Proactivity Directed Toward the Team and Organization: The Role of Leadership, Commitment and Role-breadth Self-efficacy

Employees' proactive behaviour is increasingly important for organizations seeking to adapt in uncertain economic environments. This study examined the link between leadership and proactive behaviour. We differentiated between organizational leadership and team leadership and proposed that transformational leadership by team leaders would enhance commitment to the team, which would predict team member proactivity. In contrast, transformational leadership by leaders of the organization would enhance commitment to the organization, which we expected to predict organization member proactivity. Transformational leadership on both levels was expected to increase employees' role-breadth self-efficacy, the confidence necessary to engage in proactive behaviour. Our results demonstrate the importance of leadership as an antecedent of proactive work behaviour and suggest that leadership at different levels influences proactivity via different mediators. Transformational team leaders seem to facilitate proactivity by increasing employees' confidence to initiate change. Transformational organizational leaders on the other hand increase proactivity by enhancing employees' commitment to the organization.     

Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care

The relationships among leadership clarity (i.e., team members' consensual perceptions of clarity of and no conflict over leadership of their teams), team processes, and innovation were examined in health care contexts. The sample comprised 3447 respondents from 98 primary health care teams (PHCTs), 113 community mental health teams (CMHTs), and 72 breast cancer care teams (BCTs). The results revealed that leadership clarity is associated with clear team objectives, high levels of participation, commitment to excellence, and support for innovation. Team processes consistently predicted team innovation across all three samples. Team leadership predicted innovation in the latter two samples, and there was some evidence that team processes partly mediated this relationship. The results imply the need for theory that incorporates clarity and not just style of leadership. For health care teams in particular, and teams in general, the results suggest a need to ensure leadership is clear in teams when innovation is a desirable team performance outcome.     

Different ways lead to ambidexterity: Configurations for team innovation across China,India, and Singapore

In this paper, we transfer the ambidexterity theory of leadership for innovation to a cross-cultural context. We develop a configurational model to explore how combinations of opening leadership, closing leadership, and team initiative differently affect team innovation performance in different cultures. Applying an Asia-centric perspective, our study analyzes cross-cultural heterogeneity of team innovation processes across China, India, and Singapore. Our fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) illuminates cultural differences and the configurational nature of how leadership and team behaviors work together in promoting team innovation performance. We found that configurations for team innovation performance differ across countries, such that an innovation-yielding configuration in one country may be ineffective in another country. Moreover, our findings suggest that alternative, equifinal configurations of leadership and team initiative, rather than just one optimal pathway, are associated with high team innovation performance; and high-performance configurations and low-performance configurations are asymmetric and therefore imply non-linearity of the relationships. The findings provide implications for managers in different cultural contexts as they help identify culture-specific action repertoires to manage innovation processes and promote innovation performance.     

Team leadership

Despite the ubiquity of leadership influences on organizational team performance and the large literatures on leadership and team/group dynamics, we know surprisingly little about how leaders create and handle effective teams. In this article, we focus on leader–team dynamics through the lens of “functional leadership.” This approach essentially asserts that the leader's main job is to do, or get done, whatever functions are not being handled adequately in terms of group needs. We explicate this functional leadership approach in terms of 4 superordinate and 13 subordinate leadership dimensions and relate these to team effectiveness and a range of team processes. We also develop a number of guiding propositions. A key point in considering such relationships is the reciprocal influence, whereby both leadership and team processes influence each other.     

Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity

Considerable theoretical and empirical work has identified a relationship between transformational leadership and team performance and creativity. The mechanisms underlying this link, however, are not well understood. To identify the intervening processes inherent in this relationship, we experimentally manipulated the leadership style assigned to 44 teams taking part in a resource-maximization task. Teams were exposed either to a leader using inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, or a control condition. Our findings reveal important differences between leadership styles in communication and team outcomes (objective task performance and creativity). These results suggest that different dimensions of transformational leadership should be emphasized depending on the outcome sought. In addition, our results provide evidence for a sequential mediation model where leadership influences team outcomes through overall team communication and trust in teammates. This study suggests mechanisms by which transformational leaders may impact team outcomes, which has implications for team building and leadership training.     

Escalation: The Role of Problem Recognition and Cognitive Bias

Escalation of commitment to a failing course of action is an enduring problem that remains central to the study of managerial behavior. Prior research suggests that escalation behavior results when decision makers choose to ignore negative feedback concerning the viability of a previously chosen course of action. Previous work has also suggested that certain cognitive biases might promote escalation behavior, but there has been little attempt to explore how biases other than framing affect escalation. In this article, we explore the extent to which decision makers actually perceive negative feedback as indicative of a problem and how this influences their decision to escalate. Although problem recognition and cognitive biases have been intensively studied individually, little is known about their effect on escalation behavior. In this research, we construct and test an escalation decision model that incorporates both problem recognition and two cognitive biases: selective perception and illusion of control. Our results revealed a significant inverse relationship between problem recognition and escalation. Furthermore, selective perception and illusion of control were found to significantly affect both problem recognition and escalation. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed. To improve problem recognition and reduce the incidence of escalation, practicing managers should implement modern project management practices that can help to identify and highlight potential problems while guarding against these two key cognitive biases that promote the behavior.     

Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership to cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas

We investigate how transformational and transactional leadership motivates employees to commit to an organizational ideation program so that they subsequently generate ideas that benefit the organization. To resolve the mixed and contradictory findings of earlier studies about these leadership styles, we propose that more attention needs to be devoted to the leader's personal beliefs. Specifically, we study the degree to which a leader identifies with an organization and how this possibly unlocks the effects of transformational or transactional leadership. Using multilevel data collected in a large multinational company, our findings reveal that both transformational and transactional leadership is effective in motivating followers to commit to the goals of an ideation program. Increased commitment, in turn, is associated with more ideas that followers generate. In contrast to the effect of transactional leadership, however, the effect of transformational leadership is contingent on how strongly leaders identify with the organization.     

An integrative model of leadership behavior

Decades of questionnaire and interview studies have revealed various leadership behaviors observed in successful leaders. However, little is known about the actual behaviors that cause those observations. Given that lay observers are prone to cognitive biases, such as the halo effect, the validity of theories that are exclusively based on observed behaviors is questionable. We thus follow the call of leading scientists in the field and derive a parsimonious model of leadership behavior that is informed by established psychological theories. Building on the taxonomy of Yukl (2012), we propose three task-oriented behavior categories (enhancing understanding, strengthening motivation and facilitating implementation) and three relation-oriented behavior categories (fostering coordination, promoting cooperation and activating resources), each of which is further specified by a number of distinct behaviors. While the task-oriented behaviors are directed towards the accomplishment of shared objectives, the relation-oriented behaviors support this process by increasing the coordinated engagement of the team members. Our model contributes to the advancement of leadership behavior theory by (1) consolidating current taxonomies, (2) sharpening behavioral concepts of leadership behavior, (3) specifying precise relationships between those categories and (4) spurring new hypotheses that can be derived from existing findings in the field of psychology. To test our model as well as the hypotheses derived from this model, we advocate the development of new measurements that overcome the limitations associated with questionnaire and interview studies.     

Do transformational CEOs always make the difference? The role of TMT feedback seeking behavior

In the present paper, we raise the question whether CEO transformational leadership invariably makes a difference for team performance and change effectiveness. Since in general, CEOs are surrounded by a team of highly influential top managers, we argue that the effectiveness of CEO transformational leadership is contingent on the feedback seeking behavior of their top management team (TMT). Data from 38 TMTs and their CEOs demonstrated that transformational leadership was positively related to both TMT performance and effectiveness of organizational change, but only when the TMT engaged in low levels of feedback seeking behavior. As predicted, there was no relationship between CEO transformational leadership and performance and change effectiveness for teams exhibiting high levels of feedback seeking behavior. These findings suggest that for high-feedback seeking TMTs, organizational results can be achieved without a transformational CEO.     

家长式领导对高管团队有效性的影响机制研究:以团队凝聚力为中介变量

本文通过对108家中国企业的高管团队问卷调查所获得的数据的分析,探讨了CEO的家长式领导对高管团队有效性的影响机制,结果表明:仁慈领导和德行领导对团队有效性有显著的积极影响,威权领导对团队有效性有显著的消极影响;团队凝聚力起到了部分中介的作用,威权领导通过降低团队凝聚力对团队有效性产生负面影响.     

The double-edge sword effect of interorganizational trust on involvement in interorganizational networks: The mediator role of affective commitment

Some organizations collaborate with other partner organizations to reach common goals, establishing interorganizational networks. The governance of the network is often enacted by an interorganizational governing team composed of the directors or top managers of the partner firms. This team plans, manages, and supervises the advancement of the network’s common goals. The success of the network depends, to a large extent, on the involvement of the members of the governing team. In this study, we tested a multilevel model of the antecedents of the involvement of governing team members in the management activities of interorganizational networks. We examined whether the relationship between team interorganizational trust, as a team level construct, and individual involvement in management activities is partially mediated by individual affective commitment. Using a sample of 101 respondents belonging to 28 interorganizational governing teams, we tested a multilevel mediation model. Results showed, as expected, a positive indirect effect of team interorganizational trust on individual involvement through individual affective commitment. However, unexpectedly, team interorganizational trust also showed a negative direct relationship with individual involvement. Based on our findings, we highlight the need to also consider the “dark side” of interorganizational trust, and we propose potential mediators to explain the unexpected negative relationship.     

How transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis

Transformational leadership is generally considered helpful for team functioning. However, the social dynamics underlying the benefits of transformational leadership remain elusive to date. To understand how and why transformational leadership can foster team functioning, this study focuses on leader–follower communication dynamics during team interactions. From the perspective of leadership as social problem solving, we argue that transformational leadership is linked to functional team problem-solving processes because transformational leaders use solution-focused communication (mediator model). In a sample of 30 videotaped problem-solving team meetings from two organizations, we coded transformational leadership style and the verbal behavioral interactions of leaders and team members over the course of their entire meetings (30,128 behavioral units in total). Multilevel results showed that transformational leadership was positively linked to functional problem-solving communication by team members. This positive relationship was mediated by leaders' solution-focused communication. Moreover, at the micro-level of conversational dynamics within the meeting process, lag sequential analysis revealed that leaders' ideas and solutions triggered subsequent solution statements by team members and inhibited counterproductive communication by team members, such as running off topic, criticizing, or complaining. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications for conceptualizing dynamic leader–follower processes as well as managerial implications for leading effective meetings in organizations.     

Functional leadership in interteam contexts: Understanding ‘what’ in the context of why? where? when? and who?

Research on team leadership has primarily focused on leadership processes targeted within teams, in support of team objectives. Yet, teams are open systems that interact with other teams to achieve proximal as well as distal goals. This review clarifies that defining ‘what’ constitutes functionally effective leadership in interteam contexts requires greater precision with regard to where (within teams, across teams) and why (team goals, system goals) leadership processes are enacted, as well as greater consideration of when and among whom leadership processes arise. We begin by synthesizing findings from empirical studies published over the past 30 years that shed light on questions of what, where, why, when, and who related to interteam leadership and end by providing three overarching recommendations for how research should proceed in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of leadership in interteam contexts.     

Observing leadership as behavior in teams and herds – An ethological approach to shared leadership research

Both Shared Leadership Theory and evolutionary theories of leadership emphasize the role of team-level patterns of influence on team or group success. Yet, most of the empirical work on the effects of shared leadership assesses the concept through patterns of subjective perceptions of leadership and behavior. Although these studies give us important insights, subjective perceptions of leadership are prone to biases. In this paper, we draw on evolutionary theories of the development of leadership in groups and argue that group-level patterns of observable behavior have a direct effect on team outcomes above and beyond patterns of leadership and behavior perceptions. On the basis of a brief review of ethological assessment methods of leadership in animal groups, we derive implications for team leadership research methods to test hypotheses on team-level influence patterns and performance. Emphasizing the role of influence in terms of interpersonal behavior we formulate implications for the assessment and analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior in teams. Finally, we discuss how technological advances may be utilized to promote behavioral observations in team leadership research.     

Bringing the cognitive revolution forward: What can team cognition contribute to our understanding of leadership?

Cognition is a central element of organizational behavior and leaders are seen as key shapers of organizational cognition. Leaders’ influence over organizations often occurs through their influence on the collectives or teams they are leading. Hence, leaders influence organizational outcomes by modeling team cognition. Despite the importance of this relationship for organizational outcomes, there is little integration currently between the leadership and team cognition literatures. To address this gap, we conduct an integrative review. First, we develop a model for leader and team influence based on organizational emergence and leadership complexity theories. Our model makes a distinction between the source of influence over cognition (leader → team, team → leader, reciprocal) and form of cognition emergence (variance reduction, variance enhancement); constraints that shape cognitions that vary in levels (within and between-level, contextual) and focus (individual, interindividual, collective); and leader behaviors (administrative, adaptive, enabling). We apply this model to review and analyze ninety-nine studies in the current literature and then discuss the limitations and future directions drawing on our findings and theoretical model. We contribute a unifying framework of leadership and team emergence that can be expanded and applied to other settings.     

Are authentic leaders associated with more virtuous,committed and potent teams?

Through a team-level analysis, the study shows how authentic leadership (AL) predicts team potency both directly and through the mediating role of team virtuousness and team affective commitment. Data about AL and team virtuousness were collected two months before data collection on team affective commitment and team potency. Fifty-one teams were selected for testing the hypotheses. The main findings are the following: (a) AL predicts team affective commitment through the mediating role of team virtuousness; (b) team virtuousness predicts team potency through the mediating role of team affective commitment; (c) AL predicts team potency through the mediating role of team virtuousness and team affective commitment. By focusing on two positive constructs (AL and team virtuousness), for which interrelations have rarely been explored, the study contributes to the Positive Organizational Scholarship movement, and suggests that AL and virtuousness are good in themselves and also potential facilitators of team success.     

Charismatic leadership in resistance to change

In Weber's writing and in leadership theory, charismatic leadership is associated with social change. However, the importance and desirability of charismatic leaders in change processes can be questioned, as well as the notion that charismatic leaders are invariably proponents of change. There are documented cases of charismatic leaders in religious and political contexts who have opposed ongoing change and proposed restoring tradition. This paper reports on two historical, qualitative case studies of charismatic leadership in an organizational setting, studies that demonstrate that charismatic leadership can also act in resistance to change and in defense of the status quo. The analysis indicates that the influence processes involved are basically the same as in charismatic leadership in general. It suggests that impending change can challenge the interests and values of established groups and thus create a crisis that stimulates the formation of charisma in opposition to change.     

Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams

This study examined the etiology of transformational leadership in virtual team contexts. First, we compared 127 members of virtual decision-making teams with 135 members of traditional face-to-face teams in terms of the relationship between aspects of personality and the emergence of transformational leadership. The type of communication media (face-to-face versus “pure” virtual) was found to interact with extraversion and emotional stability in the prediction of emerging transformational leadership. In line with prior findings, we showed how these personality characteristics were relevant to transformational leadership emergence in our face-to-face teams. However, they were largely unrelated to such leadership in the virtual team context. We also focused specifically on the virtual context by analyzing the content of team interactions. After accounting for the effect of degree of activity level, the linguistic quality in one's written communication was found to predict the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual teams.     

Is training leaders in functional leadership a useful tool for improving the performance of leadership functions and team effectiveness?

Departing from the functional leadership model, we propose a team leadership training model as a way to improve the performance of leadership functions and foster team effectiveness. Based on a longitudinal quasi-experimental study involving ninety 6-person teams, 45 trained leaders were compared to 45 untrained leaders at two points in time: before the intervention group was subjected to training experience (time 1), and 6 months after the intervention group had completed their training (time 2). Results showed that, compared to the non-trained leaders, the trained leaders registered an improvement in their enactment of leadership functions. Moreover, these results also showed that training leaders led to an improvement in team effectiveness through the development of team leadership functions. The current findings offer new insights into the way that leaders can improve team effectiveness.     

Shared Leadership in Commercial Organizations: A Systematic Review of Definitions,Theoretical Frameworks and Organizational Outcomes

The importance of context has been well established in studies of leadership (Bryman, A. and Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 353–371; Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991). Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford: Blackwell). However, recent reviews of shared leadership have tended to merge findings across commercial and non‐commercial settings, disregarding contextual differences in these distinctive domains. Acknowledging that the challenges of leadership may vary in different organizational contexts, this paper argues that a focused review of shared leadership in commercial organizations (COs) is needed. The authors thus systematically review findings from over twenty years of empirical research on the practice of shared leadership in commercial organizations, critically reviewing definitions, theoretical dispositions and measurement approaches adopted in the field, before evaluating the impact of shared leadership on performance in this context. Findings from commercial and non‐ commercial organizations are then compared, highlighting significant differences in the conceptualization of shared leadership in these distinct settings. Contributing to theory in this field, a framework is developed, mapping the landscape of current research in commercial contexts, revealing critical gaps in our present understanding of shared leadership processes. Consequently, a model summarizing a proposed research agenda for future studies is provided, highlighting the need for such research to focus on the interactions of individuals as they share in the leadership of their team.