Technology Meets Humanity: Rethinking Human-Centricity in Virtual Teams

​“In a rapidly evolving digital landscape…”

These common machine-authored words serve as a gateway much writing about the technology-integrated workplaces we inhabit today. AI buzzwords and phrases dominate social media, popular press, and academic journal narratives, with leaders urging their teams to embrace AI or risk falling behind. Yet, amidst these technological advancements, it's important to remember that technology, when used ethically, can enhance human creativity and innovation, rather than reducing it to the repetitive patterns often associated with AI tools.

 

Virtual teams have a deep understanding of the necessity of technology integration, as they have been tech-reliant from inception. From collaborative tools to work management software, they are no strangers to using technology to streamline their processes and meet their unique team and accountability needs. However, a disconnect still appears to exist between how leaders introduce more modern technologies, such as AI, remote employee monitoring, and automation.

 

In 2024, Business Wire highlighted a gap between the state of hype surrounding AI and its actual implementation, noting that organizational readiness falls short of being effectively integrated[i]. Furthermore, ethical questions abound, leaving remote teams reeling with more questions than answers: What lies ahead? Will I lose my role? How is my role changing “in a rapidly evolving digital landscape?” How will my leader care about me if I am not visible at work?   

 

Virtual leaders must put on their human-centric leadership lenses, meaning they must understand how the integration of technology impacts both employees and customers. Most importantly, transparency must remain grounded in a shared understanding and purpose, because experientially, workers are often left feeling negative, seeking explainability and accountability in how their teams use new technologies[ii] [iii]. A common framing technology rollout is fear-based, as evident in popular press articles and even a simple Google search for the word “AI”.  

 

Success in remote teams is fueled by several key factors, including perceived pressures, job performance, flexibility, cross-functional collaboration, and team satisfaction[iv] [v]. Virtual employees require the proper tooling to be effective in meeting these new expectations, including transparency, documentation as a form of communication, and intentional connections with their teams and leaders. Additionally, remote work can enhance productivity and creativity when well-supported by leaders, tools, and processes[vi]. However, where employees carry negative emotions about the technologies their teams are now adopting, using a human-centric and ethics-focused mindset can guide virtual leaders into the proper change methods before ever deploying an innovation into their environments and stimulate the creative forces unique to human workers. 

 

These words are not intended to disparage technology. Tech tools are necessary for success in all virtual contexts. For example, remote monitoring technology for patients enables medical workers to operate in life-saving ways[vii]. However, because there is a disconnect between the implementation of modern technology and the ethics questions we ask, particularly in low-resource contexts[i], virtual leaders must respond by prioritizing the ethical deployment and implementation of innovative technologies with openness, clarity, and knowledgeable staff who are ready to take a systems perspective on how teams update their virtual environments. Ethicists should become embedded in teams that make decisions, especially in high-stakes contexts[ii]. Moreover, leaders must remain ready to accept responsibility for the outcomes within their virtual teams[iii]. Which means they must fully understand its systemic impacts.

 

As we continue to navigate the choppy waters of digital change in remote environments, the call for human-centric leadership has never been louder. Virtual leaders must go beyond simply implementing the latest tech; they must cultivate environments and culture where innovation is balanced with ethics, efficiency is grounded in empathy, and technology serves people, not the other way around. By embedding ethical reflection into every stage of tech integration and prioritizing transparent, accountable leadership, we position our teams with future-proofing strategies and honor the humanity that drives their success. Let us lead with clarity, design with care, and remind the world that even in the most digitized of spaces, people remain at the heart of progress.
 

[i] The Great AI Disconnect: 2025 State of AI Readiness Reveals Gap Between Hype and Reality. (2024). In Business Wire. Business Wire.

 

[ii] Simsek Caglar, P., Vainio, T., & Roto, V. (2024). Transparency experience in remote teamwork - a sociomaterial approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(12), 2881–2906. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2260910

 

[iii] Ediyanto, E., Kuswandi, D., Imron, A., Burhanuddin, B., & Suriansyah, A. (2023). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Educational Management and Technology (ICEMT 2023). (1st ed.). Atlantis Press Zeger Karssen.

 

[iv] Adzgauskaite, M., Tam, C., & Martins, R. (2025). What helps Agile remote teams to be successful in developing software? Empirical evidence. Information and Software Technology, 177, Article 107593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107593

 

[v] Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(3), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.1109047

 

[vi] Hunter, P. (2019). Remote working in research: An increasing usage of flexible work arrangements can improve productivity and creativity. EMBO Reports, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847435

 

[vii] Spetz, J., & Kottek, A. (2017). REMOTE MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES IN LONG-TERM CARE, CARE TEAM ORGANIZATION, AND TRAINING. Innovation in Aging, 1(suppl_1), 448–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.1604

 

[viii] Hswen, Y., Naslund, J. A., Hurley, M., Ragon, B., Handley, M. A., Fang, F., Haroz, E. E., Nakatumba-Nabende, J., van Heerden, A., & Nsoesie, E. O. (2025). AI-Y: An AI Checklist for Population Ethics Across the Global Context. Current Epidemiology Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-025-00362-w

 

[ix] Tang, L., Li, J., & Fantus, S. (2023). Medical artificial intelligence ethics: A systematic review of empirical studies. Digital Health, 9, 20552076231186064. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231186064

 

[x] Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2051–2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8

​

​