Search results

This article aims to present and discuss research findings on 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours in different contexts. In so doing, it brings together and develops two themes previously explored by the author, namely: the need to introduce a significant social dimension into thinking about team roles; the need to recognise that appropriate leadership behaviour is not universal but contingent upon context.

A mixed sample of public sector managers in the UK completed a team role self-assessment questionnaire and had a 360 degree assessment completed on them. The research looked at the degree of correlation between the self-assessments and the 360 assessments and its statistical significance, exploring the ways in which the nine team roles are more or less valued in different contexts.

Statistically significant relationships were found between measures of leadership contexts and team role behaviours. More importantly for this research, 360 degree assessments of team role behaviours were also found to vary in different contexts. Similarities and differences were found in the team roles behaviours that were typical in particular contexts and those that were valued in such contexts.

The range of contexts explored in this article was limited. Two contextual variables derived from the model of “dynamic” leadership were examined, namely the level of influence over change and the level of influence over others. In both cases, high and low levels of influence were considered. It would be useful to explore other contextual variables. It would also be useful to see if the observed relationships were found in situations other than the UK public sector.

First, the findings reinforce the view that there is a significant social dimension to team roles, they cannot be viewed merely as clusters of personality traits, they are related to social roles and the influence people have in such roles. Second, teams are likely to be more effective if the behaviour of individual team members is appropriate to the social roles and contexts that they find themselves in. Third, what people tend to do in particular situations is not necessarily the same as that which is valued in such situations.

The findings reinforce the conclusions of earlier research by the author and associates. In so doing, they lend support to original team role and leadership models developed by these individuals, as well as highlighting links between the two models. They also highlight differences between what people tend to do in particular situations and what is likely to be valued in such situations.

Two issues which confront today’s managers are diversity and teams. The contradictory nature of these two terms, in the form of a diverse team, makes it appropriate that the role of many traditional project management tools and techniques be examined. This article describes how the leadership of a diverse team was able to successfully accomplish a major project on time and under budget. They used traditional project management tools and techniques but modified them to fit the requirements of the team. One primary area for focus was on identifying behaviors all team members should exhibit in order to for the project to be successful. After the behaviors were identified, applied behavior analysis was used to reinforce the desired behaviors. By focusing on behaviors which built trust and encouraged open communications, the team was able to take advantage of the diverse experience and backgrounds of all team members. This allowed the team to push decision making well down into the organization, motivate all team members around the objectives of the project and develop flexible processes which were enhanced as the project moved forward. This article attempts to describe and explain the major lessons the team felt they learned for this project.

The purpose of this paper is to model the relationship between influencing behaviour, personality traits, work roles and role orientation. It builds on previous research into team roles, highlighting the relationship between influencing behaviour and team role behaviour.

Statistical analysis on questionnaire data from a mixed, work‐based, UK sample is used to assess relationships between influencing behaviour, role expectations, role orientation and team role behaviour.

The paper argues that team roles access different types of power and influencing behaviours depending on role and role orientation. The findings establish a link between influencing behaviour and team role behaviour, as well as personality traits, developing the idea that there is a significant social dimension to team roles.

The research does not consider specific influence attempts, nor does it present evidence regarding the effectiveness of patterns of influencing behaviour in particular contexts.

The paper highlights the relationship between influencing behaviour and personality and contextual variables. Considering “when” different strategies and styles are used may offer guidelines for action. The findings reinforce the significance of the social dimension of team roles and indicate a need for further research to consider the success of influencing behaviour in different contexts.

Previous research into influencing behaviour has focused on its relationship to either situational variables or personality traits and, where personality variables have been studied, they have been specific traits. This research considers both sets of variables simultaneously and covers the whole personality domain. This is the first study of the relationship between team role behaviour and influencing behaviour.

Although team reflexivity has been identified as a potent tool for improving organizational performance, how and when it influences individual employee innovative behavior remains theoretically and conceptually underspecified. Taking a knowledge management perspective, this study aims to investigate the role of team-level knowledge sharing and leadership in transforming team reflexivity into innovative behavior at the individual level.

The paper follows a multilevel study design to collect data (n = 441) from 91 teams in 48 knowledge-based organizations. The paper tests our multilevel model using multinomial logistic techniques.

The overall results confirm that knowledge sharing in teams mediates the influence of team reflexivity on individual employee innovative behavior, and that leadership plays an important role in moderating these influences. Specifically, authoritarian leadership is found to attenuate the team reflexivity and knowledge sharing effect, whereas benevolent leadership is found to amplify this indirect effect.

The multilevel study design that explains how team-level processes translate into innovative behavior at the individual employee level is novel. Relatedly, our use of a multilevel analytical framework is also original.

Leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI), personality, and empowering behavior have been heavily studied in the organizational behavior literature. To date, the majority of research on EI and personality has shown their significant influence on personal outcomes. It has also been suggested that empowerment is a fundamental psychological mechanism underlying follower outcomes. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team outcomes and the potential mediating effect of team leaders’ empowering behavior. In this study, we developed theoretical rationale and empirically tested the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team climate and the mediating role that team leaders’ empowering behavior plays in this relationship. The results supported most of our hypothesized relationships, that is, the positive effects of team leaders’ EI and agreeableness on team climate were mediated by team leaders’ empowering behavior, whereas team leaders’ openness to new experience was not related to empowering behavior and team climate. Finally, theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Scholarship on reputation in and of organizations has been going on for decades, and it always has separated along level of analysis issues, whereby the separate literatures on individual, group/team/unit, and organization reputation fail to acknowledge each other. This sends the implicit message that reputation is a fundamentally different phenomenon at the three different levels of analysis. We tested the validity of this implicit assumption by conducting a multilevel review of the reputation literature, and drawing conclusions about the “level-specific” or “level-generic” nature of the reputation construct. The review results permitted the conclusion that reputation phenomena are essentially the same at all levels of analysis. Based on this, we frame a future agenda for theory and research on reputation.

The cumulative pool of data piling through the empirical expedition around hospitals in Vietnam provides the clue on whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences upward influence behavior, which in turn catalyzes team processes and competitive intelligence scanning. The aim of this paper is to journey through the review of the constructs of CSR, upward influence behavior, and team processes.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) approach served as an analyst for 349 responses returned from self‐administered structured questionnaires despatched to 522 hospital members in the middle‐management position.

A model of team processes and competitive intelligence evolved along the process of hypothesis testing. Ethical CSR was found to cultivate organizationally beneficial upward influence behavior in the healthcare service organizations.

The research findings provide the insight into the CSR‐based model of team processes which underscores the role of ethical CSR initiatives and organizationally beneficial upward influence tactics in the activation of competitive intelligence scanning deeds in hospitals in Vietnam business setting.

This paper aims to describe a study of interactive and collaborative behaviours of software product development teams across horizontal, geographical and value chain boundaries. The objective is to understand the influence of boundary on these behaviours.

This paper is a questionnaire‐based study of 63 software product‐development teams.

The study shows, that interactive behaviour is used more by teams as compared to collaborative behaviour while developing software products. The interactive behaviour is not influenced by the boundary crossed, while collaborative behaviour is influenced by the boundaries crossed.

The study is relevant for practitioners and researchers. Collaboration is considered important for product development, but the study shows that it is not used extensively. Researchers can look into why low level of collaborative behaviour has been exhibited.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of two moderators of the relationships between affective conflict and cognitive conflict and team performance: the cultural context and the level of team‐oriented behaviors.

Survey questionnaires were administered to a sample of 143 Mexico‐ and US‐based learning teams. Regression analysis was used to test hypotheses.

In both cultural contexts, cognitive conflict more positively affected performance when team‐oriented behaviors were high. This effect was stronger for Mexican teams. Affective conflict more negatively affected performance in Mexican teams than US teams, particularly when team‐oriented behaviors were high.

The results have implications for managing conflict to improve team effectiveness in the USA and in Mexico and for training managers who work across these cultural contexts.

The paper demonstrates the joint role of the cultural context and team behaviors in how conflict influences team performance.

This study aims to explore, as an answer to the observed lack of knowledge about actual team learning behaviours, the characteristics of the actual observed basic team learning behaviours and facilitating team learning behaviours more in-depth of three project teams. Over time, team learning in an organisational context has been investigated more and more. In these studies, there is a dominant focus on team members’ perception of team learning behaviours.

A coding schema is created to observe actual team learning behaviours in interaction between team members in two steps: verbal contributions by individual team members are coded to identify the type of sharing behaviour and, when applicable, these individual verbal behaviours are build up to basic and facilitating team learning behaviours. Based on these observations, an analysis of team learning behaviours is conducted to identify the specific characteristics of these behaviours.

An important conclusion of this study is the lack of clarity about the line of demarcation between individual contributions and learning behaviours and team learning behaviours. Additionally, it is clear that the conceptualisations of team learning behaviour in previous research neglect to a large extend the nuances and depth of team learning behaviours.

Due to the innovative approach to study team learning behaviours, this study is of great value to the research field of teamwork for two reasons: the creation of a coding schema to analyse team learning behaviours and the findings that resulted from this approach.