Digital Leadership: Theoretical and Practical Applications

**59**

**Chapter 4**

**Abstract**

Perspective

*Petros G. Malakyan*

digital natives, digital immigrants

**1. Introduction**

Digital Leader-Followership for

the Digital Age: A North American

This chapter examines the emerging literature on contemporary leadership, particularly *leadership in the digital age*, *digital leadership*, *e-leadership*, and *cyber leadership,* in the context of socio-cultural changes, theoretical shifts in leadership studies, and leadership education changes observed in the United States in the last two decades. Although the above literature shows a shift from leader-centered and hierarchical to follower-centered and relational leadership, it is not clear how the old may yield to the new paradigm of leadership. There seem to be no discussion in the leadership literature on how to transition from pre-digital to digital era of leadership. While this study acknowledges the discontinuity and tension between the contemporary and the traditional leadership approaches, it offers theoretical and practical alternatives for transitioning from traditional to contemporary leadership in the digital age. Since leadership research has already shifted from single-role identity to multiple-role identities, which enables individuals to acquire and master both leading and following skills in today's organizations, this study is optimistic that the *leader-follower trade* (LFT) or similar approaches may build bridges between digital native and digital immigrant generations of leader-followers for a smoother transition from hierarchical

to distributed, shared, collective, and adaptive leadership for the digital age.

**Keywords:** leader-followership, digital leadership, virtual organizations,

The twenty-first century marks the beginning of an unprecedented, fast-paced

technological revolution of digitization. As a result, today's digital followers, leaders, and ordinary citizens possess instant access to a vast amount of information, and there has been greater dissemination of knowledge than ever before. Furthermore, as information technology has opened up new opportunities for sharing knowledge, information, and work responsibilities, most traditional, hierarchical leadership theories and models have become outdated and irrelevant because they were not designed for the digital age. As artificial intelligent technologies and tools replace traditional managerial positions in organizations, and as company workers become increasingly engaged in multiple leading and following roles in today's virtual organizations, there is a greater need for new models of leading and following in the virtual space, where participants may acquire different types of leading and following competencies that are more relevant for the digital age.

#### **Chapter 4**

## Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective

*Petros G. Malakyan*

#### **Abstract**

This chapter examines the emerging literature on contemporary leadership, particularly *leadership in the digital age*, *digital leadership*, *e-leadership*, and *cyber leadership,* in the context of socio-cultural changes, theoretical shifts in leadership studies, and leadership education changes observed in the United States in the last two decades. Although the above literature shows a shift from leader-centered and hierarchical to follower-centered and relational leadership, it is not clear how the old may yield to the new paradigm of leadership. There seem to be no discussion in the leadership literature on how to transition from pre-digital to digital era of leadership. While this study acknowledges the discontinuity and tension between the contemporary and the traditional leadership approaches, it offers theoretical and practical alternatives for transitioning from traditional to contemporary leadership in the digital age. Since leadership research has already shifted from single-role identity to multiple-role identities, which enables individuals to acquire and master both leading and following skills in today's organizations, this study is optimistic that the *leader-follower trade* (LFT) or similar approaches may build bridges between digital native and digital immigrant generations of leader-followers for a smoother transition from hierarchical to distributed, shared, collective, and adaptive leadership for the digital age.

**Keywords:** leader-followership, digital leadership, virtual organizations, digital natives, digital immigrants

#### **1. Introduction**

The twenty-first century marks the beginning of an unprecedented, fast-paced technological revolution of digitization. As a result, today's digital followers, leaders, and ordinary citizens possess instant access to a vast amount of information, and there has been greater dissemination of knowledge than ever before. Furthermore, as information technology has opened up new opportunities for sharing knowledge, information, and work responsibilities, most traditional, hierarchical leadership theories and models have become outdated and irrelevant because they were not designed for the digital age. As artificial intelligent technologies and tools replace traditional managerial positions in organizations, and as company workers become increasingly engaged in multiple leading and following roles in today's virtual organizations, there is a greater need for new models of leading and following in the virtual space, where participants may acquire different types of leading and following competencies that are more relevant for the digital age.

The emerging literature on leadership for the digital era can be categorized as leadership in the digital age, digital leadership, e-leadership, and cyber leadership. *Leadership in the digital age* deals with the consequences of the digitization on leadership conceptualization and practice the virtual space. *Digital leadership* as a relational, fluid, spontaneous, and role-based leadership redefines leadership behavior and practice through the use of digital tools in the virtual world. *E-leadership*, as the traditional leadership, faces similar issues of vision, motivation, and direction to overcome challenges of social influence processes through advanced information technology (AIT) in the areas of communication, trust, and relationships between leaders and followers in a virtual organizations. Lastly, *cyber leadership*, a digital version of military leadership, deals with complex and multifaceted issues of organizational safety and security such as information warfare, cyber-security threats, and cyber-attacks.

The above-mentioned literature on digital leadership shows a clear departure from the leadership paradigm established by Baby Boomer after the World War II.1 Since then, major cultural and generational changes have taken place in the areas of communication, relationships, and attitudes toward leadership, authority, and corporate loyalty [1]. The value and the philosophy of work have changed from working hard and making a profit at any cost (Boomer and Gen Xers) to working for personal satisfaction and for individual and environmental well-being (Millennials and Gen Zers). Additionally, the current research on leadership has moved from leader-centered to follower-inclusive and leader-follower relational models of leadership [2]. Nowadays, leadership education and training resources are no longer solely the privilege of company managers and leaders. More than 1570 leadership degree programs exist worldwide, most of which are in colleges and universities in the United States, that offer leadership certification and associate, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs [3]. As a result, the traditional understanding of positional leaders and followers in organizations has become blurrier and irrelevant for the contemporary leadership in the digital age because the latter is spontaneous and organic while the former is rigid and static.

However, the above-mentioned literature on digital leadership does not offer mechanisms for bridging the socio-cultural, theoretical, philosophical, and generational gaps that exists today between Boomers and Millennials. Nor does it proposal plans for transition from the traditional theories and practices of leadership to contemporary leader-followership processes in the age of information and technology. The following questions are worth exploring:


**61**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

leadership studies, and changes in leadership education.

**2. The context of the pre-digital leadership era**

tactics to gain followers and maintain their power.

poverty and injustice to live a decent life.

**3. Socio-cultural and value changes**

To address these and related issues in the digital age, this chapter offers alternative approaches and a conceptual framework to bridge the discontinuity gap between pre-digital and digital leader-followership that emerged as the consequence of contextual differences between physical and virtual space for leadership, socio-cultural and value changes among leaders and followers, theoretical shifts in

The history of the Western world marks the rise and the fall of the "cult of leadership" [4], also known as the "cult of personality." Rooted in antiquity and common until the middle of the twentieth century, it cost countless human lives, societies, and civilizations. Long before social psychologists described the close relationship between authority and the "thirst for obedience" [5, 6], and how followers' perceptions and beliefs toward prototypical leaders may turn them into "leader worshipers" [7], leaders and company managers have used manipulative

History shows us that the consequences of the abuse of leadership power have been ferocious and destructive for both leaders and followers, as well as for organizations, societies, and nations. Major world problems seem to revolve around unethical and toxic leaders [8, 9], and social environments have given birth to such despotic leaders as Queen Mary, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Augusto Pinochet, and others. Thus, it can be assumed that the leadership paradigm of the twentieth century did not help the majority of the world's population overcome

Moreover, while the *industrial era* segregated individuals as masters and slaves, managers and subordinates, separate and parallel identities of leaders and followers, employers and employees [10, 11], the *post-industrial era* emboldened followers to take leadership roles and improve leader-follower relationships. For instance, in the United States, the second part of the twentieth century marks the *era of followers* and the beginning of a shift from the corporate mindset of profit for the few and "corporate rights" to a collective mindset of profit for all and "human rights" [12] due to the rise of the post-industrial generations, Xers and Millennials [1, 13], and environmental awareness. As a result, 90% of the value- and mission-driven organizations in the non-profit, charity, and public sectors, as well as in philanthropy and freelance entrepreneurship, that are currently in operation were created after the 1950s [14]. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the world has continued to change. Currently, we live in the *post-industrial* era of the information and digital age [15]. Today's college students and young professionals, who represent the Millennial and Z generations, have gained access to electronic information on science, art, history, entertainment, video games, and electronic education and are more informed about the world and their environment than ever before. These generations have even created their own digital and virtual communities and languages with district grammar and vocabulary. They have also begun to lead and follow each other through

online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Sociologists and social psychologists have observed a major cultural and generational shift from Boomer to Millennial generations in the areas of communication styles, acquisition and dissemination of information, interpersonal relationships,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

• Gen Z—born between 1995 and 2015

<sup>1</sup> In this chapter, different generations of American society are presented:

<sup>•</sup> Baby Boomers—born between 1944 and 1964

<sup>•</sup> Gen X—born between 1965 and 1979

<sup>•</sup> Millennial—born between 1980 and 1994. Some researchers refer to Millennials as Generation Y or Yers [13].

Retrieved on August 19, 2019, from https: //www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z.

To address these and related issues in the digital age, this chapter offers alternative approaches and a conceptual framework to bridge the discontinuity gap between pre-digital and digital leader-followership that emerged as the consequence of contextual differences between physical and virtual space for leadership, socio-cultural and value changes among leaders and followers, theoretical shifts in leadership studies, and changes in leadership education.

#### **2. The context of the pre-digital leadership era**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

The emerging literature on leadership for the digital era can be categorized as leadership in the digital age, digital leadership, e-leadership, and cyber leadership. *Leadership in the digital age* deals with the consequences of the digitization on leadership conceptualization and practice the virtual space. *Digital leadership* as a relational, fluid, spontaneous, and role-based leadership redefines leadership behavior and practice through the use of digital tools in the virtual world. *E-leadership*, as the traditional leadership, faces similar issues of vision, motivation, and direction to overcome challenges of social influence processes through advanced information technology (AIT) in the areas of communication, trust, and relationships between leaders and followers in a virtual organizations. Lastly, *cyber leadership*, a digital version of military leadership, deals with complex and multifaceted issues of organizational safety and security

The above-mentioned literature on digital leadership shows a clear departure from the leadership paradigm established by Baby Boomer after the World War II.1 Since then, major cultural and generational changes have taken place in the areas of communication, relationships, and attitudes toward leadership, authority, and corporate loyalty [1]. The value and the philosophy of work have changed from working hard and making a profit at any cost (Boomer and Gen Xers) to working for personal satisfaction and for individual and environmental well-being (Millennials and Gen Zers). Additionally, the current research on leadership has moved from leader-centered to follower-inclusive and leader-follower relational models of leadership [2]. Nowadays, leadership education and training resources are no longer solely the privilege of company managers and leaders. More than 1570 leadership degree programs exist worldwide, most of which are in colleges and universities in the United States, that offer leadership certification and associate, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs [3]. As a result, the traditional understanding of positional leaders and followers in organizations has become blurrier and irrelevant for the contemporary leadership in the digital age because the latter is spontaneous

However, the above-mentioned literature on digital leadership does not offer mechanisms for bridging the socio-cultural, theoretical, philosophical, and generational gaps that exists today between Boomers and Millennials. Nor does it proposal plans for transition from the traditional theories and practices of leadership to contemporary leader-followership processes in the age of information and technol-

• How does the digital leadership deal with the existing hierarchical relationships and power distances between leaders and followers in today's

• Since the traditional hierarchical leadership practiced in most organizations will not cease to exist any time soon and that the old and the new have to co-exist together for a time being until the old is replaced by the new organizational structures and relationships, what can be done today to bridge that gap for leadership continuity between different generations of the workforce?

• Millennial—born between 1980 and 1994. Some researchers refer to Millennials as Generation Y or

Retrieved on August 19, 2019, from https: //www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z.

such as information warfare, cyber-security threats, and cyber-attacks.

and organic while the former is rigid and static.

ogy. The following questions are worth exploring:

<sup>1</sup> In this chapter, different generations of American society are presented:

• Baby Boomers—born between 1944 and 1964 • Gen X—born between 1965 and 1979

• Gen Z—born between 1995 and 2015

organizations?

**60**

Yers [13].

The history of the Western world marks the rise and the fall of the "cult of leadership" [4], also known as the "cult of personality." Rooted in antiquity and common until the middle of the twentieth century, it cost countless human lives, societies, and civilizations. Long before social psychologists described the close relationship between authority and the "thirst for obedience" [5, 6], and how followers' perceptions and beliefs toward prototypical leaders may turn them into "leader worshipers" [7], leaders and company managers have used manipulative tactics to gain followers and maintain their power.

History shows us that the consequences of the abuse of leadership power have been ferocious and destructive for both leaders and followers, as well as for organizations, societies, and nations. Major world problems seem to revolve around unethical and toxic leaders [8, 9], and social environments have given birth to such despotic leaders as Queen Mary, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Augusto Pinochet, and others. Thus, it can be assumed that the leadership paradigm of the twentieth century did not help the majority of the world's population overcome poverty and injustice to live a decent life.

Moreover, while the *industrial era* segregated individuals as masters and slaves, managers and subordinates, separate and parallel identities of leaders and followers, employers and employees [10, 11], the *post-industrial era* emboldened followers to take leadership roles and improve leader-follower relationships. For instance, in the United States, the second part of the twentieth century marks the *era of followers* and the beginning of a shift from the corporate mindset of profit for the few and "corporate rights" to a collective mindset of profit for all and "human rights" [12] due to the rise of the post-industrial generations, Xers and Millennials [1, 13], and environmental awareness. As a result, 90% of the value- and mission-driven organizations in the non-profit, charity, and public sectors, as well as in philanthropy and freelance entrepreneurship, that are currently in operation were created after the 1950s [14].

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the world has continued to change. Currently, we live in the *post-industrial* era of the information and digital age [15]. Today's college students and young professionals, who represent the Millennial and Z generations, have gained access to electronic information on science, art, history, entertainment, video games, and electronic education and are more informed about the world and their environment than ever before. These generations have even created their own digital and virtual communities and languages with district grammar and vocabulary. They have also begun to lead and follow each other through online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

#### **3. Socio-cultural and value changes**

Sociologists and social psychologists have observed a major cultural and generational shift from Boomer to Millennial generations in the areas of communication styles, acquisition and dissemination of information, interpersonal relationships,

the concept of physical and virtual space, and their attitude toward leadership authority, corporate loyalty, and commitment [16–18]. Scholars who have tried to bridge the generational divide between Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials have observed major differences between them [19]. Millennials, for instance, are team players, and having an organizational impact motivates them. They like open communication with their supervisors and are technologically savvy. Unlike Boomers, Millennials tend to have different perspectives on the world marketplace, supervisor-subordinate relationships, cultural diversity, task performance, communication styles, and information technologies [20]. Millennials lack the loyalty and work ethics established by Boomers and Gen Xers [19], and they tend to establish their own ethics and functional work relationships [21]. These and other empirical findings seem to suggest that there is a tension between pre- and post-digital generations. What will happen to current organizational structures when Boomers retire and Millennials take the lead?

Values and attitudes toward fellow human beings and the environment have also changed in the United States. The digital revolution and the advancement of digital technology have allowed environmental scientists to learn and process a vast amount of geospatial data about the planet Earth [22]. This data has shown that the climate is changing as a result of industrial pollutions [23]. The Digital Earth (DE) initiative, started by Vice President Al Gore in 1998, and rapid digitization gave birth to a new generation of global citizens, often referred to as *digital natives*, who tend to think and act digitally in a different way than previous generations, referred to *digital immigrants* [24]. The Boomers and some Xers are considered digital immigrants because they were either born or grew up before the digital revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Millennials and the Zers, who were either born during or grew up after the digital revolution, are considered digital natives [25]. Digital natives seem to hold a very different vision and values about the world, the environment, the local and global economy, the concept of work, their personal and social well-being, and intercultural and international relations. An example of this is the March 2019 global march for climate change by Gen Zers.<sup>2</sup> Ironically, more Gen Zers express concerns for the well-being of the Earth than Boomers or Xers. This value and cultural change seems to indicate that a new digital leadership (DL) and digital followership (DF) is in the making in today's digital age.

#### **4. Theoretical shift in leadership studies**

Post-industrial leadership theories moved away from simplistic and cultic personcentered "great man" theories of leadership to system-based *complexity of leadership theories* (CLT) in the information and digital age [26, 27]. They offer new ways in which followers and non-followers may take more active and participative roles in leadership processes in society and organizations. Furthermore, value-based and relational leadership theories such as transformational, servant, ethical, collaborative, inclusive, distributed, shared, and adaptive seem to be more follower-centered. As a result, scholars' attention shifted from the leader as a person to leading and following as a process. This shift provides a "foundation for theories that move beyond hierarchical, individualistic, one-directional and de-contextualized notions of leadership" [28].

Additionally, complexity leadership theorists (CLT) raise legitimate concerns about "how, in the context of bureaucratic organizing structures, can organizational leaders enable emergence of the new solutions and innovation needed to survive and thrive in today's complex world?" [26]. The answer to this question

**63**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

with leader-centered leadership mindset (the "old wineskins").

Directory of International Leadership Association (ILA),4

may be sought in an ancient metaphor where one attempts to withstand a new wine

ing structures and leader-centered theories of the twentieth century that may not sustain the "new wine," which represents the twenty-first century virtual organizations and leading-following complex processes in the digital world. Thus, in order for the leading-following interactive process to occur (the "new wine") in today's digital age, a new organizational mindset and design seems necessary (the "new wineskins") because the environmentally conscious and responsible digital generation (the "new wine") cannot fully function in corporate hierarchical structures

Furthermore, role identity theories and research indicate that multiple or interchangeable role identities may be beneficial for positional leaders, who lead under constant demands and pressure, to be willing to share leadership with followers and adopt leader-follower multiple identities. If leaders and followers trade their leading and following roles in organizations and interchangeably lead and follow in various situations [29, 30], it may minimize leadership power abuse, eliminate social identity stereotyping for followers [31], reduce psychological distress [32–34], and

Unlike most organizational leaders of the Boomer generation, who did not get a formal education in leadership, Millennials were exposed to leadership and organizational studies in their undergraduate and graduate curricula across the United States in the last 30–40 years [37]. Nowadays, every college or university student, or any individual interested in acquiring knowledge or a degree in leadership, has access to such studies via university or online databases without restrictions or discrimination. For instance, according to the Higher Education Program

380 undergraduate and graduate certificate programs in leadership and more than 200 bachelor's degrees in leadership in 13 countries, including the United States. Nearly 28 countries offer 800 graduate degrees, and 10 countries offer 350 doctoral programs in leadership. According to Guthrie et al. [7], the ILA directory hosts more than 1570 academic programs worldwide. However, followership has not been fully integrated with the leadership curriculum and leadership education in the United States, which means that colleges do not teach and students do not learn the

Furthermore, the allocation of leadership training resources solely to company

<sup>3</sup> The "old wineskin" and "new wine" metaphor is taken from Matthew 9: 16–17 (NRSV): "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak … Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins,

<sup>4</sup> Retrieved on February 12, 2019. Available from: http://www.ila-net.org/Resources/LPD/index. htm.

managers and leaders to increase their effectiveness and productivity [38] has resulted in leader-favored and leader-focused research and further separation of followers from the leadership process [39]. However, studies in followership as an inseparable role of leadership are expanding. College courses on followership and followership education began to emerge at the turn of the twenty-first century. Students are now learning how to be courageous followers by standing up to and for their leaders [40], challenging toxic leaders [13], and exercising intelligent disobe-

there are more than

The "old wineskin" here represents the bureaucratic organiz-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

prevent physical illnesses [34–36].

**5. Leadership education change**

importance of followership.

dience to resist unethical leaders [41].

and so both are preserved."

in an old wineskin.3

<sup>2</sup> Retrieved on August 15, 2019. Available from: https: //350.org/global-climate-march/.

#### *Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

may be sought in an ancient metaphor where one attempts to withstand a new wine in an old wineskin.3 The "old wineskin" here represents the bureaucratic organizing structures and leader-centered theories of the twentieth century that may not sustain the "new wine," which represents the twenty-first century virtual organizations and leading-following complex processes in the digital world. Thus, in order for the leading-following interactive process to occur (the "new wine") in today's digital age, a new organizational mindset and design seems necessary (the "new wineskins") because the environmentally conscious and responsible digital generation (the "new wine") cannot fully function in corporate hierarchical structures with leader-centered leadership mindset (the "old wineskins").

Furthermore, role identity theories and research indicate that multiple or interchangeable role identities may be beneficial for positional leaders, who lead under constant demands and pressure, to be willing to share leadership with followers and adopt leader-follower multiple identities. If leaders and followers trade their leading and following roles in organizations and interchangeably lead and follow in various situations [29, 30], it may minimize leadership power abuse, eliminate social identity stereotyping for followers [31], reduce psychological distress [32–34], and prevent physical illnesses [34–36].

#### **5. Leadership education change**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

March 2019 global march for climate change by Gen Zers.<sup>2</sup>

followership (DF) is in the making in today's digital age.

**4. Theoretical shift in leadership studies**

retire and Millennials take the lead?

the concept of physical and virtual space, and their attitude toward leadership authority, corporate loyalty, and commitment [16–18]. Scholars who have tried to bridge the generational divide between Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials have observed major differences between them [19]. Millennials, for instance, are team players, and having an organizational impact motivates them. They like open communication with their supervisors and are technologically savvy. Unlike Boomers, Millennials tend to have different perspectives on the world marketplace, supervisor-subordinate relationships, cultural diversity, task performance, communication styles, and information technologies [20]. Millennials lack the loyalty and work ethics established by Boomers and Gen Xers [19], and they tend to establish their own ethics and functional work relationships [21]. These and other empirical findings seem to suggest that there is a tension between pre- and post-digital generations. What will happen to current organizational structures when Boomers

Values and attitudes toward fellow human beings and the environment have also changed in the United States. The digital revolution and the advancement of digital technology have allowed environmental scientists to learn and process a vast amount of geospatial data about the planet Earth [22]. This data has shown that the climate is changing as a result of industrial pollutions [23]. The Digital Earth (DE) initiative, started by Vice President Al Gore in 1998, and rapid digitization gave birth to a new generation of global citizens, often referred to as *digital natives*, who tend to think and act digitally in a different way than previous generations, referred to *digital immigrants* [24]. The Boomers and some Xers are considered digital immigrants because they were either born or grew up before the digital revolution of the 1990s and 2000s. Millennials and the Zers, who were either born during or grew up after the digital revolution, are considered digital natives [25]. Digital natives seem to hold a very different vision and values about the world, the environment, the local and global economy, the concept of work, their personal and social well-being, and intercultural and international relations. An example of this is the

express concerns for the well-being of the Earth than Boomers or Xers. This value and cultural change seems to indicate that a new digital leadership (DL) and digital

Post-industrial leadership theories moved away from simplistic and cultic personcentered "great man" theories of leadership to system-based *complexity of leadership theories* (CLT) in the information and digital age [26, 27]. They offer new ways in which followers and non-followers may take more active and participative roles in leadership processes in society and organizations. Furthermore, value-based and relational leadership theories such as transformational, servant, ethical, collaborative, inclusive, distributed, shared, and adaptive seem to be more follower-centered. As a result, scholars' attention shifted from the leader as a person to leading and following as a process. This shift provides a "foundation for theories that move beyond hierarchical, individualistic, one-directional and de-contextualized notions of leadership" [28]. Additionally, complexity leadership theorists (CLT) raise legitimate concerns about "how, in the context of bureaucratic organizing structures, can organizational leaders enable emergence of the new solutions and innovation needed to survive and thrive in today's complex world?" [26]. The answer to this question

<sup>2</sup> Retrieved on August 15, 2019. Available from: https: //350.org/global-climate-march/.

Ironically, more Gen Zers

**62**

Unlike most organizational leaders of the Boomer generation, who did not get a formal education in leadership, Millennials were exposed to leadership and organizational studies in their undergraduate and graduate curricula across the United States in the last 30–40 years [37]. Nowadays, every college or university student, or any individual interested in acquiring knowledge or a degree in leadership, has access to such studies via university or online databases without restrictions or discrimination. For instance, according to the Higher Education Program Directory of International Leadership Association (ILA),4 there are more than 380 undergraduate and graduate certificate programs in leadership and more than 200 bachelor's degrees in leadership in 13 countries, including the United States. Nearly 28 countries offer 800 graduate degrees, and 10 countries offer 350 doctoral programs in leadership. According to Guthrie et al. [7], the ILA directory hosts more than 1570 academic programs worldwide. However, followership has not been fully integrated with the leadership curriculum and leadership education in the United States, which means that colleges do not teach and students do not learn the importance of followership.

Furthermore, the allocation of leadership training resources solely to company managers and leaders to increase their effectiveness and productivity [38] has resulted in leader-favored and leader-focused research and further separation of followers from the leadership process [39]. However, studies in followership as an inseparable role of leadership are expanding. College courses on followership and followership education began to emerge at the turn of the twenty-first century. Students are now learning how to be courageous followers by standing up to and for their leaders [40], challenging toxic leaders [13], and exercising intelligent disobedience to resist unethical leaders [41].

<sup>3</sup> The "old wineskin" and "new wine" metaphor is taken from Matthew 9: 16–17 (NRSV): "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak … Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."

<sup>4</sup> Retrieved on February 12, 2019. Available from: http://www.ila-net.org/Resources/LPD/index. htm.

#### **6. The context of the digital era**

The digitization of information on history, arts, science, business, health, and other subjects through information and communication technologies (ICT) has fundamentally transformed humans' way of life. New virtual environments have been formed for socialization and work through the World Wide Web and social media. As a result, digitalization has caused the emergence of virtual organizations as new work environments, called e-environments, new patterns of leadership, called e-leadership, and new boundaries for leader-follower relationships [42]. Additionally, as traditional organizations increase their online presence, the roles, responsibilities, functions, and behaviors of followers and leaders are changing. The traditional gap between leaders and followers of the industrial era, leaders doing leadership and followers doing followership, does not exist anymore. Followers seem to act and behave as leaders in the virtual world. Conversely, the power dynamics between leaders and followers are changing due to distant and remote interactions. The digital platform seems to foster interdependent collaboration and has swiped away some of the organizational power and privileges from leaders and empowered and emboldened followers to lead [43].

The following contextual factors have contributed to the change of power dynamics between leaders and followers in virtual organizations.

First, physical reality has been replaced by virtual reality. What is real has become a philosophical debate in the digital age. Leadership attributes based on one's physical appearance (e.g., physical strengths, manner and mannerism, age, race, gender, etc.) have less meaning in the leadership process than before.

Second, human interactions have moved from face-to-face to electronic communication. This has impacted the way traditional business and education is conducted. Virtual classrooms and workplaces have become the new norms for the digital age.

Third, digitization and automation have eliminated numerous managerial positions in today's digital economy. Virtual company workers nowadays need less managerial and direct supervision. The 40-hour workweek and most HR ethical conduct policies for face-to-face interactions do not apply to virtual organizations anymore. As a result, business relationships between leaders and followers have changed from top-down, or vertically influenced, to horizontal mutual collaborations and interactions.

Fourth, the era of scientific management, of "I am my job," has yielded to rapidly changing and evolving multi-tasking and collaborative job descriptions. Today's employees are expected to use multiple skills for multiple tasks to remain competitive in the job market. For instance, as the coal and fossil fuel industries are being replaced by new alternative energy enterprises, coal miners are expected to develop new technical and soft skills to be able to perform jobs that are available in today's digital economy.

Fifth, the replacement of the physical with digital interactions between leaders and followers in organizations has created new challenges for both parties. Holland et al. [44], who examined electronic leadership challenges in healthcare organizations, have learned that global virtual leaders and teams face challenges such as isolation, confusion, language barriers, cultural differences, and technological breakdowns. They seem to echo Antonakis and Atwater [45], who found that leader distance affects leadership outcome. Furthermore, a study conducted by Howell et al. showed that physical distance negatively moderates the relationship between transformational leaders and followers' performance in a business unit [46].

Sixth, the roles and functional differences between organizational leaders and followers in virtual organizations have become blurrier. Nowadays, followers have

**65**

ties.php#ixzz5zkep0JfR

legal-guide/fair-use)

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

opportunities to lead, and leaders are challenged to follow their supervisors, followers, and the constantly growing organizational policies and procedures in the workplace. Seventh, digital natives and digital immigrants seem to speak different languages and represent different cultures. As a result, the worldview and communication gap between these generations has created new intergenerational tensions and

Above-mentioned seven contextual factors not only changed power dynamics between leaders and followers but also disrupted the "business as usual" mindset in organizations by created a discontinuity gap between the traditional and contemporary leadership understanding and practice. This disruptive phenomenon in mathematics is known as "jump discontinuity" within *piecewise function*s. **Figure 1** below is an example of a function that is discontinuous at x = a, because there is a gap

Both ends of the functional lines have limitations and different values.

x → a

9.1. Application of LFT model to Digital Leader-Followership.

<sup>−</sup> x → a

The discontinuity of Lim f(x) = L may represent the traditional leadership function, while Lim f(x) = M—the contemporary leadership in the digital age. To make the traditional leadership L and the contemporary leadership M work as a continuous function, the L-M gap must be bridged. See the use of the discontinuity gap in

Literature on leadership implemented with digital technology can be placed into

four major categories: (1) leadership in the digital age, (2) digital leadership,

Use by the discretion of fair use policy: Section 107 of the Copyright Act (http://www.dmlp.org/

<sup>5</sup> Read more at https://www.mathwarehouse.com/calculus/continuity/what-are-types-of-discontinui-

Lim f(x) = L and Lim f(x) = M (1)

<sup>+</sup> (2)

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

challenges in the current digital age.

*A jump discontinuity in piecewise function.*

**7. Literature on digital leadership**

(3) e-leadership, and (4) cyber leadership.

between L and M.5

**Figure 1.**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

#### **Figure 1.** *A jump discontinuity in piecewise function.*

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

empowered and emboldened followers to lead [43].

dynamics between leaders and followers in virtual organizations.

The digitization of information on history, arts, science, business, health, and other subjects through information and communication technologies (ICT) has fundamentally transformed humans' way of life. New virtual environments have been formed for socialization and work through the World Wide Web and social media. As a result, digitalization has caused the emergence of virtual organizations as new work environments, called e-environments, new patterns of leadership, called e-leadership, and new boundaries for leader-follower relationships [42]. Additionally, as traditional organizations increase their online presence, the roles, responsibilities, functions, and behaviors of followers and leaders are changing. The traditional gap between leaders and followers of the industrial era, leaders doing leadership and followers doing followership, does not exist anymore. Followers seem to act and behave as leaders in the virtual world. Conversely, the power dynamics between leaders and followers are changing due to distant and remote interactions. The digital platform seems to foster interdependent collaboration and has swiped away some of the organizational power and privileges from leaders and

The following contextual factors have contributed to the change of power

First, physical reality has been replaced by virtual reality. What is real has become a philosophical debate in the digital age. Leadership attributes based on one's physical appearance (e.g., physical strengths, manner and mannerism, age, race, gender, etc.) have less meaning in the leadership process than before. Second, human interactions have moved from face-to-face to electronic communication. This has impacted the way traditional business and education is conducted. Virtual classrooms and workplaces have become the new norms for

Third, digitization and automation have eliminated numerous managerial positions in today's digital economy. Virtual company workers nowadays need less managerial and direct supervision. The 40-hour workweek and most HR ethical conduct policies for face-to-face interactions do not apply to virtual organizations anymore. As a result, business relationships between leaders and followers have changed from top-down, or vertically influenced, to horizontal mutual collabora-

Fourth, the era of scientific management, of "I am my job," has yielded to rapidly changing and evolving multi-tasking and collaborative job descriptions. Today's employees are expected to use multiple skills for multiple tasks to remain competitive in the job market. For instance, as the coal and fossil fuel industries are being replaced by new alternative energy enterprises, coal miners are expected to develop new technical and soft skills to be able to perform jobs that are available in

Fifth, the replacement of the physical with digital interactions between leaders and followers in organizations has created new challenges for both parties. Holland et al. [44], who examined electronic leadership challenges in healthcare organizations, have learned that global virtual leaders and teams face challenges such as isolation, confusion, language barriers, cultural differences, and technological breakdowns. They seem to echo Antonakis and Atwater [45], who found that leader distance affects leadership outcome. Furthermore, a study conducted by Howell et al. showed that physical distance negatively moderates the relationship between transformational leaders and followers' performance in a business unit [46]. Sixth, the roles and functional differences between organizational leaders and followers in virtual organizations have become blurrier. Nowadays, followers have

**6. The context of the digital era**

**64**

the digital age.

tions and interactions.

today's digital economy.

opportunities to lead, and leaders are challenged to follow their supervisors, followers, and the constantly growing organizational policies and procedures in the workplace.

Seventh, digital natives and digital immigrants seem to speak different languages and represent different cultures. As a result, the worldview and communication gap between these generations has created new intergenerational tensions and challenges in the current digital age.

Above-mentioned seven contextual factors not only changed power dynamics between leaders and followers but also disrupted the "business as usual" mindset in organizations by created a discontinuity gap between the traditional and contemporary leadership understanding and practice. This disruptive phenomenon in mathematics is known as "jump discontinuity" within *piecewise function*s. **Figure 1** below is an example of a function that is discontinuous at x = a, because there is a gap between L and M.5

Both ends of the functional lines have limitations and different values.

$$\text{Lim } \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}) = \text{L and } \text{Lim } \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{M} \tag{1}$$

$$\mathbf{x} \rightarrow \mathbf{a}^{\cdot} \; \mathbf{x} \rightarrow \mathbf{a}^{\cdot} \tag{2}$$

The discontinuity of Lim f(x) = L may represent the traditional leadership function, while Lim f(x) = M—the contemporary leadership in the digital age. To make the traditional leadership L and the contemporary leadership M work as a continuous function, the L-M gap must be bridged. See the use of the discontinuity gap in 9.1. Application of LFT model to Digital Leader-Followership.

#### **7. Literature on digital leadership**

Literature on leadership implemented with digital technology can be placed into four major categories: (1) leadership in the digital age, (2) digital leadership, (3) e-leadership, and (4) cyber leadership.

<sup>5</sup> Read more at https://www.mathwarehouse.com/calculus/continuity/what-are-types-of-discontinuities.php#ixzz5zkep0JfR

Use by the discretion of fair use policy: Section 107 of the Copyright Act (http://www.dmlp.org/ legal-guide/fair-use)

#### **7.1 Leadership in the digital age**

*Leadership in the digital age* refers to "leadership in any institution or sector embedded in the broader transitions toward a more knowledge intensive society" through the use of ICT [47]. This transition brings new constraints and opportunities to the traditional understanding and practices of leadership in various organizations. To understand leadership in the digital age, it is important to note the effect of digitization on leadership in the virtual space. Khan [48] distinguishes six characteristics of digitization:


#### **7.2 Digital leadership**

*Digital leadership* refers to leadership in the core sectors of the knowledge society the three "C's of computing, communications and content (broadcasting and print), and now multi-media" [52]. Narbona defines digital leadership as "human quality of leadership exercised with digital tools in the virtual world" [53]. Others define it as "doing the right things for the strategic success of digitalization" for organizations that require different mindsets, skillsets, and workplaces [54]. Digital leadership is relational leadership because the relationships between leaders and followers in the social media platform (e.g., Twitter) occupy the prominent role [55]. Digital leadership is also occasional, unpredictable, and organic. In a matter of hours, days, or weeks, one may gain an enormous influence through verbal or visual messages via the World Wide Web. For instance, those who gain more followers in their Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube accounts rise to a level of influence that humans have never seen before. Thus, digital leadership is not static positional leadership but rather spontaneous, fluid, short-lived, and role-based.

**67**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

Avolio et al. define *e-leadership* as "a social influence process mediated by AIT [advanced information technology] to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations" [56]. According to DasGupta's literature review on e-leadership, it has the same issues as traditional leadership (i.e., vision, direction, motivation, inspiration, trust). However, some challenges that e-leaders face are as follows: effective communication, conveying enthusiasm digitally, (b) building trust without face-to-face interactions, (c) creating presence, (d) inspiring, (e) mentoring, (f) monitoring and controlling social loafing, (g) fostering technical competence, and (h) finding

*Cyber leadership* refers to a responsibility that enhances the organizational mission, business processes, and functions "by leveraging resources, information and information technology to deliver solutions that are effective, efficient, and secure" [58]. The essence of cyber leadership is to deal with information warfare, cybersecurity threats, and defense against cyberattacks in the virtual world. In a sense, cyber leadership is a digital version of military leadership with an effort to transform military leaders into cyber-strategic leaders [59]. Francesca Spidalieri argues:

*Cyber defense requires not only IT experts with computer science, electrical engineering, and software security skills, but also professionals with an understanding of political theory, institutional theory, behavioral psychology, ethics, international law, international relations, and additional social sciences…the pillars of our society…are often led by individuals with extremely limited exposure to cyber issues* 

The literature clearly indicates the leader-centeredness of all four characteristics of digital leadership, while little or no mention is given to the role of digital followers in the digital age. However, what is intriguing is that the digital environment, as a new organizational structure, abolishes the traditional hierarchical structures and relationships between static and positional leaders and followers by turning them into fluid leader-followers and authentic humans. Additionally, definitions and concepts of digital leadership seem to equally apply to those who lead and those who follow in virtual organizations. For instance, to overcome the challenges and paradoxes of e-leadership, such as the individual vs. the community, swiftness vs. mindfulness, top-down vs. grassroots, micro vs. macro perspectives, and flexible vs. steady, Pulley and Sessa suggest that people in organizations ought to participate in leadership at all levels [61]. This means that digital leadership (and followership) is and should be everyone's business, not just the positional

Furthermore, Annunzio [64] seems to advocate for inter-generational collaborations between e-leaders among Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen Yers to sustain the traditional structures of corporate America. As seen above, the digitization has already created a shared platform for intergenerational collaboration because digital immigrants (often employers) will always need the support of digital natives (often employees) to transform organizations to meet the challenges of the digital age.

*and the existential threats they pose [60].*

leader of the organization [62, 63].

**8. Alternative approaches to digital leader-followership**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

**7.3 E-leadership**

work-life balance [57].

**7.4 Cyber leadership**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

#### **7.3 E-leadership**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

*Leadership in the digital age* refers to "leadership in any institution or sector embedded in the broader transitions toward a more knowledge intensive society" through the use of ICT [47]. This transition brings new constraints and opportunities to the traditional understanding and practices of leadership in various organizations. To understand leadership in the digital age, it is important to note the effect of digitization on leadership in the virtual space. Khan [48] distinguishes six

1.*Interconnectedness* through digital communication and interactions that allow participants to share knowledge and practices for a structured environment while "unleashing creativity, innovation, dynamic networking, and participa-

2.*Diminishing time lag and abundance of information* through a shortened timeframe of decision-making and increased speed of information and forms of

3.*Increased transparency and complexity.* As organizational structures become more complex and interconnected, the virtual space requires increased

4.*Hierarchy removal and dissolving of personal barriers* as a result of organizations and relationships becoming more fluid. For instance, "reverse mentoring programs" [50] break the boundaries of corporate positions for top managers and senior executives (i.e., digital immigrants), who learn from or are led by the

5.*Decision enabling and integrity enhancing*. Digitization allows making leadership decisions much faster and fosters personal integrity to maintain trust among

6.*Humanising effect*. Digitization enables virtual collaborators to freely interact and interlink through virtual platforms and tools in a symbiotic way "in which

*Digital leadership* refers to leadership in the core sectors of the knowledge society the three "C's of computing, communications and content (broadcasting and print), and now multi-media" [52]. Narbona defines digital leadership as "human quality of leadership exercised with digital tools in the virtual world" [53]. Others define it as "doing the right things for the strategic success of digitalization" for organizations that require different mindsets, skillsets, and workplaces [54]. Digital leadership is relational leadership because the relationships between leaders and followers in the social media platform (e.g., Twitter) occupy the prominent role [55]. Digital leadership is also occasional, unpredictable, and organic. In a matter of hours, days, or weeks, one may gain an enormous influence through verbal or visual messages via the World Wide Web. For instance, those who gain more followers in their Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube accounts rise to a level of influence that humans have never seen before. Thus, digital leadership is not static positional leadership but rather

virtually everyone and everything are mutually interdependent" [51].

**7.1 Leadership in the digital age**

characteristics of digitization:

interaction.

transparency.

participants.

**7.2 Digital leadership**

tion in unstructured settings" [49].

younger generation (i.e., digital natives).

spontaneous, fluid, short-lived, and role-based.

**66**

Avolio et al. define *e-leadership* as "a social influence process mediated by AIT [advanced information technology] to produce a change in attitudes, feelings, thinking, behavior, and/or performance with individuals, groups, and/or organizations" [56]. According to DasGupta's literature review on e-leadership, it has the same issues as traditional leadership (i.e., vision, direction, motivation, inspiration, trust). However, some challenges that e-leaders face are as follows: effective communication, conveying enthusiasm digitally, (b) building trust without face-to-face interactions, (c) creating presence, (d) inspiring, (e) mentoring, (f) monitoring and controlling social loafing, (g) fostering technical competence, and (h) finding work-life balance [57].

#### **7.4 Cyber leadership**

*Cyber leadership* refers to a responsibility that enhances the organizational mission, business processes, and functions "by leveraging resources, information and information technology to deliver solutions that are effective, efficient, and secure" [58]. The essence of cyber leadership is to deal with information warfare, cybersecurity threats, and defense against cyberattacks in the virtual world. In a sense, cyber leadership is a digital version of military leadership with an effort to transform military leaders into cyber-strategic leaders [59]. Francesca Spidalieri argues:

*Cyber defense requires not only IT experts with computer science, electrical engineering, and software security skills, but also professionals with an understanding of political theory, institutional theory, behavioral psychology, ethics, international law, international relations, and additional social sciences…the pillars of our society…are often led by individuals with extremely limited exposure to cyber issues and the existential threats they pose [60].*

#### **8. Alternative approaches to digital leader-followership**

The literature clearly indicates the leader-centeredness of all four characteristics of digital leadership, while little or no mention is given to the role of digital followers in the digital age. However, what is intriguing is that the digital environment, as a new organizational structure, abolishes the traditional hierarchical structures and relationships between static and positional leaders and followers by turning them into fluid leader-followers and authentic humans. Additionally, definitions and concepts of digital leadership seem to equally apply to those who lead and those who follow in virtual organizations. For instance, to overcome the challenges and paradoxes of e-leadership, such as the individual vs. the community, swiftness vs. mindfulness, top-down vs. grassroots, micro vs. macro perspectives, and flexible vs. steady, Pulley and Sessa suggest that people in organizations ought to participate in leadership at all levels [61]. This means that digital leadership (and followership) is and should be everyone's business, not just the positional leader of the organization [62, 63].

Furthermore, Annunzio [64] seems to advocate for inter-generational collaborations between e-leaders among Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen Yers to sustain the traditional structures of corporate America. As seen above, the digitization has already created a shared platform for intergenerational collaboration because digital immigrants (often employers) will always need the support of digital natives (often employees) to transform organizations to meet the challenges of the digital age.

There is a significant and growing body of literature on followership, multiplerole identities, and process-based, distributed, "shared," "collective," "collaborative," "relational," and "co-" leadership [65] that are more follower-inclusive and relational-based, including inclusive and adapted leadership. They will be considered below as alternative approaches to leader-followership in the digital age. These models seem to best apply to virtual and cyber situations that organizations and communities face in today's digital age.

#### **8.1 Followership**

*Followership* research investigates "the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process" [66]. It emphasizes the importance of the role of the followers in organizations and how various types of followership behaviors can be observed in response to leader behaviors [8, 67, 68]. Other scholars discuss how follower identities and behaviors influence and shape leadership behaviors and outcomes [69–71]. Followers' and leaders' roles are not static. The static role of the "leader" and the "follower" seems unnatural because one does not lead like a lion or follow like a sheep at all times [8, 72]. One may lead in one and follow in another situation [30].

Thus, the followership research may explain how the digital followership may work in virtual context if it refuses to follow the same one-sided attitude of the leadership research that intentionally focused on the leader behavior and omitted the follower behavior as one continuum or the two sides of the one coin [73]. Rather, by studying the leading-following "tang" between leaders and followers,6 it offers a more balanced understanding of the leadership process, one that involves (1) "leading-following double interacts," (2) stimulates "the construction of leader and follower identities," and takes into account the fact that (3) leading-following interactions are developed "within an environment and context that are endogenous … to the leading-following process," that (4) "the leading-following process is fluid," and (5) that the dynamic environment plays a crucial role in nurturing fluid leading-following interactions [74].

#### **8.2 Leader-follower multi-role identities**

In today's information and digital age, single identity ("I am a leader" or "I am a follower") of the industrial leadership era has shifted to *multiple-role identity* paradigm of leader-followership ("I function as a leader and a follower"). Multiplerole identity theories explain how multiple roles may function in today's multifunctional and diverse workforce. For instance, individuals often occupy more than one social position and play more than one role in society. Hence, people develop multiple identities (e.g., parent, worker, volunteer, etc.) that are naturally activated in various social interactions. Burke and Stets put it this way: "A person could be a student in one context, a friend in another, a mother, a daughter, a teacher, a blood donor, a homeowner, and so on" [75]. Multiple [role] identities, according to them, "function together within the self [through internal framework] and within the overall identity verification process [external framework]" [75]. Multiple identities exist within the person and across persons [76]. These multiple identities among multiple individuals may interact in a given situation (e.g., individuals working together to accomplish a group task). Thus, multiple-role identity theories explain how one may operate in both leader and follower roles and multiple competencies in organizations, especially in the digital age.

**69**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

Leadership and organizational studies in the West moved from a leaderfocused to a process-based understanding of leader-follower relationships in organizations in the last 20 years [69, 71, 77–83]. It is no longer about the leader but the process of leading and following, where individuals may function as both leaders and followers based on personal strengths or competencies. This shift may result in increased reciprocity or exchange of leading and following behaviors, roles, and functions and a decrease of static leader and follower positions in organizations. Thus, the *process-based* approach to leadership asserts that leadership is no longer about the positional leader, but the dynamic and dialectic process of leader-follower multi-dimensional human interactions [77, 84, 85]. This approach may well be applied to digital leadership in virtual organizations where the uncertainty and the unpredictability of situations may demand non-leaders engage in the leadership process by exercising their strengths or competencies for

*Distributed leadership* "recognizes individual and collective agency, and the reciprocal nature of the practice of leadership" [86], which is more important than the particular leadership roles or the specific leadership function. It implies that "leadership tasks are dispersed rather than delegated and that such dispersal is widely enacted across organizations" [86]. Therefore, distributed leadership is best understood as a practice distributed over leaders, followers, and their situation, which incorporates the activities of multiple groups of individuals. Harris et al. argue, "where leadership is distributed then inevitably the forces of power, author-

*Distributed leadership* faces two challenges: (1) establishing collective trust toward a common goal and (2) actively engaging and guiding those who have yet to form mutual trusting relationships [86]. For distributed leadership to occur, trust and empathy are needed for authentic collaboration, information sharing, and interdependent idea generation [87]. Nevertheless, the distributed paradigm of leadership tolerates uncertainty, diversity of perspectives, flexibility, functionality, and role exchange between leading and following. It is open to global challenges and solutions, is eager to acquire new knowledge, exhibits a constant learning attitude, and, unlike earlier leadership approaches, maintains an egalitarian and resultsoriented approach [47]. Thus, distributed leadership may be useful for digital native generations in the digital era. The challenge that distributed leadership may pose to complex digital teams is that it lacks fluidity between simultaneous leading and

*Shared leadership*, viewed as "different individuals enact leader and follower roles at different points in time" [89], challenges the traditional understanding of leadership in teams where the focus has been shifted from a single static leader or follower and vertical, one-directional influence to multiple and dynamic leaders and followers and horizontal, leading-following, reciprocal influence processes and their impact on team outcomes [88–91]. Unlike traditional leadership theories that focus on the role of formal, appointed leaders, shared leadership focuses on the leading and following processes of team members [92]. This is a shift in the leader-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

**8.3 Process-based leadership**

organizational goal achievement.

ity and control are also distributed and shared" [86].

following actions in group and organizational settings [88].

ship paradigm from an individual to a collective [93].

**8.4 Distributed leadership**

**8.5 Shared leadership**

<sup>6</sup> Watch a video on "Leadership and followership: What tango teaches us about these roles in life" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cswrnc1dggg.

#### **8.3 Process-based leadership**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

communities face in today's digital age.

leading-following interactions [74].

**8.2 Leader-follower multi-role identities**

organizations, especially in the digital age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cswrnc1dggg.

**8.1 Followership**

There is a significant and growing body of literature on followership, multiplerole identities, and process-based, distributed, "shared," "collective," "collaborative," "relational," and "co-" leadership [65] that are more follower-inclusive and relational-based, including inclusive and adapted leadership. They will be considered below as alternative approaches to leader-followership in the digital age. These models seem to best apply to virtual and cyber situations that organizations and

*Followership* research investigates "the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process" [66]. It emphasizes the importance of the role of the followers in organizations and how various types of followership behaviors can be observed in response to leader behaviors [8, 67, 68]. Other scholars discuss how follower identities and behaviors influence and shape leadership behaviors and outcomes [69–71]. Followers' and leaders' roles are not static. The static role of the "leader" and the "follower" seems unnatural because one does not lead like a lion or follow like a sheep at all times [8, 72]. One may lead in one and follow in another situation [30]. Thus, the followership research may explain how the digital followership may work in virtual context if it refuses to follow the same one-sided attitude of the leadership research that intentionally focused on the leader behavior and omitted the follower behavior as one continuum or the two sides of the one coin [73]. Rather, by studying the leading-following "tang" between leaders and followers,6

offers a more balanced understanding of the leadership process, one that involves (1) "leading-following double interacts," (2) stimulates "the construction of leader and follower identities," and takes into account the fact that (3) leading-following interactions are developed "within an environment and context that are endogenous … to the leading-following process," that (4) "the leading-following process is fluid," and (5) that the dynamic environment plays a crucial role in nurturing fluid

In today's information and digital age, single identity ("I am a leader" or "I am a follower") of the industrial leadership era has shifted to *multiple-role identity* paradigm of leader-followership ("I function as a leader and a follower"). Multiplerole identity theories explain how multiple roles may function in today's multifunctional and diverse workforce. For instance, individuals often occupy more than one social position and play more than one role in society. Hence, people develop multiple identities (e.g., parent, worker, volunteer, etc.) that are naturally activated in various social interactions. Burke and Stets put it this way: "A person could be a student in one context, a friend in another, a mother, a daughter, a teacher, a blood donor, a homeowner, and so on" [75]. Multiple [role] identities, according to them, "function together within the self [through internal framework] and within the overall identity verification process [external framework]" [75]. Multiple identities exist within the person and across persons [76]. These multiple identities among multiple individuals may interact in a given situation (e.g., individuals working together to accomplish a group task). Thus, multiple-role identity theories explain how one may operate in both leader and follower roles and multiple competencies in

<sup>6</sup> Watch a video on "Leadership and followership: What tango teaches us about these roles in life" at

it

**68**

Leadership and organizational studies in the West moved from a leaderfocused to a process-based understanding of leader-follower relationships in organizations in the last 20 years [69, 71, 77–83]. It is no longer about the leader but the process of leading and following, where individuals may function as both leaders and followers based on personal strengths or competencies. This shift may result in increased reciprocity or exchange of leading and following behaviors, roles, and functions and a decrease of static leader and follower positions in organizations. Thus, the *process-based* approach to leadership asserts that leadership is no longer about the positional leader, but the dynamic and dialectic process of leader-follower multi-dimensional human interactions [77, 84, 85]. This approach may well be applied to digital leadership in virtual organizations where the uncertainty and the unpredictability of situations may demand non-leaders engage in the leadership process by exercising their strengths or competencies for organizational goal achievement.

#### **8.4 Distributed leadership**

*Distributed leadership* "recognizes individual and collective agency, and the reciprocal nature of the practice of leadership" [86], which is more important than the particular leadership roles or the specific leadership function. It implies that "leadership tasks are dispersed rather than delegated and that such dispersal is widely enacted across organizations" [86]. Therefore, distributed leadership is best understood as a practice distributed over leaders, followers, and their situation, which incorporates the activities of multiple groups of individuals. Harris et al. argue, "where leadership is distributed then inevitably the forces of power, authority and control are also distributed and shared" [86].

*Distributed leadership* faces two challenges: (1) establishing collective trust toward a common goal and (2) actively engaging and guiding those who have yet to form mutual trusting relationships [86]. For distributed leadership to occur, trust and empathy are needed for authentic collaboration, information sharing, and interdependent idea generation [87]. Nevertheless, the distributed paradigm of leadership tolerates uncertainty, diversity of perspectives, flexibility, functionality, and role exchange between leading and following. It is open to global challenges and solutions, is eager to acquire new knowledge, exhibits a constant learning attitude, and, unlike earlier leadership approaches, maintains an egalitarian and resultsoriented approach [47]. Thus, distributed leadership may be useful for digital native generations in the digital era. The challenge that distributed leadership may pose to complex digital teams is that it lacks fluidity between simultaneous leading and following actions in group and organizational settings [88].

#### **8.5 Shared leadership**

*Shared leadership*, viewed as "different individuals enact leader and follower roles at different points in time" [89], challenges the traditional understanding of leadership in teams where the focus has been shifted from a single static leader or follower and vertical, one-directional influence to multiple and dynamic leaders and followers and horizontal, leading-following, reciprocal influence processes and their impact on team outcomes [88–91]. Unlike traditional leadership theories that focus on the role of formal, appointed leaders, shared leadership focuses on the leading and following processes of team members [92]. This is a shift in the leadership paradigm from an individual to a collective [93].

The digital age requires a team approach to complex leadership problems that often involve multiple organizations, societies, cultures, and nations sharing knowledge, skills, and expertise. No single leader possesses the necessary knowledge, skills, and disposition to address global leadership challenges in today's virtual world. Thus, shared leadership allows the sharing of leading and following responsibilities not only among the team members, but also with other teams. For instance, team members with certain specialized skillsets might engage in leadership behavior in one domain and adopt a follower role in another domain [94, 95]. Thus, shared leadership, which also assumes shared followership [88], may meet the leading and following needs for the digital natives in virtual organizations, as they grew up in a sharing environment where knowledge, experiences, perspectives, and electronic files were freely shared for learning and business across the oceans [96].

#### **8.6 Collective leadership**

Collective leadership refers to "a dynamic leadership process in which a defined leader, or set of leaders, selectively utilize skills and expertise within a network, effectively distributing elements of the leadership role as the situation or problem at hand requires" [97]. Collective leadership assumes that each member of the team selectively performs leadership roles that match her or his skills and expertise and that when the situation or the problem at hand changes, members of the team effectively distribute elements of the leadership role to others [98].

Collective leadership, unlike the traditional hierarchical models of leadership, is also applicable to global leadership in the digital age. For instance, to address global issues such as climate change, where many international governmental agencies and private organizations are involved, a new model of leadership is expected. Goodchild and Associates are convinced that "any effort to develop a next-generation Digital Earth will require new governance models" [99].7

Collective leadership may be effectively used in cyber leadership where multiple and various skills and expertise are required to engage in cybersecurity or cyber defense.

#### **8.7 Adaptive leadership**

Adaptive leadership is another follower-centered approach to the leadership process. However, the earlier theories of adaptive leadership continue to be leadercentered. For example, adaptive leadership has portrayed the tasks of the static leader as helping static followers adapt to the challenges they encounter in a given situation, changing and adjusting to new circumstances, and grappling with the problems at hand [100]. Moreover, the adaptive leadership process incorporates four standpoints: systems, biological, service, and psychotherapy perspectives [101]. The task of the static leader, then, is to recognize the complexities of

**71**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

generation that does not fit with the demands of the digital age.

**9. A conceptual framework for the digital leader-followership**

As seen above, current interdisciplinary studies on leader-follower relationships and identity formation provide new and fresh theoretical perspectives for individuals to develop multiple leader and follower role identities, becoming a leader in one situation and a follower in another. Thus, the industrial paradigm of the leader and the follower as static and separate social identities must be replaced by hybrid leader-follower multiple-role identities to make leadership (the process of leading and following) applicable for a digital environment. In other words, no one is a leader or a follower all the time and in all circumstances. Everyone is and should see herself or himself as a leader and a follower in different situations and contexts for the social construct of leadership to occur. Thus, leadership should not be perceived as a title for a privileged minority and followership as a title for a less-privileged majority in organizations, especially in

The leader-follower trade (LFT) approach offers a conceptual framework to address the century-long social identity segregation between powerful leaders and powerless followers [30]. The model encourages everyone to cultivate leading and following multiple-role identities and acquire both skills to exercise fluidity in leading and following. Such a symbiotic process of leading and following between individuals with multiple roles may create dynamic and healthy work conditions for (1) situational and context-based leaders and followers to build mutual trust and respect; (2) a fair distribution of power and resources among the members of the organization based on mutual influence; (3) cultivating self-awareness and selfdiscovery of personal strengths among team members as hybrid individuals capable of leading and following; and (4) mutually accountable relationships between multiple teams and members through transparent and authentic organizational

LFT is particularly effective in cyber leadership, where a shorter time is necessary for decision-making or responding to cyberattacks. Since leading and following responsibilities are shared and exchanged among team members based on their

leadership situations and enable followers to adapt to complex leadership and organizational changes. Similarly, it is the leader who makes followers aware of biological changes for adaptation and, by using her or his positional leadership authority, serves followers' needs by finding solutions to their problems. Finally, by using the psychotherapy perspective, the leader then creates a supportive environment for successful adaptation [100]. This approach is an old paradigm of the Boomer

Thus, I propose DeRue's *adaptive leadership theory*, which advocates for dynamic and fluid leading-following adaptive processes where individuals cultivate leaderfollower identities through simultaneous and interchangeable leading and following actions within the group. This theory challenges the traditional "individualistic, hierarchical, one-directional and de-contextualized notions of leadership" [88]. Furthermore, DeRue rightly noted, "the nature of work in organizations is changing to include more interdependent work, more fluid and less centralized work structures, and a greater emphasis on the need for leadership at all levels of an organization" [28]. Thus, the aforementioned adaptive leadership theory seems most relevant to digital natives because it provides a theoretical basis to adapt and succeed in leading and following double interactions between and by all members

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

of groups in virtual organizations.

today's digital age.

communication.

<sup>7</sup> Michael F. Goodchild and Associates (Huadong Guob, Alessandro Annoni, Ling Bian, Kees de Bie, Frederick Campbell, Max Craglia, Manfred Ehlers, John van Genderen, Davina Jackson, Anthony J. Lewis, Martino Pesaresi, Gábor Remetey-Fülopp, Richard Simpson, Andrew Skidmore, Changlin Wang, and Peter Woodgate) produced a paper in 2012 entitled "Next-generation digital earth", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as the outcome of the workshop on nextgeneration Digital Earth held in Beijing in March 2011 hosted by the Center for Earth Observation and Digital Earth of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Secretariat of the International Society for Digital Earth (ISDE).

#### *Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

leadership situations and enable followers to adapt to complex leadership and organizational changes. Similarly, it is the leader who makes followers aware of biological changes for adaptation and, by using her or his positional leadership authority, serves followers' needs by finding solutions to their problems. Finally, by using the psychotherapy perspective, the leader then creates a supportive environment for successful adaptation [100]. This approach is an old paradigm of the Boomer generation that does not fit with the demands of the digital age.

Thus, I propose DeRue's *adaptive leadership theory*, which advocates for dynamic and fluid leading-following adaptive processes where individuals cultivate leaderfollower identities through simultaneous and interchangeable leading and following actions within the group. This theory challenges the traditional "individualistic, hierarchical, one-directional and de-contextualized notions of leadership" [88]. Furthermore, DeRue rightly noted, "the nature of work in organizations is changing to include more interdependent work, more fluid and less centralized work structures, and a greater emphasis on the need for leadership at all levels of an organization" [28]. Thus, the aforementioned adaptive leadership theory seems most relevant to digital natives because it provides a theoretical basis to adapt and succeed in leading and following double interactions between and by all members of groups in virtual organizations.

#### **9. A conceptual framework for the digital leader-followership**

As seen above, current interdisciplinary studies on leader-follower relationships and identity formation provide new and fresh theoretical perspectives for individuals to develop multiple leader and follower role identities, becoming a leader in one situation and a follower in another. Thus, the industrial paradigm of the leader and the follower as static and separate social identities must be replaced by hybrid leader-follower multiple-role identities to make leadership (the process of leading and following) applicable for a digital environment. In other words, no one is a leader or a follower all the time and in all circumstances. Everyone is and should see herself or himself as a leader and a follower in different situations and contexts for the social construct of leadership to occur. Thus, leadership should not be perceived as a title for a privileged minority and followership as a title for a less-privileged majority in organizations, especially in today's digital age.

The leader-follower trade (LFT) approach offers a conceptual framework to address the century-long social identity segregation between powerful leaders and powerless followers [30]. The model encourages everyone to cultivate leading and following multiple-role identities and acquire both skills to exercise fluidity in leading and following. Such a symbiotic process of leading and following between individuals with multiple roles may create dynamic and healthy work conditions for (1) situational and context-based leaders and followers to build mutual trust and respect; (2) a fair distribution of power and resources among the members of the organization based on mutual influence; (3) cultivating self-awareness and selfdiscovery of personal strengths among team members as hybrid individuals capable of leading and following; and (4) mutually accountable relationships between multiple teams and members through transparent and authentic organizational communication.

LFT is particularly effective in cyber leadership, where a shorter time is necessary for decision-making or responding to cyberattacks. Since leading and following responsibilities are shared and exchanged among team members based on their

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

the oceans [96].

defense.

**8.7 Adaptive leadership**

**8.6 Collective leadership**

The digital age requires a team approach to complex leadership problems that often involve multiple organizations, societies, cultures, and nations sharing knowledge, skills, and expertise. No single leader possesses the necessary knowledge, skills, and disposition to address global leadership challenges in today's virtual world. Thus, shared leadership allows the sharing of leading and following responsibilities not only among the team members, but also with other teams. For instance, team members with certain specialized skillsets might engage in leadership behavior in one domain and adopt a follower role in another domain [94, 95]. Thus, shared leadership, which also assumes shared followership [88], may meet the leading and following needs for the digital natives in virtual organizations, as they grew up in a sharing environment where knowledge, experiences, perspectives, and electronic files were freely shared for learning and business across

Collective leadership refers to "a dynamic leadership process in which a defined leader, or set of leaders, selectively utilize skills and expertise within a network, effectively distributing elements of the leadership role as the situation or problem at hand requires" [97]. Collective leadership assumes that each member of the team selectively performs leadership roles that match her or his skills and expertise and that when the situation or the problem at hand changes, members of the team

Collective leadership, unlike the traditional hierarchical models of leadership, is also applicable to global leadership in the digital age. For instance, to address global issues such as climate change, where many international governmental agencies and private organizations are involved, a new model of leadership is expected. Goodchild and Associates are convinced that "any effort to develop a next-generation Digital Earth will require new governance models" [99].7

Collective leadership may be effectively used in cyber leadership where multiple and various skills and expertise are required to engage in cybersecurity or cyber

Adaptive leadership is another follower-centered approach to the leadership process. However, the earlier theories of adaptive leadership continue to be leadercentered. For example, adaptive leadership has portrayed the tasks of the static leader as helping static followers adapt to the challenges they encounter in a given situation, changing and adjusting to new circumstances, and grappling with the problems at hand [100]. Moreover, the adaptive leadership process incorporates four standpoints: systems, biological, service, and psychotherapy perspectives [101]. The task of the static leader, then, is to recognize the complexities of

<sup>7</sup> Michael F. Goodchild and Associates (Huadong Guob, Alessandro Annoni, Ling Bian, Kees de Bie, Frederick Campbell, Max Craglia, Manfred Ehlers, John van Genderen, Davina Jackson, Anthony J. Lewis, Martino Pesaresi, Gábor Remetey-Fülopp, Richard Simpson, Andrew Skidmore, Changlin Wang, and Peter Woodgate) produced a paper in 2012 entitled "Next-generation digital earth", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as the outcome of the workshop on nextgeneration Digital Earth held in Beijing in March 2011 hosted by the Center for Earth Observation and Digital Earth of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Secretariat of the International Society for

effectively distribute elements of the leadership role to others [98].

**70**

Digital Earth (ISDE).

#### **Figure 2.**

*The feasibility quadrants of the LFT approach.*

expertise, a hierarchical and top-down leadership becomes unnecessary, and the positional barriers may be easily dissolved to achieve the desired outcome. In this case, the one who makes the decision takes personal responsibility for the outcome of her or his decision.

The LFT approach may be realized in virtual organizations when there is a high level of *willingness* and *competency* to interchangeably shift roles from leading to following and from following to leading based on one's expertise, personal preference, strengths, and organizational goals. **Figure 2** illustrates the feasibility of the LFT approach from the perspectives of leading-following competencies and willingness to trade leading and following roles simultaneously or interchangeably.

Quadrant 1: When leader-follower competencies are high but the willingness is low, it is more likely that digital leader-followers resist but do not avoid LFT. Thus, the LFT approach may be feasible.

Quadrant 2: When leader-follower willingness and competencies are low, it is more likely that digital leader-followers hesitate and avoid LFT. Thus, the LFT approach is infeasible.

Quadrant 3: When the leader-follower competencies are low but the willingness is high, it is more likely that leaders and followers are interested but avoid LFT. Thus, the LFT approach may be feasible.

Quadrant 4: When the leader-follower competencies and willingness are high, it is more likely that leaders and followers may enthusiastically engage in LFT. Thus, the LFT approach is feasible.

From the quadrant analysis, it is apparent that the LFT approach is achievable only if (1) digital leaders acquire following skills and digital followers acquire leadership skills and (2) both digital leaders and followers are willing to trade their roles by cultivating multiple leading-following identities.

**73**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

a.Many leaders fail. Thus, followers lose their trust in them. This factor may motivate followers to get involved in the leadership process and aspire to lead.

b.The culture has shifted emphasis from powerful leaders to powerful followers who elect and select their leaders through democratic processes (e.g., a vote of

c.Leadership education and resources are available to today's digital followers to learn how to lead effectively and ethically if they so choose. Similarly, the lack of digital competencies among *digital immigrants* may motivate them to follow

a.Leading roles are stressful and harmful to human health. The research on multiple-identity theories indicates that those who have multiple roles in society live healthier lives than those who have one role. Thus, the exchange of leading and following roles may prevent burnout and psychological

b.Shared responsibilities assume shared accountability. Thus, it is not fair that organizational leaders take full responsibility for those who are not willing to participate in the leadership process. Followers should also be held accountable

c.Sharing leadership responsibilities also may mean sharing the profits and benefits of leadership. This may motivate followers and facilitate a fair distribution

As mentioned in "The Context of the Digital Era," the emerging digital leadership defers from the traditional hierarchical leadership on many areas such as socio-cultural, theoretical, philosophical, and generational. The disruptive and unpredicted nature of the digital leadership seems to cause an on-going change and discontinuity among leading and following functional patterns in today's organiza-

The LFT approach may well serve as a bridge model between the traditional and emerging leadership paradigms in the digital age. For instance, by fostering leaderfollower competences and wiliness to trade leading and following roles between digital immigrant and digital native generations, the existing L-M gap may be

• Salkowitz offers to close the digital gap and build intergenerational bridges by empowering the younger generation to educate older workers in information

• Chaudhuri and Ghosh recommend reverse mentoring programs for Boomer and Millennial generations to keep the former engaged and the latter

tions who are in a transition from industrial to information and digital age.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

confidence or an election).

and learn from *digital natives*.

of wages and compensation.

bridged. Examples of bridge building:

technology [102].

committed [103].

distress.

Willingness to trade leading and following roles:

for participating in the decision-making processes.

**9.1 Application of LFT model for digital leader-followership**

Leading and following competencies:

What are the personal and group incentives for the applicability of the LFT approach in the digital age?

Leading and following competencies:

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

expertise, a hierarchical and top-down leadership becomes unnecessary, and the positional barriers may be easily dissolved to achieve the desired outcome. In this case, the one who makes the decision takes personal responsibility for the outcome

The LFT approach may be realized in virtual organizations when there is a high level of *willingness* and *competency* to interchangeably shift roles from leading to following and from following to leading based on one's expertise, personal preference, strengths, and organizational goals. **Figure 2** illustrates the feasibility of the LFT approach from the perspectives of leading-following competencies and willingness to trade leading and following roles simultaneously

Quadrant 1: When leader-follower competencies are high but the willingness is low, it is more likely that digital leader-followers resist but do not avoid LFT. Thus,

Quadrant 2: When leader-follower willingness and competencies are low, it is more likely that digital leader-followers hesitate and avoid LFT. Thus, the LFT

Quadrant 3: When the leader-follower competencies are low but the willingness is high, it is more likely that leaders and followers are interested but avoid

Quadrant 4: When the leader-follower competencies and willingness are high, it is more likely that leaders and followers may enthusiastically engage in LFT. Thus,

From the quadrant analysis, it is apparent that the LFT approach is achievable only if (1) digital leaders acquire following skills and digital followers acquire leadership skills and (2) both digital leaders and followers are willing to trade their

What are the personal and group incentives for the applicability of the LFT

**72**

of her or his decision.

**Figure 2.**

or interchangeably.

approach is infeasible.

the LFT approach is feasible.

approach in the digital age?

the LFT approach may be feasible.

*The feasibility quadrants of the LFT approach.*

LFT. Thus, the LFT approach may be feasible.

roles by cultivating multiple leading-following identities.


Willingness to trade leading and following roles:


#### **9.1 Application of LFT model for digital leader-followership**

As mentioned in "The Context of the Digital Era," the emerging digital leadership defers from the traditional hierarchical leadership on many areas such as socio-cultural, theoretical, philosophical, and generational. The disruptive and unpredicted nature of the digital leadership seems to cause an on-going change and discontinuity among leading and following functional patterns in today's organizations who are in a transition from industrial to information and digital age.

The LFT approach may well serve as a bridge model between the traditional and emerging leadership paradigms in the digital age. For instance, by fostering leaderfollower competences and wiliness to trade leading and following roles between digital immigrant and digital native generations, the existing L-M gap may be bridged. Examples of bridge building:


• To bridge the gap between generations, Kornelsen suggests leading with Millennials in a VUCA-world (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) [104].

#### **10. Addressing leadership problems in the digital age**

The number one problem in the digital age continues to be the abuse of power and position, which seem to nurture selfish and narcissistic human instincts that are destructive for leaders, society, and even for the world.8 Leadership should not focus on the person in the leadership position but rather on the process of leading and following with appropriate checks and balances.

The number two problem in the digital age is the lack of appreciation for following. We do not teach followership and what it means to be a good and responsible follower. As a result, followers are easily misled, manipulated, or even deceived by their leaders. Thus, followership must be taught and practiced in schools and universities because followers are the change-agents and the power holders in the digital age.

#### **11. Conclusion**

The post-industrial and post-structuralist era of leader-followership has set the stage for multiple leader-follower identities and new organizational structures to emerge. In today's virtual reality, individuals should be able to freely exchange leading and following roles according to organizational or contextual needs. Such a mindset may lay the groundwork for mutual accountability between situational and role-based leaders and encourage multiple-role identity leader-followers to emerge [76]. In other words, followers can become leaders and leaders can become followers [105–107] because one does not exist without the other [30, 88]. Thus, a new generation of hybrid leader-followers and less-hierarchical organizational structures are on the horizon, where the members of virtual organizations may lead and follow not based on their static positions or positional authority but according to their skills, expertise, and competencies.

#### **11.1 Limitations**

This study has source and topical limitations. The *sources* used in this chapter are limited to available peer-reviewed and research-based articles, books, thesis, and dissertations in the following digital databases: Google.com, Scholar.google. com, ABI/INFORM Complete (ProQuest), Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Business Source Premier (EBSCO), Communication & Mass Media Complete, JSTOR Business Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, SAGE Premier, and Springer e-Journals. Additionally, due to the chapter limitation, the following *topics* have not been addressed in this study: cybersecurity leadership, leadership in game-based environments, leadership in the Second Life, leader identity in the virtual world (avatars vs. authentic leaders), automation, robotization, and leadership, artificial intelligence and leadership.

**75**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

Literature on all four categories of digital leadership discussed in this chapter is scarce particularly when it comes to comparing theoretical and practical differences between leadership in pre-digital and digital age. More empirical data is necessary to measure the effectiveness of contemporary models of leadership such distributed, shared, collective, and adaptive approaches for the digital age. Also, further

• The power dynamics among e-leaders and e-followers in virtual organizations.

• How leader and follower identities are formed in the virtual world and their

• Whether or not the process-based understudying of leadership is more appli-

• Feasibility of the LFT conceptual framework in cyber leadership for maximum

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

research is needed in the following areas:

cable and relevant to leadership in the digital age.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

fluidity and flexibility in decision-making processes.

Robert Morris University, Moon Township, Pennsylvania, USA

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: malakyan@rmu.edu

provided the original work is properly cited.

sustainability over time.

**Conflict of interest**

**Author details**

Petros G. Malakyan

**11.2 Implications for future research**

<sup>8</sup> Examples of destructive leadership: Spartacus's slave rebellion from 73 to 71 BCE; Crusades from 1096 to 1192; Protestants Reformation from 1517 to 1648; French Revolution from 1789 to 1799; American Civil War from 1861 to 1865; World War I from 1914 to 1918; Russian Bolshevik Revolution from 1917 to 1918; World War II from 1941 to 1945.

#### **11.2 Implications for future research**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

**10. Addressing leadership problems in the digital age**

are destructive for leaders, society, and even for the world.8

and following with appropriate checks and balances.

to their skills, expertise, and competencies.

tion, and leadership, artificial intelligence and leadership.

ambiguous) [104].

**11. Conclusion**

**11.1 Limitations**

• To bridge the gap between generations, Kornelsen suggests leading with Millennials in a VUCA-world (volatile, uncertain, complex, and

The number one problem in the digital age continues to be the abuse of power and position, which seem to nurture selfish and narcissistic human instincts that

focus on the person in the leadership position but rather on the process of leading

The post-industrial and post-structuralist era of leader-followership has set the stage for multiple leader-follower identities and new organizational structures to emerge. In today's virtual reality, individuals should be able to freely exchange leading and following roles according to organizational or contextual needs. Such a mindset may lay the groundwork for mutual accountability between situational and role-based leaders and encourage multiple-role identity leader-followers to emerge [76]. In other words, followers can become leaders and leaders can become followers [105–107] because one does not exist without the other [30, 88]. Thus, a new generation of hybrid leader-followers and less-hierarchical organizational structures are on the horizon, where the members of virtual organizations may lead and follow not based on their static positions or positional authority but according

This study has source and topical limitations. The *sources* used in this chapter are limited to available peer-reviewed and research-based articles, books, thesis, and dissertations in the following digital databases: Google.com, Scholar.google. com, ABI/INFORM Complete (ProQuest), Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Business Source Premier (EBSCO), Communication & Mass Media Complete, JSTOR Business Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, SAGE Premier, and Springer e-Journals. Additionally, due to the chapter limitation, the following *topics* have not been addressed in this study: cybersecurity leadership, leadership in game-based environments, leadership in the Second Life, leader identity in the virtual world (avatars vs. authentic leaders), automation, robotiza-

<sup>8</sup> Examples of destructive leadership: Spartacus's slave rebellion from 73 to 71 BCE; Crusades from 1096 to 1192; Protestants Reformation from 1517 to 1648; French Revolution from 1789 to 1799; American Civil War from 1861 to 1865; World War I from 1914 to 1918; Russian Bolshevik Revolution from 1917 to

The number two problem in the digital age is the lack of appreciation for following. We do not teach followership and what it means to be a good and responsible follower. As a result, followers are easily misled, manipulated, or even deceived by their leaders. Thus, followership must be taught and practiced in schools and universities because followers are the change-agents and the power holders in the digital age.

Leadership should not

**74**

1918; World War II from 1941 to 1945.

Literature on all four categories of digital leadership discussed in this chapter is scarce particularly when it comes to comparing theoretical and practical differences between leadership in pre-digital and digital age. More empirical data is necessary to measure the effectiveness of contemporary models of leadership such distributed, shared, collective, and adaptive approaches for the digital age. Also, further research is needed in the following areas:


### **Conflict of interest**

The author declares no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Petros G. Malakyan Robert Morris University, Moon Township, Pennsylvania, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: malakyan@rmu.edu

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Wiedmer T. Generations do differ: Best practices in leading traditionalists, boomers, and generations X, Y, and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin. 2015;**821**:51

[2] Bolden R. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2011;**133**:251-269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

[3] Guthrie KL, Teig TS, Hu P. Academic Leadership Programs in the United States. Tallahassee: Leadership Learning Research Center, Florida State University; 2018

[4] Kelley RE. The Power of Followership. New York: Doubleday; 1992. 260 p

[5] Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P. A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Theatre in Prison: Theory Into Practice. 2004;**9**:19-32

[6] Milgram S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought; 2009. 256 p

[7] Hogg MA. Social identity processes and the empowerment of followers. In: Riggio RE, Chaleff I, Lipman-Blumen J, editors. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. pp. 267-276

[8] Kellerman B. The End of Leadership. New York: Harper Collins; 2012. 233 p

[9] Lipman-Blumen J. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why we Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—And How We Can Survive Them. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. 320 p

[10] Clark TN, Lipset SM, editors. The Breakdown of Class Politics: A Debate on Post-Industrial Stratification. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; 2001. 352 p

[11] Rost JC. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport: Praeger; 1993. 220 p

[12] Hartmann T. Unequal Protection: How the Corporations Became "People"—And how you Can Fight Back. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler; 2010. 384 p

[13] Zemke R, Raines C, Filipczak B. Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen Yers in the Workplace. 2nd ed. New York: AMACOM; 2013. 304 p

[14] Hall PD. Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States. In: Renz DO, Herman RD, editors. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. pp. 3-42

[15] Liagouras G. The political economy of post-industrial capitalism. Thesis Eleven. 2005;**811**:20-35. DOI: 10.1177/0725513605051612

[16] Burke R, Cooper CL, Antoniou A-SG. The Multi-Generational and Aging Workforce: Challenges and Opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Eldgar Publishing Limited, UK; 2015. 448 p

[17] Deal JJ, Altman DG, Rogelberg SG. Millennials at work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;**252**:191-199. DOI: 10.1007/ s10869-010-9177-2

[18] Singh P, Bhandarker A, Rai S. Millennials and the Workplace: Challenges for Architecting the Organizations of Tomorrow. India: SAGE Publications; 2012. 272 p

**77**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

Leadership Quarterly. 2007;**184**:298-318. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

[27] Arena MJ, Uhl-Bien M. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting from human capital to social capital. People and

[28] DeRue DS. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2011;**31**:145. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

[29] Cox RWIII, Plagens GK, Sylla K.

10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i08/51819

[31] Van Dick R, Hirst G, Grojean MW, Wieseke J. Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2007;**801**:133-150. DOI:

[30] Malakyan PG. Followership in leadership studies: A case of leaderfollower trade approach. Journal of Leadership Studies. 2014;**74**:6-22. DOI:

10.1002/jls.21306

10.1348/096317905X71831

[32] Kikuzawa S. Multiple roles and mental health in cross-cultural perspective: The elderly in the United States and Japan. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006;**471**:62-76. DOI:

10.1177/002214650604700105

10.1023/A:1007148407005

[34] Wethington E, Moen P,

[33] Sachs-Ericsson N, Ciarlo JA. Gender, social roles, and mental health: An epidemiological perspective. Sex Roles. 2000;**439-10**:605-628. DOI:

Glasgow N, Pillemer K. Multiple roles, social integration, and health. In:

The leadership-followership dynamic: Making the choice to follow. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 2010;**58**:37-51. DOI:

Strategy. 2016;**392**:22-27

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

[19] Marston C. Motivating the "What's in it for Me?" Workforce: Manage across the Generational Divide and Increase Profits. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007. 240 p

[20] Myers KK, Sadaghiani K. Millennials in the workplace: A communication

perspective on millennials' organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;**252**:225-238. DOI:

10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7

interaction in organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training. 2007;**31**:592-608. DOI: 10.1108/03090590710833651

[22] Gore A. The digital earth: Understanding our planet in the 21st century. Australian Surveyor. 1998;**432**:89-91. DOI: 10.1080/00050326.1998.10441850

[23] Craglia M, de Bie K, Jackson D, Pesaresi M, Remetey-Fülöpp G, Wang C, van Genderen J. Digital earth 2020: Towards the vision for the next decade. International Journal of Digital Earth. 2012;**51**:4-21. DOI: 10.1080/17538947.2011.638500

[24] Bayne S, Ross J. The 'digital native'and 'digital immigrant': A dangerous opposition. In: Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE); December 2005. Vol. 20; 2007. pp. 1-6. Edinburgh: ac. uk/staff/sian/natives\_ final. pdf [Accessed: 20 March 2013]

[25] Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon. 2001;**95**:1-6. DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816

[26] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R,

McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The

[21] McGuire D, By RT, Hutchings K. Towards a model of human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational *Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

[19] Marston C. Motivating the "What's in it for Me?" Workforce: Manage across the Generational Divide and Increase Profits. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007. 240 p

[20] Myers KK, Sadaghiani K. Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials' organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;**252**:225-238. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7

[21] McGuire D, By RT, Hutchings K. Towards a model of human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training. 2007;**31**:592-608. DOI: 10.1108/03090590710833651

[22] Gore A. The digital earth: Understanding our planet in the 21st century. Australian Surveyor. 1998;**432**:89-91. DOI: 10.1080/00050326.1998.10441850

[23] Craglia M, de Bie K, Jackson D, Pesaresi M, Remetey-Fülöpp G, Wang C, van Genderen J. Digital earth 2020: Towards the vision for the next decade. International Journal of Digital Earth. 2012;**51**:4-21. DOI: 10.1080/17538947.2011.638500

[24] Bayne S, Ross J. The 'digital native'and 'digital immigrant': A dangerous opposition. In: Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE); December 2005. Vol. 20; 2007. pp. 1-6. Edinburgh: ac. uk/staff/sian/natives\_ final. pdf [Accessed: 20 March 2013]

[25] Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon. 2001;**95**:1-6. DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816

[26] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007;**184**:298-318. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

[27] Arena MJ, Uhl-Bien M. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting from human capital to social capital. People and Strategy. 2016;**392**:22-27

[28] DeRue DS. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2011;**31**:145. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

[29] Cox RWIII, Plagens GK, Sylla K. The leadership-followership dynamic: Making the choice to follow. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 2010;**58**:37-51. DOI: 10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i08/51819

[30] Malakyan PG. Followership in leadership studies: A case of leaderfollower trade approach. Journal of Leadership Studies. 2014;**74**:6-22. DOI: 10.1002/jls.21306

[31] Van Dick R, Hirst G, Grojean MW, Wieseke J. Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2007;**801**:133-150. DOI: 10.1348/096317905X71831

[32] Kikuzawa S. Multiple roles and mental health in cross-cultural perspective: The elderly in the United States and Japan. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006;**471**:62-76. DOI: 10.1177/002214650604700105

[33] Sachs-Ericsson N, Ciarlo JA. Gender, social roles, and mental health: An epidemiological perspective. Sex Roles. 2000;**439-10**:605-628. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007148407005

[34] Wethington E, Moen P, Glasgow N, Pillemer K. Multiple roles, social integration, and health. In:

**76**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

on Post-Industrial Stratification. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson

[11] Rost JC. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport: Praeger; 1993.

Center Press; 2001. 352 p

[12] Hartmann T. Unequal

Protection: How the Corporations Became "People"—And how you Can Fight Back. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler;

[13] Zemke R, Raines C, Filipczak B. Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen Yers in the Workplace. 2nd ed. New York: AMACOM; 2013. 304 p

[14] Hall PD. Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations in the United States. In: Renz DO, Herman RD, editors. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.

[15] Liagouras G. The political

[16] Burke R, Cooper CL, Antoniou A-SG. The Multi-Generational and Aging Workforce: Challenges and Opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Eldgar Publishing

10.1177/0725513605051612

Limited, UK; 2015. 448 p

s10869-010-9177-2

economy of post-industrial capitalism. Thesis Eleven. 2005;**811**:20-35. DOI:

[17] Deal JJ, Altman DG, Rogelberg SG. Millennials at work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;**252**:191-199. DOI: 10.1007/

[18] Singh P, Bhandarker A, Rai S. Millennials and the Workplace: Challenges for Architecting the Organizations of Tomorrow. India: SAGE Publications; 2012. 272 p

220 p

2010. 384 p

pp. 3-42

[1] Wiedmer T. Generations do differ: Best practices in leading traditionalists, boomers, and generations X, Y, and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin.

[2] Bolden R. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2011;**133**:251-269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

[3] Guthrie KL, Teig TS, Hu P. Academic Leadership Programs in the United States. Tallahassee: Leadership

Learning Research Center, Florida State

Followership. New York: Doubleday;

[5] Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P. A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Theatre in Prison: Theory Into Practice. 2004;**9**:19-32

[6] Milgram S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought;

[7] Hogg MA. Social identity processes and the empowerment of followers. In: Riggio RE, Chaleff I, Lipman-Blumen J, editors. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. pp. 267-276

[8] Kellerman B. The End of Leadership. New York: Harper Collins; 2012. 233 p

[9] Lipman-Blumen J. The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why we Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—And How We Can Survive Them. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. 320 p

[10] Clark TN, Lipset SM, editors. The Breakdown of Class Politics: A Debate

2015;**821**:51

**References**

University; 2018

1992. 260 p

2009. 256 p

[4] Kelley RE. The Power of

Pillemer K, Moen P, Glasgow N, Wethington E, editors. Social Integration In the Second Half of Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2000. pp. 48-71

[35] Barnett RC, Hyde JS. Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. The American Psychologist. 2001;**5610**:781-796. DOI: 10.1037%2F0003-066X.56.10.781

[36] Janzen BL, Muhajarine N. Social role occupancy, gender, income adequacy, life stage and health: A longitudinal study of employed Canadian men and women. Social Science and Medicine. 2003;**578**:1491-1503. DOI: 10.1016/ S0277-9536(02)00544-0

[37] Komives SR. Advancing leadership education. In: Komives SK, Dugan JD, Owen JE, Slack C, Wagner W, editors. The Handbook for Student Leadership Development. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011. pp. 1-34

[38] Shafritz JM, Ott J, Jang YS. Classics of Organization Theory. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2015. p. 496

[39] Van Vugt M, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. The American Psychologist. 2008;**633**:182- 196. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182

[40] Chaleff I. The Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for our Leaders. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2009. 288 p

[41] Chaleff I. Intelligent Disobedience: Doing Right When What You're Told to Do Is Wrong. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2015. 224 p

[42] Mohammad K. E-leadership: The emerging new leadership for the virtual organization. Journal of Managerial Sciences. 2009;**31**:1-21

[43] Vonderembse MA, Raghunathan TS, Subba Rao S. A post-industrial

paradigm: To integrate and automate manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research. 1997;**359**:2579- 2600. DOI: 10.1080/002075497194679

[44] Holland JB, Malvey D, Fottler MD. Health care globalization: A need for virtual leadership. The Health Care Manager. 2009;**282**:117-123. DOI: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e3181a2cb63

[45] Antonakis J, Atwater L. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002;**136**:673-704. DOI: 10.1016/ S1048-9843(02)00155-8

[46] Howell JM, Neufeld DJ, Avolio BJ. Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005;**162**:273-285. DOI: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2005.01.004

[47] Wilson EJIII, Goethals GR, Sorenson G, Burns JM. Leadership in the digital age. Encyclopedia of Leadership. 2004;**4**:858

[48] Khan S. Leadership in the digital age: A study on the effects of digitalisation on top management leadership [master's thesis]. Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University; 2016. 54 p. OAI: DiVA.org:su-133809

[49] Nachira F, Nicolai A, Dini P, Le Louarn M, Leon LR. Digital Business Ecosystems. European Commission; 2006. 9 p. Available from: http://www. digital-ecosystems.org

[50] Westerman G, Bonnet D, McAfee A. Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2014. p. 229

[51] Berman S, Marshall A. The next digital transformation: From an individual- centered to an everyoneto-everyone economy. Strategy and

**79**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

[61] Pulley ML, Sessa VI. E-leadership:

[63] Kouzes JM, Posner BZ. The Student Leadership Challenge: Five Practices for Becoming an Exemplary Leader. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons;

[64] Annunzio S. ELeadership: Proven Techniques for Creating an Environment of Speed and Flexibility in the Digital Economy. New York: Free

[65] Bolden R. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2011;**133**:254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

[66] Uhl-Bien M, Riggio RE, Lowe KB, Carsten MK. Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly. 2014;**251**(89). DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

[67] Chaleff I. Creating new ways of following. In: Riggio RE, Ira Chaleff I, Jean Lipman-Blumen J, editors. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.

[68] Kellerman B. Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2008. 336 p

[69] Collinson D. Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities.

Tackling complex challenges. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2001;**336**:225-230. DOI: 10.1108/00197850110405379

[62] Hughes RL, Ginnett RC, Curphy GJ. Leadership involves an interaction between the leader, the followers, and the situation. Air Command and Staff College Distance Learning, Version. 1999;**3**:12-21

2018. 336 p

pp. 67-88

Press; 2001. 256 p

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

Leadership. 2014;**425**(13). DOI: 10.1108/

SL-07-2014-0048/full/html

Leadership. 2004;**4**:859

341 p

[52] Wilson IIIEJ, Goethals GR, Sorenson G, Burns JM. Leadership in the digital age. Encyclopedia of

[53] Narbona J. Digital leadership, twitter and Pope Francis. Church, Communication and Culture. 2016;**11**:93

[54] El Sawy OA, Kræmmergaard P, Amsinck H, Vinther AL. How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Quarterly Executive. 2016;**152**:141

[55] Li C. Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.

[56] Avolio BJ, Kahai S, Dodge GE. E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly. 2000;**114**:617. DOI: 10.1016/

[57] DasGupta P. Literature review: E-leadership. Emerging Leadership

[58] Kern S, Peifer K. Senior cyber leadership: Why a technically competent workforce is not enough. In: Capellman D et al., editors. Washington DC: The Cyber Security Forum Initiative (CSFI).

[59] Spidalieri F, McArdle J.

Transforming the next generation of military leaders into cyber-strategic leaders: The role of cybersecurity education in US service academies. The Cyber Defense Review. 2016;**11**:141-164

[60] Kern S, Peifer K. Senior cyber leadership: Why a technically competent workforce is not enough. In: Capellman D et al. editors. Washington DC: The Cyber Security Forum Initiative. 2015;**9**:6. Available from: www.scfi.us

S1048-9843(00)00062-X

Journeys. 2011;**41**:1-36

2015;**9**:3

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

Leadership. 2014;**425**(13). DOI: 10.1108/ SL-07-2014-0048/full/html

[52] Wilson IIIEJ, Goethals GR, Sorenson G, Burns JM. Leadership in the digital age. Encyclopedia of Leadership. 2004;**4**:859

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

paradigm: To integrate and automate manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research. 1997;**359**:2579- 2600. DOI: 10.1080/002075497194679

Fottler MD. Health care globalization: A need for virtual leadership. The Health Care Manager. 2009;**282**:117-123. DOI: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e3181a2cb63

[45] Antonakis J, Atwater L. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002;**136**:673-704. DOI: 10.1016/

[44] Holland JB, Malvey D,

S1048-9843(02)00155-8

leaqua.2005.01.004

Leadership. 2004;**4**:858

digital-ecosystems.org

[50] Westerman G, Bonnet D, McAfee A. Leading digital: Turning

transformation. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2014. p. 229

[51] Berman S, Marshall A. The next digital transformation: From an individual- centered to an everyoneto-everyone economy. Strategy and

technology into business

[46] Howell JM, Neufeld DJ,

[47] Wilson EJIII, Goethals GR, Sorenson G, Burns JM. Leadership in the digital age. Encyclopedia of

[48] Khan S. Leadership in the digital age: A study on the effects of digitalisation on top management leadership [master's thesis]. Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University; 2016. 54 p. OAI: DiVA.org:su-133809

[49] Nachira F, Nicolai A, Dini P, Le Louarn M, Leon LR. Digital Business Ecosystems. European Commission; 2006. 9 p. Available from: http://www.

Avolio BJ. Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005;**162**:273-285. DOI: 10.1016/j.

Pillemer K, Moen P, Glasgow N, Wethington E, editors. Social Integration In the Second Half of Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2000. pp. 48-71

[35] Barnett RC, Hyde JS. Women, men, work, and family: An

expansionist theory. The American Psychologist. 2001;**5610**:781-796. DOI: 10.1037%2F0003-066X.56.10.781

S0277-9536(02)00544-0

Jossey-Bass; 2011. pp. 1-34

[36] Janzen BL, Muhajarine N. Social role occupancy, gender, income adequacy, life stage and health: A longitudinal study of employed Canadian men and women. Social Science and Medicine. 2003;**578**:1491-1503. DOI: 10.1016/

[37] Komives SR. Advancing leadership education. In: Komives SK, Dugan JD, Owen JE, Slack C, Wagner W, editors. The Handbook for Student Leadership Development. 2nd ed. San Francisco:

[38] Shafritz JM, Ott J, Jang YS. Classics of Organization Theory. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2015. p. 496

[39] Van Vugt M, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. Leadership, followership, and evolution:

[40] Chaleff I. The Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for our Leaders. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2009. 288 p

[41] Chaleff I. Intelligent Disobedience: Doing Right When What You're Told to Do Is Wrong. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2015. 224 p

[42] Mohammad K. E-leadership: The emerging new leadership for the virtual organization. Journal of Managerial

[43] Vonderembse MA, Raghunathan TS,

Subba Rao S. A post-industrial

Sciences. 2009;**31**:1-21

Some lessons from the past. The American Psychologist. 2008;**633**:182- 196. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182

**78**

[53] Narbona J. Digital leadership, twitter and Pope Francis. Church, Communication and Culture. 2016;**11**:93

[54] El Sawy OA, Kræmmergaard P, Amsinck H, Vinther AL. How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Quarterly Executive. 2016;**152**:141

[55] Li C. Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010. 341 p

[56] Avolio BJ, Kahai S, Dodge GE. E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly. 2000;**114**:617. DOI: 10.1016/ S1048-9843(00)00062-X

[57] DasGupta P. Literature review: E-leadership. Emerging Leadership Journeys. 2011;**41**:1-36

[58] Kern S, Peifer K. Senior cyber leadership: Why a technically competent workforce is not enough. In: Capellman D et al., editors. Washington DC: The Cyber Security Forum Initiative (CSFI). 2015;**9**:3

[59] Spidalieri F, McArdle J. Transforming the next generation of military leaders into cyber-strategic leaders: The role of cybersecurity education in US service academies. The Cyber Defense Review. 2016;**11**:141-164

[60] Kern S, Peifer K. Senior cyber leadership: Why a technically competent workforce is not enough. In: Capellman D et al. editors. Washington DC: The Cyber Security Forum Initiative. 2015;**9**:6. Available from: www.scfi.us

[61] Pulley ML, Sessa VI. E-leadership: Tackling complex challenges. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2001;**336**:225-230. DOI: 10.1108/00197850110405379

[62] Hughes RL, Ginnett RC, Curphy GJ. Leadership involves an interaction between the leader, the followers, and the situation. Air Command and Staff College Distance Learning, Version. 1999;**3**:12-21

[63] Kouzes JM, Posner BZ. The Student Leadership Challenge: Five Practices for Becoming an Exemplary Leader. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2018. 336 p

[64] Annunzio S. ELeadership: Proven Techniques for Creating an Environment of Speed and Flexibility in the Digital Economy. New York: Free Press; 2001. 256 p

[65] Bolden R. Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2011;**133**:254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

[66] Uhl-Bien M, Riggio RE, Lowe KB, Carsten MK. Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly. 2014;**251**(89). DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

[67] Chaleff I. Creating new ways of following. In: Riggio RE, Ira Chaleff I, Jean Lipman-Blumen J, editors. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. pp. 67-88

[68] Kellerman B. Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2008. 336 p

[69] Collinson D. Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities.

The Leadership Quarterly. 2006;**172**:179-189. DOI: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2005.12.005

[70] Lord RG, Brown BR. Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 2004. 264 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781410608864

[71] Shamir B. From passive recipients to active coproducers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In: Shamir B, Pillai R, Bligh MC, Uhl-Bien M, editors. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich: Information Age; 2007. p. ix-xxxix.

[72] Kelley RE. In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review Case Services. 1988;**1**:1-8

[73] Malakyan PG. Depersonalizing leadership and followership: The process of leadship and followship. World Journal of Social Science Research. 2015;**22**:227-250

[74] DeRue DS. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2011;**31**:131. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

[75] Burke PJ, Stets JE. Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 131

[76] Stets JE, Burke PJ. The development of identity theory. Advances in Group Processes. 2014;**31**:57-97. DOI: 10.1108/ S0882-614520140000031002

[77] Collinson D. Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations. 2005;**5811**:1419-1442. DOI: 10.1177/0018726705060902

[78] Hollander EP. Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly. 1992;**31**:43-54. DOI: 10.1016/1048-9843(92)90005-Z [79] Lord RG, Brown DJ. Organization and Management Series. Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2004. 264 p

[80] Rost J. Followership: An outmoded concept. In: Riggio RE, Chaleff I, Lipman-Blumen J, editors. The Warren Bennis Signature Series. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 53-64

[81] Shamir B. Leadership research or post-leadership research: Advancing leadership research versus throwing out the baby with the bath water. In: Uhl-Bien M, Ospina S, editors. Advancing Relational Leadership Theory: A Dialogue among Perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers; 2012. pp. 477-500

[82] Uhl-Bien M, Pillai R. The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In: UhlBien M, Pillai R, Michelle C, Bligh MC, editors. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich: Information Age Publishers; 2007. pp. 187-209

[83] Uhl-Bien M, Ospina SM, editors. Advancing, Relational Leadership Research: A Dialogue Among Perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing; 2012. 639 p

[84] Crevani L, Lindgren M, Packendorff J. Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2010;**261**:77-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2009.12.003

[85] Carsten MK, Uhl-Bien M, West BJ, Patera JL, McGregor R. Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership

**81**

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective*

173-180. DOI: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2016.02.001

[94] Manz CC, Skaggs BC,

10.1177/0149206316647099

[97] Friedrich TL, Vessey WB, Schuelke MJ, Ruark GA,

[98] Yammarino FJ, Salas E, Serban A, Shirreffs K,

Shuffler ML. Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the "we" in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2012;**54**:382-402. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01467.x

[99] Goodchild MF, Guo H, Annoni A, Bian L, De Bie K, Campbell F, et al. Next-generation digital earth.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;**10928**:11092. DOI:

[100] Northouse PG. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage

10.1073/pnas.1202383109

Publications; 2019. 528 p

Mumford MD. A Framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Technical Report 1288; 2011:933

10.1002/job.1991

2008. 375 p

Pearce CL, Wassenaar CL. Serving one another: Are shared and self leadership the keys to service

sustainability? Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2015;**364**:607-612. DOI:

[95] Meuser JD, Gardner WL, Dinh JE, Hu J, Liden RC, Lord RG. A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management. 2016;**425**:1374-1403. DOI:

[96] Palfrey J, Gasser U. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books;

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

Quarterly. 2010;**213**:543-562. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015

Baba S. Distributed leadership and digital collaborative

learning: A synergistic relationship? British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013;**446**:929. DOI:

[87] Spillane JP. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.

[88] DeRue DS. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2011;**31**:125- 150. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

[89] Lord RG, Day DV, Zaccaro SJ, Avolio BJ, Eagly AH. Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017;**1023**:444.

DOI: 10.1037/apl0000089

[90] Pearce CL, Conger JA. All those years ago. In: Pearce CL,

[91] Carte TA, Chidambaram L, Becker A. Emergent leadership in selfmanaged virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2006;**154**:323-343. DOI: 10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7

[92] Carson JB, Tesluk PE,

Conger JA, editors. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003. pp. 1-18

Marrone JA. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. The Academy of Management Journal. 2007;**505**:1217- 1234. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2007.20159921

[93] Cullen-Lester KL, Yammarino FJ. Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. The Leadership Quarterly. 2016;**272**:

[86] Harris A, Jones M,

10.1111/bjet.12107

144 p

*Digital Leader-Followership for the Digital Age: A North American Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89820*

Quarterly. 2010;**213**:543-562. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

[79] Lord RG, Brown DJ. Organization and Management Series. Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

[80] Rost J. Followership: An outmoded concept. In: Riggio RE, Chaleff I, Lipman-Blumen J, editors. The Warren Bennis Signature Series. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008.

[81] Shamir B. Leadership research or post-leadership research: Advancing leadership research versus throwing out the baby with the bath water. In: Uhl-Bien M, Ospina S, editors. Advancing Relational Leadership Theory: A Dialogue among Perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers;

[82] Uhl-Bien M, Pillai R. The romance of leadership and the social construction

Pillai R, Michelle C, Bligh MC, editors. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich: Information Age Publishers; 2007.

[83] Uhl-Bien M, Ospina SM, editors. Advancing, Relational Leadership Research: A Dialogue Among Perspectives. Charlotte: Information

Packendorff J. Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2010;**261**:77-86. DOI:

[85] Carsten MK, Uhl-Bien M, West BJ, Patera JL, McGregor R. Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership

Age Publishing; 2012. 639 p

[84] Crevani L, Lindgren M,

10.1016/j.scaman.2009.12.003

of followership. In: UhlBien M,

Publishers; 2004. 264 p

p. 53-64

2012. pp. 477-500

pp. 187-209

The Leadership Quarterly. 2006;**172**:179-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.

10.4324/9781410608864

1988;**1**:1-8

2015;**22**:227-250

2009. p. 131

[70] Lord RG, Brown BR. Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 2004. 264 p. DOI:

[71] Shamir B. From passive recipients to active coproducers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In: Shamir B, Pillai R, Bligh MC, Uhl-Bien M, editors. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich: Information Age; 2007. p. ix-xxxix.

[72] Kelley RE. In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review Case Services.

[73] Malakyan PG. Depersonalizing leadership and followership: The process of leadship and followship. World Journal of Social Science Research.

[74] DeRue DS. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2011;**31**:131. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

[75] Burke PJ, Stets JE. Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press;

[76] Stets JE, Burke PJ. The development of identity theory. Advances in Group Processes. 2014;**31**:57-97. DOI: 10.1108/

S0882-614520140000031002

[77] Collinson D. Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations. 2005;**5811**:1419-1442. DOI: 10.1177/0018726705060902

[78] Hollander EP. Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly. 1992;**31**:43-54. DOI: 10.1016/1048-9843(92)90005-Z

leaqua.2005.12.005

**80**

[86] Harris A, Jones M, Baba S. Distributed leadership and digital collaborative learning: A synergistic relationship? British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013;**446**:929. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12107

[87] Spillane JP. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2012. 144 p

[88] DeRue DS. Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2011;**31**:125- 150. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

[89] Lord RG, Day DV, Zaccaro SJ, Avolio BJ, Eagly AH. Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017;**1023**:444. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000089

[90] Pearce CL, Conger JA. All those years ago. In: Pearce CL, Conger JA, editors. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003. pp. 1-18

[91] Carte TA, Chidambaram L, Becker A. Emergent leadership in selfmanaged virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2006;**154**:323-343. DOI: 10.1007/s10726-006-9045-7

[92] Carson JB, Tesluk PE, Marrone JA. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. The Academy of Management Journal. 2007;**505**:1217- 1234. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2007.20159921

[93] Cullen-Lester KL, Yammarino FJ. Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. The Leadership Quarterly. 2016;**272**:

173-180. DOI: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2016.02.001

[94] Manz CC, Skaggs BC, Pearce CL, Wassenaar CL. Serving one another: Are shared and self leadership the keys to service sustainability? Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2015;**364**:607-612. DOI: 10.1002/job.1991

[95] Meuser JD, Gardner WL, Dinh JE, Hu J, Liden RC, Lord RG. A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management. 2016;**425**:1374-1403. DOI: 10.1177/0149206316647099

[96] Palfrey J, Gasser U. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books; 2008. 375 p

[97] Friedrich TL, Vessey WB, Schuelke MJ, Ruark GA, Mumford MD. A Framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Technical Report 1288; 2011:933

[98] Yammarino FJ, Salas E, Serban A, Shirreffs K, Shuffler ML. Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the "we" in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2012;**54**:382-402. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01467.x

[99] Goodchild MF, Guo H, Annoni A, Bian L, De Bie K, Campbell F, et al. Next-generation digital earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;**10928**:11092. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1202383109

[100] Northouse PG. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2019. 528 p

[101] Heifetz RA. Leadership without Easy Answers. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1998. 348 p

[102] Salkowitz R. Generation Blend: Managing across the Technology Age Gap. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. 272 p

[103] Chaudhuri S, Ghosh R. Reverse mentoring: A social exchange tool for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human Resource Development Review. 2012;**111**:55-76. DOI: 10.1177/1534484311417562

[104] Kornelsen J. The quest to lead (with) millennials in a VUCA-world: Bridging the gap between generations. In: Jacobus KK, van den Heuvel SC, editors. Leading in a VUCA World: Integrating Leadership, Discernment and Spirituality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2019. pp. 27-41

[105] Chou SY. Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual analysis of millennials' leadership and followership styles. International Journal of Human Resource Studies. 2012;**22**:71-83. DOI: 10.5296/ijhrs.v2i2.1568

[106] Howell JP, Bowen DE, Dorfman PW, Kerr S, Podsakoff PM. Substitutes for leadership: Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 1990;**191**:21-38. DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90046-R

[107] Kerr S, Jermier JM. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1978;**223**:375-403. DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5

**83**

**Chapter 5**

**Abstract**

complexity.

**1. Introduction**

Complex Adaptive Team Systems

Leadership Development Model

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) have been identified as being hard to comprehend, composed of multiple interacting components acting interdependently with overlapping functions aimed at adapting to external/environmental forces. The current theoretical model utilized the natural functions of teams, viewing teams as a complex adaptive system, to develop the structure of the theory of complex adaptive team systems (CATS). The CATS model was formulated around the components of complexity theory (interactions, nonlinearity, interdependency, heterogeneity, complex systems, emergence, self-organizing, and adaptability) to show its utility across multiple domains (the role of leadership, organizational learning, organizational change, collective cognitive structures, innovation, crossbusiness-unit collaborations). In theorizing the CATS model, a new level of analysis was implemented, the interactions between agents as a move toward emergence in complex systems. The CATS model ultimately provides a model for organizations/ institutions to drive knowledge creation and innovation while operating in today's

With team research becoming more prevalent across disciplines [1], there remain some unresolved issues. One unresolved issue is in conceptualizing or theorizing teams as complex adaptive systems (CAS; [1]). Even though this advancement in conceptualizing teams as CAS has started to gain momentum, empirical research has yet to catch up [1]. One advantage of viewing teams as CAS is that it better positions research and theory building efforts in a team's natural setting, occurring closer to the phenomena [1]. Complex adaptive systems adapt and change due to environmental conditions thus making them dynamic and challenging to understand [2]. Due to this self-organizing adaptation, models of CAS are lacking and are "hard to formulate" [2]. Complex adaptive systems are also hard to comprehend in that these systems are not just the aggregate of the actions of the individual parts; it is the composite of the interactions of the parts [2]. deMattos et al. [3] expressed this by highlighting complexity as the result of "the inter-relationship, inter-action, and inter-connectivity of elements within a system". To better understand CAS we must

be able to understand how behaviors emerge from these interactions [2].

(CATS): Scaling of a Team

*John R. Turner, Rose M. Baker and Kerry Romine*

**Keywords:** complexity, teams, complex adaptive systems,

complex adaptive team systems, interactions

#### **Chapter 5**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

[101] Heifetz RA. Leadership without Easy Answers. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1998. 348 p

[102] Salkowitz R. Generation Blend: Managing across the Technology Age Gap. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons;

[103] Chaudhuri S, Ghosh R. Reverse mentoring: A social exchange tool for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human Resource Development Review. 2012;**111**:55-76. DOI: 10.1177/1534484311417562

[104] Kornelsen J. The quest to lead (with) millennials in a VUCA-world: Bridging the gap between generations. In: Jacobus KK, van den Heuvel SC, editors. Leading in a VUCA World: Integrating Leadership, Discernment and Spirituality. Cham, Switzerland:

Springer; 2019. pp. 27-41

10.5296/ijhrs.v2i2.1568

[106] Howell JP, Bowen DE,

alternatives to ineffective leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 1990;**191**:21-38. DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90046-R

1978;**223**:375-403. DOI:

10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5

Dorfman PW, Kerr S, Podsakoff PM. Substitutes for leadership: Effective

[107] Kerr S, Jermier JM. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.

[105] Chou SY. Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual analysis of millennials' leadership and followership styles. International Journal of Human Resource Studies. 2012;**22**:71-83. DOI:

2008. 272 p

**82**

## Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model

*John R. Turner, Rose M. Baker and Kerry Romine*

#### **Abstract**

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) have been identified as being hard to comprehend, composed of multiple interacting components acting interdependently with overlapping functions aimed at adapting to external/environmental forces. The current theoretical model utilized the natural functions of teams, viewing teams as a complex adaptive system, to develop the structure of the theory of complex adaptive team systems (CATS). The CATS model was formulated around the components of complexity theory (interactions, nonlinearity, interdependency, heterogeneity, complex systems, emergence, self-organizing, and adaptability) to show its utility across multiple domains (the role of leadership, organizational learning, organizational change, collective cognitive structures, innovation, crossbusiness-unit collaborations). In theorizing the CATS model, a new level of analysis was implemented, the interactions between agents as a move toward emergence in complex systems. The CATS model ultimately provides a model for organizations/ institutions to drive knowledge creation and innovation while operating in today's complexity.

**Keywords:** complexity, teams, complex adaptive systems, complex adaptive team systems, interactions

#### **1. Introduction**

With team research becoming more prevalent across disciplines [1], there remain some unresolved issues. One unresolved issue is in conceptualizing or theorizing teams as complex adaptive systems (CAS; [1]). Even though this advancement in conceptualizing teams as CAS has started to gain momentum, empirical research has yet to catch up [1]. One advantage of viewing teams as CAS is that it better positions research and theory building efforts in a team's natural setting, occurring closer to the phenomena [1]. Complex adaptive systems adapt and change due to environmental conditions thus making them dynamic and challenging to understand [2]. Due to this self-organizing adaptation, models of CAS are lacking and are "hard to formulate" [2]. Complex adaptive systems are also hard to comprehend in that these systems are not just the aggregate of the actions of the individual parts; it is the composite of the interactions of the parts [2]. deMattos et al. [3] expressed this by highlighting complexity as the result of "the inter-relationship, inter-action, and inter-connectivity of elements within a system". To better understand CAS we must be able to understand how behaviors emerge from these interactions [2].

The composite of these interactions within CAS is often a function of leadership. Leadership in CAS is based on driving and facilitating these interactions. Leadership, in this perspective, "is about inter-action, influencing others, and encompasses a relationality that is dyadic and networked" [4]. Within CAS, leadership often takes the form of shared leadership in which individuals, or team members, share power and roles with other members based on task and situational demands [5]. Leadership for CAS has also been found in boundary spanning in which the leader establishes required interactions with team members and external agents when needed [5]. For each type of leadership style, leading in CAS requires a change in focus, redirecting the flow of practice toward new interactions and in new directions [4].

The current theoretical article provides a model for CAS by utilizing an existing team model, the Team Emergence Leadership Development and Evaluation (TELDE) model [6]. Identifying teams as CAS, the TELDE model helps to conceptualize the behaviors and interactions that take place in a team setting to understand, drive, and predict these emergent transformations. As emergent transformations are a response to environmental forces, teams are better able to adapt and share resources to achieve a new entity to better manage these new external changes, thus requiring leadership to also share roles and resources. The theoretical model presented in the current article utilizes naturally occurring team functions as the structure (TELDE) for CAS. Collectively, these CAS that utilize the TELDE model as its structure has the potential of scaling to the broader organizational, industrial, or community levels. The theoretical model presented here is titled Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS). The CATS model utilizes natural occurring team functions to drive more substantial organizational activities, such as the implementing knowledge management functions [7].

The style of theorizing for the current article is the narrative style of theorizing [8, 9]. The narrative style to theorizing is in response to recent calls from researchers to add more diversity to theory development styles that are currently published [8]. Also, the narrative style to theorizing is advantageous when the goal is to show patterns and to make broad connections, providing the ability to "see the big picture" [9].

The following sections provide a review of complexity theory and some of its key components. Next, a coverage of CAS is provided with a look at utilizing interactions as the level of analysis when viewing CAS. Finally, a review of the TELDE model is presented along with a model of CAS that utilizes the TELDE model and natural occurring team processes. This model, the Complex Adaptive Team System (CATS) model, provides the structure that organizations can implement when addressing today's complexity.

#### **2. Complexity theory**

Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe [10] highlighted enabling leadership for communities of practice, indicating the role of leadership is to create situations that increase the social interactions of individuals. Here complexity theory addresses knowledge creation by facilitating the number of interactions or connections among agents. Within organizational settings and from a learning organization perspective, Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe [10] identified the leaders' role as being one that increases connectivity for the enhancement of cooperation and learning. Complexity theory has seen growth within the leadership literature: strategic leadership [11]; managerial leadership [12]; organizational leadership [13]; in viewing leadership as an *emergent, interactive dynamic* [14]; and for viewing the dynamic and distributed nature of leadership [15].

**85**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

gate the properties and behaviors of these non-linear dynamic systems [3].

A distinction between complex and chaos systems is in order. Complex systems are non-deterministic whereas chaos systems are deterministic [13], however both are non-linear systems. Non-deterministic systems provide no means of predicting future states while deterministic systems allow for prediction of future states.

*A study of changing patterns of order, self-organization or constrained diversity. Complexity arises from chaos theory [18] which first identified how order can be found in disorder (chaos). Chaos theory, in this sense, describes a mathematical concept that delineates how within different systems, patterns appear but in a* 

Complexity theory is also useful for understanding nonlinear systems [13, 19, 20]. Similarly, complex systems have been described as exhibiting *butterfly effects* in which a small change in the system could potentially lead to a large change overall [12, 13, 19]. Likewise, Crawford and Kreiser [21] identified the power law effect in which changes at one level can result in extreme changes at other levels within the system and Hammer et al. [22] described complexity as being a "perturbation, or disturbance, to a system". Burgelman and Grove [23] identified nonlinearity as being a property in which the magnitude of the output

Complexity theory provides a framework for understanding complex systems by identifying and recognizing the behaviors of interdependent, heterogeneous, and autonomous agents or systems. Here it is the patterns of the interactions from autonomous agents acting interdependently within a network or system that are under investigation [10]. Hunt et al. [12] identified emergence resulting from the interdependence of agents and their components. Hanseth and Lyytinen [24] placed complexity in the field of information technology (IT) as being related to increasing heterogeneous components and their relationships, dynamics, and interactions. Likewise, Uhl-Bien et al. [14] highlighted heterogeneous agents interacting

Anderson et al. [16] identified complexity in the interactions between individual parts of an open system and to the unpredictable patterns that emerged from these interactions. Antonacopoulou and Chiva [17] identified both interaction and interdependence processes across different levels (i.e., individual, team, department, organization) as being critical to emergence in complex systems. These functions highlight individual agents and their social structures as being synonymous with fractals, they have the potential to operate both as a part of the system and as a whole at the same time [17]. Understanding complexity and the systems that make up social complex systems is essential in making sense of the dynamics leading to the interactions, resulting in interdependence between agents or systems [17]. Complexity theory, or complexity science, is viewed as being one method to investi-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

*2.1.1 Interactions*

Complexity theory is:

*random fashion. [16]*

is not linearly related to the input.

*2.1.3 Interdependent, heterogeneous, and autonomous agents*

in networks that produce patterns of behavior.

**2.1 Complexity theory primary components**

*2.1.2 Non-linear distributive pattern formations*

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

#### **2.1 Complexity theory primary components**

#### *2.1.1 Interactions*

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

implementing knowledge management functions [7].

The composite of these interactions within CAS is often a function of leadership. Leadership in CAS is based on driving and facilitating these interactions. Leadership, in this perspective, "is about inter-action, influencing others, and encompasses a relationality that is dyadic and networked" [4]. Within CAS, leadership often takes the form of shared leadership in which individuals, or team members, share power and roles with other members based on task and situational demands [5]. Leadership for CAS has also been found in boundary spanning in which the leader establishes required interactions with team members and external agents when needed [5]. For each type of leadership style, leading in CAS requires a change in focus, redirecting

The current theoretical article provides a model for CAS by utilizing an existing team model, the Team Emergence Leadership Development and Evaluation (TELDE) model [6]. Identifying teams as CAS, the TELDE model helps to conceptualize the behaviors and interactions that take place in a team setting to understand, drive, and predict these emergent transformations. As emergent transformations are a response to environmental forces, teams are better able to adapt and share resources to achieve a new entity to better manage these new external changes, thus requiring leadership to also share roles and resources. The theoretical model presented in the current article utilizes naturally occurring team functions as the structure (TELDE) for CAS. Collectively, these CAS that utilize the TELDE model as its structure has the potential of scaling to the broader organizational, industrial, or community levels. The theoretical model presented here is titled Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS). The CATS model utilizes natural occurring team functions to drive more substantial organizational activities, such as the

The style of theorizing for the current article is the narrative style of theorizing [8, 9]. The narrative style to theorizing is in response to recent calls from researchers to add more diversity to theory development styles that are currently published [8]. Also, the narrative style to theorizing is advantageous when the goal is to show patterns and to make broad connections, providing the ability to "see the big

The following sections provide a review of complexity theory and some of its key components. Next, a coverage of CAS is provided with a look at utilizing interactions as the level of analysis when viewing CAS. Finally, a review of the TELDE model is presented along with a model of CAS that utilizes the TELDE model and natural occurring team processes. This model, the Complex Adaptive Team System (CATS) model, provides the structure that organizations can implement when

Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe [10] highlighted enabling leadership for communities of practice, indicating the role of leadership is to create situations that increase the social interactions of individuals. Here complexity theory addresses knowledge creation by facilitating the number of interactions or connections among agents. Within organizational settings and from a learning organization perspective, Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe [10] identified the leaders' role as being one that increases connectivity for the enhancement of cooperation and learning. Complexity theory has seen growth within the leadership literature: strategic leadership [11]; managerial leadership [12]; organizational leadership [13]; in viewing leadership as an *emergent, interactive dynamic* [14]; and for viewing the dynamic and

the flow of practice toward new interactions and in new directions [4].

**84**

picture" [9].

addressing today's complexity.

distributed nature of leadership [15].

**2. Complexity theory**

Anderson et al. [16] identified complexity in the interactions between individual parts of an open system and to the unpredictable patterns that emerged from these interactions. Antonacopoulou and Chiva [17] identified both interaction and interdependence processes across different levels (i.e., individual, team, department, organization) as being critical to emergence in complex systems. These functions highlight individual agents and their social structures as being synonymous with fractals, they have the potential to operate both as a part of the system and as a whole at the same time [17]. Understanding complexity and the systems that make up social complex systems is essential in making sense of the dynamics leading to the interactions, resulting in interdependence between agents or systems [17]. Complexity theory, or complexity science, is viewed as being one method to investigate the properties and behaviors of these non-linear dynamic systems [3].

#### *2.1.2 Non-linear distributive pattern formations*

A distinction between complex and chaos systems is in order. Complex systems are non-deterministic whereas chaos systems are deterministic [13], however both are non-linear systems. Non-deterministic systems provide no means of predicting future states while deterministic systems allow for prediction of future states. Complexity theory is:

*A study of changing patterns of order, self-organization or constrained diversity. Complexity arises from chaos theory [18] which first identified how order can be found in disorder (chaos). Chaos theory, in this sense, describes a mathematical concept that delineates how within different systems, patterns appear but in a random fashion. [16]*

Complexity theory is also useful for understanding nonlinear systems [13, 19, 20]. Similarly, complex systems have been described as exhibiting *butterfly effects* in which a small change in the system could potentially lead to a large change overall [12, 13, 19]. Likewise, Crawford and Kreiser [21] identified the power law effect in which changes at one level can result in extreme changes at other levels within the system and Hammer et al. [22] described complexity as being a "perturbation, or disturbance, to a system". Burgelman and Grove [23] identified nonlinearity as being a property in which the magnitude of the output is not linearly related to the input.

#### *2.1.3 Interdependent, heterogeneous, and autonomous agents*

Complexity theory provides a framework for understanding complex systems by identifying and recognizing the behaviors of interdependent, heterogeneous, and autonomous agents or systems. Here it is the patterns of the interactions from autonomous agents acting interdependently within a network or system that are under investigation [10]. Hunt et al. [12] identified emergence resulting from the interdependence of agents and their components. Hanseth and Lyytinen [24] placed complexity in the field of information technology (IT) as being related to increasing heterogeneous components and their relationships, dynamics, and interactions. Likewise, Uhl-Bien et al. [14] highlighted heterogeneous agents interacting in networks that produce patterns of behavior.

#### *2.1.4 Complex versus complicated systems*

Bode and Wagner [25] defined complex systems as those with a variety of parts that interact in unpredictable ways. Expanding upon this definition, Bode and Wagner [25] separated complexity into two conceptualizations, structural and behavioral. Structural complexity related to the number and variety of the elements while dynamic complexity (behavioral) related to the interactions between the systems' parts or elements [25]. Similarly, Mowles [26] identified three kinds of social problems when viewed from the lens of complexity theory: simple, complicated, and complex. Simple problems relate to those that can be solved using known recipes, complicated problems consist of many sub-problems that can be resolved collectively to solve a bigger problem, and complex problems have no recipe or formula with changing variables [26] and often require dynamic solutions as the problem's variables change.

Anderson et al. [16] acknowledged that complex systems present a lack of predictability due to the interactions that take place among the components of a system. These interactions produce unexpected change compared to complicated systems that do not involve multiple and multi-level interactions within and among the system components, thus reducing the potential for systemic change from occurring. Complicated systems are predictable, and their components are either managed or designed to perform specific functions [16]. Bode and Wagner [25] identified that the more complex a system, the number of elements increase along with a rise in the number of potential interactions between the elements, resulting in a variety of different states that the system could exhibit at any one time.

Complex systems also produce higher levels of uncertainty or ambiguity. Mowles [26] identified four levels of uncertainty as being: a clear enough future, alternative future, a range of future, and true ambiguity. The latter levels of having either a range of futures or true ambiguity relate to the dynamics of complexity [26]. As the level of uncertainty and ambiguity increase, strategy requires processes to become intertwined [26] due to the interconnections and dynamism within the sub-systems [16]. As the level of complexity increases, it becomes more essential for leadership to be more distributed among agents of the CAS as no one individual can be expected to be an expert on all tasks and activities required of the CAS [27].

#### *2.1.5 Emergence*

Different domains can emerge within the same system, organization, or institution given the right circumstances. Richardson [28] described a domain as an autonomous structure that is different from the whole, also identified as *noise*. Domains emerge under differing circumstances and environmental factors, each with their life cycle [28]. These domains appear to be spontaneous with no structure or organizing features. However, through closer investigation these emerging entities, or domains, have structure, are self-organizing, develop distinct patterns [28], and persist until its usefulness abstains or a new emergent entity replaces it. A domain's structure moves from equilibrium to a state of disequilibrium, changing its original adaptive functions, during this emergence [29]. The literature also described this phenomenon as *adaptive tension* that differentiates energy between the system and its environment as factors that drive self-organizing and emergent functions [10, 15]. Being able to arrange one's components autonomously in response to external disturbances, using self–organizing functions as opposed to top–down directives, describes the phenomenon of emergence best [29]. Here, Beck and Plowman [29] connected self-organizing systems with emergence, meaning that a system must be self-organizing (open) before it can experience emergence. Uhl-Bien et al. [14]

**87**

adapt to external forces.

interconnectivity.

*2.1.6 Self-organizing and adaptability*

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

described two characteristics of emergence, the reformulation of existing structures

While CAS (e.g., teams, organizations) operate between the state of equilibrium and disequilibrium, they may appear to be operating randomly. However, this false perception of random behavior is the emergence that "guides agent-based systems to potential new levels of collective behavior" [11]. Complex adaptive systems have been viewed as a *complexity region* operating between the "edge of order" and the "edge of chaos" [10]. These CAS transcend or evolve when on the edge of chaos, also identified as *limited instability* [30], and as *the paradox of control* [15], up to the point where some form of equilibrium sustains between stability and chaos. This emergence cannot be programmed or managed into the elements of a system; rather

This concept of emergent domains can be both positive as well as negative. For example, teams are utilized in the workplace to perform functions that individuals are unable to do on their own. The resources, collective experience and knowledge, afforded by functional teams, aid in the team's overall outcome. In some cases, this outcome is not only better than expected, but it can often be unexpected as well, making the team process one of emergence. Likewise, emergence can also be detrimental, making things more complicated. Take for example the concept of wicked problems. Aagaard [31] identified wicked problems developing through turbulent environments with continually changing expectations and solutions. These constant fluctuations present problems with ever–changing variables being derived based on the current environmental conditions, as environmental conditions change so to do the variables. These cyclical dynamics could be viewed as a form of emergence that reformulates a problem organically as environmental conditions fluctuate. Addressing wicked problems requires organizations and institutions to become more adaptive in their problem-solving methodologies [31]. Wicked problems have been viewed as being influenced by CAS where institutions, "such as nations, oil companies, and utilities are important actors" [32]. Traditional problem defining practices are not practical when addressing wicked problems. Here, one addresses wicked problems with an understanding of adaptability, emergence, and

The function of self-organizing is a process [33], one in which the components of the system communicate with each other and cooperate in their coordinated efforts. This self-organizing process is critical to the emergence outcome, a cocreator of emergence [33]. Adaptability is vital in that self-organizing processes allow for systems to become adaptable and react to both external (environmental changes) and internal (organizational policies and processes) forces, leading closer to emergence. Also, this adaptability leads to a system being open and non-linear as compared to a closed and linear system. Chiva et al. [30] described adaptability as a "system's capacity to adjust to changes in the environment without endangering its essential organizational features". Adaptability is what differentiates closed systems from open systems; closed systems maintain the status quo while open systems adapt to external forces [34]. This distinction, between closed and open systems, is an important one. Closed systems can be self-organizing; however only open systems can be adaptive through self-organization without any external (managerial) intervention. However, there are times when an organization's features do change after adaptability forces react, this is where emergence comes into play. Emergence changes the system's structure to a new transformed structure allowing it to better

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

into new elements and its ability to be self-organizing [12].

emergence is a product of the interaction between the elements [19].

#### *Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

described two characteristics of emergence, the reformulation of existing structures into new elements and its ability to be self-organizing [12].

While CAS (e.g., teams, organizations) operate between the state of equilibrium and disequilibrium, they may appear to be operating randomly. However, this false perception of random behavior is the emergence that "guides agent-based systems to potential new levels of collective behavior" [11]. Complex adaptive systems have been viewed as a *complexity region* operating between the "edge of order" and the "edge of chaos" [10]. These CAS transcend or evolve when on the edge of chaos, also identified as *limited instability* [30], and as *the paradox of control* [15], up to the point where some form of equilibrium sustains between stability and chaos. This emergence cannot be programmed or managed into the elements of a system; rather emergence is a product of the interaction between the elements [19].

This concept of emergent domains can be both positive as well as negative. For example, teams are utilized in the workplace to perform functions that individuals are unable to do on their own. The resources, collective experience and knowledge, afforded by functional teams, aid in the team's overall outcome. In some cases, this outcome is not only better than expected, but it can often be unexpected as well, making the team process one of emergence. Likewise, emergence can also be detrimental, making things more complicated. Take for example the concept of wicked problems. Aagaard [31] identified wicked problems developing through turbulent environments with continually changing expectations and solutions. These constant fluctuations present problems with ever–changing variables being derived based on the current environmental conditions, as environmental conditions change so to do the variables. These cyclical dynamics could be viewed as a form of emergence that reformulates a problem organically as environmental conditions fluctuate. Addressing wicked problems requires organizations and institutions to become more adaptive in their problem-solving methodologies [31]. Wicked problems have been viewed as being influenced by CAS where institutions, "such as nations, oil companies, and utilities are important actors" [32]. Traditional problem defining practices are not practical when addressing wicked problems. Here, one addresses wicked problems with an understanding of adaptability, emergence, and interconnectivity.

#### *2.1.6 Self-organizing and adaptability*

The function of self-organizing is a process [33], one in which the components of the system communicate with each other and cooperate in their coordinated efforts. This self-organizing process is critical to the emergence outcome, a cocreator of emergence [33]. Adaptability is vital in that self-organizing processes allow for systems to become adaptable and react to both external (environmental changes) and internal (organizational policies and processes) forces, leading closer to emergence. Also, this adaptability leads to a system being open and non-linear as compared to a closed and linear system. Chiva et al. [30] described adaptability as a "system's capacity to adjust to changes in the environment without endangering its essential organizational features". Adaptability is what differentiates closed systems from open systems; closed systems maintain the status quo while open systems adapt to external forces [34]. This distinction, between closed and open systems, is an important one. Closed systems can be self-organizing; however only open systems can be adaptive through self-organization without any external (managerial) intervention. However, there are times when an organization's features do change after adaptability forces react, this is where emergence comes into play. Emergence changes the system's structure to a new transformed structure allowing it to better adapt to external forces.

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

Bode and Wagner [25] defined complex systems as those with a variety of parts

that interact in unpredictable ways. Expanding upon this definition, Bode and Wagner [25] separated complexity into two conceptualizations, structural and behavioral. Structural complexity related to the number and variety of the elements while dynamic complexity (behavioral) related to the interactions between the systems' parts or elements [25]. Similarly, Mowles [26] identified three kinds of social problems when viewed from the lens of complexity theory: simple, complicated, and complex. Simple problems relate to those that can be solved using known recipes, complicated problems consist of many sub-problems that can be resolved collectively to solve a bigger problem, and complex problems have no recipe or formula with changing variables [26] and often require dynamic solutions as the

Anderson et al. [16] acknowledged that complex systems present a lack of predictability due to the interactions that take place among the components of a system. These interactions produce unexpected change compared to complicated systems that do not involve multiple and multi-level interactions within and among the system components, thus reducing the potential for systemic change from occurring. Complicated systems are predictable, and their components are either managed or designed to perform specific functions [16]. Bode and Wagner [25] identified that the more complex a system, the number of elements increase along with a rise in the number of potential interactions between the elements, resulting

in a variety of different states that the system could exhibit at any one time.

Complex systems also produce higher levels of uncertainty or ambiguity. Mowles [26] identified four levels of uncertainty as being: a clear enough future, alternative future, a range of future, and true ambiguity. The latter levels of having either a range of futures or true ambiguity relate to the dynamics of complexity [26]. As the level of uncertainty and ambiguity increase, strategy requires processes to become intertwined [26] due to the interconnections and dynamism within the sub-systems [16]. As the level of complexity increases, it becomes more essential for leadership to be more distributed among agents of the CAS as no one individual can be expected to be an expert on all tasks and activities required of the CAS [27].

Different domains can emerge within the same system, organization, or institution given the right circumstances. Richardson [28] described a domain as an autonomous structure that is different from the whole, also identified as *noise*. Domains emerge under differing circumstances and environmental factors, each with their life cycle [28]. These domains appear to be spontaneous with no structure or organizing features. However, through closer investigation these emerging entities, or domains, have structure, are self-organizing, develop distinct patterns [28], and persist until its usefulness abstains or a new emergent entity replaces it. A domain's structure moves from equilibrium to a state of disequilibrium, changing its original adaptive functions, during this emergence [29]. The literature also described this phenomenon as *adaptive tension* that differentiates energy between the system and its environment as factors that drive self-organizing and emergent functions [10, 15]. Being able to arrange one's components autonomously in response to external disturbances, using self–organizing functions as opposed to top–down directives, describes the phenomenon of emergence best [29]. Here, Beck and Plowman [29] connected self-organizing systems with emergence, meaning that a system must be self-organizing (open) before it can experience emergence. Uhl-Bien et al. [14]

*2.1.4 Complex versus complicated systems*

problem's variables change.

*2.1.5 Emergence*

**86**

#### **3. Complex adaptive systems (CAS)**

Organizations are complex systems made up of interdependent agents [11, 29] with overlapping functions. These complex systems can often be identified as networks, projects, hierarchies [31], teams, task forces, and departments to name only a few. Anderson et al. [16] identified entrepreneurship as being a complex system in which individual entrepreneurship efforts aggregate into the macroeconomy, with each micro process being unique, self-organizing, and different from the next. Alternatively, Aritua et al. [35] called on the profession of project management to develop new techniques and methodologies by viewing multi-projects as CAS. They identified one problem was with the field treating multi-projects as the aggregate of single project techniques and methodologies, which has not been very successful.

Complex adaptive systems are composed of individual actors acting interdependently, and autonomously [19], toward common goals. These CAS also learn through interactions and adapt behaviors based on this new knowledge [29], with the ability to evolve and self-organize [24]. Complex adaptive systems are the building blocks for higher level agents or systems (e.g., organizations, economies) while continuously adapting to environmental changes, called *phase transitions* [33]. They are dynamic and direct energy to sustain the system's activities and structures [19]. Simon defined a complex system as "one made up of a large number of parts that interact in a non-simple way" (as cited in [36]) while utilizing heterogeneous interactions among one another and external elements [30]. The following definitions of complex adaptive systems from the literature follow.

#### **3.1 Definitions of CAS**

Complex adaptive systems are responsive systems consisting of multiple agents that "cannot be created, designed or controlled by individual actors. But the system can be influenced, nurtured and exploited by a group of actors" [31]. This responsive aspect refers to the ability of the agents to act freely [16], interdependently [31], to learn and adapt [3, 29], and are linked dynamically [14]. Agents within CAS interact in response to internal and external threats, producing both complex and adaptive behavior patterns [11]. The interactivity among independent agents makes complex systems difficult to predict [36]. Patterns, or outcomes, are unpredictable and nonlinear [21] due to the nature of complexity involved and the interconnectivity across the sub-systems. Emergence results from these interactions in which a new system evolves from constant revising and rearranging the system components [33], providing the system with new capabilities of addressing internal and external threats.

The following definition for CAS will guide the theoretical model presented in the current research:

*Neural-like networks of interacting, interdependent agents who are bonded in a cooperative dynamic by common goal, outlook, need, etc. They are changeable structures with multiple, overlapping hierarchies, and like the individuals that comprise them, CAS are linked with one another in a dynamic, interactive network [14].*

#### **3.2 Characteristics of CAS**

Complex adaptive systems, in its purest form, have been characterized as systems exhibiting characteristics of complexity theory [35]. For example, within the strategic management literature researchers identified the concept of strategic renewal as: "The incremental process through which an organization continuously

**89**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

adapts to the environment and explores opportunities to invoke change in its activity choices and outputs" [36]. As an evolutionary process, renewal occurs from relational exchanges (interactions) that provide organizations with systematic methods of addressing environmental change [37]. Strategic renewal views activity systems (e.g., CAS) from either an inertial view or from an adaptive view [36, 37]. The inertial view concentrates on the distribution of interdependencies (pattern) while the adaptive view focuses on information and resource flows (rules):

1.the interdependency pattern, the relative distribution of interdependencies

2.the interdependency rules, the prescriptive guidance of resource and informa-

Within the strategic management literature, it is the interdependency that enables strategic renewal in organizations [36]. Activity systems are complicated, in part due to their degree of modularity, concentration, and openness [36]. Modularity involves the number of subsystems within each system, concentration involves central control in one subsystem affecting other peripheral systems, and openness relates to one system's dependency in making its own decisions, procedures, and policies separate from the other systems [36]. The more interdependent

In the organizational learning literature, Antonacopoulou and Chiva [17] highlighted something similar to strategic renewal. They described the process of interdependence as a balancing act in which agents co-exist and co-evolve simultaneously. Interdependence allows processes to navigate between stability and change as part of an adaptive process. Complex adaptive systems have been identified as having the following essential components: "diversity and individuality of components, localized interactions among those components, and an autonomous process that uses the outcomes of those interactions to select a subset of those components for replication or enhancement" [3]. Similarly, Gregory et al. [38] and Hammer et al. [22] identified a total of 16 characteristics of CAS categorized into four facets: continuous varying interactions (CVI), patterns development (PD), people factors (PF), and selforganization (SO). The CVI facet involves types of interactions, the PD represents patterns that emerge from these interactions, the PF represents humans as social

and interactive these components become, the more complex the system.

systems and, SO is constantly present in the background of the CAS [22].

Inter-relationships are common in social systems when taking a systems theory point of view. However, while systems theory mainly addresses closed and simple systems, complexity theory addresses complexity in open systems via CAS. In contrast to closed systems that do not interact with their external environment, open systems do. The more open a system becomes, the more it is affected by changes in its external environment. Just as individuals act in similar ways to those in proximity, the same could be said about other systems. Groups act similarly to other groups in proximity (i.e., organizational departments, executive boards), organizations act similarly to other organizations in proximity (i.e., industry, sector), communities act similarly to other communities in proximity (i.e., sister cities, smart cities), and so on. Emergence occurs when a set of individuals, as in a team setting, combine efforts to develop something positive, innovative, and unexpected. The same is true when multiple groups get together, when organizations get together, when governments get together, and so on. This perspective, that emergence can yield from interactions among collectives, has been highlighted in the literature: "Complex adaptive systems show that surprising and innovative behaviors can emerge from the interaction of groups of agents, seemingly without the necessity of centralized control" [11].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

among a focal firm's activities, and

tion flows among interdependent activities [36].

#### *Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

adapts to the environment and explores opportunities to invoke change in its activity choices and outputs" [36]. As an evolutionary process, renewal occurs from relational exchanges (interactions) that provide organizations with systematic methods of addressing environmental change [37]. Strategic renewal views activity systems (e.g., CAS) from either an inertial view or from an adaptive view [36, 37]. The inertial view concentrates on the distribution of interdependencies (pattern) while the adaptive view focuses on information and resource flows (rules):


Within the strategic management literature, it is the interdependency that enables strategic renewal in organizations [36]. Activity systems are complicated, in part due to their degree of modularity, concentration, and openness [36]. Modularity involves the number of subsystems within each system, concentration involves central control in one subsystem affecting other peripheral systems, and openness relates to one system's dependency in making its own decisions, procedures, and policies separate from the other systems [36]. The more interdependent and interactive these components become, the more complex the system.

In the organizational learning literature, Antonacopoulou and Chiva [17] highlighted something similar to strategic renewal. They described the process of interdependence as a balancing act in which agents co-exist and co-evolve simultaneously. Interdependence allows processes to navigate between stability and change as part of an adaptive process. Complex adaptive systems have been identified as having the following essential components: "diversity and individuality of components, localized interactions among those components, and an autonomous process that uses the outcomes of those interactions to select a subset of those components for replication or enhancement" [3]. Similarly, Gregory et al. [38] and Hammer et al. [22] identified a total of 16 characteristics of CAS categorized into four facets: continuous varying interactions (CVI), patterns development (PD), people factors (PF), and selforganization (SO). The CVI facet involves types of interactions, the PD represents patterns that emerge from these interactions, the PF represents humans as social systems and, SO is constantly present in the background of the CAS [22].

Inter-relationships are common in social systems when taking a systems theory point of view. However, while systems theory mainly addresses closed and simple systems, complexity theory addresses complexity in open systems via CAS. In contrast to closed systems that do not interact with their external environment, open systems do. The more open a system becomes, the more it is affected by changes in its external environment. Just as individuals act in similar ways to those in proximity, the same could be said about other systems. Groups act similarly to other groups in proximity (i.e., organizational departments, executive boards), organizations act similarly to other organizations in proximity (i.e., industry, sector), communities act similarly to other communities in proximity (i.e., sister cities, smart cities), and so on. Emergence occurs when a set of individuals, as in a team setting, combine efforts to develop something positive, innovative, and unexpected. The same is true when multiple groups get together, when organizations get together, when governments get together, and so on. This perspective, that emergence can yield from interactions among collectives, has been highlighted in the literature: "Complex adaptive systems show that surprising and innovative behaviors can emerge from the interaction of groups of agents, seemingly without the necessity of centralized control" [11].

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

tions of complex adaptive systems from the literature follow.

**3.1 Definitions of CAS**

the current research:

**3.2 Characteristics of CAS**

Organizations are complex systems made up of interdependent agents [11, 29] with overlapping functions. These complex systems can often be identified as networks, projects, hierarchies [31], teams, task forces, and departments to name only a few. Anderson et al. [16] identified entrepreneurship as being a complex system in which individual entrepreneurship efforts aggregate into the macroeconomy, with each micro process being unique, self-organizing, and different from the next. Alternatively, Aritua et al. [35] called on the profession of project management to develop new techniques and methodologies by viewing multi-projects as CAS. They identified one problem was with the field treating multi-projects as the aggregate of single project techniques and methodologies, which has not been very successful. Complex adaptive systems are composed of individual actors acting interdependently, and autonomously [19], toward common goals. These CAS also learn through interactions and adapt behaviors based on this new knowledge [29], with the ability to evolve and self-organize [24]. Complex adaptive systems are the building blocks for higher level agents or systems (e.g., organizations, economies) while continuously adapting to environmental changes, called *phase transitions* [33]. They are dynamic and direct energy to sustain the system's activities and structures [19]. Simon defined a complex system as "one made up of a large number of parts that interact in a non-simple way" (as cited in [36]) while utilizing heterogeneous interactions among one another and external elements [30]. The following defini-

Complex adaptive systems are responsive systems consisting of multiple agents that "cannot be created, designed or controlled by individual actors. But the system can be influenced, nurtured and exploited by a group of actors" [31]. This responsive aspect refers to the ability of the agents to act freely [16], interdependently [31], to learn and adapt [3, 29], and are linked dynamically [14]. Agents within CAS interact in response to internal and external threats, producing both complex and adaptive behavior patterns [11]. The interactivity among independent agents makes complex systems difficult to predict [36]. Patterns, or outcomes, are unpredictable and nonlinear [21] due to the nature of complexity involved and the interconnectivity across the sub-systems. Emergence results from these interactions in which a new system evolves from constant revising and rearranging the system components [33], providing the system with new capabilities of addressing internal and external threats. The following definition for CAS will guide the theoretical model presented in

*Neural-like networks of interacting, interdependent agents who are bonded in a cooperative dynamic by common goal, outlook, need, etc. They are changeable structures with multiple, overlapping hierarchies, and like the individuals that comprise them, CAS are linked with one another in a dynamic, interactive network [14].*

Complex adaptive systems, in its purest form, have been characterized as systems exhibiting characteristics of complexity theory [35]. For example, within the strategic management literature researchers identified the concept of strategic renewal as: "The incremental process through which an organization continuously

**3. Complex adaptive systems (CAS)**

**88**

Although having a positive result is desired, negative results could also occur (i.e., riots, war), but the focus for the current article is on positive emergence. Feedback is a key component to any system, open or closed, in that it supports learning within the system and aids in identifying new properties when emergence occurs. Having the ability to adapt and learn is one primary characteristic of a CAS [3].

Open systems operating in complexity are, by definition, non-linear. Changes within and external of the system affect all other parts of the system in unpredictable (non-linear) ways. These non-linear states of dis-equilibrium do not behave randomly either; they operate on the edge of chaos [11]. With too much order the system tends to revert toward the original state of equilibrium, while too little order causes the system to potentially reach its undesirable state of chaos [39]. Given the right amount of complexity, systems can self-organize [39] and find their optimal balance.

Waldrop provided seven conditions that must be present for CAS:


These seven conditions [33] expand upon Holland's [2] original conception of the essential components of CAS: parallelism, competition, and recombination. Other literature identified the following four critical characteristics of CAS as being; nonlinearity, order emerges from interactions, irreversibility, and unpredictable outcomes [24]. These four characteristics are described below:


#### **4. Complex adaptive team system (CATS)**

A leader facilitating the interactions that take place within and among CAS needs to begin at the individual level and work their way up to the organizational,

**91**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

industry, or network level, depending on the goal of the interaction or change initiative. This bottom-up approach is the desired approach when leading CAS. The

Here, fostering and leading CAS is a function of the structure of the system, its

interdependence, its collective cognitive structure, and its interdependence (f [N + K + P + C]). To facilitate the structure of a CAS the current research utilized Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model. Within the TELDE model the systems components act interdependently (K), team members develop collective cognitive structures (P), while operating interdependently (C) to obtain the team's task. The size of the system and its sub-units (N), as identified by Hunt et al. [12], is a function of the number of TELDE models operating in succession. Collectively, the TELDE model along with the facilitating functions of [K + P + C] is presented in the following theoretical model as the Complex Adaptive Team System (CATS). The CATS model can be structured as a multi-team model or as a larger networking model, depending on the structure and the number of sub-units (TELDE models) in the CATS model. The CATS model provides a tool for organizations to recombine organizational resources, or to re-architect their business unit portfolios (40), when

The following sections provide a review of Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model and its components, presents interactions as a new level of analysis for the CATS model, identifies the different CATS levels, discusses the role that leadership plays in implementing CATS, and places the CATS model in context (OL/ LO, Organizational Change, Collective Cognitive Structures, Innovation, Cross-

**5. The team emergence leadership development and evaluation (TELDE)** 

The Team Emergence Leadership Development and Evaluation Model (TELDE) provides a visual representation of leadership development that derives natural, organic, leadership growth and team learning [6]. Typically, teams are not structured in a way that allow each group member to share in the team's leadership role, provide feedback to other members during their leadership role, and reflect on their personal performance during their tenure as the team leader. While it is typical for team members to learn from other team members during teamwork (e.g., achieving the team's tasks), it is rare for team members to learn both individually and collectively during these teamwork episodes (e.g., transition from one task to the next). Teams have historically consisted of a single leader with members relying on the leader for direction and guidance, this traditional model is still widely used today [11]. The TELDE model presents an approach in which each team member, regardless of rank within the organization, acts as the team leader for one of the team's task-episodes (sub-task), ultimately resulting in all team members taking a

following mechanisms are ways in which leadership can alter and support

• the size of the system and the number of sub-units within it (N),

• the interdependence among component units (K),

• the interdependence of the system on others (C) [12].

• the collective schema of members (P), and

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

CAS. Leadership has the ability to alter:

adapting to changing markets.

Business-Unit Collaborations).

**model**

industry, or network level, depending on the goal of the interaction or change initiative. This bottom-up approach is the desired approach when leading CAS. The following mechanisms are ways in which leadership can alter and support CAS. Leadership has the ability to alter:


*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

• A network of many agents acting in parallel.

• Control is highly dispersed.

experience.

out there.

niches [33].

among the agents themselves.

blocks for agents as a higher level.

Although having a positive result is desired, negative results could also occur (i.e., riots, war), but the focus for the current article is on positive emergence. Feedback is a key component to any system, open or closed, in that it supports learning within the system and aids in identifying new properties when emergence occurs. Having

Open systems operating in complexity are, by definition, non-linear. Changes within and external of the system affect all other parts of the system in unpredictable (non-linear) ways. These non-linear states of dis-equilibrium do not behave randomly either; they operate on the edge of chaos [11]. With too much order the system tends to revert toward the original state of equilibrium, while too little order causes the system to potentially reach its undesirable state of chaos [39]. Given the right amount

• Coherent behavior in the system arising from competition and co-operation

• Many levels of organization, with agents at one level serving as the building

• Constant testing of its implicit or explicit assumptions about the way things are

• Exploitation of the many niches in the system by agents adapted to fill those

These seven conditions [33] expand upon Holland's [2] original conception of the essential components of CAS: parallelism, competition, and recombination. Other literature identified the following four critical characteristics of CAS as being; nonlinearity, order emerges from interactions, irreversibility, and unpredict-

1.nonlinearity, that is small changes in the input or the initial state can lead to

3.irreversibility of system states, that is, that change is path dependent; and

A leader facilitating the interactions that take place within and among CAS needs to begin at the individual level and work their way up to the organizational,

able outcomes [24]. These four characteristics are described below:

2.order emerges from complex interactions

4.unpredictability of system outcomes. [24]

**4. Complex adaptive team system (CATS)**

order of magnitude differences in the output or the final state

• Constant revising and rearranging of their building blocks as they gain

the ability to adapt and learn is one primary characteristic of a CAS [3].

of complexity, systems can self-organize [39] and find their optimal balance. Waldrop provided seven conditions that must be present for CAS:

**90**

• the interdependence of the system on others (C) [12].

Here, fostering and leading CAS is a function of the structure of the system, its interdependence, its collective cognitive structure, and its interdependence (f [N + K + P + C]). To facilitate the structure of a CAS the current research utilized Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model. Within the TELDE model the systems components act interdependently (K), team members develop collective cognitive structures (P), while operating interdependently (C) to obtain the team's task. The size of the system and its sub-units (N), as identified by Hunt et al. [12], is a function of the number of TELDE models operating in succession. Collectively, the TELDE model along with the facilitating functions of [K + P + C] is presented in the following theoretical model as the Complex Adaptive Team System (CATS). The CATS model can be structured as a multi-team model or as a larger networking model, depending on the structure and the number of sub-units (TELDE models) in the CATS model. The CATS model provides a tool for organizations to recombine organizational resources, or to re-architect their business unit portfolios (40), when adapting to changing markets.

The following sections provide a review of Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model and its components, presents interactions as a new level of analysis for the CATS model, identifies the different CATS levels, discusses the role that leadership plays in implementing CATS, and places the CATS model in context (OL/ LO, Organizational Change, Collective Cognitive Structures, Innovation, Cross-Business-Unit Collaborations).

#### **5. The team emergence leadership development and evaluation (TELDE) model**

The Team Emergence Leadership Development and Evaluation Model (TELDE) provides a visual representation of leadership development that derives natural, organic, leadership growth and team learning [6]. Typically, teams are not structured in a way that allow each group member to share in the team's leadership role, provide feedback to other members during their leadership role, and reflect on their personal performance during their tenure as the team leader. While it is typical for team members to learn from other team members during teamwork (e.g., achieving the team's tasks), it is rare for team members to learn both individually and collectively during these teamwork episodes (e.g., transition from one task to the next). Teams have historically consisted of a single leader with members relying on the leader for direction and guidance, this traditional model is still widely used today [11]. The TELDE model presents an approach in which each team member, regardless of rank within the organization, acts as the team leader for one of the team's task-episodes (sub-task), ultimately resulting in all team members taking a

leadership position while observing and providing feedback to other team members during their leadership tenure. This model provides the characteristic of "leadership development, team development, shared leadership, coaching, self-organizing and practice" [6], the characteristics of leadership development is also achieved by each team member by them taking a leadership role during one of the team's task-episodes.

The model, as shown in **Figure 1**, illustrates a four-member team performing a project with four task-episodes (one task, four subtasks). The tasks are shown on the X-axis with the team members on the y-axis. As team member one takes ownership of his/her task and begins to drive it to completion, they are building their own leadership skills, as well as displaying leadership traits and characteristics for the rest of the team. As the first task concludes and team member two is taking over for the next task, a phenomenon known as transference occurs, where team member two is applying and growing in their own leadership capabilities by applying what they learned from team member one, further adapting to their own task situation. This same pattern continues for team members three and four, each member learning from the previous leader's task achievement and eventually bringing the project to completion. At the height of each team member's development there is a point known as leadership emergence [6]. This is the peak of adaptation to the leadership role and the high point of application of their new skills that the team members experience in their time as task leader.

The TELDE model focused on leadership development at the individual level (team members) while addressing leadership as a group construct [6]. The TELDE model was presented as a model for organizational leadership development and leadership; however, this model has far-reaching potential in obtaining other organizational developmental objectives. This model could be implemented to achieve organizational change initiatives, to implement organizational culture

**Figure 1.** *The Team Emergence Leadership Development & Evaluation (TELDE) Model. Note: From Turner and Baker [63].*

**93**

global, patterns.

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

interventions, as a means of adopting a new organizational policy, to training or onboarding new employees. The TELDE model's utility is further expanded upon in the current research by incorporating it as the fundamental structure for the CATS model due to it being a CAS with individual agents working independently and interdependently toward a common goal while adapting and operating in a self-

Complex adaptive systems are non-linear by definition, with an unlimited number

of ways to abstract its processes. Richardson [28] highlighted this point by stating:

*Because of the nature of nonlinearity there is a huge number of ways to abstract a (nonlinear) problem in such a way that will easily be confirmed by our limited empirical evidence, i.e., there is one way to 'curve-fit' a linear problem (assuming a fixed number of dimensions) but there is an infinite number of ways to 'curve-fit' a* 

Richardson [28] continued by indicating that there is no one right abstraction or model when addressing non-linear models. Here, the only way to accurately model non-linear models, as in CAS, is to construct the CAS from the bottom up [28]. Rather than working backwards from some desired state of which we have limited knowledge [28], CAS should be addressed from what is known, the interactions that lead to complex patterns and emergence [12]. The function of leadership when operating in CAS is to foster and direct these interactions, leadership is inter-actional [4] through shared roles and responsibilities among the agents, resulting in a bottom-up process.

The CATS model takes the connectionist perspective for viewing, understanding, and predicting CAS. The level of analysis does not take place at either the macro level (i.e., team, department, organization) or the micro level (individual). The level of analysis identified here is new; it views the interactions between two independent agents within a system as a level of analysis worth considering. This dyadic event becomes the beginning of the overall process that leads toward emergence; thus, it should be considered as a means of better identifying and representing this process. The current article defines interactions as "the network of linkages across which information flows and connects" [14]. While the rules of engagement among individual agents in a system are critical factors of emergence in that individuals act to form these interactions, the individual and the interaction are considered two separate levels of analysis. The CATS model presents a theoretical model that provides an approach to understanding and guiding CAS. This theoretical model concentrates on the outcome that results from these interactions moving toward emergence rather than on the rules-based approach trying to understand the

This interaction level is believed to be the driving factor that fosters emergence

that takes place in, and spans across, all levels, rather than the levels driving interaction. This interaction level is where leadership should focus a large portion of their efforts toward when operating in CAS. Concerning CAS, and more importantly to the CATS model, interactions that begin at the individual level within the TELDE model hold the potential to emerge into larger organizational, and even

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

organizing manner toward emergence.

**6. Interactions: level of analysis**

*non-linear problem.*

**6.1 Complexity takes a connectionist perspective**

rules of engagement that led to these interactions.

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

interventions, as a means of adopting a new organizational policy, to training or onboarding new employees. The TELDE model's utility is further expanded upon in the current research by incorporating it as the fundamental structure for the CATS model due to it being a CAS with individual agents working independently and interdependently toward a common goal while adapting and operating in a selforganizing manner toward emergence.

#### **6. Interactions: level of analysis**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

task-episodes.

experience in their time as task leader.

leadership position while observing and providing feedback to other team members during their leadership tenure. This model provides the characteristic of "leadership development, team development, shared leadership, coaching, self-organizing and practice" [6], the characteristics of leadership development is also achieved by each team member by them taking a leadership role during one of the team's

The model, as shown in **Figure 1**, illustrates a four-member team performing a project with four task-episodes (one task, four subtasks). The tasks are shown on the X-axis with the team members on the y-axis. As team member one takes ownership of his/her task and begins to drive it to completion, they are building their own leadership skills, as well as displaying leadership traits and characteristics for the rest of the team. As the first task concludes and team member two is taking over for the next task, a phenomenon known as transference occurs, where team member two is applying and growing in their own leadership capabilities by applying what they learned from team member one, further adapting to their own task situation. This same pattern continues for team members three and four, each member learning from the previous leader's task achievement and eventually bringing the project to completion. At the height of each team member's development there is a point known as leadership emergence [6]. This is the peak of adaptation to the leadership role and the high point of application of their new skills that the team members

The TELDE model focused on leadership development at the individual level (team members) while addressing leadership as a group construct [6]. The TELDE model was presented as a model for organizational leadership development and leadership; however, this model has far-reaching potential in obtaining other organizational developmental objectives. This model could be implemented to achieve organizational change initiatives, to implement organizational culture

*The Team Emergence Leadership Development & Evaluation (TELDE) Model. Note: From Turner and Baker [63].*

**92**

**Figure 1.**

Complex adaptive systems are non-linear by definition, with an unlimited number of ways to abstract its processes. Richardson [28] highlighted this point by stating:

*Because of the nature of nonlinearity there is a huge number of ways to abstract a (nonlinear) problem in such a way that will easily be confirmed by our limited empirical evidence, i.e., there is one way to 'curve-fit' a linear problem (assuming a fixed number of dimensions) but there is an infinite number of ways to 'curve-fit' a non-linear problem.*

Richardson [28] continued by indicating that there is no one right abstraction or model when addressing non-linear models. Here, the only way to accurately model non-linear models, as in CAS, is to construct the CAS from the bottom up [28]. Rather than working backwards from some desired state of which we have limited knowledge [28], CAS should be addressed from what is known, the interactions that lead to complex patterns and emergence [12]. The function of leadership when operating in CAS is to foster and direct these interactions, leadership is inter-actional [4] through shared roles and responsibilities among the agents, resulting in a bottom-up process.

#### **6.1 Complexity takes a connectionist perspective**

The CATS model takes the connectionist perspective for viewing, understanding, and predicting CAS. The level of analysis does not take place at either the macro level (i.e., team, department, organization) or the micro level (individual). The level of analysis identified here is new; it views the interactions between two independent agents within a system as a level of analysis worth considering. This dyadic event becomes the beginning of the overall process that leads toward emergence; thus, it should be considered as a means of better identifying and representing this process. The current article defines interactions as "the network of linkages across which information flows and connects" [14]. While the rules of engagement among individual agents in a system are critical factors of emergence in that individuals act to form these interactions, the individual and the interaction are considered two separate levels of analysis. The CATS model presents a theoretical model that provides an approach to understanding and guiding CAS. This theoretical model concentrates on the outcome that results from these interactions moving toward emergence rather than on the rules-based approach trying to understand the rules of engagement that led to these interactions.

This interaction level is believed to be the driving factor that fosters emergence that takes place in, and spans across, all levels, rather than the levels driving interaction. This interaction level is where leadership should focus a large portion of their efforts toward when operating in CAS. Concerning CAS, and more importantly to the CATS model, interactions that begin at the individual level within the TELDE model hold the potential to emerge into larger organizational, and even global, patterns.

#### **6.2 CATS levels**

As identified, it is the interaction between the agents of CATS that result in individual learning, the formation of new cognitive structures that contribute to emergent properties. Also, interactions among CATS produce much needed emergent properties; organizational learning and learning organization properties that allow organizations to better address wicked problems and to operate in today's complex globalized environment. In viewing the level of analysis as the interaction, we identified four different CATS interaction levels: one to one/dyad, dyad to many/team, team to team/organization, and organization to network/industry. **Figure 2** identifies each of these interaction levels.

Each of these four interaction levels consist of variations on micro- and macrolevel perspectives. Micro-level represents the lower or smaller entity when compared to a higher or larger, macro entity. These micro- and macro-levels are utilized when representing multilevel models or theories. When a higher level affects a lower level, for example when new governmental regulations affect organizational policies, this process is identified as being top-down. Likewise, when a lower level affects a higher level as in poor employee engagement affecting organizational performance, this is identified as being a bottom-up process. Kozlowski and Klein [41] identified top-down processes as macro-levels exerting influence over micro-levels. Alternatively, bottom-up processes were defined as higher emergent properties that originated at lower levels [41]. In sum, top-down processes provide influence (e.g., mission statement, vision) while bottom-up processes have the potential of producing emergent properties. Because emergent properties come from bottomup processes, and these processes are driven by the interactions among the agents involved, the focal point when addressing interactions as the level of analysis should be at bottom-up processes. However, even though the interactions and emergence come from bottom-up processes, the influence from the macro-level onto the micro-level (top-down) should not be disregarded. Both the bottom-up and the

**95**

**Figure 3.**

*CATS Model: Multiple TELDE Models Acting Inter-Organizationally.*

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

top-down processes should be considered in totality. This is depicted in **Figure 2** by the arrows, an arrow from a micro-level to a macro-level represent emergent, bottom-up, processes. Likewise, an arrow from a macro-level to a micro-level

These levels of interaction are similar to the enabling functions identified by Uhl-Bien and Marion [15]. Their enabling functions began at the micro level (individual level) and aggregate into macro levels which, in turn, also affect the messo level. **Figure 3** provides a representation of how these different interactions would take place within a single organization, inter-organizationally. In **Figure 3**, interactions take place at the individual level within each TELDE model, intra-team. Also, with multiple TELDE models operating sequentially (the CATS model) interactions

In the inter-organizational model (**Figure 3**), each system (TELDE model) has peripheral influence over other, adjacent, systems. Here modularity is present as

The aggregate of the micro- and macro-level interactions, along with replication of the CATS model in additional organizations or entities, represents the messolevel interactions. These messo-level interactions are best represented in **Figure 4** in which the CATS model is replicated, resulting in interactions inter-organizationally or across different networks (messo-level interactions). He et al. [42] provided one example of this when the researchers looked at how industrial clusters (CAS) formed, they formed through the interactions of the micro-organizations: "clusters form from micro-interactions and spontaneously evolve over time without any intervention". These micro-interactions emerged across the micro-organizations

take place across each team, inter-team to represent the macro-level.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

represents influential, top-down, processes.

identified by [36].

**Figure 2.**

*Reciprocal Interactions at Various Organizational Levels.*

#### *Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

top-down processes should be considered in totality. This is depicted in **Figure 2** by the arrows, an arrow from a micro-level to a macro-level represent emergent, bottom-up, processes. Likewise, an arrow from a macro-level to a micro-level represents influential, top-down, processes.

These levels of interaction are similar to the enabling functions identified by Uhl-Bien and Marion [15]. Their enabling functions began at the micro level (individual level) and aggregate into macro levels which, in turn, also affect the messo level. **Figure 3** provides a representation of how these different interactions would take place within a single organization, inter-organizationally. In **Figure 3**, interactions take place at the individual level within each TELDE model, intra-team. Also, with multiple TELDE models operating sequentially (the CATS model) interactions take place across each team, inter-team to represent the macro-level.

In the inter-organizational model (**Figure 3**), each system (TELDE model) has peripheral influence over other, adjacent, systems. Here modularity is present as identified by [36].

The aggregate of the micro- and macro-level interactions, along with replication of the CATS model in additional organizations or entities, represents the messolevel interactions. These messo-level interactions are best represented in **Figure 4** in which the CATS model is replicated, resulting in interactions inter-organizationally or across different networks (messo-level interactions). He et al. [42] provided one example of this when the researchers looked at how industrial clusters (CAS) formed, they formed through the interactions of the micro-organizations: "clusters form from micro-interactions and spontaneously evolve over time without any intervention". These micro-interactions emerged across the micro-organizations

**Figure 3.** *CATS Model: Multiple TELDE Models Acting Inter-Organizationally.*

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

**Figure 2** identifies each of these interaction levels.

As identified, it is the interaction between the agents of CATS that result in individual learning, the formation of new cognitive structures that contribute to emergent properties. Also, interactions among CATS produce much needed emergent properties; organizational learning and learning organization properties that allow organizations to better address wicked problems and to operate in today's complex globalized environment. In viewing the level of analysis as the interaction, we identified four different CATS interaction levels: one to one/dyad, dyad to many/team, team to team/organization, and organization to network/industry.

Each of these four interaction levels consist of variations on micro- and macrolevel perspectives. Micro-level represents the lower or smaller entity when compared to a higher or larger, macro entity. These micro- and macro-levels are utilized when representing multilevel models or theories. When a higher level affects a lower level, for example when new governmental regulations affect organizational policies, this process is identified as being top-down. Likewise, when a lower level affects a higher level as in poor employee engagement affecting organizational performance, this is identified as being a bottom-up process. Kozlowski and Klein [41] identified top-down processes as macro-levels exerting influence over micro-levels. Alternatively, bottom-up processes were defined as higher emergent properties that originated at lower levels [41]. In sum, top-down processes provide influence (e.g., mission statement, vision) while bottom-up processes have the potential of producing emergent properties. Because emergent properties come from bottomup processes, and these processes are driven by the interactions among the agents involved, the focal point when addressing interactions as the level of analysis should be at bottom-up processes. However, even though the interactions and emergence come from bottom-up processes, the influence from the macro-level onto the micro-level (top-down) should not be disregarded. Both the bottom-up and the

**6.2 CATS levels**

**94**

**Figure 2.**

*Reciprocal Interactions at Various Organizational Levels.*

**Figure 4.** *CATS Model Intra-Organizationally or Across Networks (Globally).*

and eventually influenced the formation of industrial clusters. In essence it is the initial dynamics that evolve into an organization's adaptability [15], this set of interactive dynamics should be facilitated, not managed, by utilizing the CATS model.

#### **7. The role of leadership**

The best way to manage CATS is to promote and flourish the interactions that take place within and between TELDE systems. Luoma [43] stressed that managers must be capable of leading in times of rapid change. Managements' role within complex systems expands beyond traditional human relation functions to one that manages systems and networks [44]. Facilitating these interactions and acting as a change agent within such systems is another function of management. However, this function can only guide emergent processes and cannot control it due to its non-linear and non-predictable nature. A successful agent succeeds by triggering change to meet its own systemic needs [33]. Bovaird [33] identified this process as a *self-reinforcing spiral*, operating similar to how the knowledge management literature [45–47] described *knowledge creating spirals* and how He et al. [42] described *knowledge spillover*. Even if attempts to manage the emergence is taken, causal mechanisms remain unknown due to the complexity and number of interactions that cannot be accounted for. This is similar to punctuated equilibrium in which some causes are weakly associated to certain effects, but not all effects have associated or knowable causes [33].

Organizations and systems are unable to remain in a state of equilibrium, successful organizations and systems avoid equilibrium [33] in favor of operating on the edge of chaos. Organizations should, due to this *run toward chaos*, build structures and systems that expedite self-transformation and create conditions for change that lead to self-organizing systems [33]. Granted, however, even though it may seem that self-organizing systems come free to organizations in which they do not need to be managed, this thinking is counter-intuitive. Lindberg and Schneider [20] identified that order is not free when talking about self-organizing systems. Instead, leadership must be able to achieve the right balance between equilibrium and chaos without hampering the emergent processes that come from self-organizing systems [20]. Luoma [43] warned against efforts that try to eliminate this disorder, by eliminating this run toward chaos leaders can destroy the system's self-organizing capabilities. Here leadership plays a critical role in the self-organizing function [20], facilitating interactions with the system [48].

**97**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

self-organizing behavior to achieve desirable outcomes [20]. Leadership also needs to take a more integrated approach that accounts for both inter-system (e.g., inter-team, inter-organization, inter-network) and intra-system (e.g., intra-team, intra-organization, intra-network) dynamics [49]. Tong and Arvey [44] identified three managerial behaviors for leading in complexity; enabling, sensmaking, and facilitating shared leadership. Enabling behaviors allow leaders to enable adaptive outcomes rather than control them, sensmaking relates to a leader's ability to identify what information is important and where a team's attention needs to be focused, and facilitating shared leadership involves collective leadership compared to one overarching leader [44]. The CATS model enables members to adapt as needed, allowing the system to emerge in response to internal and external environmental forces. Sensemaking results in the collection of individual accounts [44], which is inherent in the CATS model. The CATS model provides the collective leadership

needed in that it views the team as the leader in the TELDE model [6].

Organizations need to view leadership as an emerging construct that facilitates

This transformation to a new leadership is in alignment with the *Law of Requisite* 

Antonacopoulou and Chiva [17] identified social complexity to highlight the need for learning in OL processes. They highlighted learning as being central to complexity because learning highlights the conditions of, and the outcomes from, interactions that fosters self-organizing activities which lead to emergence. Mowles [26] introduced this process as *learning through* complexity. Boal and Schultz [11] described learning in complex systems as being related to information flow within these social systems, driven by the interaction patterns of the agents within the system and the interaction patterns between systems. Learning is a process that cannot be controlled when identified as a dynamic and complex process [17]. Learning in complex systems is a product of the connections and interactions of the individual agents that result, or contribute to, emergence. At the more macro level, learning is a product of the connections through interactions across systems, such is the case in OL practices when learning occurs in cross-functional groups. This learning through systemic interactions is an area that needs to be further developed and researched through different organizational settings to determine if fostering interactions at various levels result in

*Complexity* [14, 50]: "It takes complexity to defeat complexity—a system must possess complexity equal to that of its environment in order to function effectively" [14]. He et al. [42] explained that complexity requires a great deal of abstraction to predict general patterns of change. The CATS model aids this new leadership in

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

facilitating and managing this complexity.

**8.1 Organizational learning, learning organization**

emergence, thus mediating OL/LO or organizational performance.

the community, the government, or due to globalization (political).

Organizational change is often delayed due to four primary processes: structural, institutional, political, and learning processes [51]. The CATS model provides a model that potentially addresses all four delayed processes. The CATS model provides a structural model (structure) for driving organizational change as a bottom-up, self-organizing, process (learning) while achieving organizational and stakeholder objectives (institutional) in response to any environmental forces from

**8. CATS model in context**

**8.2 Organizational change**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

Organizations need to view leadership as an emerging construct that facilitates self-organizing behavior to achieve desirable outcomes [20]. Leadership also needs to take a more integrated approach that accounts for both inter-system (e.g., inter-team, inter-organization, inter-network) and intra-system (e.g., intra-team, intra-organization, intra-network) dynamics [49]. Tong and Arvey [44] identified three managerial behaviors for leading in complexity; enabling, sensmaking, and facilitating shared leadership. Enabling behaviors allow leaders to enable adaptive outcomes rather than control them, sensmaking relates to a leader's ability to identify what information is important and where a team's attention needs to be focused, and facilitating shared leadership involves collective leadership compared to one overarching leader [44]. The CATS model enables members to adapt as needed, allowing the system to emerge in response to internal and external environmental forces. Sensemaking results in the collection of individual accounts [44], which is inherent in the CATS model. The CATS model provides the collective leadership needed in that it views the team as the leader in the TELDE model [6].

This transformation to a new leadership is in alignment with the *Law of Requisite Complexity* [14, 50]: "It takes complexity to defeat complexity—a system must possess complexity equal to that of its environment in order to function effectively" [14]. He et al. [42] explained that complexity requires a great deal of abstraction to predict general patterns of change. The CATS model aids this new leadership in facilitating and managing this complexity.

#### **8. CATS model in context**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

*CATS Model Intra-Organizationally or Across Networks (Globally).*

**7. The role of leadership**

**Figure 4.**

ated or knowable causes [33].

and eventually influenced the formation of industrial clusters. In essence it is the initial dynamics that evolve into an organization's adaptability [15], this set of interactive dynamics should be facilitated, not managed, by utilizing the CATS model.

The best way to manage CATS is to promote and flourish the interactions that take place within and between TELDE systems. Luoma [43] stressed that managers must be capable of leading in times of rapid change. Managements' role within complex systems expands beyond traditional human relation functions to one that manages systems and networks [44]. Facilitating these interactions and acting as a change agent within such systems is another function of management. However, this function can only guide emergent processes and cannot control it due to its non-linear and non-predictable nature. A successful agent succeeds by triggering change to meet its own systemic needs [33]. Bovaird [33] identified this process as a *self-reinforcing spiral*, operating similar to how the knowledge management literature [45–47] described *knowledge creating spirals* and how He et al. [42] described *knowledge spillover*. Even if attempts to manage the emergence is taken, causal mechanisms remain unknown due to the complexity and number of interactions that cannot be accounted for. This is similar to punctuated equilibrium in which some causes are weakly associated to certain effects, but not all effects have associ-

Organizations and systems are unable to remain in a state of equilibrium, successful organizations and systems avoid equilibrium [33] in favor of operating on the edge of chaos. Organizations should, due to this *run toward chaos*, build structures and systems that expedite self-transformation and create conditions for change that lead to self-organizing systems [33]. Granted, however, even though it may seem that self-organizing systems come free to organizations in which they do not need to be managed, this thinking is counter-intuitive. Lindberg and Schneider [20] identified that order is not free when talking about self-organizing systems. Instead, leadership must be able to achieve the right balance between equilibrium and chaos without hampering the emergent processes that come from self-organizing systems [20]. Luoma [43] warned against efforts that try to eliminate this disorder, by eliminating this run toward chaos leaders can destroy the system's self-organizing capabilities. Here leadership plays a critical role in the self-organizing function [20], facilitating interactions with the

**96**

system [48].

#### **8.1 Organizational learning, learning organization**

Antonacopoulou and Chiva [17] identified social complexity to highlight the need for learning in OL processes. They highlighted learning as being central to complexity because learning highlights the conditions of, and the outcomes from, interactions that fosters self-organizing activities which lead to emergence. Mowles [26] introduced this process as *learning through* complexity. Boal and Schultz [11] described learning in complex systems as being related to information flow within these social systems, driven by the interaction patterns of the agents within the system and the interaction patterns between systems. Learning is a process that cannot be controlled when identified as a dynamic and complex process [17]. Learning in complex systems is a product of the connections and interactions of the individual agents that result, or contribute to, emergence. At the more macro level, learning is a product of the connections through interactions across systems, such is the case in OL practices when learning occurs in cross-functional groups. This learning through systemic interactions is an area that needs to be further developed and researched through different organizational settings to determine if fostering interactions at various levels result in emergence, thus mediating OL/LO or organizational performance.

#### **8.2 Organizational change**

Organizational change is often delayed due to four primary processes: structural, institutional, political, and learning processes [51]. The CATS model provides a model that potentially addresses all four delayed processes. The CATS model provides a structural model (structure) for driving organizational change as a bottom-up, self-organizing, process (learning) while achieving organizational and stakeholder objectives (institutional) in response to any environmental forces from the community, the government, or due to globalization (political).

Organizational change has been identified as occurring in cascades where change leads to additional change which, in turn, leads to even more change [51]. Here cascades occur within each TELDE model, ultimately resulting in organizational change through the aggregate from the CATS model.

At the network level, as shown in **Figure 4**, community ecology looks at the interdependence among differing organizations in which an organization's legitimacy is related to its similarity and proximity to already legitimate organizations [52]. This network model, supported by the CATS model, provides a platform for collectives to structure similar cognitive spaces. This network model is representative of organizational interdependence models in that it provides interdependence between systems while also providing a proximate association. Organizational interdependence occurs at all levels of analysis; networks, populations, communities, global [52]. In addition to providing a model for organizational interdependence, identifying the interaction as the level of analysis for these network systems aid organizations, communities, and governments with a new architecture to facilitate global change. Further research is needed to test the CATS model to determine its impact on organizational change and organizational interdependence.

#### **8.3 Collective cognitive structures**

Learning within dynamic and complex systems, agents have the capability of being emergent and transformative [53], similar to the concept of transference in Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model. Through observation, practice, feedback, and reflection individual agents learn individually as well as collectively. This process was described by Boal and Schultz [11] as shared schemas where interactions lead to the development of similar cognitive structures or schemas. Likewise, Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe [10] contrasted individual intelligence (interconnected neurons) with collective corporate intelligence (interconnectedness among agents). Turner et al. [54] identified similar team or group cognition models that explain how information is structured and processed collectively: shared mental models, SMM [55]; team mental models, TMM [56, 57]; information sharing, IS [58] transitive memory systems, TMS [59]; cognitive consensus, [60]; and group learning, [61, 62]. Using complexity science to understand corporate entrepreneurship strategy, Crawford and Kreiser [21] identified two organizational antecedents: "the *cognitions of the individuals within the focal firm* and the firm's *external environmental conditions*" (emphasis in original). The shared cognition among the agents within the CATS aids in their capability of becoming more adaptable. At this point, learning becomes collective and emergence begins to develop. Further research is needed to determine the impact that the CATS model might have on shared cognition in teams and small groups, as well as assessing its influence on small networks.

#### **8.4 Innovation**

Chiva et al. [30] associated OL with competitive issues such as innovation. They identified innovation as involving new organizational processes along with more traditional concepts: new products, new services, and new knowledge [30]. Innovation is presented as being a collective construct, requiring the organization to learn and to develop new knowledge for the innovative product or process while, at the same time, learn from the innovative processes through feedback channels [30]. This reciprocal process includes both bottom-up and top-down processes at the same time. The CATS model needs to be tested to determine its impact on organizational innovation. The CATS model is one tool that could be

**99**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

utilized to manage innovative processes within organizations, providing selforganizing systems to be innovative (bottom-up) while addressing organizational

contribution and meeting the requirements of a new theory [40].

successful collaborative efforts that came from the initial chaos:

2.The organizing actions taken by independent agencies.

3.The development of trust.

4.The development of a collective identity.

1.Initial contextual conditions precipitated the collaborative effort.

Success from the Columbia response effort resulted, not from any one agency being in charge, but from the in-charge agency (FEMA) acting as an enabler for the other agencies [29]. Their case study exemplified the support function from the host organization as a means for self-organization to take place. This support function included providing guidance, resources, and tools to the team/group as needed so they could complete their tasks. Also, the interactions that took place within the CAS were facilitated by the host organization. By providing the right direction and resources, the team/group could focus more attention on self-organizing activities aimed toward goal attainment, and in some cases, emergence. The agents involved in the Columbia response effort practiced an aggregated form of the CATS model in which agents acted

interdependently toward one common goal that was facilitated by FEMA.

Complexity theory takes a different perspective when viewing systems. Rather than examining systems using reductionistic methods, complexity takes a connectionist perspective in understanding that emerging properties arise from the interactions among and between the system's elements. As systems evolve from being complicated to being complex, typically by increases in the number of components

Martin and Eisenhardt [40] introduced restructuring as one method for organizations to address changes in the market. One such effort is in cross-business-unit collaborations. Unfortunately, there is a lack of theoretical models and research addressing "how executives create high-performing cross-BU collaborations" [40]. Their research showed that executive decision-making was effective in multi-business settings when executives were part of a multibusiness team, acting collectively while consensually agreeing to decisions. These multibusiness teams act in a manner that is consistent with the TELDE model which could foster future research efforts. When these multibusiness teams operate across different businesses or industries, they act similarly to the CATS model. The CATS theory adds to the multibusiness organization literature by including a model that incorporates complexity theory and complex adaptive systems. Thus, making a fundamental

The Columbia response effort began as "idiosyncratic local organizing actions" [29] among the participating agencies (i.e., NASA, FEMA, DOD, EPA). In order to respond quickly and to organize efforts between the multiple agencies that became involved, Beck and Plowman [29] identified four main categories that led to the

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

**8.5 Cross-business-unit collaborations**

problems (top-down).

**9. Summary**

utilized to manage innovative processes within organizations, providing selforganizing systems to be innovative (bottom-up) while addressing organizational problems (top-down).

#### **8.5 Cross-business-unit collaborations**

Martin and Eisenhardt [40] introduced restructuring as one method for organizations to address changes in the market. One such effort is in cross-business-unit collaborations. Unfortunately, there is a lack of theoretical models and research addressing "how executives create high-performing cross-BU collaborations" [40]. Their research showed that executive decision-making was effective in multi-business settings when executives were part of a multibusiness team, acting collectively while consensually agreeing to decisions. These multibusiness teams act in a manner that is consistent with the TELDE model which could foster future research efforts. When these multibusiness teams operate across different businesses or industries, they act similarly to the CATS model. The CATS theory adds to the multibusiness organization literature by including a model that incorporates complexity theory and complex adaptive systems. Thus, making a fundamental contribution and meeting the requirements of a new theory [40].

#### **9. Summary**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

tional change through the aggregate from the CATS model.

Organizational change has been identified as occurring in cascades where change leads to additional change which, in turn, leads to even more change [51]. Here cascades occur within each TELDE model, ultimately resulting in organiza-

At the network level, as shown in **Figure 4**, community ecology looks at the interdependence among differing organizations in which an organization's legitimacy is related to its similarity and proximity to already legitimate organizations [52]. This network model, supported by the CATS model, provides a platform for collectives to structure similar cognitive spaces. This network model is representative of organizational interdependence models in that it provides interdependence between systems while also providing a proximate association. Organizational interdependence occurs at all levels of analysis; networks, populations, communities, global [52]. In addition to providing a model for organizational interdependence, identifying the interaction as the level of analysis for these network systems aid organizations, communities, and governments with a new architecture to facilitate global change. Further research is needed to test the CATS model to determine

its impact on organizational change and organizational interdependence.

Learning within dynamic and complex systems, agents have the capability of being emergent and transformative [53], similar to the concept of transference in Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model. Through observation, practice, feedback, and reflection individual agents learn individually as well as collectively. This process was described by Boal and Schultz [11] as shared schemas where interactions lead to the development of similar cognitive structures or schemas. Likewise, Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe [10] contrasted individual intelligence (interconnected neurons) with collective corporate intelligence (interconnectedness among agents). Turner et al. [54] identified similar team or group cognition models that explain how information is structured and processed collectively: shared mental models, SMM [55]; team mental models, TMM [56, 57]; information sharing, IS [58] transitive memory systems, TMS [59]; cognitive consensus, [60]; and group learning, [61, 62]. Using complexity science to understand corporate entrepreneurship strategy, Crawford and Kreiser [21] identified two organizational antecedents: "the *cognitions of the individuals within the focal firm* and the firm's *external environmental conditions*" (emphasis in original). The shared cognition among the agents within the CATS aids in their capability of becoming more adaptable. At this point, learning becomes collective and emergence begins to develop. Further research is needed to determine the impact that the CATS model might have on shared cognition in teams and small groups, as well as assessing its influence on

Chiva et al. [30] associated OL with competitive issues such as innovation. They identified innovation as involving new organizational processes along with more traditional concepts: new products, new services, and new knowledge [30]. Innovation is presented as being a collective construct, requiring the organization to learn and to develop new knowledge for the innovative product or process while, at the same time, learn from the innovative processes through feedback channels [30]. This reciprocal process includes both bottom-up and top-down processes at the same time. The CATS model needs to be tested to determine its impact on organizational innovation. The CATS model is one tool that could be

**8.3 Collective cognitive structures**

**98**

small networks.

**8.4 Innovation**

The Columbia response effort began as "idiosyncratic local organizing actions" [29] among the participating agencies (i.e., NASA, FEMA, DOD, EPA). In order to respond quickly and to organize efforts between the multiple agencies that became involved, Beck and Plowman [29] identified four main categories that led to the successful collaborative efforts that came from the initial chaos:


Success from the Columbia response effort resulted, not from any one agency being in charge, but from the in-charge agency (FEMA) acting as an enabler for the other agencies [29]. Their case study exemplified the support function from the host organization as a means for self-organization to take place. This support function included providing guidance, resources, and tools to the team/group as needed so they could complete their tasks. Also, the interactions that took place within the CAS were facilitated by the host organization. By providing the right direction and resources, the team/group could focus more attention on self-organizing activities aimed toward goal attainment, and in some cases, emergence. The agents involved in the Columbia response effort practiced an aggregated form of the CATS model in which agents acted interdependently toward one common goal that was facilitated by FEMA.

Complexity theory takes a different perspective when viewing systems. Rather than examining systems using reductionistic methods, complexity takes a connectionist perspective in understanding that emerging properties arise from the interactions among and between the system's elements. As systems evolve from being complicated to being complex, typically by increases in the number of components and interactions within a system, CAS are formed requiring leadership to be distributed. Linearity is often associated with models that provide predictability and causal relationships [43] while CAS are associated with non-linearity, open systems, and non-predictablility. One method of facilitating and managing CAS is through the implementation of Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model. A CAS that utilizes the TELDE model as a means of driving change is known as the CATS model.

Micro-level activity and interactions aggregate, and eventually reflect higherlevel activities [21]. This results in organizational outcomes being the result of micro-level adaptive and emergent forces through CAS and CATS. Crawford and Kreiser [21] explained: "Unless a new activity pattern emerges or is imposed by top-down tensions, the higher level aggregate activity will *exactly* [emphasis added] reflect and resemble the scaling pattern of the micro-level pattern". When viewing CAS, Boal and Schultz [11] stressed that leaders must create the structures and interactions that occur in CAS, allowing them to self-organize and emerge, as in the CATS model presented in this chapter. It was also stressed that strategic leaders should be the catalyst for adaptive systems [11]. Uhl-Bien et al. [14] presented the concept of *enabling leadership* for their complex leadership theory in which leadership should concentrate their efforts to foster interactions and interdependency while injecting adaptive tension. Campbell-Hunt [19] acknowledged that leaders should be a participant in the flow of events that take place in CAS/CATS as opposed to just trying to control the flow of events. Leaders should make available organizational resources while releasing control of the CAS/CATS in order to allow the system to self-organize and emerge into a new order [19]. This active participation on the part of leadership was identified by Campbell-Hunt [19] as being "an epistemology of engagement with the challenge of an unknowable emergent order" and is presented here in the CATS model.

Chiva et al. [30] presented innovation as introducing either new products, processes, markets, or organizational innovations. Organizational innovation involves incorporating new organizational methods, such as in implementing the TELDE model as the foundation of building CATS to drive organizational initiatives such as leadership development, new employee orientation, change initiatives, diversity training, organizational culture exercises, and new technology orientation, to only name a few. Today's new leadership is best identified as being capable of influencing systems [12]. This influence comes, in part, through leaders' managing the interactions between teams and agents as depicted in the CATS model. Leaders' focusing on these interactions result in building connections and connecting agents, providing a new direction for leaders in today's complexity: "What might get lost in leadership in the flow of practice is the basic connection (relationships) between the organizational agents" [4]. Utilizing and implementing CATS as standard practice to drive knowledge creation and innovation, and in making new connections within organizations, is one tool that is available for today's leaders to operate in today's complex and challenging environment.

**101**

**Author details**

John R. Turner1

\*, Rose M. Baker1

1 University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States

\*Address all correspondence to: John.Turner@unt.edu

provided the original work is properly cited.

2 University of North Texas Systems, Dallas, TX, United States

and Kerry Romine2

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

#### **Author details**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

and is presented here in the CATS model.

complex and challenging environment.

and interactions within a system, CAS are formed requiring leadership to be distributed. Linearity is often associated with models that provide predictability and causal relationships [43] while CAS are associated with non-linearity, open systems, and non-predictablility. One method of facilitating and managing CAS is through the implementation of Turner and Baker's [6] TELDE model. A CAS that utilizes the TELDE model as a means of driving change is known as the CATS model. Micro-level activity and interactions aggregate, and eventually reflect higherlevel activities [21]. This results in organizational outcomes being the result of micro-level adaptive and emergent forces through CAS and CATS. Crawford and Kreiser [21] explained: "Unless a new activity pattern emerges or is imposed by top-down tensions, the higher level aggregate activity will *exactly* [emphasis added] reflect and resemble the scaling pattern of the micro-level pattern". When viewing CAS, Boal and Schultz [11] stressed that leaders must create the structures and interactions that occur in CAS, allowing them to self-organize and emerge, as in the CATS model presented in this chapter. It was also stressed that strategic leaders should be the catalyst for adaptive systems [11]. Uhl-Bien et al. [14] presented the concept of *enabling leadership* for their complex leadership theory in which leadership should concentrate their efforts to foster interactions and interdependency while injecting adaptive tension. Campbell-Hunt [19] acknowledged that leaders should be a participant in the flow of events that take place in CAS/CATS as opposed to just trying to control the flow of events. Leaders should make available organizational resources while releasing control of the CAS/CATS in order to allow the system to self-organize and emerge into a new order [19]. This active participation on the part of leadership was identified by Campbell-Hunt [19] as being "an epistemology of engagement with the challenge of an unknowable emergent order"

Chiva et al. [30] presented innovation as introducing either new products, processes, markets, or organizational innovations. Organizational innovation involves incorporating new organizational methods, such as in implementing the TELDE model as the foundation of building CATS to drive organizational initiatives such as leadership development, new employee orientation, change initiatives, diversity training, organizational culture exercises, and new technology orientation, to only name a few. Today's new leadership is best identified as being capable of influencing systems [12]. This influence comes, in part, through leaders' managing the interactions between teams and agents as depicted in the CATS model. Leaders' focusing on these interactions result in building connections and connecting agents, providing a new direction for leaders in today's complexity: "What might get lost in leadership in the flow of practice is the basic connection (relationships) between the organizational agents" [4]. Utilizing and implementing CATS as standard practice to drive knowledge creation and innovation, and in making new connections within organizations, is one tool that is available for today's leaders to operate in today's

**100**

John R. Turner1 \*, Rose M. Baker1 and Kerry Romine2

1 University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States

2 University of North Texas Systems, Dallas, TX, United States

\*Address all correspondence to: John.Turner@unt.edu

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Ramos-Villagrasa PJ, Marques-Quinteiro P, Navarro J, Rico R. Teams as complex adaptive systems: Reviewing 17 years of research. Small Group Research. 2017;**49**:135-176. DOI: 10.1177/1046496417713849

[2] Holland JH. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus. 1992;**121**:17-30

[3] deMattos PC, Miller DM, Park EH. Decision making in trauma centers from the standpoint of complex adaptive systems. Management Decision. 2012;**50**:1549-1569. DOI: 10.1108/00251741211266688

[4] Sewchurran K, Zaina L, McDonogh J. Exploring within the 'black-box' of leadership to make sense of the perfomrnace dynamics of conversation. Leadership. DOI: 10.1177/1742715019858884

[5] Mathieu JE, Gallagher PT, Domingo MA, Klock EA. Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2019;**6**:17-46. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

[6] Turner JR, Baker R. Team emergence leadership development and evaluation: A theoretical model using complexity theory. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management. 2017;**16**:17. DOI: 10.1142/S0219649217500125

[7] Masa'deh R, Shannak R, Maqableh M, Tarhini A. The impact of knowledge management on job performance in higher education: The case of the University of Jordan. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2015;**30**:244-262. DOI: 10.1108/ JEIM-09-2015-0087

[8] Cornelissen J. Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review. 2017;**42**:1-9. DOI: 10.5465/ amr.2016.0196

[9] Delbridge R, Fiss PC. Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review. 2013;**38**:325-331. DOI: 10.5465/ amr.2013.0085

[10] Borzillo S, Kaminska-Labbe R. Unravelling the dynamics of knowledge creation in communities of practice though complexity theory lenses. Knowledge Management Research and Practice. 2011;**9**:353-366. DOI: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.13

[11] Boal KB, Schultz PL. Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007;**18**:411- 428. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.008

[12] Hunt JG, Osborn RN, Boal KB. The architecture of managerial leadership: Stimulation and channeling of organizational emergence. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009;**20**:503-516. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.010

[13] Ma AMJ, Osula B. The Tao of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Chinese Management Studies. 2011;**5**:94-110. DOI: 10.1108/17506141111118480

[14] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007;**18**:298-318. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

[15] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R. Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009;**20**:631-650. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007

**103**

jors.2011.97

DOI: 10.1002/smj.625

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

information infrastructures: The case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology. 2010;**25**:1-19.

[25] Bode C, Wagner SM. Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management. 2015;**36**:215-228. DOI:

DOI: 10.1057/jit.2009.19

10.1016/j.jom.2014.12.004

[26] Mowles C. Complex, but not quite complex enough: The turn to the complexity sciences in evaluation scholarship. Evaluation. 2014;**20**:160-175.

DOI: 10.1177/1356389014527885

Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive. 2004;**18**(1):47-57. DOI: 10.5465/ame.2004.12690298

[27] Pearce CL. The future of leadership:

[28] Richardson KA. Thinking About Complexity: Grasping the Continuum Through Criticism and Pluralism. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publishing; 2010. p. 116

[29] Beck TE, Plowman DA. Temporary,

Columbia space shuttle response effort.

[31] Aagaard P. The challenge of adaptive capability in public organizations: A case study of complexity in crime prevention. Public Management Review. 2012;**14**:731-746. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2011.642626

emergent interorganizational collaboration in unexpected circumstances: A study of the

Organization Science. 2014;**25**: 1234-1252. DOI: 10.1287/

[30] Chiva R, Ghauri P, Alegre J. Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex system model. British Journal of Management. 2014;**25**:687-705. DOI:

10.1111/1467-8551.12026

orsc.2013.0888

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

[16] Anderson AR, Dodd SD, Jack SL. Entrepreneurship as connecting: Some implications for theorising and practice. Management Decision. 2012;**50**:958-971. DOI: 10.1108/00251741211227708

[17] Antonacopoulou E, Chiva R. The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning. 2007;**38**:277-295. DOI: 10.1177/1350507607079029

[18] Gleick J. Chaos: The Making of a New Science. New York, NY: Viking

[19] Campbell-Hunt C. Complexity in practice. Human Relations. 2007;**60**:793- 823. DOI: 10.1177/0018726707079202

Combating infections at Maine Medical Center: Insights into complexityinformed leadership from positive deviance. Leadership. 2013;**9**:229-253. DOI: 10.1177/1742715012468784

[21] Crawford GC, Kreiser PM. Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science. Small Business Economics. 2015;**45**:403-423. DOI:

[22] Hammer RJ, Edwards JS, Tapinos E. Examining the strategy development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2012;**63**:909-919. DOI: 10.1057/

[23] Burgelman RA, Grove AS. Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos-repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal. 2007;**28**:965-979.

[24] Hanseth O, Lyytinen K. Design theory for dynamic complexity in

[20] Lindberg C, Schneider M.

10.1007/s11187-015-9637-1

Adult; 1987

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

[16] Anderson AR, Dodd SD, Jack SL. Entrepreneurship as connecting: Some implications for theorising and practice. Management Decision. 2012;**50**:958-971. DOI: 10.1108/00251741211227708

[17] Antonacopoulou E, Chiva R. The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning. 2007;**38**:277-295. DOI: 10.1177/1350507607079029

[18] Gleick J. Chaos: The Making of a New Science. New York, NY: Viking Adult; 1987

[19] Campbell-Hunt C. Complexity in practice. Human Relations. 2007;**60**:793- 823. DOI: 10.1177/0018726707079202

[20] Lindberg C, Schneider M. Combating infections at Maine Medical Center: Insights into complexityinformed leadership from positive deviance. Leadership. 2013;**9**:229-253. DOI: 10.1177/1742715012468784

[21] Crawford GC, Kreiser PM. Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending the integrative framework through the lens of complexity science. Small Business Economics. 2015;**45**:403-423. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-015-9637-1

[22] Hammer RJ, Edwards JS, Tapinos E. Examining the strategy development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2012;**63**:909-919. DOI: 10.1057/ jors.2011.97

[23] Burgelman RA, Grove AS. Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos-repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal. 2007;**28**:965-979. DOI: 10.1002/smj.625

[24] Hanseth O, Lyytinen K. Design theory for dynamic complexity in

information infrastructures: The case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology. 2010;**25**:1-19. DOI: 10.1057/jit.2009.19

[25] Bode C, Wagner SM. Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management. 2015;**36**:215-228. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2014.12.004

[26] Mowles C. Complex, but not quite complex enough: The turn to the complexity sciences in evaluation scholarship. Evaluation. 2014;**20**:160-175. DOI: 10.1177/1356389014527885

[27] Pearce CL. The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive. 2004;**18**(1):47-57. DOI: 10.5465/ame.2004.12690298

[28] Richardson KA. Thinking About Complexity: Grasping the Continuum Through Criticism and Pluralism. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publishing; 2010. p. 116

[29] Beck TE, Plowman DA. Temporary, emergent interorganizational collaboration in unexpected circumstances: A study of the Columbia space shuttle response effort. Organization Science. 2014;**25**: 1234-1252. DOI: 10.1287/ orsc.2013.0888

[30] Chiva R, Ghauri P, Alegre J. Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex system model. British Journal of Management. 2014;**25**:687-705. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12026

[31] Aagaard P. The challenge of adaptive capability in public organizations: A case study of complexity in crime prevention. Public Management Review. 2012;**14**:731-746. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2011.642626

**102**

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

or a typology? Addressing the

[9] Delbridge R, Fiss PC. Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review. 2013;**38**:325-331. DOI: 10.5465/

Labbe R. Unravelling the dynamics of knowledge creation in communities of practice though complexity theory lenses. Knowledge Management Research and Practice. 2011;**9**:353-366.

[11] Boal KB, Schultz PL. Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007;**18**:411- 428. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.008

[12] Hunt JG, Osborn RN, Boal KB. The architecture of managerial leadership:

Leadership Quarterly. 2009;**20**:503-516. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.010

[14] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007;**18**:298-318. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

[15] Uhl-Bien M, Marion R. Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009;**20**:631-650. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007

Stimulation and channeling of organizational emergence. The

[13] Ma AMJ, Osula B. The Tao of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Chinese Management Studies. 2011;**5**:94-110. DOI: 10.1108/17506141111118480

amr.2016.0196

amr.2013.0085

[10] Borzillo S, Kaminska-

DOI: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.13

challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review. 2017;**42**:1-9. DOI: 10.5465/

[1] Ramos-Villagrasa PJ, Marques-Quinteiro P, Navarro J, Rico R. Teams as complex adaptive systems: Reviewing 17 years of research. Small Group Research. 2017;**49**:135-176. DOI: 10.1177/1046496417713849

**References**

[2] Holland JH. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus. 1992;**121**:17-30

[4] Sewchurran K, Zaina L,

10.1177/1742715019858884

[5] Mathieu JE, Gallagher PT,

[7] Masa'deh R, Shannak R,

Maqableh M, Tarhini A. The impact of knowledge management on job performance in higher education: The case of the University of Jordan. Journal of Enterprise Information Management.

2015;**30**:244-262. DOI: 10.1108/

[8] Cornelissen J. Developing propositions, a process model,

JEIM-09-2015-0087

Domingo MA, Klock EA. Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2019;**6**:17-46. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

[6] Turner JR, Baker R. Team emergence leadership development and evaluation: A theoretical model using complexity theory. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management. 2017;**16**:17. DOI: 10.1142/S0219649217500125

McDonogh J. Exploring within the 'black-box' of leadership to make sense of the perfomrnace dynamics of conversation. Leadership. DOI:

[3] deMattos PC, Miller DM, Park EH. Decision making in trauma centers from the standpoint of complex adaptive systems. Management Decision. 2012;**50**:1549-1569. DOI: 10.1108/00251741211266688

[32] Waddock S, Meszoely GM, Waddell S, Dentoni D. The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2015;**28**:993-1012. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-08-2014-0146

[33] Bovaird T. Emergent strategic management and planning mechanisms in complex adaptive systems—The case of the UK best value initiative. Public Management Review. 2008;**10**:319-340. DOI: 10.1080/14719030802002741

[34] Turner JR, Baker R. Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the social sciences. System. 2019;**7**(4):23. DOI: 10.3390/ systems7010004

[35] Aritua B, Smith NJ, Bower D. Construction client multi-projects—A complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Project Management. 2009;**27**:72-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.005

[36] Albert D, Kreutzer M, Lechner C. Resolving the paradox of interdependency and strategic renewal in activity systems. Academy of Management Review. 2015;**40**:210-234. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2012.0177

[37] Floyd SW, Lane PJ. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review. 2000;**25**:154-177. DOI: 10.5465/ AMR.2000.2791608

[38] Gregory AJ, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M. A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process. European Journal of Operational Research. 2013;**227**:558-569. DOI: 10.1016/ ejor.2012.11.020

[39] van Laere J. Wandering through crisis and everyday organizing: Revealing the subjective nature of interpretive, temporal and

organizational boundaries. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management. 2013;**21**:17-25. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5973.12012

[40] Martin JA, Eisenhardt KM. Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaboration in multibusiness organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 2010;**53**:265-301. DOI: 10.5465/ AMJ.2010.49388795

[41] Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, editors. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000. pp. 3-90

[42] He Z, Rayman-Bacchus L, Wu YM. Self-organization of industrial clustering in a transition economy: A proposed framework and case study evidence from China. Research Policy. 2011;**40**:1280-1294. DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2011.07.008

[43] Luoma M. A play of four arenas - How complexity can serve management development. Management Learning. 2006;**37**:101-123. DOI: 10.1177/1350507606058136

[44] Tong YK, Arvey RD. Managing complexity via the competing values framework. Journal of Management Development. 2015;**34**:653-673. DOI: 10.1108/jmd-04-2014-0029

[45] Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1995

[46] Turner JR, Petrunin KF, Allen J. Developing multilevel models for research. In: Wang V, editor. Handbook of Research on Scholarly

**105**

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model*

of shared cognitive constructs on team performance. Performance

DOI: 10.1002/piq.21163

s11251-010-9128-3

job.86

Improvement Quarterly. 2014;**27**:83-117.

[55] Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W, Segers M, Woltjer G, Kirschner P. Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science. 2011;**39**:283-301. DOI: 10.1107/

[56] Mohammed S, Dumville BC. Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expaning theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2001;**22**:89-106. DOI: 10.1002/

[57] Burtscher MJ, Kolbe M, Wacker J, Manser T. Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2011;**17**:257-269. DOI: 10.1037/a0025148

[58] Bontis N, Richards D, Serenko A.

Investigating the role of information sharing, job characteristics, and employee satisfaction. The Learning Organization. 2011;**18**:239-250. DOI:

[59] Wegner DM. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen G, Goethals G, editors. Theories of Group Behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1987. pp. 185-208

[60] Kirkman BL, Tesluk PE, Rosen B. mAssessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology. 2001;**54**:645-667. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00226.x

[61] Pazos P, Micari M, Light G. Developing an instrument to characterise peer-led groups in

Improving service delivery:

10.1108/096964711111123289

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

[47] Yoon SW, Song JH, Lim DH. Beyond

Publishing and Research Methods: IGI Global. 2015. pp. 463-489. DOI: 10.10.4018/978-1-4666-7409-7.ch023

the learning process and toward the knowledge creation process: Linking learning and knowledge in the supportive learning culture. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2009;**22**:49-69. DOI: 10.1002/piq.20060

[48] Keene A. Complexity theory: The changing role of leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2000;**32**:15-18.

[49] Manuj I, Sahin F. A model of supply chain and supply chain decision-making complexity. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. 2011;**41**:511-549. DOI:

DOI: 10.1108/00197850010311121

10.1108/09600031111138844

on Strategy Processes. France:

Fontainebleau; 2003

orsc.1060.0209

[50] McKelvey B, Boisot MH, editors. Transcendental organizaitonal foresight in nonlinear contexts. In: INSEAD Conference on Expanding Perspectives

[51] Hannan MT, Polos L, Carroll GR. Cascading organizational change. Organization Science. 2003;**14**:463-482.

[52] Dobrev SD, O'zdemir SZ, Teo AC. The ecological interdependence of emergent and established organizational populations: Legitimacy transfer, violation by comparison, and unstable identities. Organization Science. 2006;**17**:577-597. DOI: 10.1287/

DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.5.463.16763

[53] Honebein PC. Transmergent learning and the creation of

shared cognitive constructs: A meta-analysis exploring the effects

extraordinary educational experiences. Educational Technology. 2009;**49**:27-34

[54] Turner JR, Chen Q, Danks S. Team

*Complex Adaptive Team Systems (CATS): Scaling of a Team Leadership Development Model DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88743*

Publishing and Research Methods: IGI Global. 2015. pp. 463-489. DOI: 10.10.4018/978-1-4666-7409-7.ch023

*Digital Leadership - A New Leadership Style for the 21st Century*

organizational boundaries. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management. 2013;**21**:17-25. DOI:

10.1111/1468-5973.12012

AMJ.2010.49388795

pp. 3-90

[40] Martin JA, Eisenhardt KM. Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaboration in multibusiness

[41] Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, editors. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000.

[42] He Z, Rayman-Bacchus L,

respol.2011.07.008

Wu YM. Self-organization of industrial clustering in a transition economy: A proposed framework and case study evidence from China. Research Policy. 2011;**40**:1280-1294. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[43] Luoma M. A play of four arenas - How complexity can serve management

[44] Tong YK, Arvey RD. Managing complexity via the competing values framework. Journal of Management Development. 2015;**34**:653-673. DOI:

development. Management Learning. 2006;**37**:101-123. DOI: 10.1177/1350507606058136

10.1108/jmd-04-2014-0029

[45] Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press; 1995

[46] Turner JR, Petrunin KF,

Allen J. Developing multilevel models for research. In: Wang V, editor. Handbook of Research on Scholarly

organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 2010;**53**:265-301. DOI: 10.5465/

[32] Waddock S, Meszoely GM,

[33] Bovaird T. Emergent strategic management and planning mechanisms in complex adaptive systems—The case of the UK best value initiative. Public Management Review. 2008;**10**:319-340. DOI: 10.1080/14719030802002741

[34] Turner JR, Baker R. Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the social sciences. System. 2019;**7**(4):23. DOI: 10.3390/

[35] Aritua B, Smith NJ, Bower D. Construction client multi-projects—A complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Project Management. 2009;**27**:72-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.005

[36] Albert D, Kreutzer M, Lechner C.

interdependency and strategic renewal in activity systems. Academy of

Management Review. 2015;**40**:210-234.

[37] Floyd SW, Lane PJ. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review. 2000;**25**:154-177. DOI: 10.5465/

[38] Gregory AJ, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M. A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process. European Journal of Operational Research. 2013;**227**:558-569. DOI: 10.1016/

[39] van Laere J. Wandering through crisis and everyday organizing: Revealing the subjective nature of interpretive, temporal and

Resolving the paradox of

DOI: 10.5465/amr.2012.0177

AMR.2000.2791608

ejor.2012.11.020

systems7010004

Waddell S, Dentoni D. The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2015;**28**:993-1012. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-08-2014-0146

**104**

[47] Yoon SW, Song JH, Lim DH. Beyond the learning process and toward the knowledge creation process: Linking learning and knowledge in the supportive learning culture. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2009;**22**:49-69. DOI: 10.1002/piq.20060

[48] Keene A. Complexity theory: The changing role of leadership. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2000;**32**:15-18. DOI: 10.1108/00197850010311121

[49] Manuj I, Sahin F. A model of supply chain and supply chain decision-making complexity. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. 2011;**41**:511-549. DOI: 10.1108/09600031111138844

[50] McKelvey B, Boisot MH, editors. Transcendental organizaitonal foresight in nonlinear contexts. In: INSEAD Conference on Expanding Perspectives on Strategy Processes. France: Fontainebleau; 2003

[51] Hannan MT, Polos L, Carroll GR. Cascading organizational change. Organization Science. 2003;**14**:463-482. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.5.463.16763

[52] Dobrev SD, O'zdemir SZ, Teo AC. The ecological interdependence of emergent and established organizational populations: Legitimacy transfer, violation by comparison, and unstable identities. Organization Science. 2006;**17**:577-597. DOI: 10.1287/ orsc.1060.0209

[53] Honebein PC. Transmergent learning and the creation of extraordinary educational experiences. Educational Technology. 2009;**49**:27-34

[54] Turner JR, Chen Q, Danks S. Team shared cognitive constructs: A meta-analysis exploring the effects

of shared cognitive constructs on team performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2014;**27**:83-117. DOI: 10.1002/piq.21163

[55] Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W, Segers M, Woltjer G, Kirschner P. Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science. 2011;**39**:283-301. DOI: 10.1107/ s11251-010-9128-3

[56] Mohammed S, Dumville BC. Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expaning theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2001;**22**:89-106. DOI: 10.1002/ job.86

[57] Burtscher MJ, Kolbe M, Wacker J, Manser T. Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2011;**17**:257-269. DOI: 10.1037/a0025148

[58] Bontis N, Richards D, Serenko A. Improving service delivery: Investigating the role of information sharing, job characteristics, and employee satisfaction. The Learning Organization. 2011;**18**:239-250. DOI: 10.1108/096964711111123289

[59] Wegner DM. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen G, Goethals G, editors. Theories of Group Behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1987. pp. 185-208

[60] Kirkman BL, Tesluk PE, Rosen B. mAssessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology. 2001;**54**:645-667. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00226.x

[61] Pazos P, Micari M, Light G. Developing an instrument to characterise peer-led groups in

collaborative learning environments: Assessing problem-solving approach and group interaction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2010;**35**:191-208. DOI: 10.1080/02602930802691572

[62] Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT, Jiao QG. Performance of cooperative learning groups in a postgraduate education research methodology course: The role of social interdependence. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2009;**10**:265-277. DOI: 10.1177/1469787409343190

[63] Turner JR, Baker R. Team emergence leadership development and evaluation: A theoretical model using complexity theory. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management. 2017;**16**(2):1750012

**107**

Section 3

Digital Leadership in

Different Countries

## Section 3
