Dual edge: exploring technological affordances and constraints of video technology in e-leadership
Jonna Koponen et al.
Abstract
Purpose Effective leadership in digitalized contexts requires managers to increasingly rely on digital communication tools, such as video technology, in leading remote workers. However, existing research provides a limited understanding of the complex relationship between leaders and video technology. To address this gap, this study aims to explore how top managers lead remote work through the lens of technological affordances. Design/methodology/approach Constructivist grounded theory is applied to understand how top managers use video technology in e-leadership from an affordance perspective. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 33 top managers from the information technology sector and analyzed using initial, focused and theoretical coding. Findings Top managers use video technology as both an informative and interactive tool. As an informative tool, it provides affordances. When top managers apply video technology as an interactive tool, they perceive both its affordances and constraints, relating to five tensions: flexibility–inflexibility, social connectedness–social disconnectedness, engagement–disengagement, sharing formal information–concealing informal information and equality–inequality. Originality/value This study contributes to research on e-leadership by offering a perspective through the lens of affordances. Additionally, it advances the research on technology affordances by identifying the unique affordances and constraints of video technology. Based on these affordances, constraints, and tensions between them, a theoretical framework of video technology as an informative or an interactive tool in e-leadership is presented.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.