Search results

In a team‐based organization, the performance not only of the teams as a whole but also of their individual members needs to be managed and managed very well if tall performance (consistently competent, ethical, and motivated behavior that always produces the best results) is to be reached and sustained. In this article, four principles are first overviewed that underlie a new model of performance management designed by the author. The principles are those of tall performance, accountability, responsible empowerment, and performance management. An overview of the new model is then given. Among the model’s salient features are the way it preserves the “we” without sacrificing the “me”, a non‐traditional way to do performance appraisals, and accountability not only for results but also for behaviors, including ethical conduct.

This paper aims to examine the influence of shared leadership on team performance in terms of quantity and quality and in addition the moderating effect of task complexity on this relationship.

Data was gathered from 26 teams of students from a major university in Germany who completed a laboratory team decision-making exercise.

The results suggest that teams sharing leadership showed better team performance and made fewer errors. They achieved higher levels of quality of performance. In addition, if the team members viewed the task as highly complex then the quality of their performance was increased.

Therefore for organizations to optimize team performance shared leadership should be promoted, the SNA should be used to develop interventions and training and influencing perceptions of task complexity should be considered as an important strategy to stimulate shared leadership in teams.

This paper has an original approach by testing for the first time how perceived task complexity moderates the relationship between shared leadership and team performance and by developing an original team task to investigate shared leadership.

Management and scholars have been searching for the determinants of project team performance for many years. Individual characteristics and intra‐team processes are most often hypothesized to influence team performance. To date, though, we still do not really understand why some teams perform better than other teams. Studies have provided mixed findings and inconclusive results. The study described in this article continues the search for variables that influence project team performance. The findings provide support for an increasingly, albeit controversial, discussion occurring within human resource circles, concerning the impact of top performers on team performance.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to understanding the impact of entrepreneurial team composition on new venture performance. Different types of entrepreneurship motivation among founding team members are defined. Using a relatively recent theory as a framework (i.e. self-determination theory), the authors group these motives into two categories: autonomous and controlled motivation. The business impact of the level of each type of motivation within the team, as well as the impact of having team members with different motivational drivers, is examined. New venture performance is modelled in two different ways: financial performance (i.e. return on assets) and innovation performance.

The analyses are based on 66 founding teams active in diverse activity sectors. The teams represent a total of 142 business founders. Data was collected through structured interviews, a company questionnaire and a secondary data source (i.e. certified financial statements).

The results confirm that the level of autonomous motivation within the team contributes to start-up financial performance, whereas the level of controlled motivation hampers innovation performance. No direct effects of diversity of team member motivation on start-up performance were discovered.

This is one of the first papers to study multiple firm performance effects of the composition of entrepreneurial founding teams in terms of motivation.

The purpose of this study is to test a contingency model in which the relationship between task conflict and team performance depends on the extent to which team members differ in their levels of expertise and functional backgrounds.

Data were obtained from 71 student teams that completed a semester-long entrepreneurial project.

The results support the moderating role of expertise disparity in the process through which task conflict contributes to team performance. Task conflict had a curvilinear effect (inverted-U) on team performance in teams with high expertise disparity. In contrast, in teams with low expertise disparity, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was found to be linear and positive. The moderating role of functional background diversity was not supported.

This paper shows that the relationship between task conflict and team performance can exist in both a linear and a curvilinear fashion, and that what determines the form of the relationship has to do with a team’s diversity characteristics. The focus of future conflict research should be whether and how teams can realize the possible beneficial effects of task conflict, not whether task conflict is simply good or bad.

Managers may deliberately consider the differences in expertness among members when creating teams or assigning members to a team. Further, they may want to avoid extensive task conflict when a team’s expertise levels are unevenly distributed to lessen expected performance loss.

This study’s examination of the roles of two moderators in catalyzing the processes through which potential effects of task conflict are realized enhances the understanding of equivocal results in conflict research. The empirical evidence that this study provides informs a long-standing debate in the conflict literature – whether task conflict is functional or dysfunctional for teams – in a new, insightful way.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analytic review based on a theoretical framework developed for investigating new product development (NPD) teams in the first two decades of the research stream.

This study contributes to literature by investigating the presence of publication bias and synthesizing correlation effect sizes of 27 factors influencing three NPD team performance dimensions: overall, market-based (e.g. sales, profitability), process-based (e.g. budget adherence, schedule adherence) outcomes. Further, this study presents a path analytical model that uses the aggregate study effects to identify significant drivers of NPD team performance.

First, examination of extant literature shows no publication bias. Next, analyses show that three internal team dynamic variables have the most significant positive effect on overall NPD team performance: team member job satisfaction, cross-functional integration and superordinate identity. For market-based performance, three goal-related contextual factors exert the most positive influence, namely, goal stability, goal clarity and goal support, in respective order. Further, for process-based performance, cross-functional integration’s strong positive effect is followed by team and goal stability. Moreover, physical distance, interpersonal and task conflict have significant negative effects on NPD team performance. Finally, both market- and process-based NPD team performance are significantly influenced by NPD team’s cohesion, which acts a mediator between two contextual factors: physical distance and team tenure.

This meta-analysis contributes to literature by providing a comprehensive model of NPD team performance predictors, their definitions, along with their corresponding effects in predicting performance. While team cohesion is found to be a strong predictor of both market- and process-based performance, future research can examine if too much cohesion has a detrimental effect, especially on market-based performance.

The results assist managers in shifting their priorities to ensure optimal support of NPD teams. For example, team leadership competence externally has a larger effect on overall performance compared to team leadership for internal team dynamics. Hence, team leaders should make sure that they manage the team’s relationships with external parties (e.g. other functional units) with more caution.

This study provides a guiding framework for analyzing NPD team performance as well as identifies and then addresses many knowledge gaps on NPD team performance.

The field of global leadership has flourished and advanced in the preceding decade. However, in contrast to the term global leadership, which enjoys conceptual clarity enabling accumulative progress, the construct of global leadership effectiveness is comparatively undertheorized, with instances of definitional ambiguity and disjointed methodological operationalizations across studies. The purpose of this chapter is, thus, to provide a systematic review of the global leadership effectiveness literature. In doing so, our contributions are fourfold. First, we offer an inclusive, comprehensive definition of global leadership effectiveness. Second, we map its construct domain. Third, we review research findings at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Finally, we integrate extant insights and offer suggestions for future research, organized within the typology of the content domain along the identified dimensions of global leadership effectiveness. Together, our goal is to build a foundation for future research examining the roles of leadership and the global context as antecedents of global leadership effectiveness.

This study aims to investigate the impact of authentic leaders on the performance of educational leaders in public and private universities in Pakistan. The study further examines the moderating role of social capital in this relationship.

The authors collected data from 259 academic heads of public and private universities and tested hypotheses using macro PROCESS.

The findings demonstrate that authentic leaders have a significant positive effect on team leader performance in both public and private universities. In addition, the authors establish that the positive impact of authentic leaders on team leader performance is stronger among employees with high social capital.

The education literature lacks evidence of the process through which authentic leaders influence team leader performance. The study is unprecedented in assessing whether social capital moderates the direct influence of authentic leaders on team leader performance.