Pandeemiapiirangud paiskasid paljud organisatsioonid ja juhid justkui kuristikku. Uues olukorras ei olnud asjakohaseid tööriistu ning püüti kasutada vanu, mille mõjukus oli kõigile osalistele kaheldav. Sestap võis taimse järjekindlusega kohata naiivsevõitu ja ideedepuuduses kannatavaid õhkamisi, et peagi saame pöörduda “normaalse” olukorra juurde. Võib olla see kunagi juhtub, kuigi on väga kaheldav. Küll aga ei ole suurt kahtlust selles, et olemasolev organisatsioonide füüsilise ruumi asendumine-teisenemine virtuaalse ruumiga on fakt. Kui suures ulatuses teisenemine toimub, seda ei ole võimalik arvata ja sel ei olegi siinviidatud teksti mõttes suurt tähtsust. Aga lugemishuvi võiks eeldada kõigilt, kel organisatsioonide ja juhtimisega võib mingit pistmist olla.
Leadership from a place or space perspective helps to illuminate the powerful impact of physical locations and socially constructed spaces on the nature and process of leadership (Collinge et al., 2010; Massey, 2005; Ropo and Salovaara, 2019). Where leadership takes place often signiﬁcantly shapes how leadership happens over time. […] People increasingly interact with leaders virtually whether it is their supervisor, their political leaders, or people who inﬂuence their leisure time behaviors, such as social media inﬂuencers. […] Workers are increasingly asked to engage in aspects of their work in a virtual environment. Almost all workers and leaders engage in the workplace in part through technology elements like email and work applications like Zoom, Google Docs, Dropbox, and Slack (Schmidt, 2019).
This article will consider conceptually the impact of virtual places on the processes of leadership, as virtual leadership is prevalent but in need of greater examination of how it is impacted by virtual places (Massey, 2005; Wilhoit Larson, 2020). We will examine virtual leadership and space conceptually, as socially constructed places, arising from online interactions between people.
Sociomateriality is closely related to the idea of socio-technical systems, where technology and the dynamic social context of an organization it exists in are strongly entwined with each other and need to be studied together to truly be understood (Orlikowski, 2007). This dynamic relationship means as well that technology and its features do not remain static for long, as both change based on use and goals (Landers and Marin, 2021).
Koht ja ruum juhtimises.
Space and place, thus, is not just physical environments. Place can be physical but is focused more on the sense of place and meaning of it coming from the underlying social processes and power relations (Collinge and Gibney, 2010; Cresswell, 2004). Organizations may inhabit very similar physical spaces while having employees with very different feelings of place. […] Ropo and Salovaara (2019) argue that the leadership environment is constantly being created and modiﬁed by those within it.
For the pastor it was being asked to help with household chores since he was “home.” This organizational space was inherently crossed with family and home spaces. Virtual environments can have that same sense of being a cross space, as something like a virtual meeting is in the work space but also is part of another space, like the home or a coffee shop. So the already existing distractions of the virtual space (such as app notiﬁcations) are added to by the distractions of the cross-spaced.
Vihje kokkuvõttest lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:
Virtual spaces and related tools help to ﬁll leadership needs, both for leaders to use and for computer applications, such as algorithms, to act as leader substitutes. We highlighted four areas of affordances virtual environments provide: sensemaking, space framing, algorithms performing leadership functions, and tools for shared leadership among workers.
Schmidt, G. B., & Van Dellen, S. A. (2021). Leadership of place in virtual environments. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211045153