Search results

Leadership is a crucial driver of project performance. While traditionally, the project leader was considered as the exclusive source of leadership behavior, recent research indicates that particularly dispersed projects may profit from joint leadership efforts by all project members. However, leadership functions in dispersed projects are likely to differ from those in a face-to-face context. In this chapter, we specify shared leadership functions for the domain of geographically dispersed project teams with high levels of task uncertainty. Arguing that shared leadership in dispersed teams occurs through interrelation of individual and team actions, we specify a dispersed screening function as well as self-, other-, and team-directed interrelation functions and develop propositions on how these functions are related to project performance. Furthermore, we point to motivational aspects of shared leadership and discuss the role of the vertical leader in developing and facilitating shared leadership.

The importance of humans to the successful delivery of construction projects has led to the emergence of research attention on construction workforce management. As such, this chapter uncovers emotional intelligence (EI) and the external environment as critical aspects of workforce management practices that have not gained substantial attention in past workforce management studies. While some theories and models (existing outside the construction domain) have considered the external environment, none of these models is specific to the construction industry. Furthermore, EI has received less attention within existing workforce management models. Through a review of related studies and theories, this chapter noted that the EI of construction workers and their senior management is crucial to the performance of these workers and the ultimate performance of their organisations. In the same vein, since construction organisations do not operate in silos, the external environment significantly influences the operations of organisations in the construction industry. The environment exact pressures that can influence workforce management practices and technological innovations construction organisations adopt.

This chapter seeks to increase our understanding of health care employees' perceptions of effective and ineffective leadership behavior within their organization.

Interviews were conducted with 59 employees working in a diversity of positions within the case study hospital. Interviewees were asked to cite behaviors of both an effective and an ineffective leader in their organization. They were also asked to clarify whether their example described the behavior of a formal or informal leader. Grounded theory data analysis techniques were used and findings were interpreting using existing leadership behavior theories.

(1) There was a consistent link between effective leadership and relationally oriented behaviors. (2) Employees identified both formal and informal leadership within their hospital. (3) There were both similarities and differences with respect to the types of behaviors attributed to informal versus formal leaders. (4) Informants cited a number of leadership behaviors not yet accounted for in the leadership behavior literature (e.g., ‘hands on’, ‘professional’, ‘knows organization’). (5) Ineffective leadership behavior is not simply the opposite of effective leadership.

Findings support the following ideas: (1) there may be a relationship between the type of job held by employees in health care organizations and their perceptions of leader behavior, and (2) leadership behavior theories are not yet comprehensive enough to account for the varieties of leadership behavior in a health care organization. This study is limited by the fact that it focused on only those leadership theories that considered leader behavior.

There are two practical implications for health care organizations: (1) leaders should recognize that the type of behavior an employee prefers from a leader may vary by follower job group (e.g., nurses may prefer relational behavior more than managerial staff do), and (2) organizations could improve leader development programs and evaluation tools by identifying ineffective leadership behaviors that they want to see reduced within their workplace.

Health care organizations could use these findings to identify informal leaders in their organization and invest in training and development for them in hopes that these individuals will have positive direct or indirect impacts on patient, staff, and organizational outcomes through their informal leadership role.

This study contributes to research and practice on leadership behavior in health care organizations by explicitly considering effective and ineffective leader behavior preferences across multiple job types in a health care organization. Such a study has not previously been done despite the multi-professional nature of health care organizations.

To open your heart to others is a physical act of leadership. It can include crying and inspire hugs. In this chapter, I explore what it means to open your heart, why doing so is an act of leadership, how to do it, and why it is difficult to do. Opening your heart to others is both the simplest, most natural thing in the world, and tremendously difficult at the same time. It means sharing a part of ourselves that others will recognize as real and true, and important in a way that feels incredibly vulnerable. Opening your heart is a way of creating and working with the connection between people. Actors have long recognized that the single biggest barrier to achieving the kind of connection that comes from opening your heart is playing status games with each other. The challenge for the leader is to transcend the status game and stop playing it in a way that doesn’t damage their status as a leader. I offer an example of how Frank showed real leadership by overcoming his fear and opening his heart to his employees.

In this chapter we examine various human resource management (HRM) implications involved in the leadership of fluid teams. Leadership of fluid teams, which are distinguished by their dynamic composition, requires consideration of issues that may not be as pertinent for stable teams. In particular, we focus on the concept of familiarity. Composing and leading teams with members exhibiting varying degrees of familiarity with one another creates obstacles to effective and efficient functioning and may ultimately lead to poor performance. With this in mind, leaders must pay particular attention to issues of coordination, and composition such that a broad range of generalizable teamwork skills exists within the team. Within this chapter, we explain the concepts of fluid teams, team leadership within fluid teams, and other relevant concepts related to the formation of familiarity. Next, we thoroughly review extant empirical and theoretical research within these areas. We identify areas of correspondence among the various concepts and findings of the reviewed studies and generate an integrated model of fluid team leadership. To conclude, we highlight the distinct HRM implications associated with the use, and leadership, of fluid teams.

The rapidly evolving competitive global marketplace with its culturally diverse customers has increased demand for multinational corporations (MNCs) to accelerate global innovation. Leaders increasingly face the challenge of facilitating global and local team knowledge in order to improve strategic planning and execution for new products and services worldwide. An unresolved question in this regard is how global leaders can facilitate multicultural team collaboration aimed at improving performance of global innovation initiatives? Addressing this research question, a qualitative study was conducted focusing on the role of global leadership in facilitating multicultural collaboration and global innovation performance. The study included interviews with 105 global project leaders at 36 MNCs with headquarters based in Europe, Asia, and North America. These exploratory findings demonstrate how global leadership behaviors can facilitate cross-cultural collaboration for international project performance.

The team members’ expertise has been shown to increase team effectiveness when it is actively coordinated. While in face-to-face teams such expertise coordination unfolds through direct interaction, expertise coordination in dispersed teams is unlikely to evolve automatically. In this context, shared leadership, that is, the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members is argued to serve as initiating mechanism for expertise coordination.

The purpose of this chapter is to document how a new learning technic may create transformative learning in leadership in an organisational practice.

The learning methods developed in the learning in practice (LIP) project include aesthetic performances combined with reflections. The intention has been to explore how leadership may be transformed, when leaders work as a collective of leaders. The learning methods developed and tested in the LIP project are art-informed learning methods, concepts of liminality and reflection processes carried out in the leaders’ organisational practice.

One of the most important findings in the LIP project in relation to transformative learning is a new learning technique based on guided processes rooted in aesthetic performance combined with reflections and separation of roles as performer and audience. Reflection processes related to aesthetic performance serve as argument for the impact of ‘the audience wheel’.

Leaders who perform and reflect in a collective of leaders can better deal with complex organisational problems and enhance growing of welfare-in-the-making from an inside and out perspective. Moreover, the separation between classroom teaching and practical intervention will diminish when leaders learn aesthetic performance and reflections as a practical technique.

In one of his most cited works, March (1991) observed that “The basic problem confronting an organization is to engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, devote enough energy to exploration to exploration to ensure its future viability” (p. 105). The need to simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation is a cornerstone of organizational ambidexterity, with the embedded assumption that exploratory ventures require organic management systems and exploitative activities benefit from more mechanistic management systems. The authors argue that this assumption about system alignment is neither well-supported by empirical evidence nor well-grounded in March’s original ideas about exploration and exploitation. The authors review the existing empirical evidence on the management systems that support exploration and exploitation and reveal some of the empirical and conceptual challenges. The authors then share a quasi-experimental study of 49 project teams over an 18-month period where they investigated how components of the management system – formalization, specialization, hierarchy, and leadership – differentially affect project success for explore and exploit projects. The authors find that exploitation projects can succeed under either mechanistic or organic systems, but that exploratory project performance suffers under a mechanistic system. In addition, the authors also find that leadership is the most important determinant of project success or failure. The authors discuss the implications of these results for future studies of organizational ambidexterity and draw attention to some of the underdeveloped ideas in March’s original article that might further advance the field.