Leadership in a Remote Working Environment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Challenges Leaders Face in a Remote Working Environment
Traditional Leadership Traits and Practices
Traditional versus Contemporary Leadership Styles and Traits
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

This study seeks to investigate the challenges that leaders face in a remote working environment. INMAGINE, a Malaysian-based bootstrapping company, is mentioned as a case study because it transitioned from an offline to an online working environment in 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (HRO, 2021). The experiences of its managers in leading virtual teams during the crisis will be mentioned as illustrations.

Challenges Leaders Face in a Remote Working Environment

Remote working refers to a setup where employees complete organizational tasks by working online. In other words, staff who work remotely do not assemble at a central place to perform their tasks; instead, they are interconnected with one another using technological devices that enable them to perform their tasks remotely (McGiboney, 2018). This kind of workplace environment complicates the effectiveness of leadership practices in an organizational setting because, for a long time, leadership success has been dependent on the physical interaction of leaders and employees (Allen, 2020). A remote working environment upsets this balance because employers and employees are not in the same physical space (McGiboney, 2018). This new workplace environment presents new challenges to leaders because it breeds a lack of trust between both parties.

The lack of emotional connection in virtual settings is also a challenge to leaders working remotely (Maipas, Panayiotides, and Kavantzas, 2021). The new Vice President of Human Resources (HR) at INMAGINE attested to this fact after admitting that she had a difficult time securing the support of new employees after assuming the department’s leadership position during the COVID-19 pandemic (HRO, 2021). She added that the virtual workplace environment made it difficult for her to establish an emotional connection with workers who knew nothing about her before her appointment (HRO, 2021). This example highlights some of the challenges that leaders encounter when working with virtual teams.

Traditional Leadership Traits and Practices

Traditional leadership traits and practices come from various styles adopted by organizations worldwide. For example, autocratic leadership is a traditional form of governance characterized by the dominance of one person, or central point of command, that assumes decision-making roles in a firm with minimal input from others (Demirtas & Karaca, 2020). In this leadership framework, a hierarchical command structure supports leaders’ actions because people at the top exercise the highest level of authority (Demirtas & Karaca, 2020). Leaders that assume this style of governance strive to maintain consistency and discipline in the implementation of organizational tasks.

The autocratic leadership style is inapplicable in a remote working environment because it disregards the quality of decisions as a criterion for leadership effectiveness. This statement means that the input of lower-ranking employees is deemed inherently inferior to those made by superiors, regardless of their relevance, quality, or value (Maduro & Kahn, 2020). The autocratic leadership style is also unsuitable for a remote working environment because it assumes a rigid and structural relationship between managers and employees (Maduro & Kahn, 2020). In other words, employee welfare is managed in the same manner as tasks are – with little focus on welfare because the emphasis is on results (Demirtas & Karaca, 2020). Therefore, there is minimal room for developing trust and empathy, which are crucial for leaders managing employees remotely.

The pace-setting leadership style is also unsuitable for use in a remote working environment because it fails to account for employee diversity (Maduro & Kahn, 2020). This leadership approach identifies one person who is outperforming their colleagues and using their performance to motivate others to achieve the same results (Rakesh & Wind, 2020). The problem with this leadership approach is its failure to recognize differences in abilities, capabilities, and specialization levels among employees (Demirtas & Karaca, 2020). At the same time, a remote working environment requires leaders to be sensitive to these differences because tasks are assigned based on people’s unique skill sets (Phillips, 2020). Additionally, while the pace-setting leadership style is effective in enabling employees to accomplish their goals within a short time, it can cause employee burnout (Maduro & Kahn, 2020). Therefore, a more agile leadership style is required for a remote work setting.

The paternalistic leadership framework is also unsuitable for a remote work environment because it lacks agility (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2020). Inherently, it advocates for the use of blood relations as the basis for choosing leaders (Tang, 2019). For example, the leadership position of a business that is started by a father would be entrusted to a son or daughter. All other members of the organization who do not share the same lineage are unqualified to assume such leadership positions. Based on this principle, the paternalistic leadership style is unsuitable to use in a remote work setting because it fails to account for skills and competencies when choosing leaders (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2020). Furthermore, a remote work environment is complex and requires employees to choose their leaders based on their capabilities to complete tasks (Tang, 2019). The paternalistic leadership style ignores this fact and fails to promote meritocracy, which is important in the contemporary workplace.

Overall, traditional leadership traits and practices have been in use for a long time, but their efficacy in a remote working environment is questionable. This is because researchers suggest that a servant-like leadership style would be appropriate for such an environment (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2020; Tang, 2019). In this context of the review, a servant leadership style encourages leaders to be “servants” of the people as opposed to tools for directing employees to complete tasks (Tang, 2019). An in-depth insight into this leadership philosophy is highlighted below.

Traditional versus Contemporary Leadership Styles and Traits

Differences between contemporary and traditional leadership styles affect their efficacy in a remote working environment. Examples of contemporary leadership styles are provided below.

Contemporary Leadership Styles and Traits

Contemporary leadership refers to styles or practices that are applied today. The two most common ones include transformational and servant leadership styles. The servant leadership style is premised on the idea that employees work to “serve” an organization and not its owners (Langhof and Güldenberg, 2020). Organizations that have adopted this leadership style have done so because it spreads the benefits of productivity to all stakeholders (Langhof and Güldenberg, 2020). The servant leadership style is appropriate to use in a remote work setting because it promotes communication between employers and employees by minimizing the influence of ego between both parties (Kauppila et al., 2021). It does so by creating an environment where everyone feels valued and respected, even when they cannot see one another physically.

Servant leadership could also negatively affect the remote working environment because of the lengthy processes involved in making decisions (Saleem et al., 2020). Indeed, unlike the physical work environment where employees meet face-to-face, servant leadership requires the involvement of multiple players who may be geographically dispersed across a wide area or may be speaking different languages. The net effect is a slow decision-making process in the virtual work environment, especially if these parties are to be consulted before every decision is made (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2020). Additionally, the lack of an authority figure in servant leadership may make it possible for virtual teams to lose sight of their main goals (Saleem et al., 2020). Stated differently, employees are less likely to view managers as authoritative figures if they tend to meet every need they have (Maduro & Kahn, 2020). Therefore, it is important to balance the strengths and limitations of this leadership style in a remote work environment.

The transformational leadership style is another contemporary approach that can be adopted in the virtual work setting. It works when leaders improve employee productivity by influencing their values and attitudes (Baba, Makhdoomi, and Siddiqi, 2021). This type of leadership style works well in a remote work environment because its leaders are concerned with how to improve employee welfare and productivity and not improve scores (Baba, Makhdoomi, and Siddiqi, 2021). This focus is important in a virtual workplace environment because teams need to be intellectually stimulated through frequent feedback and transformational leadership provides the right tools for doing so (Farahnak et al., 2020). For example, managers using this leadership style can educate their employees about the best working practices to use in a virtual setup, thereby empowering staff (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2020; Tang, 2019). In this regard, employees are inclined to perform well because they will consider their work to be purposeful and enjoyable

The need for constant communication in transformational leadership is a challenge for its implementation in the virtual work setting. Given that most remote work settings are affected by poor communication among virtual teams, this challenge could affect team performance (Saleem et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is risky to implement transformational leadership in a virtual work setting because it is unclear whether employees would stay motivated long enough to achieve common goals (Weller et al., 2020). Therefore, this leadership style has the potential to be disruptive to business operations.

Contemporary versus Traditional Leadership Traits

Contemporary leadership differs from traditional leadership based on how they motivate workers (Winston, 2019). This variation manifests through differences in techniques for asserting authority and marking boundaries between employers and employees. For example, contemporary leadership styles are associated with freedom of thought and creativity, while traditional approaches emphasize boundary recognition (Gram-Hanssen, 2021). In this regard, freedom is rarely celebrated, and thoughts are seldom exchanged in traditional leadership structures, especially among employees of different ranks. These differences have implications for the effectiveness of leadership practices in the remote working environment.

Variations between contemporary and traditional leadership approaches have far-reaching implications for virtual teams because creativity and freedom of thought are integral parts of virtual team performance (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2020). Contemporary leadership is the best fit for such an environment because it is flexible and can accommodate the diversity of thought needed in virtual workplaces (Anthony, Mitch, and Larry, 2019). Concisely, the remote working environment requires agility because of differences in time zones and work schedules for groups of employees. To overcome some of the negative effects of traditional leadership styles on employees working in such a setting, leaders need to maintain open channels of communication (Pfeffermann, 2019). The goal is to prevent employees from feeling disconnected from their superiors. Therefore, communication needs to be frequent and transparent such that employees feel that they can access their colleagues at any time (Anthony, Mitch, and Larry, 2019).

INMAGINE has such a plan because employees meet top leadership, including the company’s founders, online (HRO, 2021). Mentoring sessions with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) are also done periodically and have a positive impact on employer-employee relations because they allow workers to engage directly with their superiors (HRO, 2021). The company also has an online chat feature where employees can communicate with one another virtually and create workgroups that would enable them to complete their tasks effectively (HRO, 2021). A transformational leadership style would best fit such a work environment because it offers the flexibility needed to manage the above-mentioned complexities of working remotely.

Conclusion

This paper has highlighted differences between traditional and contemporary leadership approaches based on their effects on the remote working environment. Traditional leadership styles have traits and practices that are incompatible with the remote working environment, such as their focus on processes as opposed to results. Therefore, contemporary leadership approaches are more adaptable to the remote working environment. The pieces of evidence gathered from the implementation of the remote working strategy at INMAGINE affirm this statement because they highlight the importance of implementing creative and open channels of communication and participation between employers and employees. This type of interaction is crucial to the successful implementation of a remote working program for employees in a post-COVID world.

Reference List

Allen, P. (2020) Inspiring leadership: a guide to mastering leadership, business management, organization, development, and building high-performance teams. New York, NY: Peter Allen.

Anthony, N., Mitch, J. and Larry, L. (eds.). (2019) Handbook of research on strategic communication, leadership, and conflict management in modern organizations. New York, NY: IGI Global.

Baba, M. M., Makhdoomi, U. M. and Siddiqi, M. A. (2021) ‘Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership among academic leaders in institutions of higher learning’, Global Business Review, 22(4), pp. 1070–1096.

Demirtas, O. and Karaca, M. (eds.). (2020) A handbook of leadership styles. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Farahnak, L. R. et al. (2020) ‘The influence of transformational leadership and leader attitudes on subordinate attitudes and implementation success’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 27(1), pp. 98–111.

Gram-Hanssen, I. (2021) ‘Individual and collective leadership for deliberate transformations: insights from indigenous leadership’, Leadership, 17(5), pp. 519–541.

HRO. (2021) Case study: how INMAGINE has infused best practices into a fully remote working environment.

Kauppila, O. P. et al. (2021) ‘Serving to help and helping to serve: using servant leadership to influence beyond supervisory relationships’, Journal of Management, 10(3), pp. 113-132.

Langhof, J. G. and Güldenberg, S. (2020) ‘Servant leadership: a systematic literature review – toward a model of antecedents and outcomes’, German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(1), pp. 32–68.

Maduro, M. P. and Kahn, P. W. (eds.). (2020) Democracy in times of pandemic: different futures imagined. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maipas, S., Panayiotides, I. G. and Kavantzas, N. (2021) ‘Remote-working carbon-saving footprint: could COVID-19 pandemic establish a new working model with positive environmental health implications?’, Environmental Health Insights, 15(4), pp. 768-799.

Malloch, K. and Porter-O’Grady, T. (2020) Appreciative leadership: building sustainable partnerships for health: building sustainable partnerships for health. New York, NY: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

McGiboney, G. W. (2018) Leadership theories and case studies: an epidemiological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Pfeffermann, N. (ed.). (2019) New leadership in strategy and communication: shifting perspective on innovation, leadership, and system design. New York, NY: Springer Nature.

Phillips, S. (2020) ‘Working through the pandemic: accelerating the transition to remote working’, Business Information Review, 37(3), pp. 129–134.

Rakesh, N. and Wind, J. (2020) Transformation in times of crisis: eight principles for creating opportunities and value in the post-pandemic world. New York, NY: Notion Press.

Saleem, F. et al. (2020) ‘Impact of servant leadership on performance: the mediating role of affective and cognitive trust’, SAGE Open, 10(1), pp. 324-329.

Tang, K. N. (2019) Leadership and change management. New York, NY: Springer.

Weller, I. et al. (2020) ‘Transformational leadership, high-performance work system consensus, and customer satisfaction’, Journal of Management, 46(8), pp. 1469–1497.

Winston, B. E. (2019) Leadership growth through crisis: an investigation of leader development during tumultuous circumstances. New York, NY: Springer Nature.

Click Here To Order Now!