he was able to be honest about this experience with LFP2-L as well as discuss the
aspects of his work that were not working for him. In response, LFP2-L communicated that he,
too, valued their relationship and welcomed open feedback about the things he could improve.
LFP2 - L then advocated for LFP2-F, thus cementing this relationship, and supporting LFP2 – F
in better working conditions. In this is exchange, the key factor here is the pair s dynamic which
they each played a part in creating. Their personal relationship was strong enough that LFP2-F
valued it to the extent of it being a factor in his own decision making. Their ability to communicate
openly created the space for each to share their needs and work towards a better work
environment for both. LFP2 – L valued LFP2 – F and took the time to advocate for LFP2 – F to
ensure his continued happiness at the company. It is, of course, impossible to say how this
situation might have turned out differently had they not fostered this closeness however, in the
cases I examined, it appeared to be significant. Each of these factors in the leader/follower
dynamic build off each other and, in this moment, this cocreation played out in the dynamics
between the members of LFP2 that enabled them to work to keep LFP2 – F from accepting another
job. In addition to core concepts which include leader/follower dynamic, findings of this study also
point to the leader and follower identifications as a significant influence in the co-creation of
leadership in a virtual team. This includes personal orientations, specifically with the company, its
goals, virtuality, and with the team on which they work. On an individual level, this identification
includes the ways in which leaders and followers understand and describe themselves. When
leaders and followers identify positively with these aspects of their work and identity, this
contributes positively to leadership. Consider this example shared by LFP3 – F s of a significant
goal achieved by his team:

January 9, 2023 K12127088 32/42

 LFP3 - F “So for us, I'll tell you about one in the past that we achieved because this is the
fun one to talk about. So we had a goal that we were working towards where we wanted
to bring on our first client who was spending more than $1,000,000 on a single campaign
with LeagueSide. It took about four years for us to be able to perfect the pitch and be
able to have an offering that was able to be something seen as very attractive to the
buyer that we were pitching. Ultimately, it was a deal that I was leading, but what was so
great about that deal was it was the culmination of all of our different teams departments
coming together and putting something in the perfect spot for it to be able to land and
win. So all teams were adding different parts of what was crucial for the proposal being
put in a form that our prospect was able to pitch internally, get by and on, and ultimately
win. And I really do think the best part about that deal closing was the fact that we were
able to call out every single department individually about how they helped get that deal
to the finish line. And it didn't become something where was like a new business closed a
deal. Everyone's just going to love that. I was like, Oh, no, no, no, no. Our operations
team was integral to getting it done because of this. Our client success team was integral
to getting it done because of that. That was always really, really neat and involving all
departments on that was super, super, super great.

LFP4-F himself expressed a vested interest in achieving this goal for the team and the company
not motivated by personal gain or monetary incentives. He describes this with excitement and
determination, using the word “fun to describe the process of achieving this goal. He discusses
a team who felt similarly, who each worked together to achieve this goal and were motivated by
the achievement of the goal and satisfied with their contribution to getting there. Lastly, he
identifies himself both as a leader and as a part of an overall group with which he strongly cares
about. This example showcases the existence and importance of these identifications within a
remote environment.

5. Discussion

Each of the five core themes identified in the research represents an example of the cocreation of
leadership by both the leader and the follower in the context of a remote team. These themes are
comprised of behaviors, interpretations, and interactions between leaders and followers that
contribute to the cultivation of remote leadership. The results of this study contribute to the vast
body of leadership research and limited body of research on virtual teams and presents a new
perspective on which additional research should be conducted. Having identified five core
concepts related to the cocreation of leadership in remote teams, contributions to existing
research, suggestions for further research, and practical applications are included in this section.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 33/42

 5.1. Contribution to Existing Research

The result of this study presents contributions to leadership research in two significant ways.
First, the insights of this study are a much-needed step in the direction of a detailed and
intentional understanding of remote leadership. While there is still a long way to go in
understanding the nuances of remote leadership and remote work in general, this work has shed
some light on the importance of leader-follower dynamics and identities as they relate to virtual
teams. As the existing research on leading virtual teams is limited in both scope and in-depth
insight, this study provided examples of behavior, interpretations, and interactions between
leaders and followers within remote teams. By studying the cocreation of leadership in virtual
teams, this paper provided both insight and a foundation for continued research in this field.
The second significant contribution is in the field of the construction of leadership. While there
are several approaches from the social constructivist perspective, they still primarily lean one
way or another when it comes to focusing and identification of leader/follower influence. This
study aimed to identify the middle ground of these and geared one way or another. While a few
of the themes did depend on more follower or leader influence, in general, this research
presented a well-rounded view of the construction of leadership and identified areas of mutual
influence. More specifically, this study expanded upon the areas of leadership in interaction and
the communication perspective of leadership, by attempting to provide a middle-ground for the
influences of the leader and follower in the context of remote team and providing specific
examples of co-constructions of leadership in these areas.

5.2. Implications for Further Research

To cement the validity of the themes identified here, research from different perspectives would
be key. A research approach via observation and/or analysis of written text between leaders
and followers would be recommended to gather a complete picture of the behaviors and
interactions that were identified. More specifically, the ability to observe the ways in which
personal relationships, open communication, and facilitation and support are enacted in a virtual
setting and in some of the communication mentioned by LFPs (Slack, Zoom, Google Teams,
etc.) would be supplemental, especially when compared to in-person and remote first
interactions. Additionally, it would be helpful for each core concept to be researched as
standalone topics, especially to understand the relevant research that may exist to support or
oppose the concepts more in detail. In each of these areas, however, it is important for practical
application that additional research is conducted and compared with productivity to assess the
influence of these leader/follower themes. For example, it would be beneficial to assess the
influence that granting leadership opportunities to the follower might have on team outcomes or
compare key performance indicators to remote teams where LFPs cultivate a personal

January 9, 2023 K12127088 34/42

relationship. Similarly, for comparison, this same approach might be enlightening in teams where
these actions do not take place. The most significant suggestion for further research, would be
to compare the findings of the core themes to LFPs in an in person or hybrid environment, and
LFPs in different fields to identify which of the core concepts can be confidently applied to
remote teams.

5.3. Practical Applications

In addition to adding a noteworthy contribution to the field of remote leadership, the findings
identified here can be used to inform some suggestions for remote management and remote
work in general. As outlined in previous sections, the results of this study point to the
leader/follower dynamics and identifications as key areas of focus for leaders and followers in
their remote environment. Therefore, practical applications of the results of this study indicate
that teams be aware of their dynamics and identities when working remotely. Some general and
actionable suggestions for applications of these insights are outlined in this section.

Based on the findings of this study, it would be advisable for leaders and followers to cultivate a
positive dynamic which would include a personal relationship, open communication, and
continued facilitation and support. As exemplified in some of the examples in the previous
section, there can be a range of personal relationships cultivated, but in general a caring for and
comfort with one another seems to create a harmonious environment for both leaders and
followers in the work setting and aid in the co-creation of leadership. It is worth noting that is
hard to draw conclusions about the genuine motivations of this personal relationship between
LFPs; in some ways, it appears to be a strategic move to ensure productivity and in others
merely a natural dynamic that emerges in working closely with one another. LFP1 – L notes that
the answer to this question might be somewhere in the middle, as they both care about each
other, but also it is important to be aware of aspects outside of the workplace that might
contribute to work performance.

LFP1 – L I care about her as a human, but also that's going to have an impact on what's
going on with work.

Nonetheless, it is advisable that leaders and followers work on their relationships and dynamics
outside of work. Additionally, leaders and followers should establish open, honest lines of
communication with each other. Leaders should create a safe space for followers to feel
empowered to communicate openly, and both leaders and followers should provide open and
honest feedback, communicate genuine thoughts and feelings, and be open to communication
from the other. This appears to be a practice that develops over time and depends on both the

January 9, 2023 K12127088 35/42

leader and the follower to construct this dynamic so this is a goal that would require daily practice
to achieve. The ability to communicate candidly might enable leaders and followers to share
difficult truths that might otherwise go unidentified and therefore work to better their work
environments, more efficiently achieve goals and necessary tasks, and assist individuals to carry
out tasks to the best of their ability. The dynamic should also include mutual trust and dependability
as important factors in the leader/follower relationship in pursuit of goals. The leader s ability to
trust and depend on the follower to complete tasks is perhaps an obviously important point, but
this research shows that it is equally important for the follower to be able to trust and depend on
the leader to support and advocate for the follower. Leaders should expand their role of leader, to
include facilitator and supporter and continue to be a trusted resource on which the follower can
depend. In return, followers should aim to deliver to their best ability, to cultivate this mutual trust
and respect with each other. Each side of this coin is perhaps in itself not a novel perspective,
however, the idea that both contribute equally to this dynamic and thus should both work toward
achieving this balance is important. Overall, where a focus on the leader/follower dynamic could
be important in whether the LFP is in person or not, this dynamic is especially important in a
remote leader/follower pair and should be tended to in a remote team.

In addition to core concepts which include leader/follower dynamics, the findings of this study
also point to the leader and follower identifications as a significant influence in the co-creation of
leadership in a virtual team. This is especially true in terms of the interpretations present in the
leader/follower account of their dynamic, their counterpart s contribution, the company and
goals, and the level of virtuality. Remote LFPs, therefore, should consider each other s
identifications, specifically with the company, its goals, and virtuality, and also with the team on
which they work. It is important that both the leader and the follower care, in some capacity,
about the goals and values of the company, and that they consider themselves a crucial part in
achieving them. This also includes the ways in which leaders and followers understand and
describe themselves, and which roles they identify with the most. Based on the findings of this
study, a practical application for leadership is for leaders and followers to create a team that is
excited about the company s goals, and where the members feel as if their contribution matters.
LFPs in this study described various situations in which they were excited about their goal and
their contribution to their team, which strongly suggests that this contributes positively to
leadership as it provides intrinsic motivation to individuals. This is important on a team in
general, but is especially important in a virtual team, as members are often more dispersed. Of
course, it is hard to create this no matter what position a person holds, however leading and
following with knowledge can facilitate initiatives and actions to ensure general satisfaction and
happiness. Each can also continuously check in on the other, to ensure continued support and
satisfaction to maintain happiness.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 36/42

In addition to this general identification with the big picture of the company, the findings of this
study also point to an interesting topic of the identity of leader and follower, and suggest that an
emphasis on identifications of oneself, especially from the perspective of the follower, be
considered and reinforced on a team. The LFPs in this study have outlined the benefits of the
follower engaging in leadership behaviors and identifying themselves as a leader. Therefore,
leaders can and should enable their followers to engage in leading tasks and behaviors and
continue to reinforce their identity as leaders. A tangible suggestion for practical application is
that leaders should delegate to followers, acknowledge follower contributions, and allow
followers to lead in an informal capacity if possible. They should also be mindful of the follower s
goals of growth in the company and provide opportunities to engage in tasks that would
contribute to that growth.

5.4. Limitations

While the contributions of this paper provide a solid foundation for continued research on remote
leadership, the limitations of the research methodology should be taken into consideration when
using these insights as a framework for further research or practical application. First, the
demographics of the research subjects themselves might have a considerable influence on the
findings of this paper. Especially as this research was approached from the social constructionist
perspective, the age, gender, experience level, and other personal identities of the research
subjects are important to take into consideration as conclusions are drawn about various
aspects of their leader/follower dynamics. As discussed in the theoretical background, these
factors and more can play a major role in the interactions between leader and follower, so it is
important to note that these very characteristics could influence these findings, especially in
terms of the leader/follower's personal relationships and open communication. The methodology
also might have played a part in the validity of the information gathered. Especially as
interactions and behaviors were an important topic of the study, secondhand accounts from the
participants might not have painted an accurate picture of the reality of these situations. As
discussed in the previous section, an approach based on observation and text analysis might be
a more realistic depiction of the results. Perhaps the most significant limitation to acknowledge in
this research, however, is the concept of virtuality and its impact on the core concepts. Because
this study did not compare the nature of the results to LFPs in an in-person environment, it is
difficult to assess which aspects of the findings are influenced by the LFPs' virtuality, and which
are simply aspects of a typical LFP dynamic. Additionally, due to the significant gap in the
research regarding remote work and virtual teams, there does not exist a solid benchmark from
which to assess the differences between remote work and in-person, so comparison using
existing research was not an option for the approach to this study. It would be optimal for further

January 9, 2023 K12127088 37/42

research to seek out comparisons with in-person teams to identify how they might differ in these
core concepts from the virtual participants.

6. Conclusion

Returning to our research question: How is leadership co-created by leaders and followers in a
virtual setting? This study aimed to identify behaviors, interactions, and interpretations that
contribute to the cocreation of leadership in remote teams. After interviewing four leader/follower
pairs, it was identified that L-F Personal Relationship, Open Communication, Facilitation &
Support, Identification with Company, and Follower as Leader are the five core themes
associated with the co-construction of leadership by leaders and followers. While the findings of
this study are merely the first step in a detailed understanding of remote leadership, the
concepts identified provide a solid foundation for continued research in this field. First, in
identifying the importance of a leader/follower dynamic which includes a personal relationship,
open communication, and mutual dependence, it can be concluded that the balance struck by a
leader and follower far outweighs the influence of one or the other. Rather than continue to focus
on leaders and followers alone, research should continue to attempt to identify the areas where
each actor is of equal importance. Additionally, the interpretations identified regarding
leader/follower identity and identification with the company suggest the importance of the
individual s orientation with themselves and their work. These findings provide a foundation for
practical applications in management and leadership in virtual and hybrid teams, in outlining the
importance of leader/follower dynamic and leader/follower identity.

January 9, 2023 K12127088 38/42

7. References
Arvedsen, L. D., & Hassert, L. O. (2020). Accomplishing leadership-in-interaction by mobilizing
available information and communication technology objects in a virtual context. In Leadership,
16(5), 546–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020917819

Ashford S., Grant A.M., (2008) The dynamics of proactivity at work Research in Organizational
Behavior 28 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Barge J.K., Fairhurst G.T, (2008) Living Leadership: A Systemic Constructionist

Approach. Leadership.;4(3) 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150080923

Blessner P., Holzer T., Lumseyfai J., Olson B.A., (2019) Best Practices Framework for Enabling
High-Performing Virtual Engineering Teams. In Engineering Management Review 47(2) 32-44
DOI 10.1109/EMR.2019.2916815

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E., & Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the romance
is over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership. In Applied Psychology: An International
Review 56(4), 528-557 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00303.x

Blomqvist K., Jämsen R., Sivunen A., (2022) Employees perceptions of relational communication
in full-time remote work in the public sector. In Computers in Human Behavior. 132
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107240

Boehe D.M., Caprar D.V., JimenesA., Taras V., (2017) Working Across Boundaries: Current and
Future Perspectives on Global Virtual Teams. In Journal of International Management. 23(4) 341-
349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.05.001

Clifton J., Larsson M., Schnurr S., (2020) Leadership in interaction. An introduction to the Special
Issue. In Leadership. 16(5) 511-521. doi:10.1177/1742715020954790

Carsten M., K., Uhl-Bien M., West B.J., Patera J.L., McGregor R., (2010) Exploring social
constructions of followership: A qualitative study, The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3) 543-562
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015.

Carsten, M., Uhl-Bien, M., & Jaywickrema, A. (2013). “Reversing the lens in leadership research:
Investigating follower role orientation and leadership outcomes. New
Orleans, Louisiana: Presented at the Southern Management Association (SMA) Annual Meeting.

Carsten M.K Lowe K.B, K Riggio R.E., Uhl-Bien M., (2014) Followership theory: A review and
research agenda. In The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1) 83-104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.

Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen
(Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders
and organizations

January 9, 2023 K12127088 39/42

Connaughton S.L., Fairhurst G.T., (2014) Leadership: A communicative perspective. In
Leadership.;10(1) 7-35. doi:10.1177/1742715013509396

Crevani L., Lindgren M., Packendorff J., (2009) Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership
as practices and interactions. In Scandinavian Journal of Management. 26(1) 77-86
doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2009.12.003

Endres S., Weibler J., (2017) Towards a Three-Component Model of Relational Social
Constructionist Leadership: A Systematic Review and Critical Interpretive Synthesis. In
International Journal of Management Reviews. 19(2), 214-236 DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12095

Ferris G.R., Higgings C.A., Judge T.A., (2003) Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta-
analysis. In Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(1), 89-106 DOI: 10.1002/job.181

Gibson, C. B., Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual
Team Effectiveness. Germany: Wiley.

Gigliotti R.A., Ruben B.D., 2016 Leadership as a Social Influence: An Expanded View of
Leadership Communication Theory and Practice. In Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies. 23(4) 467–479 DOI: 10.1177/1548051816641876

Greenstein S., 2021 Remote Work. In IEE Micro. 41(3) 110-112 DOI: 10.1109/MM.2021.3073433

Henderson, L. S. (1987). The Contextual Nature of Interpersonal Communication in Management

Theory and Research. In Management Communication Quarterly, 1(1), 7–
31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318987001001002

Henderson L., (2009) The Impact of Project Managers Communication Competencies: Validation
and Extension of a Research Model for Virtuality, Satisfaction, and Productivity on Project Teams.
In Project Management Journal 39(2) 48–59. DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20044

Hernes T (2008) Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled World. London:
Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934524

Howell, J., & Mendez, M. 2008. Three perspectives on followership. In Riddio R.E., Chaleff I.,
Lipman-Blumen J., The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and
organizations. 25-40 ISBN: 978-0-787-99665-9

Ioana C. Cristea, Paul M. Leonardi (2019) Get Noticed and Die Trying: Signals, Sacrifice, and the
Production of Face Time in Distributed Work. In Organization Science 30(3) 552-572.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1265

Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. E. (2013). Talking work in a bank: A study of organizing properties
of leadership in work interactions. In Human Relations. 66(8) 1101–1129
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712465452

January 9, 2023 K12127088 40/42

Larsson M (2017). Leadership in interaction. In: Storey A., Hartley J., Denis J.L., Hart, P.,Ulrich,
D., (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Leadership. (1st edition) New York, NY: Routledge
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739854

Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C., & Alves, J. C. (2007). Work stress and leadership development: The
role of self-leadership, shared leadership, physical fitness and flow in managing demands and
increasing job control. In Human Resource Management Review. 17(4) 374-387
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.001

Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Wynn, E. (2006). Virtuality and team
performance: Understanding the impact of a variety of practices. In Journal of Global Information
Technology Management. 9(1), 4-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2006.10856412

Malhotra, Arvind, Majchrzak A., & Rosen, B., (2007) Leading virtual teams. In Academy of
Management perspectives 21(1) 60-70 https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.24286164

Meindl J.R. (1995), The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist
approach. In The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3) 329-341 https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-
9843(95)90012-8

Meschitti, V. (2019). The power of positioning: How leadership work unfolds in team
interactions. In Leadership, 15(5),621-643.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715018808905

Nielsen, M. F. (2009). Interpretative management in business meetings: Understanding managers

interactional strategies through conversation analysis. Journal of Business Communication 46(1)
23–56 https://doi.org/10.1177/00219436083257

Ochieng E.G., Zuofa T., (2021) Investigating Barriers to Project Delivery Using Virtual Teams. In
Procedia Computer Science. 181 1083-1088 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.304

Pearce C.L., Conger, J.A, (2003) Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539

Ruben, B. D., & Stewart, L. (2016). Communication and human behavior (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.

Sanders S., Schyns B., Wisse B. 2019 Shady Strategic Behavior: Recognizing Strategic
Followership of Dark Triad Followers. In Academy of Management Perspectives. 33(2) 234-250
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0005

Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The Personality of Followers and its Effect on the Perception of
Leadership: An Overview, a Study, and a Research Agenda. In Small Group Research, 37(5),
522–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406293013

Schnurr, S. (2009). Constructing leader identities through teasing at work. Journal of Pragmatics.
41(6) 1125-1138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.002

January 9, 2023 K12127088 41/42

Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the
leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered
perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl

Sy, T (2010) What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences
of implicit followership theories. In Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. 113(3) 73-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001

Tepper B.J., Duffy M.K., Shaw J.D., (2001) Personality moderators of the relationship between
abusive supervision and subordinates resistance. In The Journal of Applied Psychology 86(5)
974-83 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.974

Tourish D., (2014) Leadership, more or less? A processual, communication perspective on the
role of identity in leadership Theory. In Leadership 86(5):974-83 DOI:
10.1177/1742715013509030

Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of
followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl

January 9, 2023 K12127088 42/42