At the start of this course, I was admittedly skeptical. Not about leadership itself, but about the term digital leadership. It sounded like yet another trendy phrase, heavy on promise and light on clarity. After reading Sheninger’s definition, I agreed that technology has become embedded in how we live and work. However, I was not convinced that it fundamentally changes what makes someone a good leader. Leaders are effective because they are supportive, forward-thinking, and engaged—not because they know how to manage breakout rooms or use Slack emojis.
Now, with the course behind me, my view has evolved. I still believe leadership is about human qualities. However, I now see how digital environments shape how those traits are applied. Digital leadership, as I understand it now, is not a different type of leadership—it is traditional leadership practiced in a technology-saturated world.
One key shift in my thinking came from learning about transformational leadership, where the leader inspires and motivates others toward a shared vision (Bass, 1990). That concept became more relevant when my team developed a proposal for implementing NotebookLM, an AI-powered research and note-taking tool developed by Google. We envisioned this tool helping instructional designers like myself by automating tasks such as course outline generation, summarizing technical manuals, or creating FAQs. These are tedious but necessary parts of our work at Motorola Solutions, and NotebookLM could support efficiency and creativity in these areas.
As we mapped out our implementation plan, we explored tools like the Power-Interest Grid (Thamma, 2023) and organizational readiness for change (Weiner, 2009). These frameworks helped me see leadership not as a top-down directive but as a collaborative, systemic process. For instance, one strategy we proposed was forming a focus group of team members who are already comfortable using AI tools. They could act as early adopters and peer mentors—something that mirrors what I have seen work in our real workplace.
Another significant learning came from reflecting on how technology affects team dynamics. A supportive leader in a digital context might use tools like asynchronous video to accommodate different time zones, or might regularly check in via Microsoft Teams to maintain a sense of connection. On the other hand, a poorly executed use of digital tools can create confusion or feelings of being micromanaged. The key takeaway for me is that technology amplifies leadership traits, for better or worse.
I also came to understand that digital leadership involves asking deeper questions about the human impact of tech decisions. Are our tools inclusive? Do they encourage collaboration? Are we thinking critically about when not to use technology? These questions are now part of how I evaluate my work and how I envision leading change.
Looking forward, I hope to continue leading from within my team—not by title, but by influence. I hope to initiate conversations about ethical, inclusive, and strategic uses of digital tools. I also hope to keep questioning trends and pushing for clarity, especially when language gets vague or idealistic. This course reminded me that leadership is not about perfection or position—it is about listening, adapting, and staying grounded in what matters most: people.
References
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Thamma, L. (2023, April 14). Stakeholder analysis using the power interest grid. ProjectManagement.com.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67