This case study examines the issue of virtual leadership in a dot-com organization that produced online courses for medical professionals. Five "virtual executives," including the chief executive officer, led the organization from out-of-state offices away from Zi-Learn’s main offices. In addition, three in-house executives worked at the organization alongside most other employees. Employees were dissatisfied with and insulted by the relational distance between themselves and the virtual executives. Such relational distance violated employees’ expectations for knowing and being known by their leaders. They complained that the virtual leaders should have been present at the company’s main office more often but were verbally aggressive with the leaders when they occasionally visited the organization. As a result, employees expressed uncertainty about whom the company’s leaders actually were and showed no obligation to support their stated goals. In turn, the virtual leaders expressed little interest in spending time with employees.

This case study illustrates the complexities of the executive-employee relationship within an organization that relies increasingly on "virtual" leaders.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)—an individual who typically holds the highest leadership position in a corporate organization.

Dot-com—an organization that uses Internet technology to provide its services, offer its products, or represent itself to consumers.

E-learning—distance-education services offered through the Internet or another communication technology.

Executive—an individual who typically holds a high-level management position.

Leader—an individual who accepts responsibility for establishing direction and positive influence for an organization.

Sense making—the social interpretation of the meaning of events, decisions, behaviors, and actions.

Social capital—the network of relationships that allows an individual or group access to otherresources, such as the money, effort, cooperation, or knowledge of others.

Virtual work—work done offsite or away from an organization’s main place of business, often assisted by the use of communication technology.

Virtual ties are challenging our traditional expectations about workplace relationships raise many questions. To what degree are these relationships "real"? How can we trust and depend upon somebody whom we don’t "know" in the normal sense? To what degree do feelings of mutual obligation develop when people rarely work face to face? How can we develop shared expectations and interpretations about work with people with whom we seldom interact? Answers to these questions increase in complexity when considering leader-follower relational dynamics. The concept of social capital is helpful in this regard. According to Pierre Bourdieu (1986), social capital represents the resources linked to an individual’s or group’s network of relationships. As a form of "capital," our relationships can be useful to us, because they provide us access to the resources of others. These resources might include others’ effort, time, knowledge, or even money. In organizations, leaders may use their social capital with employees to mobilize their efforts to pursue a particular goal. If a leader or group representative possesses sufficient social capital, he or she may be positioned to commit the entire resources of the group to a particular purpose.

Social capital, however, is not given naturally—even to leaders—and requires effort to accumulate. According to Bourdieu (1986), "The reproduction of social capital presupposes an unceasing effort of sociability ... [that] implies the expenditure of time and energy" (p. 250). This continual "effort of sociability" may include such things as pleasant greetings, informal conversations, the writing of personal notes, and invitations to gatherings, among other social activities. In short, relationships require maintenance. Without the investment of time and energy, social capital afforded by such relationships will deplete. When done successfully, an individual’s social capital in a group or organization will entitle him or her to a sense of mutual obligation to and from other members and their resources.

Further, because of their value, it is no surprise that people are protective of their relationships. For example, the potential membership of newcomers is restricted by the existing members because of the benefits of belonging to a group or organization. As Bourdieu (1986) puts it, "Each member of the group is thus instituted as a custodian of the limits of the group: because the definition of the criteria of entry is at stake in each new entry, he can modify the group by modifying the limits of legitimate [social, cultural, or economic] exchange through some form of misalliance" (p. 250). Thus, newcomers to groups and organizations may find it difficult at first to socialize informally with more established members even after officially joining an organization. Such acceptance will require both time and energy for them to socialize in culturally appropriate ways.

The use of social capital for understanding the complexities of virtual work relationships is helpful in three ways. First, the virtual nature of some work makes it difficult to socialize in ways to which most of us are accustomed. Without regular face-to-face interactions, there may be fewer opportunities to invest in relationships and increase social capital. Second, the social capital of the leaders of an organization is particularly important, if such leaders hope to mobilize effectively the collective efforts of their employees. Although they may appeal to their organizational authority to motivate employees to action, the enforcement of such demands may be detrimental to the organization’s overall, long-term health. Third, new virtual members may have particularly difficulty soliciting the cooperation of other members. The nature of virtual relationships and the weak sense of mutual obligation that accompanies them are marked by a qualitative difference from traditional relationships at work.

1. According to the case study, what is a "virtual" executive?

2. What was the communication problem between the virtual executives and the rest of the organization?

3. What were the employees’ main complaints about the virtual executives?

4. Whether they intended it or not, why do you think the virtual executives did not meet the employees’ expectations?

5. What attempts did Sarah, the in-house executive, make to encourage more regular communication between the virtual executives and the in-house members?

6. How did the employees respond to virtual executive Greg’s presentation about the new company "tagline"?

7. What are some characteristics of effective leadership?

8. What are leaders’ responsibilities to their employees?

9. How did the virtual nature of Zi-Learn’s executives collide with more traditional expectations about leaders?

10. How can communication technology allow us to both (a) be more connected to each other and (b) contribute to a sense of disconnectedness?

11. What are some characteristics of effective employees?

12. What are employees’ responsibilities to their leaders?

13. How would you evaluate the appropriateness of employees’ reactions to the distance they felt with virtual executives?

14. How might the relational distance between virtual executives and employees have contributed to negative interpretations of each other’s actions?

15. How would you evaluate in-house executive Sarah’s early attempts to encourage the virtual executives to communicate more regularly with the rest of the organization?

———. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. (1998). Practical Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Broadfoot, K. J. (2001). When the cat’s away, do the mice play?: Control/autonomy in the virtual workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 110–114.

Fischer, H. M. (2004). Effects of social capital and power on surviving transformational change:

The case of initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 463–481.

Lesser, E. L. (2000). Knowledge and social capital: Foundations and applications. Boston: Butterworth & Heinemann.

Lyon, A. (2004). Participants’ use of cultural knowledge as cultural capital in a dot-com start-up organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 1–29

———. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. (1998). Practical Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Broadfoot, K. J. (2001). When the cat’s away, do the mice play? Control/autonomy in the virtual workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 110–114.

Fischer, H. M. (2004). Effects of social capital and power on surviving transformational change: The case of initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 463–481.

Lesser, E. L. (2000). Knowledge and social capital: Foundations and applications. Boston: Butterworth & Heinemann.

Lyon, A. (2004). Participants’ use of cultural knowledge as cultural capital in a dot-com start-up organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 1–29.