Advertisement

Digitalisierung der Arbeit: Konsequenzen für Führung und Zusammenarbeit

  • Conny H. Antoni
  • Christine Syrek
Hauptbeiträge

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag fokussieren wir die Merkmale und Anforderungen digitaler Führung und Zusammenarbeit bei komplexen und dynamischen Projektaufgaben, die vermittelt über moderne Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien bearbeitet werden. Anhand des vorliegenden Forschungsstandes gehen wir der Frage nach, inwieweit sich die These stützen lässt, dass Führung bei komplexer digitaler Zusammenarbeit nur gelingen kann, wenn Führungsfunktionen an das Team delegiert werden und personale Führung durch strukturelle Führung ergänzt wird. Trotz vieler uneinheitlicher Befunde zu den Effekten digitaler Führung scheinen die vorliegenden Forschungsergebnisse dafür zu sprechen, dass mehr geteilte Führung in selbstregulierenden Projektteams die Teamleistung fördert.

Schlüsselwörter

Digitale Führung E‑Führung Virtuelle Führung Geteilte Führung Virtuelle Teamarbeit Digitale Kooperation Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie Selbststeuernde Teams 

Digitalization of work: consequences for leadership and cooperation

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on the characteristics and requirements of digital leadership and cooperation when teams are working on complex and dynamic project tasks, and cooperation is mediated by modern information and communication technology. Based on current research results we discuss the question, whether the thesis can be supported that leadership of complex digital teamwork can only be successful if leadership functions are delegated to the team and personal leadership is complemented by structural leadership. Despite many ambiguous research results regarding the effects of digital leadership current findings seem to support that more shared leadership in self-managing project teams seems to be helpful for team performance.

Keywords

Digital leadership E‑leadership Virtual leadership Shared leadership Virtual teamwork Digital cooperation Information- and communication technology Self-managing teams 

Literatur

  1. Antoni, C. H. (1996). Teilautonome Arbeitsgruppen. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  2. Antoni, C. H. (2005). Management by objectives – an effective tool for teamwork? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(2), 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the „E“ to E‑Leadership: How it may impact your leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E‑leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E‑leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axtell, C. M., Fleck, S. J., & Turner, N. (2004). Virtual teams: Collaborating across distance. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 205–248.Google Scholar
  7. Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 651–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.Google Scholar
  9. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2. Aufl.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birska, S. (2015). Führung bei mobile IT-gestützter Arbeit: Identifikation neuer Belastungen und Gestaltung guter Praxis. Dortmund: GfA. Verantwortung für die Arbeit der Zukunft, Beitrag A.5.2Google Scholar
  12. Boes, A., Kämpf, T., Roller, K., & Trinks, K. (2010). „Handle, bevor dein Körper für dich handelt“. Eine neue Belastungskonstellation in der IT-Industrie und die Notwendigkeit nachhaltiger Gesundheitsförderung. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 12(3), 20–28.Google Scholar
  13. Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1151–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for distributed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cramton, C. D. (2002). Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 30(4), 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (S. 420–444). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidson, R., & Henderson, R. (2000). Electronic performance monitoring: A laboratory investigation of the influence of monitoring and difficulty on task performance, mood state, and self-reported stress levels. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 906–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Demary, V., Engels, B., Röhl, K. H., & Rusche, C. (2016). Digitalisierung und Mittelstand: Eine Metastudie. IW-Analysen. Köln: Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft.Google Scholar
  22. DGB (2014). Leitlinien für gute digitale Arbeit. 20. Parlament der Arbeit, DGB-Bundeskongress, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership—team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellwart, T., Happ, C., Gurtner, A., & Rack, O. (2015). Managing information overload in virtual teams: Effects of a structured online team adaptation on cognition and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1000873.Google Scholar
  26. Ford, R. C., Piccolo, R. F., & Ford, L. R. (2017). Strategies for building effective virtual teams: Trust is key. Business Horizons, 60(1), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franken, S. (2016). Arbeitswelt der Zukunft als Herausforderung für die Führung. In Führen in der Arbeitswelt der Zukunft (S. 3–26). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Fullerton, R. R., Kennedy, F. A., & Widener, S. K. (2014). Lean manufacturing and firm performance: The incremental contribution of lean management accounting. Journal of Operations Management.  https://doi.org/10.1016/.jom.2014.09.002.Google Scholar
  29. Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1252–1261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37(5), 459–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerlmaier, A., & Latniak, E. (2013). Psychische Belastungen in der IT-Projektarbeit – betriebliche Ansatzpunkte der Gestaltung und ihre Grenzen. In G. Junghanns & M. Morschhäuser (Hrsg.), Immer schneller, immer mehr. Psychische Belastung bei Wissens- und Dienstleistungsarbeit (S. 165–193). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The evolution of trust through technology—mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hertel, G., & Lauer, L. (2012). Führung auf Distanz und E‑Leadership – die Zukunft der Führung? In S. Grote (Hrsg.), Die Zukunft der Führung (S. 103–117). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hill, N. S., Kang, J. H., & Seo, M. G. (2014). The interactive effect of leader—member exchange and electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 772–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2017). Team personality composition, emergent leadership and shared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework. Human Resource Management Review.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012.Google Scholar
  43. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2016). Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: A practitioners’ guide. Project Management Journal, 47(1), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20(1), 240–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kahai, S., Jestire, R., & Huang, R. (2013). Effects of transformational and transactional leadership on cognitive effort and outcomes during collaborative learning within a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 969–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808.Google Scholar
  49. Laird, B. K., Bailey, C. D., & Hester, K. (2017). The effects of monitoring environment on problem-solving performance. The Journal of Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1324396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing organizations: ein Leitfaden zur Gestaltung sinnstiftender Formen der Zusammenarbeit. München: Vahlen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leyh, C. und Bley, K. (2016). Digitalisierung: Chance oder Risiko für den deutschen Mittelstand?–Eine Studie ausgewählter Unternehmen. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 53(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Enhancing performance of geographically distributed teams through targeted use of information and communication technologies. Human Relations, 67(4), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975–990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived information overload. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morley, S., Cormican, K., & Folan, P. (2015). An analysis of virtual team characteristics: A model for virtual project managers. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(1), 188–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morlok, T., Matt, C., & Hess, T. (2016). Führung und Privatheit in der digitalen Arbeitswelt. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit-DuD, 40(5), 310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Muethel, M., Gehrlein, S., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Socio-demographic factors and shared leadership behaviors in dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nicolaides, C. van, LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 923–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R. (2009). The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face- and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reeves, B., Malone, T. W., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 58–67.Google Scholar
  67. Robertson, B. J. (2016). Holacracy: ein revolutionäres Management-System für eine volatile Welt. München: Vahlen.Google Scholar
  68. Serban, A., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Kahai, S. S., Hao, C., McHugh, K. A., Peterson, D. R., et al. (2015). Leadership emergence in face-to-face- and virtual teams: A multi-level model with agent-based simulations, quasi-experimental and experimental tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 402–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Sutanto, J., Tan, C. H., Battistini, B., & Phang, C. W. (2011). Emergent leadership in virtual collaboration settings: A social network analysis approach. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 421–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2011.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Syrek, C. J., & Antoni, C. H. (2014). Unfinished tasks foster rumination and impair sleeping - particularly if leaders have high performance expectations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(4), 490–499.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Syrek, C. J., Apostel, E., & Antoni, C. H. (2013). Stress in highly demanding IT jobs: Transformational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion and work-life balance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 252–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559–577.Google Scholar
  74. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis on shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 181–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: What do emergent leaders do? Information and Organization, 14(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arbeits‑, Betriebs- und Organisationspsychologie, FB IUniversität TrierTrierDeutschland
  2. 2.Arbeits- und OrganisationspsychologieUniversität BambergBambergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations