(NCU) Create a Research Plan

Create a Research Plan 
BTM 8108, Assignment 8 
DuBose, Justin Z. 
Dr. Craig Martin 
9 September 2018 

​Abstract 
This paper details a qualitative case study designed to research the impact of e-leadership on virtual team leaders.  This case study examines a Christian denomination in the midwestern United States of America and the perceived impact of e-leadership of the District Superintendent on five virtual team leaders.  These virtual teams are dispersed over a 400,000 mile geographic area and have limited interaction with the e-leader.  Three types of interactions are observed and then thirty-nine virtual team members, and their five virtual team leaders, are interviewed to determine the impact these meetings have on team member perception of professional competence, solidarity with the e-leader, and uniformity with the denomination.  This study was conducted over a three-month period with the goal of better understanding the perceived impact of various types of interactions between e-leader and virtual team members to increase e-leader effectiveness. 
Introduction 
E-leadership is a growing academic field which receives increasing amount of scholarly attention and continues to grow (Savolainen, 2014).  While there are many aspects and dimensions within the field of e-leadership, one specific area involves e-leadership of virtual teams (Lilian, 2014).  This qualitative study researches thirty-nine pastors broken into five virtual teams.  These teams are geographically distributed over a 400,000 square mile area in the midwestern United States and overseen by a District Superintendent.  Due to the geographic constraints present, the District Superintendent utilizes technology to communicate and lead, thus serving as an e-leader (Avolio, 2014).  This study examines three types of personal and virtual interactions between e-leader and virtual team leaders and members to determine their perceived effectiveness by team leaders and members on team cohesion and confidence.  This was accomplished through a series of interviews over a three-month period of observation and data collection. 
Literature Review 
E-leadership is an academic field of study that has emerged since the turn of the millennium (Savolainen, 2014) which involves organizational leadership of highly technological structures stretched over different cultures and geographic regions (Avolio, 2014).  These widely dispersed organizational structures led to the advent and implementation of virtual teams (Lilian, 2014).  With this growing organizational structure of dispersed virtual team members comes new, unique, and difficult leadership challenges which are addressed by the e-leader (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2016). 
Liao (2017) defined virtual teams as “a collection of individuals who work on tasks that share varying degrees of interdependence and mutual accountability to accomplish a common goal.”  While virtual teams are dynamic and take many forms, research has highlighted several commons factors which impact how these teams should be led.  For example, Cheshin et al. (2013) found that most teams are partially, rather than exclusively, virtual.  In studying the nature of dispersion amongst virtual teams, Krumm et al. (2013) identified cultural dispersion as the most common dimension of virtual teams.  The organizational e-leader, then, is likely to lead a culturally diverse, partially virtual team. 
In their study of virtual teams, Gilson et al. (2015) identified leadership as one of the most pressing themes in research on virtual teams and considered e-leadership of virtual teams an opportunity for future research.  Hill & Bartol (2016) found that effective e-leadership of virtual teams empowers team members by providing collaboration between e-leader and team member as well as collaboration between fellow team members.  Hill & Bartol (2016) also found that virtual collaboration contributes to team performance, and that team performance is also enhanced when e-leaders interact with individual team members.  Writing about collaboration between e-leader and virtual team members, Liao (2017) notes that current literature does not address the process by which the e-leader interacts with individual virtual team members in a way that builds and maintains relationships. 
Problem Statement 
The research problem addressed in this research study is: given the cultural (Krumm et al., 2013) and geographic (Avolio, 2014) dispersion of virtual teams and the accompanying technological and organizational leadership challenges (Lilian, 2014), what are the effects of periodic personal interaction by the e-leader with individual virtual team members on individual and team perception of cohesion and confidence?  This problem examines three types of personal interaction between e-leader and virtual team members – face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions – and their perceived impact on team cohesion and confidence.  This study builds upon and develops current literature, specifically Hill & Bartol (2016) and their conclusion that team performance is enhanced further when e-leaders interact with individual team members.  This study also addresses gaps in the existing literature regarding leadership of virtual teams (Gilson et al., 2015) and how e-leaders can positively develop and maintain relationship with individual virtual team members (Liao, 2017). 
Purpose Statement 
The purpose of this study is to examine three types of e-leader/individual virtual team member interaction and their perceived effect on virtual team cohesion and confidence.  By studying the interactions of face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions between the e-leader and individual virtual team members, this study will provide e-leaders with research to positively improve their sense of virtual team confidence and cohesion between leader and member as well as amongst team members. 
Research Questions 
To adequately address the research problem and fulfill the research purpose, the following research questions are posed and answered throughout this study: 
1.  What is the perceived impact of face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members?  Do these meetings instill confidence in the individual virtual team leader in conducting their own team member interactions?   
2. How do individual virtual team leaders internalize the effects of professional development sessions between e-leader and individual virtual team members?  How do these meetings impact virtual team leader perception of team cohesion? 
3.  In what ways do individual coaching sessions between e-leader and individual team members cause team members to feel more valued as a team member? 
Expected Conclusions 
In formulating expected conclusions for these research questions, existing literature provided some clues as to what this study may conclude.  Hill & Bartol (2016) concluded that team performance is enhanced further when e-leaders interact with individual team members and empower them to grow and succeed.  Liao (2017) likewise concluded that e-leadership is complex and requires additional effort from leaders to achieve results from team members. Based on those conclusions and results, the research hypotheses are as follows: 
H1: Firstly, research is expected to conclude that each of these three efforts by the e-leader (face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions) will positively contribute to a sense and perception of team cohesion and confidence.   
H2: Secondly, research is expected to conclude that both individual coaching sessions and professional development will yield greater results in team cohesion and confidence than face-to-face meetings.  This hypothesis is based in part on the work of Hoch & Kozlowski (2016) who concluded that direct relationships between leader and team member positively contribute to team cohesion and performance.   
H3: Thirdly, research is expected to conclude that these direct interactions, which have a specific goal of empowering team members with coaching and professional development from the e-leader, will demonstrate the greatest perception of team member value and confidence than the more ambiguous agenda of face-to-face meetings. 
Research Method 
Participants in this experimental study are Christian pastors of an evangelical denomination within a geographic district of the United States of America.  The population sample for this study are thirty-nine members of a regionally distributed virtual team working under one District Superintendent.  For the purposes of this study, this District Superintendent will be identified and referred to as the e-leader.  These virtual team members are dispersed over a four-state area in the midwestern United States and their regular interaction includes a weekly video-conference virtual meeting and a monthly physical meeting with the e-leader.  The weekly virtual meetings last approximately two hours and the monthly physical meetings last two business days.  The purpose of these meetings is to provide guidance from the e-leader and build team cohesion and confidence.  Prior to this research study, there were no regular individual interactions between e-leader and individual virtual team members.  The only individual interactions that occurred resulted from either disciplinary action needing to be taken or merit-based awards being received, or work anniversaries being celebrated by team members.  The introduction of a new variable of individual meetings between e-leader and team members into routine denominational life will provide the basis for this experimental case study on the qualitative impact of e-leadership. 
Research Design 
This study separated team members into five groups based upon geographic location with each team having members distributed over a large geographical area and being composed of eight team members.  These groups were labeled accordingly with corresponding roman numerals of I, II, III, IV, and V.  During the three-month period of this study, the e-leader met bi-weekly with members of each group for face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions.  The District Superintendent employed an administrative assistant to serve as the liaison between the e-leader and individual virtual team members to arrange which type of interaction they preferred.  These interactions were labeled accordingly as f (face-to-face), d (professional development), and c (coaching).  The researcher conducted a series of interviews to record the type and frequency of individual interaction between the e-leader and individual team members of each of the five virtual teams.  These individual interactions between e-leader and individual team members continued for the duration of the three-month study. 
Justification of Research Methodology & Design 
  Mertens (2015) noted that qualitative research utilizes the researcher as the primary means of data collection, whereas quantitative methodology utilizes other means (survey, interview, questionnaire) for data collection.  In this qualitative study, the researcher will observe virtual interactions between the e-leader and virtual team leaders under his supervision and serve as the primary means of data collection.  This qualitative study is an examination of e-leader/individual virtual team leader interaction and the perceived effect on virtual team cohesion, individual team member sense of value, and virtual team leader confidence.  Throughout this study, the researcher will observe virtual interactions between the e-leader and virtual team leaders under his supervision.  These virtual meetings consist of regularly scheduled video conferences between e-leader and virtual team leaders.  Observations will be made by the researcher during virtual meetings between the e-leader and virtual team leaders.  Furthermore, individual face-to-face interviews will be established between the researcher and virtual team leaders as a follow-up to these meetings.  These meetings will be digitally recorded with audio-visual equipment and accompanied by copious written notes and observations on the part of the researcher.  This is all accomplished in an effort to understand the perceived impact of virtual meetings between the e-leader and virtual team leaders.  By studying these virtual professional development and coaching sessions between the e-leader and individual virtual team leaders, this study will provide e-leaders with research to positively improve their e-leader/individual virtual team leader interaction and the perceived effect on virtual team cohesion, individual team member sense of value, and virtual team leader confidence.  The end result is an increase in the effectiveness of the District Superintendent in his organizational role as the e-leader of these virtual teams. 
Data Collection & Analysis 
Data collection for this study was accomplished through interviews with individual team members and individual virtual team leaders.  This method of data collection by conducting interviews is the most common data collection methodology employed in current literature on e-leadership (Cheong, 2016) ; (Chua, 2017) ; (Kiesenbauer, 2015) ; (Sarros, 2014) ; (Savolainen, 2014).  The interviews for this study take the longitudinal approach which will tracks responses of virtual team members over a three-month period (Mertens, 2015).  The initial interviews were conducted at the outset of the study with two subsequent interviews being conducted once per month for a total of three interviews during a three-month period.   
Each interview consisted of ten questions, and respondents answered the same questions for each of the three questionnaires they complete.  Each interview begins by asking the respondent to identify which virtual team they are on, either I, II, III, IV, or V.  They were then asked to specify the type of individual interaction between team member and e-leader (f, d, or c) and the frequency with which they met.  Team members then responded to closed questions on a 1-10 scale (with 10 the highest possible number and 1 being the lowest possible number) regarding their sense of confidence and value as team members in various categories (perception of professional effectiveness, sense of solidarity with the e-leader, and sense of uniformity with the denomination) and open-ended questions regarding their own perception of how individual interaction with the e-leader impacted those various categories.  Did those individual interactions instill confidence?  In what ways were those interactions helpful?  Name one specific interaction that took place during or after those interactions which benefitted you as a member of this team.  Which type of interaction was the most helpful.  Why?  Both the closed and open-ended questions in this section of the interview are designed to measure individual interactions between e-leader and team members and their impact on team cohesion and confidence. 
A subsequent set of questions was then asked to team members regarding team member interactions following the same format.  In this section, team members responded to closed questions regarding interaction and cohesion with other team members (number of daily interactions, length of interaction, virtual or personal interaction) and open-ended questions regarding their own perception of how individual interaction with the e-leader impacted cohesion and team interaction.  Did your individual interactions with the e-leader help resolve team member conflict?  In what ways were those interactions helpful?  Name one specific interaction that took place during or after those interactions which positively contributed to team cohesion.  Which type of interaction was the most helpful.  Why? 
At the end of the three-month period when all interviews were completed by the researcher, data was collected from the three interviews for synthesis and analysis by the researcher.  Three charts, one for each interview, were constructed.  Data was inserted onto the x-axis of each chart by virtual team (I, II, III, IV, or V) and onto the y-axis by type of individual interaction (f, d, or c).  Data received from the administrative assistant regarding the frequency and type of individual interaction by team members was then inserted into the table for analysis.  At this point, our tables are constructed as laid out below, with numbers of virtual team members on each team being aligned with the type of interaction.  Each table represents a one-month period of time based on data reported by the respondents to each of the three questionnaires.   
Interview 1 
I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 

F 
3 
5 
2 
4 
4 

D 
2 
4 
1 
3 
4 

C 
4 
4 
2 
3 
1 
 
Interview 2 
I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 

F 
4 
2 
1 
3 
3 

D 
2 
4 
4 
5 
2 

C 
3 
4 
4 
2 
3 
 
Interview 3 
I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 

F 
2 
3 
1 
4 
2 

D 
5 
3 
1 
4 
3 

C 
4 
4 
4 
1 
3 
 
Once this step is complete, an additional step of analysis was to construct a second and third table with data from the closed and open-ended questions from the interviews regarding both team cohesion as well as team interactions.  The numbers in this second table are the responses of virtual team leaders to the closed questions regarding how they felt following interactions with the e-leader in reference to their perception of professional effectiveness, their sense of solidarity with the e-leader, and their sense of uniformity with the denomination.  Likewise, the frequency of team interaction is the cumulative team numbers for interactions with other team members for the observation period and the average length of each interaction as reported by team members for interaction standards.  An example of these two tables is recorded below.  
Interview 1 Category 
I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 

Perception of professional effectiveness 
10 
8 
10 
9 
8 

Sense of solidarity with e-leader 
4 
10 
7 
6 
4 

Sense of uniformity with denomination 
6 
5 
7 
6 
5 
 
Interview 1 Interaction 
I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 

Frequency 
10 
7 
14 
12 
18 

Length (min) 
4 
6 
12 
18 
6 

Type 
V 
V 
P 
V 
P 
 
The data from these two tables was synthesized to answer the research questions.  What does the data lead us to conclude about how face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members correlate to an increase in team member interactions?  What does the data lead us to conclude the perceived impact of face-to-face meetings between e-leader and virtual team members?  Do these meetings instill confidence in the individual virtual team leader in conducting their own team member interactions?  What does the data lead us to conclude about how individual virtual team leaders internalize the effects of professional development sessions between e-leader and individual virtual team members?  How do these meetings impact virtual team leader perception of team cohesion?  What does the data lead us to conclude about the ways in which individual coaching sessions between e-leader and individual team members cause team members to feel more valued as a team member? These questions were answered by this third and final set of tables which would show either an increase in perception, no change in perception, or a decrease in perception from month-to-month over a three-month period.  The same sequence of analysis took place for team interaction and cohesion with closed questions providing the data for interactions and the open-ended questions providing the data for cohesion.   
This final step in data analysis takes the cumulative numbers for perception of professional effectiveness (e) for the observation period and divides it by the number of individual team members who interacted with the e-leader in either face-to-face meetings (Fe), professional development (De), or individual coaching (Ce).  Individual Perception (IP) is then calculated by dividing the team numbers for a given data set (perception of professional effectiveness, sense of solidarity with the e-leader, and sense of uniformity with the denomination) by the number of team members who experienced individual interaction with the e-leader during that observation period.  Team Perception (TP) numbers are categorized by the type of individual interaction – TP(F), TP(D), or TP(C) – to isolate team performance by the type of individual interaction between team member and e-leader to determine if and to what degree various interactions have on team perception.  This data set is calculated by adding the numbers in each category of meeting type.  An example of this third and final set of tables are below, with data from interview 1 (IV1) and 2 (IV2) followed by a third table which shows the change in data (Δ) from IV1 to IV2.  Data for team interaction and cohesion follow the same format, but are not included here due to space limitations. 
  
IV1 
Team I 
Perception 
perception of professional effectiveness (10) 
sense of solidarity with e-leader (4) 
sense of uniformity with denomination (6) 
Team Perception 

F (3) 
Fe = 30 
Fs = 12 
Fu = 18 
TP(F) = 60 

D (2) 
De = 20 
Ds = 8 
Du = 12 
TP(D) = 40 

C (4) 
Ce = 40 
Cs = 16 
Cu = 24 
TP(C) = 80 

Individual Perception 
IP(e) =  90 
IP(s) = 36  
IP(u) = 54 
 
 
IV 2 
Team I 
Perception 
perception of professional effectiveness (10) 
sense of solidarity with e-leader (6) 
sense of uniformity with denomination (9) 
Team Perception 

F (4) 
Fe = 40 
Fs = 24 
Fu = 36 
TP(F) = 100 

D (2) 
De = 20 
Ds = 12 
Du = 18 
TP(D) = 50 

C (3) 
Ce = 30 
Cs = 18 
Cu = 27 
TP(C) = 75 

Individual Perception 
IP(e) =  90 
IP(s) = 54  
IP(u) = 81 
 
 
Data Change (IV1-IV2) 
Team I 
Perception 
perception of professional effectiveness 
sense of solidarity with e-leader 
sense of uniformity with denomination 
Team Perception 

F 
ΔFe = 10 
ΔFs = 12 
ΔFu = 18 
ΔTP(F) = 40 

D 
ΔDe = 0 
ΔDs = 4 
ΔDu = 6 
ΔTP(D) = 10 

C 
ΔCe = -10 
ΔCs = 2 
ΔCu = 3 
ΔTP(C) = -5 

Individual Perception 
ΔIP(e) = 0  
ΔIP(s) = 18   
ΔIP(u) = 27  
 
 
This hypothetical data set led the researcher to conclude that perceived uniformity with the denomination saw the greatest increase followed by an increase in solidarity with the e-leader.  No change was noted for the perceived effectiveness of professional performance as a result of the interactions..  Overall team perception noted the greatest increase in face-to-face meetings, and noted a lesser increase in professional development interactions.  However, a slight decrease was noted in the team perceptions of individual coaching sessions and their impact on team cohesion.   
Consequently, the data leads us to reject our original expected conclusion of every area – number of daily interactions, length of interaction, virtual or personal interaction – being noticeably improved by individual interactions.  However, the data leads us to fail to reject our original expected conclusion that individual professional development and coaching sessions would yield greater improvement than face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members.  
 
 

References 
 
Avolio, B., Sosik, J., Kahai, S., Baker, B. (2013). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-131. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003 
Cheshin, A., Kim, Y., Nathan, D. B., Ning, N., & Olson, J. S. (2013). Emergence of differing electronic communication norms within partially distributed teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 7–21. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000076 
Chua, Y.P., & Chua, Y.P. (2017). How are e-leadership practices in implementing a school virtual learning environment enhanced? Computers & Education, 109, 109 –121. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.012  
Cozby, P. C. (2014). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Higher Education. 
Dane, F.C. (2011). Evaluating research: Methodology for people who need to read research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities.  Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. doi: 10.1177/0149206314559946 
Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69, 159–198. doi: 10.1111/peps.12108 
Hoch, J. & Kozlowski, S.  (2014). Leading Virtual Teams: Hierarchical Leadership Structural Supports, and Shared Team Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403.  doi: 10.1037/a0030264 
Kiesenbauer, J. & Zerfass, A. (2015). Today's and tomorrow's challenges in public relations: Comparing the views of chief communication officers and next generation leaders. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 422-434. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.013 
Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 33–44. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000077 
Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review 27, 648–659. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010 
Lilian, S.C. (2014). Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Education, 110, 1251 - 1261. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.972 
Mertens, D.M.  (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 
Pannucci, C.J. & Wilkins, E.G. (2010). Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 126(2), 619-625.  doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc 
Sarros, J. C., Luca, E., Densten, I., & Santora, J.  (2014).  Leaders and their use of motivating language. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 35(3), 226-240.  doi: 10.1108/LODJ-06-2012-0073 
Savolainen, T. (2014). Trust-building in e-leadership: A case study of leaders' challenges and skills in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Global Business Issues, 8(2), 45-56. Retrieved from www.globip.com/globalinternational.htm