Ei ole kahtlust, et pandeemiaga kaasnenud piirangute ja töökeskkonna muutumine on midagi püsivamat, kui lihtsalt ühe Zoominõupidamise korraldamine. Siinviidatu leidis oma koha peamiselt põhjusel, et minuni jõudvad juhtimispraktikad teisenenud ruumis jätavad mulje romantilisest ootusest “endiste” aegade järgi. Nüüdseks on see ootus kestnud kaks aastat. Erialakirjanduses on lisaks paarikümneaastasele kaugtöö-problemaatikaga tegelevatele lisandunud värskeid teoreetilisi ja empiirilisi uuringuid, kuid organisatsioonide praktikaid jälgides jääb mulje, et neid uuringuid ja seda teadmust siiski ei ole olemas. Need tähelepanekud ei ole arvustav kriitika, vaid tõdemus. Eksin? Võimalik. Aga kus või milles?

Kontekstist:

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.

Koha teisenemine ja jagatud juhtimine:

Many gig workers have been found to create their own communities of fellow workers, working together in ways that can be seen as shared leadership. Shared leadership occurs when there is mutual influence, collective responsibility, and decision making between leaders and followers (Day et al., 2004; Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014; Pearce and Conger, 2003).

Autorite ambitsioon:

We will examine virtual leadership and space conceptually, as socially constructed places, arising from online interactions between people.

“Tehnoloogia” areng:

Kings and leaders have communicated with followers physically distant through messengers and representatives. Various technologies have been used to help bridge such distances. For one example, the telegraph was used extensively in the American Civil War, with generals sending messages to particular units in the field directing action or giving information (Coe, 1993). For another, NASA Control communicated significantly with astronauts during flights, including dealing with the significant space craft issues found for Apollo 13 (Kirkman and Stoverink, 2021).

Töökohast:

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. The real “place” that people feel is the network of social relations and interactions (Massey, 2005).

Relatsiooniline suhe:

Ropo and Salovaara (2019) argue that the leadership environment is constantly being created and modified by those within it.

Töökoht on kodus koha sisse võtnud:

As seen in Wilhoit Larson (2020), a person’s home office may be an organizational workspace, yet it is still a space that is part of a personal home.

Tehnoloogia kasutamise positiivne näide (negatiivsed on samuti tekstis saadaval):

One significant example is the use of social media, specifically Facebook Live, by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in response to COVD-19 (Wilson, 2020). Facebook Live offered her an affordance for communicating sensemaking information in a way that felt more personal and interactive than traditional methods like press conferences and press releases.

Algoritmid (aga kes neid kirjutab?):

To some degree, algorithmic leadership has an inherent assumption that no human manager or human leadership is needed by these gig workers due to the app taking on a leadership role and its related functions.

Schmidt, G. B., & Van Dellen, S. A. (2022). Leadership of place in virtual environments. Leadership, 18(1), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211045153