M PRA

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Team Effectiveness and Leadership Roles

Ethem Duygulu and Nurcan Ciraklar

Dokuz Eylul University, Dokuz Eylul University

18. February 2008

Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7245/
MPRA Paper No. 7245, posted 19. February 2008 00:41 UTC
 Team Effectiveness and Leadership Roles
Dr.Ethem Duygulua∗∗ , Nurcan Ciraklar b
ab
Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Department of Business Administration, izmir, Turkey

Abstract

In this study we aim to explain the patterns of leadership roles for team effectiveness in non economic
organizations compared to economic organizations. For this purpose, we studied three successful organization
types, i.e the amateur sports clubs (football, basketball), theater companies and, regional folk groups. Our
basic hypothesis is that the relationship between the type of organization (specially teams) and the role of
leadership is not random. Therefore, we believe that an empirical approach is necessary to test the assumptions
about leadership and team effectiveness. Also these empirical results are supposed to lead to professional
managers in economic organizations. First, we constructed thirteen key dimension variables for leadership
behavior as follows: coaching, effective communication, encouraging teamwork, establishing high standards
and getting results, effective delegation, rewarding performance, developing and releasing employees, building
consensus, supporting reasonable risk- taking, forecast thinking, improving the organization, managing diversity,
and overall effectiveness . Second, we defined team standards and effectiveness in twenty items. And finally, we
tried to emphasize factors affecting leadership roles and team effectiveness. In this study, Natemeyer and
Babko (1992) Management Practices Survey data are used. Data reliability are tested before the analysis and
results are discussed at the end of the study.

Keywords: Team effectiveness, Leadership; Roles

Introduction

According to Peter and Liz (2000:393), Mullins (1996) defines leadership as a

relationship through which one person influences the behavior of other people. Leaders must
not only be able to define departmental, unit or organizational missions, but they must also be
able to coordinate the activities of others and motivate them to meet mission requirements.
Additionally, they must circumvent or resolve issues impeding progress towards
accomplishing organizational goals. Selection and implementation of actions to bring about
goal attainment represents a form of problem solving which makes the generation, evaluation,
and implementation of proactive and reactive solutions key to leader effectiveness (Mumford
M. D., Zaccaro S. J., Harding F. D., Jacobs T. O. & Fleishman E. A.,2000 :14). With respect
to understanding effective leadership in organizational settings however, the nature of the
problems at hand and their associated performance demands have another remarkable set of
implications. Specifically, they provide us with some important clues about the type of
knowledge and skills likely to underlie effective performance in organizational settings
(Mumford M. D. et all,2000:15). Leaders must not only be able to formulate a plan that works
within the context of organization, they must also be able to implement this plan within a
distinctly social context, marshaling support, communicating a vision, guiding subordinates,
and motivating others. Thus, leaders must be able to understand and work with others,
another point which underscores the need for social skills (Mumford M. D., et all,2000:19).

The study of leadership which concerns the nature of superior and subordinate
relationship encompasses various approaches, such as trait theory, behavioral theory, and
contingency theory. The traditional leadership studies adopted two approaches: traits and
behavioral approaches. According to traits approach, most of the previous research based on
this, a leader can simply direct his/her members for organizational goals thanks to his/her
psychical or psychological characteristics. Meanwhile, these studies of leadership assumed
that a leader possesses characteristics or traits that distinguish him/her from followers, and

∗
Coressponding author Tel.: +90 232 424 41 80 Fax.: +90 232 420 17 89 E-mail:ethem.duygulu@deu.edu.tr,
1
this assumption serves as a basis for the trait theory of leadership. Several research in that
period concentrated to identify a set of personality traits, such as appearance, intelligence,
self-reliance, and persuasiveness, to delineate great leadership, but they could not come up
with a universal list of traits that all successful leaders possess (Diskul P., 2001:42-43) . In
essence, this approach has not sufficiently explained leadership behavior. By the late 1940s,
most of the leadership research had moved from what leaders were to what they did -the
behavioral approach. On the other hand, behavioral approach suggests that effective leaders
influence their fellow members thorough their behavior. These behaviors can be acquired and
improved by training. It was assumed that effective leaders consistently used distinctive
styles. Many studies attempted to identify the behavioral differences of effective leaders vis-à-
vis ineffective leaders. Both the traits and behavioral leadership theories tried to find a unique
leadership style for all situations (Diskul P., 2001:42). Well known studies on leadership
behavior include Ohio State University Studies, University of Michigan State Studies and
Blake and Mouton studies which is called Managerial Grid. The distinctive characteristics of
these studies are generally splitting behavioral patterns as employee oriented and task
oriented.

On the other hand, these studies in traits and behavioral approach failed to obtain
consistent and significant results. This led to a change in focus towards situational factors
(Contingency theory). However, it became apparent in the late 1960s that there is no unique
leadership style for all situations. Thus, contingency theory or approach which assumes that
the appropriate leadership style varies from situation to situation was developed to explain
leadership phenomenon. The contingency theory of Fielder (1967) suggests that whether a
group is effective depends upon a proper match between leader's style of interaction with
members and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader
(Cheung S.O, Thomas Ng S., Lam K.C., & Yue W.M, 2001:421-422). According to this
approach, situational factors, which may include the leader's authority, the relationship
between the leader and the member, the type and nature of work and characteristics of the
subordinates should be in harmony with the leadership behavior. The situational approach
treats leadership effectiveness as arising from the dynamic interplay of three factors: the
leader, the followers and the situation in which they all take part (Kangis P.& Kelley L. L.,
2000: 394). Nevertheless, the contingency approach still falls short serving as a general theory
of leadership. Thus, it could be summed up that none of the trait, behavioral, and contingency
approaches alone are sufficient to explain leadership (Diskul P.,2001:43). Therefore we
accepted that the relationship between leadership roles and team effectiveness have to have
interaction. Leaders have an influence on both members’ attitude and work situation, and
they also affected by the team member's attitude and working situations at the same time.

As mentioned above there is a constant interaction between the leader and the team.
There is also interaction between team members. Therefore, a team should be defined as an
active unit. According to Buchlozs, Roth and Hess (Garner C. L.,1998:3) "wearing the same
shirt does not make a team". Morgan, Glickman, Woodard and Salas define a team as
"distinguishable set of two or more individuals who interact interdependently and adaptively
to achieve specified, shared and value objectives". This definition is useful because it shows
that a team is comprised of people. These people proceed to act interdependently, and the
interaction of people contributes the team to achieve some specified goal (Garner C.
L.,1998:5). Another definition of team according to Katzenbah and Simith (1991) is "a team
is a small number of individuals associated in some joint action, with a strong, deep seated,
common sense of purpose" (Garner C. L., 1998:5). Team members are mutually committed,
mutually supportive, and collectively responsible for the achievement of team goals and

2
objectives. Real teams create synergy; they perform at levels above that of groups. Team
members work closely and freely with each other to achieve their common performance
goals. Real teams perform tasks that cannot be achieved by individuals alone (Garner C.
L.,1998:12-13).

Sundstrom and Associets (1999) state that effectiveness of teams start with meeting
the performance expectations, of those who receive, use, or review the team's output.
Performance expectations usually stem from managers, internal and external customers, and
others. Performance expectations differ depending on groups receiving services. For example,
a customer usually expects quality, timeliness, low cost, and responsiveness of service.
Manager expects that a team will meet customer's expectations and that they will be
productive (Anqelique A.,2001:7-8). Other expectations which affects team’s efficiency are
related to employee behavior and quality of work life. On the other hand, task variety, task
identity, task significance, task autonomy, and task feedback can contribute team
effectiveness. Team composition like as heterogeneity, team stability and team size are also
contributing factors to team’s efficiency. Heterogeneity has a positive impact on team
effectiveness, especially when a task assigned to a team is diverse (Diskul P., 2001:13). Team
stability involves the continuity of membership. A stable team can provide its members
security through knowledge of expectations, and belief systems. It also has cohesive team
values which promote team effectiveness and satisfaction. Furthermore, team size can affect
team functioning and create problems such as complicating communication and coordination.
It is suggested that team size should be limited to a minimum number in accordance with
team's goals. If a team is too large, the quality of interaction between its members decreases
and this impairs team effectiveness which results in high costs and process losses (Diskul P.,
2001:13-15). Team beliefs and members’ involvement are also important factors for team
effectiveness. In the relevant literature, effective and ineffective teams are characterized by
several factors(Marie V. G., 1999:37-38). Table 1 shows these factors. Team effectiveness has
been studied in relation to the team performance. Snee points out that both the team
members’ and the team leader’s efforts are necessary if there is to be an effective team. Snee
also claims that a common terminology is a skill developed over time, a skill must be
practiced and learned (Dewald S L. M., 2002:21). Larson and LaFasto have identified eight
dimensions that are regularly associated with team excellence. These dimensions are clear
goals, results driven structure, competent team members, unified commitment, collaborative
climate, standards of excellence, external support and recognition and principled leadership
(Dewald S. L. M.,2002:21-22).

Table1:Effective and Ineffective Team Characteristics

Effective Team Characteristics Ineffective Team Characteristics
Clear goals that all group members committed Formal and tense interactions
Open honest communication Poor communication
Cooperative decision-making Hierarchical Structures
An atmosphere of trust Low trust levels
A sense of belonging Role confusion
Good listening skill Unclear team mission
Participation by all members Lack of cooperation among members.

Larson and LaFasto state that clarity of goal is critical for team members. This clarity insures
that the members have confidence in the direction of the goal. Taborda said that, "effective
teams invest a great amount of time effort exploring and agreeing on the purpose that gives
them direction. In contrast, failed teams rarely develop a common purpose" (Dewald S. L.
M.,2002:22). Managers in all types of organizations use some variation of the dimension,
clear elevating goal. This dimension particularly evidenced in the Management by Objectives
3
concept. In this concept, the leader and team members identify the goals, define the members’
roles and expectations of the roles and then if the members contribute to meet these goals.
Priorities have been set and agreed upon by both the members and team leader (Dewald S. L.
M.,2002:22). According to this interpretation, leaders play an important role to compose
effectiveness in a team.

Research Design

According to James J. and others (1997:237), team effectiveness can be evaluated

using objective or subjective measures. Because objective measures usually miss certain
critical factors, there appears to be agreement across studies in the choice of subjective
measures, with many studies using scales that combine satisfaction measures with measures
of teams’ ability to achieve their goals. Effective teamwork is achieved when members of a
team work together in such a way that core goals are accomplished. Based on James and
others explanation to analyze team effectiveness: we used Natemeyer and Babkos' (1992)
Management Practice Survey data questionnaire cited in Samawicz (1998).

According to Grendstad and Strand (1999:389) the number of possible leadership roles
will be limited to four: namely producer, administrator, integrator and entrepreneur which
reflects the widespread agreement among scholars about the basic functions identifiable in
any organization. The measurement of roles reflects a rather ambiguous definition of the
concept, i.e. the individuals’ assessment based on their position, their perception of the
expectations or demands according to the roles, their perception of their own performance
efficacy and the perception of their role performance by significant others.

Leadership roles are difficult to evaluate yet it can be expressed by leader's behavior.
Leaders displaying leadership behavior can increase the level of satisfaction of the team
members and improve the performance of the team (Cheung S.O et all, 2001:422). These
roles can be changed by organization culture and orientations of "production-centered" or
"employee-centered". This research seeks to establish a relationship between leadership roles
and team effectiveness. Meanwhile, the present study contains a number of variables that are
not reported in this paper, such as culture, control and several individual and organizational
characteristics. But we accepted that organizational factors and others play an important role
in determining whether or not a team is effective. For example, Zack and Serino (1996)
describe a competitive or collaborative culture as one such component that can enhance or
hinder team functioning (Marie V. G., 1999:34 ). When rules, however, are unknown and
ambiguous, and are based on a rigid hierarchical power structure, teams can become
ineffective. Further, established norms provide rewards and sanctions and define how team
accomplish its tasks. And finally, the social structure of the organization both formal and
informal, can promote or stifle communication, collaboration, trust, conflict resolution, and
mutual respect, thus has an impact on team effectiveness (Marie V. G., 1999:33).

4
 Figure: 1 Relationship between Team Effectiveness and Leadership Roles

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

LEADERSHIP ROLES TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

NON- PROFESSIONAL TEAMS

PROFESSIONAL TEAMS

Moderator Variables

According to the model, leadership roles are assessed in thirteen sub-dimensions. These
dimensions which are accepted as independent variables are coaching, effective
communication, encouraging teamwork, establishing high standards, effective delegation,
rewarding performance, developing and releasing employees, building consensus, supporting
reasonable risk taking, forecast thinking, improving the organization, managing diversity, and
overall effectiveness (Samawicz P. S.,1998:128 ). On the other hand, team effectiveness is
chosen as dependent variable. The dependent variable is affected by the perceptions of non-
professional and professional participants so we used a moderator to explain this relationship.

Questionnaire And Statistical Method

The questionnaire is comprised of three major sections. These sections are Leadership
roles, Team Effectiveness and sample’s demographic characteristics respectively. Thirteen
sub-dimensions are used to assess leadership roles and these dimensions include fifty
statements for measurement. Total alpha level for those statements are 0.97. Team
effectiveness dimension includes twenty items and alpha level for this statement is 0.95.
These findings for alpha levels are very high reliability and acceptable. Final section of
questionnaire is arranged with respect to research aims. Gender, age, level of education,
profession, experience and team membership period are identified in this section.

A five-point Likert scale is used to measure each dimension. To measure leadership

roles, participants are asked to indicate "don't apply" or "apply" with each statement on five
point Likert scale, from "never apply" to "certainly apply". On the other hand to measure
team effectiveness, respondents are required to indicate their degree of agreement or
disagreement with each item on the scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Descriptive statistics are computed to develop a profile of the sample and regression analysis
(stepwise method) used between dependent and independent variables for causality. To show
how independent variables affect dependent variable, a moderator, professional and
nonprofessional, is used.

5
Data Collection

The sample in this study was chosen randomly between non-economic and economic
goal teams. Non economics sample was included football and volleyball teams, Theatre
workers and Folk dance team members. Economic goal team members were chosen from
industry. A research questionnaire was administered for 152 team members and total 149
usable responses were received. This yields a usable response rate of 98 percent. The
Frequency distributions of teams are given in table 2.
Table2: Frequency distributions of team members (n=149)
Team Football Volleyball Folk Dance Theatre Manufactory
composition (n/ percent) (n/percent) (n/ percent) (n/ percent) (n/percent)
Non-professional 11 (7.5) 5 (5.3) 36 (24.2) 45 (30.2) --------
Professional 1 (0.6) 4 (4.1) 4 (2.6) ------- 38 (25.5)

Of the respondents, 56 (37.6 percent) were female and 53 (35.6 percent) were male.
40 (26.8 percent) did not mark the gender question. The average age was less than 23 years
and this included 107 (71.8 percent) of the participants in the sample. As for the educational
level, most of the participants completed high school (104 and 69,8 percent) and at the same
time some of these participants continue their university education. On the other hand
participants time period of team membership were 19.5 percent (29) less than one year, 29.5
percent were one year's member of team, 16.1 percent spent on time in a team two years and
others were 14.1 percent more than three years experienced. The 31 participants were not
points out about time experience in a team. For the total samples 52 participants were
professional and 97 participants were amateur in the teams.

Findings
To examine the relationship between leadership roles and team effectiveness,
stepwise regression analysis was conducted. Two groups, non-professional and professional,
are used to as moderator to find the causality between these variables. There are not any
significant differences between male and female members’ perceptions of both team
effectiveness and leadership roles. Furthermore, managing diversity dimension between
professionals and nonprofessionals is statistically significant at the level of 0.001, and the
other dimensions do not have any statistically significant relationship. With respect to
correlation analysis findings, leadership roles and team effectiveness variables are
significantly correlated to each other. Table 3 shows these findings.

Table 3: Correlation Findings for each Dimension

Leadership Roles Team Effectiveness (n=149)
Coaching .569** (125)
Effective Communication .659** (128)
Encouraging Team work .654** (126)
Establishing High Standard .608** (126)
Effective Delegation .691** (125)
Rewarding Performance .403** (127)
Developing & Releasing Employees .586** (125)
Building Consensus .567** (129)
Supporting Reasonable Risk-taking .614** (127)
Forecast Thinking .730** (126)
Improving the Organization .620** (128)
Managing Diversity .679** (128)
Overall Effectiveness .720** (127)
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

6
 These findings support that there exists a relationship between leadership roles and
team effectiveness. In other words, leader’s role in helping the team to clarify, define or
manage a goal can not be overlooked.
Table:4 Results of the Regression analysis for the effects of Leadership roles
on team effectiveness in professionals (n=52)
Independent
Variables Entered â t Sig. Adj. R2 F Sig.
Model 1 0.318 15.918 .000
Managing Diversity 0.582 3.990 .000
Model 2 0.401 11.732 .000
Managing Diversity 0.785 4.831 .000
Building Consensus -0.375 -2.307 .028
Model 3 0.490 11.241 .000
Managing Diversity 0.584 3.429 .002
Building Consensus -0.392 -2.610 .014
Effective Delegation. 0.378 2.489 .019
Moderator: Professional

In step 1, managing diversity was regressed on team effectiveness and the team
effectiveness Beta weight was significant (â=0.58), t value is statistically significant (.000).
In step 2, when building consensus was added to the leadership roles, the Beta weight for
team effectiveness was negative and significant (â=-0.375, t value is less than 0.05). On the
other hand a significant increase in R2 was found (F=11.732, R2 =.401 ) when effective
delegation was entered into the model 3 at the third step (F= 11.241, R2 =.49). Beta weight
for team effectiveness in model 3 was statistically significant. According to this result,
managing diversity in the leadership roles is the strongest explanatory variable to explain
team effectiveness for professionals. But these results are different for non-professions when
used as a control variable professionals. Table 5 shows these differences.
Table: 5 Results of the Regression analysis for the effects of leadership roles on
team effectiveness in non-professional teams (N=97) (stepwise method)
Independent
Variables Entered â t Sig. Adj. R2 F Sig.
Model 1 0.736 199.354 .000
Forecast Thinking 0.860 14,119 .000
Model 2 0.828 172.221 .000
Forecast Thinking 0.500 6.564 .000
Managing Diversity 0.472 6.200 .000
Model 3 0.852 137.379 .000
Forecast Thinking 0.349 4.217 .000
Managing Diversity 0.379 5.009 .000
Effective Commun. 0.280 3.483 .001
Model 4 0.860 110.365 .000
Forecast Thinking 0.383 4.678 .000
Managing Diversity 0.405 5.442 .000
Effective Commun. 0.283 3.626 .001
Rewarding Perform. -0.116 -2.239 .029
Moderator: Non professional

In the regression analysis findings in table 5, the adjusted R square (R2 ) indicates that
the percentage of total variance of team effectiveness by the leadership roles (.86) dimensions
of the forecast thinking, managing diversity, effective communication, and rewarding
performance. According to this result, forecast thinking is the strongest explanatory variable
in the leadership roles (R2 = 0.73) to explain team effectiveness for the non-professionals.
These sub dimensions of leadership roles’ t value for the first step is 14.119 and F value is

7
199.354 and this value is statistically significant. The next independent variable with the
highest t-value is managing diversity in the leadership roles. For the last step, other
independent variables (effective communication and rewarding performance) were also
entered into the analysis. On the other hand, the relationship between rewarding performance
and team effectiveness for the non-professionals has a negative slope. The regression beta
value of forecast thinking decreased from 0.86 to 0.383 as R2 rose from 0.73 to 0.86 when the
other independent variables entered into the analysis.

Conclusion and discussion

According to the regression results, managing diversity is a common explanatory

variable for both professionals and non-professionals. Forecast thinking, effective
communication, building consensus, effective delegation and rewarding performance
variables differ between professionals and non-professionals. Forecast thinking, effective
communication and rewarding performance are distinctive characteristics of non-
professionals whereas building consensus and effective delegation are the characteristics of
professionals. This leads us to think leadership roles are under the influence of organizational
conditions i.e. management practice, working conditions, the perception of members and the
characteristics of tasks.

The first limitation of this study revolved around the sample size. The method of data
collection was difficult, as well as time consuming. All team members had to be present and
had to complete the survey in order for the data to be considered as valid. Difficulties arose in
scheduling, time constraints for teams, and even availability of team members as the entire
team is never together at the same time. A larger sample might have supported the study's
hypothesis more strongly.

References

Anqelique Andrews B.S. (2001). Virtual Teams and Technology: The Relationship between Training and Team
Effectiveness, Dissertation, University of North Texas, page 71.

Garner Charles Lary (1998). Team Building and Organizational Effectiveness, Dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin. Page 210.

Cheung S.O, Thomas N. S., Lam K.C., and Yue W.M.(2001). A Satisfying Leadership Behavior Model for
Design Consultants, International Journal of Project Management, 19: 421-429

Marie Gail Viveiros (1999). An Investigation into The Relationship between Effective Teams and Individual
Team Member Behavior Patterns: A New Perspective on Organizational Functioning. Dissertation, University of
Colorado at Denver., page 183.

Grendstad Gunnar , Strand Torodd (1999). Organizational types and leadership roles, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 15:385-403

James J. Jiang, Jaideep Motwani and Stephen T. Margulis (1997). IS team projects: IS professionals rate six
criteria for assessing effectiveness Team Performance Management, Vol. 3 No. 4 :236-243.

Mumford Michael D., Stephen J. Zaccaro, Francis D. Harding , T. Owen Jacobs and Edwin A. Fleishman
(2000). Leadership Skills For A Changing World: Solving Complex Social Problems Leadership Quarterly,
11(1): 11–35.

Diskul Pajita (2201). Toward Effective Self-managing Work Teams (SMWTs): The Relationship between
Perceived Leadership Styles and SMWT Characteristics. Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, Virginia. Page 266.

8
Peter Kangis, and Liz Lee-Kelley (2000). Project leadership in clinical research organizations, International
Journal of Project Management, 18: 393-401

Samawicz Philip Stephen (1998). Cross-Cultural Team Building: The Impact of Leadership and Technology on
an Industrial Project in West Africa, Dissertation, The Fielding Institute , page 143.

Dewald Sherry L. (Messina) (2002). Collaborative Leadership in Law Enforcement Teams, Dissertation,
University of Denver. Page 166.

Vitae
Ethem DUYGULU, Is An Assistant Professor Of Business Administration In Faculty Of Economics And
Administrative Sciences At The University Of Dokuz Eylul In Izmir, Turkey. He Received His M.B.A. And
Ph.D. In Business Administration From The Institute Of Social Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University .He Teaches
Courses In Business Strategy And Policy, Organizational Change And Development, Human Resource
Management And The Organizational Behavior, Total Quality Management In Graduate The Department Of
Business And Institute Of Social Sciences MBA. He Is A Vice President Of Economics, Administrative Sciences
And Culture Society. His Research Interests Are In Institutional Theories, Entrepreneurship, Organizational
Culture And Alienation. He Is Currently Studying On The Relationship Between Countries’ Institutional Profiles
And Entrepreneurship Behavior. He has several articles about on management &organization.