The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Leading teams in the digital age: Four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams
Open accessAbstract
Digital technologies are changing the nature of teamwork in ways that have important implications for leadership. Though conceptually rich and multi-disciplinary, much of the burgeoning work on technology has not been fully integrated into the leadership literature. To fill this gap, we organize existing work on leadership and technology, outlining four perspectives: (1) technology as context, (2) technology as sociomaterial, (3) technology as creation medium, and (4) technology as teammate. Each technology perspective makes assumptions about how technologies affect teams and the needs for team leadership. Within each perspective, we detail current work on leading teams. This section takes us from virtual teams to new vistas posed by leading online communities, crowds, peer production groups, flash teams, human-robot teams, and human-artificial intelligence teams. We identify 12 leadership implications arising from the ways digital technologies affect organizing. We then leverage our review to identify directions for future leadership research and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Similarly, Larson and DeChurch (2020, p. 10) argued that the autonomous agent is a team member if it is fulfilling a distinct role in the team and is making a unique contribution to performance.”
From Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2022) · cites this paper as Larson and DeChurch (2020)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1×
“Researchers have begun to investigate issues like trust in human-robot interaction (Billings, Schaefer, Chen, & Hancock, 2012; Freedy, de Visser, Weltman, & Coeyman, 2007; Lee & See, 2004).”
BackgroundA Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607081138 · Cited by 3,248
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211644 · Cited by 2,571
Day, D. V. (2000) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(00)00061-8 · Cited by 2,180
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 2×
“In particular, research has found that humans' trust in robots was highly dependent on the robot's performance and perceived competence (Hancock et al., 2011).”
BackgroundInternet encyclopaedias go head to head
Giles, J. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/438900a · Cited by 1,978
Cited by
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature
O’Neill, T., McNeese, N., Barron, A., & Schelble, B. (2022) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720820960865 · Cited by 695
Bucher, E. L., Schou, P. K., & Waldkirch, M. (2021) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508420961531 · Cited by 349
Digital Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis
Tigre, F. B., Curado, C., & Henriques, P. L. (2023) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/15480518221123132 · Cited by 226
AI agents and agentic systems: a multi-expert analysis
Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Malik, T., Shawosh, M., Albashrawi, M. A., Jeon, I., Dutot, V., Appanderanda, M., Crick, T., De’, R., et al. (2025) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2025.2483832 · Cited by 168
Zhang, R., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N., Freeman, G., & Williams, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610072 · Cited by 134
Theory‐Driven Perspectives on Generative Artificial Intelligence in Business and Management
Brown, O., Davison, R. M., Decker, S., Ellis, D. A., Faulconbridge, J., Gore, J., Greenwood, M., Islam, G., Lubinski, C., MacKenzie, N. G., et al. (2024) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12788 · Cited by 128
Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Larson, L., & DeChurch, L. A.
- Venue
- The Leadership Quarterly
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101377
- ISSN
- 1048-9843 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3000018309
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 41.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
