Introduction
Twitter is a multinational giant social media company based in the united states. The company enjoys millions of daily active users and subscribers. The company’s working conditions and leadership have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering a wave of changes in company management (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020). The company allowed its employees to work from home to reduce the chances of contracting the novel coronavirus; this paper seeks to explore the challenges facing twitter leadership owing to the inception of remote working culture.
Leadership Challenges in Remote Working
Remote work is not a new concept but was not been widely adopted unit the novel coronavirus paralyzed the world economy, resulting in business closures. Corporate leaders were faced with the challenge of making critical decisions to ensure work continuity while safeguarding the health of their workers. Twitter allowed its workers to work from home indefinitely. Although the decision ensured the company operations remained afloat, it has presented the company management with several challenges.
Firstly, communication gaps increase with the adoption of remote working culture due to a lack of social interaction among the employees and the management. It also challenges the leaders’ channels of motivating the employees (Dayaram & Burgess, 2021). The overall company management is impacted by the lack of physical interaction among the management staff, which could significantly affect the decision-making and adoption processes. Conventionally, employees and management staff are faced with blockers that hinder their productivity. In a remote working environment, the company leadership might not effectively coordinate the best problem-solving approach for employees.
Teamwork is at the heart of social media companies and their overall management practices. The current remote working culture has forced employees and leaders to rely on technology to remain productive at work solely. It impacts the leaders’ ability to assess the performance of their employees in terms of social interactivity levels and teamwork, as well as establish the challenges facing the employees. The coordination of communication and collaboration of employees is a challenge to most corporate leaders (Martin et al., 2020). Differences in time zones are another major drawback to effective leadership in social media and other corporate, business, and technological companies.
Traditional Leadership Traits and Practices
There are different traditional leadership strategies which include authoritarian, participative, and delegate styles (Adams, 2018). The additional leadership style bears its origins from the industrial revolutions, where managers led workers in a totally authoritarian manner. The style also borrows heavily from the military and is founded on a top-bottom approach. The distribution of power increases as one goes higher in the ranks and decreases as one goes down (Purwanto et al., 2019). Usually, the management personnel is empowered to make decisions and issue orders. This kind of leadership puts the success of the organization in the hands of the most influential person, as the most critical decisions are made higher in the ranks.
The authoritarian leadership style is primarily borrowed from the military, where power and decision-making are solely concentrated at the top of the leading architecture. It is also called autocratic leadership, where the leader domineers over what is to be done by low-ranking persons or employees (Lerman & Jameson, 2018). The leader dictates all tasks and procedures and expects the subjects to complete their tasks as directed. The leadership style has its pros and cons. The autocratic leadership style is best applicable when a group of people has to achieve a project that needs strict supervision. However, it would not be applicable where the people needed to understand their roles and the procedures involved in the project execution phases (Zhang & Xie, 2017). The authoritarian leadership approach is not applicable to remote working employees as the strict supervisory nature of the leadership style does not permit remote participants.
The participative leadership style, also known as democratic, is very common in political institutions where the will of the majority must be respected (Chan, 2019). Usually, the group members engage their leader in decision-making; hence their views are incorporated in the final decision adopted. Although the leaders retain their final say, they seek the group members’ opinions concerning the decisions. It makes the group members feel recognized, which improves their productivity (Akpoviroro et al., 2018). The democratic leadership style is best applicable in learning institutions where learners have to craft their projects. The leadership style is not applicable where roles and responsibilities among group members remain unclear (Li et al., 2018, p.645). Such situations could break communication among the members, affecting the implementation of the entire project. It could also result in bad results, especially when the group members lack the required skills. However, the style is best applicable when there is adequate time to engage group members as well as learn new skills before executing the project (Hayat Bhatt et al., 2019). Usually, this leadership approach works best when the leaders and teams meet face-to-face and deliberate on important issues. It also works for remote teams, specifically where the members have the required skills and know-how to deliberate on the issues raised.
The delegate leadership style, also known as laissez-fair, is not as typical as the other traditional leadership styles but still has its role in the leadership industry. In this kind of leadership, the leaders try as much as possible to avoid getting involved in the decision-making processes of groups or teams (Anderson, 2017). Conventionally, the leaders provide the groups with the required resources or tools and hand over power to the groups. The leader is, however, responsible for the group’s actions and decisions. Laissez-faire is best suited for highly skilled persons who have excellent know-how of the project requirements and deliverables and need the freedom to complete the tasks. However, the style is not suitable for a group that is unlikely to adhere to set deadlines, lacks motivation or the required skills, and could result in poor performance (Wulandari et al., 2019). This approach is also ideal for remote working employees who have the required skill set to work on projects while reporting on their progress to the respective group leaders (Andronic & Dumitrascu, 2018). For instance, software development, which is common among social media and technology companies, is currently the most remotely executed job.
Traditional Versus Contemporary Leadership Styles and Traits
The shortcomings of traditional leadership approaches have forced leaders to formulate complementary approaches to organizational leadership. They include transformational leadership and servant leadership (Nugroho et al., 2020). The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the aforementioned approaches and compare and contrast them with traditional leadership approaches. It should be noted that these contemporary approaches are relativity young compared to their traditional counterparts, which makes them more applicable in modern leadership scenarios (Peker et al., 2018).
The transformational leadership approach is relatively young, but adequate research has been carried out to differentiate it from the transactional approach (Fayzhall et al., 2020). It is primarily focused on what is good for the company rather than individual employees. Usually, the leader provides the leaders with all resources required for the day-to-day operations in and out of work. The employees are expected to exhibit the right behavior in return. The success of this leadership approach is primarily based on tools of leadership: Charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Charismatic leaders behave in a manner that triggers commitment, confidence, and public admiration of the leader. These kinds of leaders have an admirable personality that attracts people toward them as leaders. The leaders also conceptualize visions that are publicly admirable and acceptable to the general public. The leaders also challenge the status quo as well as organizational norms, which seem to inhibit growth and development, enabling workers to work harder and smarter. The leaders also embrace individualism by achieving what is seemingly impossible for others. Transformational leaders are attributed to unforeseeable turnarounds of companies, such as Steve Jobs (1995-2011), who led Apple to produce the first smartphone and made it the most valuable company.
The effectiveness of transformational leadership is rooted in the predictability, integrity, and fairness of the leader when interacting with other employees. Employees are likely to follow the steps of a leader who demonstrate leadership behavior ((Andriani et al., 2018, p.19). Since the leader is extensively concerned about the well-being of everyone, the employees find it easy to trust such leaders. At the end of the day, the employees are better positioned to focus on what matters to the organization as their leader caters to their needs, increasing quality and productivity. The question as to whether charisma is genetic remains largely disputed. However, some experts argue that the essential factor in transformational leadership is a trust which is built on the fairness, predictability, and integrity of the leader when dealing with other employees. This leadership approach, however, is not effective in remote working conditions.
On the other hand, the servant leadership approach entails leaders working to serve the interests and needs of others. As a result, the leader should primarily focus on empowering and developing their employees, which in turn improves productivity and organizational position in the market. While mainstream leadership approaches pay attention to organizational goals, servant leadership seeks to develop the skills and careers of the employees. The leaders are obliged to serve the external community, customers as well as employees (Buil et al., 2019). Although employee happiness might not be an important goal in a work environment, servant leaders might be prompted to sacrifice their own resources to make their employees happy. This leadership approach is not applicable in the corporate sector as organizations seek to make profits (Carreiro & Oliveira, 2019). However, it is best suited for public and humanitarian organizations where the main goal is to serve others, not make profits.
There exists a distinct variation between traditional leadership and contemporary leadership. As discussed above, the traditional leadership approaches are primarily focused on organizational productivity or the goals set by the leaders. For instance, the authoritarian leadership style employs strict adherence to rules, orders, and schedules. Everything done or achieved by the group is in line with the expectations of the leader. It thus means the employees might not have anything to gain, unlike the case with servant leadership. The participative approach brings all participants on board when it comes to decision-making. However, the leaders’ decision stands but might be influenced by the opinions of the group. It implies that the group mainly works to achieve the goals set by the leader or the organization at large. Delegate leadership is quite different from the other traditional leadership approaches in that the leader plays little or no role in the group decision-making process. The groups are empowered to make decisions, set deadlines, and work on projects based on given requirements. The leader is, however, accountable for the group’s decisions and actions.
On the contrary, contemporary leadership approaches are primarily focused on employee development. The transformational leadership approach, for instance, is mainly focused on employee development. The leader pays attention to the employee needs of others and behaves in a manner that attracts his or her followers. The servant leadership approach does not compare to any other leadership style, and the leader is entitled to prioritize the needs and desires of employees, customers, or the host community. It should be noted that not all traditional or contemporary leadership approaches are applicable in remote working conditions. Organizations should choose a leadership model that fits their business needs and not necessarily depends on industrial standards.
Conclusion
Twitter is one of the companies which allowed its employees to work from home owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Managing remote teams presents challenges to leaders, such as arising communication gaps, lack of employee motivation, and differences in time zones. Traditional leadership styles borrow heavily from military styles, where power is concentrated at the top. Contemporary leadership styles are relatively new as compared to traditional approaches and seek to fill the gaps left by the latter. Not all traditional, all contemporary leadership approaches are applicable to managing remote teams.
Reference List
Adams, D., 2018. Mastering theories of educational leadership and management. University of Malaya Press.
Akpoviroro, K.S., Kadiri, B. and Owotutu, S.O., 2018. Effect of participative leadership style on employee’s productivity. International Journal of Economic Behavior (IJEB), 8(1), pp.47-60.
Anderson, M., 2017. Transformational leadership in education: A review of existing literature. International Social Science Review, 93(1), p.4.
Andriani, S., Kesumawati, N. and Kristiawan, M., 2018. The influence of the transformational leadership and work motivation on teacher’s performance. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 7(7), pp.19-29.
Andronic, O.G. and DumitraĹźcu, D., 2018. The misconceived delegation of responsibility. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, pp.408-413.
Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J.J., Ozimek, A., Rock, D., Sharma, G. and Tue, H.Y., 2020. COVID-19 and remote work: an early look at US data (No. w27344). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Buil, I., MartĂnez, E. and Matute, J., 2019. Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, pp.64-75.
Carreiro, H. and Oliveira, T., 2019. Impact of transformational leadership on the diffusion of innovation in firms: Application to mobile cloud computing. Computers in Industry, 107, pp.104-113.
Chan, S.C., 2019. Participative leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of fun experienced at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Dayaram, K. and Burgess, J., 2021. Regulatory Challenges Facing Remote Working in Australia. In Handbook of Research on Remote Work and Worker Well-Being in the Post-COVID-19 Era (pp. 202-219). IGI Global.
Fayzhall, M., Purwanto, A., Asbari, M., Goestjahjanti, F.S., Winanti, W., Yuwono, T., Radita, F.R., Nurasiah, N., Yulia, Y., Cahyono, Y. and Suryani, P., 2020. Transformational versus Transactional Leadership: Manakah yang Mempengaruhi Kepuasan Kerja Guru?. EduPsyCouns: Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 2(1), pp.256-275.
Hayat Bhatti, M., Ju, Y., Akram, U., Hasnat Bhatti, M., Akram, Z. and Bilal, M., 2019. Impact of participative leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of trust and moderating role of continuance commitment: Evidence from the Pakistan hotel industry. Sustainability, 11(4), p.1170.
Lerman, C. and Jameson, J.L., 2018. Leadership development in medicine. The New England journal of medicine, 378(20), p.1862.
Li, G., Liu, H. and Luo, Y., 2018. Directive versus participative leadership: Dispositional antecedents and team consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), pp.645-664.
Martin, J., Loke, L. and Grace, K., 2020, December. Challenges facing movement research in the time of Covid-19: Issues in redesigning workshops for remote participation and data collection. In 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 712-716).
Nugroho, Y.A., Asbari, M., Purwanto, A., Basuki, S., Sudiyono, R.N., Fikri, M.A.A., Hulu, P., Mustofa, M., Chidir, G., Suroso, S. and Xavir, Y., 2020. Transformational leadership and employees’ performances: The mediating role of motivation and work environment. EduPsyCouns: Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 2(1), pp.438-460.
Peker, S., Inandi, Y. and Gilic, F., 2018. The Relationship between Leadership Styles (Autocratic and Democratic) of School Administrators and the Mobbing Teachers Suffer. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(1), pp.150-164.
Purwanto, A., Wijayanti, L.M., Hyun, C.C. and Asbari, M., 2019. the Effect of Transformational, Transactional, Authentic and Authoritarian Leadership Style Toward Lecture Performance of Private University in Tangerang. Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management, 1(1), pp.29-42.
Wulandari, R., Djawoto, D. and Prijati, P., 2021. The Influence of Delegative Leadership Style, Motivation, Work Environment on Employee Performance in Self-Efficiency Mediation in SNVT Housing Provision of East Java Province. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(3), pp.3294-3311.
Zhang, Y. and Xie, Y.H., 2017. Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Management and Organization Review, 13(1), pp.147-166.