The 21st-century leadership has undergone an immense technological change. As pointed out by Chen et al. (2014), technology is no longer used only by computer literate people. Currently, every organization needs to use technology for effective leadership. All organizations require to consider how to prepare their current and future leaders better to meet the challenges presented by technological disruption. However, as much as technology has brought enormous advantages, it has also presented several challenges that negatively affect leadership. The roles of leaders have significantly shifted because of technological disruption. Technology has created an unprecedented level of disruption across many companies in the US and the world, forcing leaders to balance multiple challenges while navigating change and promoting innovation.
Technology, to some extent, has negatively affected the interdisciplinary approach to leadership. As explained by Jenkins & Duqan (2013), technology tends to interrupt the methods, concepts, and application of multiple disciplines of leadership. Initially, leadership studies were mainly composed of scholars who were primarily trained in a single specific discipline, but technology has brought different disciplinary approaches without interrogating a holistic approach. Recent studies show that technology has led to a steady decline of confidence in leaders leading to overspending in leadership development programs to catch up with technology trends ( University of Exeter, 2008) . Moreover, technology has introduced new ways of communication and sharing information between leaders and other employees, making it hard for them to find common ground. Leaders are unable to build a common consensus when their members do not share the same values and goals since they do not directly interact with an employee but use digital channels to communicate. In agreement with Jenkins & Duqan (2013), technology tends to lead through disruption posing new challenges to leadership.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, technology has led to significant changes across different organizations. As pointed out in a synopsis of a continuing study of Corporate Directing (2008), leaders are forced to be diverse and flexible to address multiple challenges while going through rapid changes. Even though technology has positive impacts on operational governance, it is challenging for leaders to keep up with changing technology day by day. Rapid growth in technology has changed the way leadership is conducted ( Cho et al. 2012) . Primarily, working from home is one of the leading changes brought about by technology. Traditionally, leadership was built on team management, where both the team and the leaders were in the same locality. Now it is widely accepted that leaders do not need to be physically present to lead due to new technologies like video conferencing, face time calls, and others.
However, the shift requires leaders to invest more time in their growth so that they can adopt a different way of leadership. According to De Waal et al. (2016), leaders who cannot adapt quickly to change and have no skills to work with increased complexity will be left behind. Technology deviates the focus of leaders from being experts to people who must learn and grow. This concept is challenging for leaders since they must acquire special skills to lead experts. Besides, the shift to remote working makes individual work result in significant measurements of success. Any leader of a group will have to trust his team to deliver, especially those in the marketing and production sector since lack of trust hinders better results ( Porter 2014) . For young people, adopting technological changes is not an issue, but for older people, especially those used to the traditional form of leadership, change is challenging.
Conversely, the view of organizational leadership has been slow to change. Technology shifts and increased media consumption have interfered with communication boundaries, especially within the organizations (Haslam, 2013). Traditional forms of leadership and concepts based on the roles of leaders no longer work in the current environment due to digital evolution. The rapid adoption of digital technology is increasing leadership complexity, a challenge to traditional leadership, and an opportunity for social systems.
Social media is another form of technology that has brought a sense of personal power and authority. Traditionally, power and authority were granted to those in power positions and regulated by those in the top hierarchy. However, with Twitter, Facebook, leadership is being influenced by many people who are not in power positions ( Gerbaudo 2017) . Maintenance of traditional form of leadership is challenging, while there is a discussion on embracing social networking and social systems. The changes challenge the notion of authoritative leadership and contradict the role of leaders to that of followers (Liddle 2016). For instance, in the Arab Spring, social networks allowed individuals to plan more effectively and smoothly. However, traditional power was undermined and overthrown. Although social leadership works in some cases, it fails in many areas where it is not well-governed—undermining the concept of leadership.
Furthermore, Jonassen (2015) explains that technology has disrupted the organization’s structure boundaries. For instance, accommodating leadership shifts in subsea operations requires a large number of people to control and command the entire operation effectively. Technology has erased barriers where traditional organization structures were wanted or unwanted. Technology advancement has created a gap in power distribution and communication within organizations. Even when traditional leadership attempts to treat every employee in the organization equally, technology makes it impossible since success is measured by Individual performance. Organizations use technology as a primary source of information. However, external and internal forces drive how they adapt to new environments. Lack of planning makes them unprepared for any change, be it technology-related or otherwise.
References
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., & Li, J. (2014). CEO s’ transformational leadership and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 31 , 2-17. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jpim.12188
Cho, Y., Hwang, J., & Lee, D. (2012). Identification of effective opinion leaders in the diffusion of technological innovation: A social network approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 79 (1), 97-106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162511001272
De Waal, B., van Outvorst, F., & Ravesteyn, P. (2016). Digital leadership: The objective-subjective dichotomy of technology revisited. In 12 the European Conference on Management, Leadership, and Governance ECMLG 2016 (p. 52). https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=S7LqDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA52&dq=leadership%5B+left+behind+by+technology&ots=kYk0SvXJrj&sig=aw_nGsOzHtDHN7TzG0Kby0c6gUo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=leadership%5B%20left%20behind%20by%20technology&f=false
Gerbaudo, P. (2017). Social media teams as digital vanguards: the question of leadership in the management of key Facebook and Twitter accounts of Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and UK Uncut. Information, Communication & Society , 20 (2), 185-202. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1161817
Haslam, A. (2013, November 14). The New Psychology of Leadership. ((2013). Why and How Leaders Need to Care. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwcf_E9pUUA
Jenkins, D.M, & Duqan, J.P. (2013). Context Matters: An interdisciplinary studies interpretation of the national leadership education research agenda. Journal of Leadership Education, 12 (3), 15-28 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269652380_Context_Matters_An_interdisciplinary_studies_interpretation_of_the_National_Leadership_Education_Research_Agenda
Jonassen, J. (2015). Effects of multi-team leadership on collaboration and integration in subsea operations. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 9 (1), 89-114 https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol9iss1/4-IJLS.pdf
Liddle, J. (2016, April 11). 14p Lecture Series: Researching Public Leadership. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vLLwZrf5p8
Porter, J. A. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment in nonprofit long term care organizations: The direct care worker perspective. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 2 (1), 68-85 https://ojs.crighton.edu/index.php/CJIL/article/view/13/8
University of Exeter, (2008). A Synopsis of Continuing Study of Corporate Directing. Leading FTSE Companies , 1–12. Retrieved from https://business-school.exeter.ac.uk/documents/staff/aj_pye_ftse_short_report.pdf
