The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity Michaéla C. Schippers, Deanne N. Den Hartog, Paul L. Koopman and Daan van Knippenberg

A B S T R A C T Team reflexivity, or the extent to which teams reflect upon and

modify their functioning, has been identified as a key factor in the

effectiveness of work teams. As yet, however, little is known about

the factors that play a role in enhancing team reflexivity, and it is thus

important to develop theorizing around the determinants of

reflexivity. From an applied perspective, leadership is a very relevant

factor. The current study is a first step in the development of such

a model, and addresses this important gap in our understanding of

team reflexivity by focusing on the role of leader behavior. We

examined the extent to which transformational leadership influences

team reflexivity, and in turn, team performance, in a field study

conducted among 32 intact work teams from nine organizations.

Team members rated reflexivity and leadership, while external

managers rated team performance. We hypothesized and tested a

mediational model proposing that transformational leadership is

related to the adoption of a shared vision by the team. This in turn

relates to team reflexivity, which leads to higher team performance.

Results support this model.

K E Y W O R D S learning � performance � reflexivity � transformational leadership � vision

1 5 9 3

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726708096639

Volume 61(11): 1593–1616

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore

http://hum.sagepub.com

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Teams have become the basic organizing structure for accomplishing work in many firms, especially for the increasing numbers of organizations operating in dynamic and complex environments (e.g. Edmondson, 1999). A growing number of teams in the workplace perform intellectual and cognitive tasks (Cooke et al., 2000; Hinsz et al., 1997; Salas et al., 1992), with information processing as a central aspect of their work, making it important to identify factors that influence effectiveness of those teams. Recently, reflexivity (a concept related to team learning) has been identified as a key factor in the effectiveness of work teams (e.g. Schippers, 2003; Schippers et al., 2003, 2007; West, 2000).

At the same time, scholars have noted that individuals and teams rarely reflect spontaneously; rather, teams tend to behave in habitual ways, even when presented with evidence that this behavior might be dysfunctional (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). However, research and theory regarding the determinants and outcomes of reflexivity is still scarce. Therefore, given the importance of reflexivity for the effective functioning of teams, it is crucial to understand what factors motivate teams to become more reflexive, and to develop theory about the determinants of reflexivity. In the present study, we focused on a factor that may be of particular importance in this respect: team leadership (see Bass, 2000; Hirst et al., 2004). More specifically, we examined how leadership may motivate group members to become more reflexive. We tested the hypothesis that transformational leadership is positively related to team reflexivity and team performance, and that this relationship is mediated by a shared vision within the team. We expect that transformational leader- ship will enhance a common goal and shared vision in the team. Having the shared frame of reference inherent in such a shared team vision will enhance teams’ ability to collectively reflect on team objectives and the strategies used to reach them and, in turn, this should enhance team effectiveness.

Team reflexivity, transformational leadership and a shared vision

The concept of reflexivity is rooted in ancient philosophy and is seen by Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Epicures as seeing the world and oneself in a dialectical manner. In developmental and educational psychology, a related concept is metacognitions, referring to reflecting on the learning process (e.g. Brown, 1978; Flavell, 1979), whereas in medicine the same concept is used to refer to a reflective approach involving stepping back from the problem at hand in order to examine and reflect on the thinking process. In a work context, reflexivity has taken on the meaning of both sensemaking and learning from actions (Senge, 1990; see Daley, 2001). For instance, Schön

Human Relations 61(11)1 5 9 4

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

(1983) coined the term ‘reflection in action’ to describe the interwoven cycle of reflection and action of professionals completing complex tasks. At the team level, reflexivity is defined as ‘the extent to which group members overtly reflect on, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies (decision- making) and processes (communication), and adapt these to current or anticipated circumstances’ (West, 2000: 3). A critical difference between indi- vidual reflexivity and team reflexivity is that reflexivity at the team level necessarily involves discussion and is thus observable behavior, and so can be seen as a relational activity (Barge, 2004). According to Barge (2004: 92), ‘the latter recognizes that managers are continually co-creating conversational texts with others and that the tactics they employ influence the shape and form of the emerging text’. In this view, reflexive practice involves making sense of situations together in a continually changing environment. In the current research, we focus on reflexivity in a relational way, entailing communicating views and ideas within a team.

Research has consistently found reflexivity to be positively related to subjective as well as objective measures of team performance (Carter & West, 1998; Hirst et al., 2004; Schippers et al., 2003; Somech, 2006; Tjosvold et al., 2004). For example, in a study among 19 BBC production teams, Carter and West (1998) found that reflexivity predicted team effectiveness. A study among three-person experimental groups showed that teams in the reflexivity condition performed better than teams in the control condition (Gurtner et al., 2007), and a field study among 59 work teams found that team reflexivity mediated the (moderated) relationship between diversity and team performance, commitment, and satisfaction (Schippers et al., 2003).

The converging evidence that reflexivity enhances team performance suggests that organizations may improve team performance by fostering team reflexivity. This gives rise to the question of how team reflexivity may be stimulated, and an obvious route would be through team leadership. Team leaders carry the responsibility for the day-to-day functioning of the team and should be especially well positioned to influence team processes like reflexivity. Although it seems an obvious relationship, and some authors hint at the relationship between transformational leadership and learning (e.g. Bass, 2000), empirical evidence regarding the relation between trans- formational leadership and reflexivity (i.e. team learning) is still lacking. In a similar vein, Gersick and Hackman (1990) suggested that a team leader might help the team to develop meta-routines, which prompt members to initiate re-evaluation of first level routines in a regular and timely fashion, and thus become more reflexive. Indeed, others also mention collective infor- mation processing and team metacognition (i.e. reflexivity) as important mediators between leadership processes and team effectiveness (e.g. Zaccaro et al., 2001).

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 5 9 5

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

First evidence for the role of team leadership in engendering team reflexivity may be found in studies by Hirst et al. (2004), who found that facilitative leader behaviors were positively related to team reflexivity, which in turn affected customer ratings of team performance, and Somech (2006), who found that both directive and participative leadership moderated the relationship between functional heterogeneity and team reflexivity, and that team reflexivity, in turn, influenced innovation in a sample of health care teams. However, the notion that leaders may engender rethinking or re- flexivity by fostering a shared vision is found in theories of transformational leadership (e.g. Bass, 1985, 2000; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Berson et al., 2001). For example, this literature suggests that leaders present a vision that raises followers’ awareness of and dedication to the ideals of the group and that may help them see old problems in a new light.

Transformational leadership is a style of leadership that transforms followers by stimulating them to go beyond self-interest through altering their morale, values and ideals, and motivating them to perform above expec- tations (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). Since its introduction, transformational leadership has been strongly emphasized in the management literature (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Burns, 1978; House, 1996; Lowe et al., 1996; Sashkin, 1988; Yukl, 1998). It is often suggested, but hardly ever tested, that transformational leadership is related to a shared vision and learning among followers. Communicating a compelling vision is seen as an important part of transformational leadership, which is supposed to be related to a shared vision among followers (e.g. Berson et al., 2001). Our central argument is that transformational leader behavior will enhance the development of a shared vision among team members and that this shared vision in turn affects reflexivity. The inspirational motivation, charismatic, and intellectual stimu- lation aspects of transformational leadership seem especially important for team reflexivity. For instance, through intellectual stimulation, transfor- mational leaders encourage followers to consider new points of view and question old assumptions (Bass, 1985).

Prior research has shown that transformational leadership is a higher- order construct comprising several components. However, even after decades of research little consensus exists in the literature about the exact components comprising transformational leadership. An often used ques- tionnaire to measure transformational leadership is the Multifactor Leader- ship Questionnaire (MLQ) as developed by Bass and associates (e.g. Avolio et al., 1999), although other dimensional measures (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1990) or combined scales (e.g. De Hoogh et al., 2005) have also been used. Here, such a shorter, combined scale was used. Several reviews and meta- analyses showed that the subscales of transformational leadership are highly intercorrelated (often around or even above .80), and that transformational

Human Relations 61(11)1 5 9 6

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

leadership can also be seen as one higher-order construct (e.g. Den Hartog et al., 1997; for reviews, see Avolio et al., 1999; Lowe et al., 1996). Although often used as a unidimensional scale, sometimes subscales have been used in prior research. For example, in recent MLQ research on the factor structure of this instrument a five-factor model emerged (Antonakis et al., 2003).

In much of the research on transformational leadership to date, three subcomponents are discerned: a combined scale of charisma/inspirational, as well as intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Charisma/ inspirational leadership entails appealing to a collective identity and express- ing an energizing vision. Intellectual stimulation is expressed by encouraging followers to see things in a new light, and to question the status quo. Indi- vidualized consideration entails understanding follower’s needs, and helping them to grow to their full potential. Since this latter construct is more on the dyadic level, and can be different for followers from the same team with the same leader, we decided to focus on the transformational leadership aspects that we expected to be positively related to team level reflexivity. Furthermore, individualized consideration is not always included in operationalizations of transformational leadership. For example, in their meta-analysis, Avolio et al. (1999) report a higher-order factor of transformational leadership, consisting of charisma, inspirational and intellectual stimulating leadership, while indi- vidualized consideration and contingent reward (an aspect of transactional leadership) comprise a second higher-order factor.

Transformational leaders articulate a vision that describes a better future and is congruent with the values of followers. The leader’s personal example serves as a model of the kind of behavior required to attain the vision. Visioning is not only seen as crucial to arouse followers in the leader- ship literature, the importance of having a shared vision as a motivating force is also found in the team literature (e.g. West, 2000). Where the team literature focuses on the sharedness of the team vision, which is held to be important for the achievement of a long-term orientation and longer-term goals of the team (see Guzzo & Dickson, 1996), the leadership literature addresses leader’s capacity to develop and communicate such a vision, which is attractive and motivating for followers, and which they collaboratively will try to attain (e.g. Bass, 1985; see Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Tourish & Pinnington, 2002). However, few studies have tested whether such a com- municated vision indeed becomes a shared vision in the team.

We argue that having a shared, overarching goal or vision of the future ensures a shared frame of reference for team members, which makes it easier for teams to reflect effectively on their functioning. If teams have a clear team goal (i.e. a shared vision), they will be better able to reflect, because they will have more of an idea if they are on track in reaching the goal (see Locke & Latham, 1990). The goal will aid the reflective team in deciding if they are

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 5 9 7

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

on the right track or need to adapt. A transformational leader will aid this process by regularly promoting the goal to the team (i.e. enhancing a shared vision) and thus stimulate reflexivity in an indirect way. Thus, we test whether transformational leadership (i.e. charisma/inspiration and intellec- tual stimulation) is positively related to reflexivity and performance through its relationship with a shared vision. In other words, we test whether leaders who engender shared norms, aspirations and ideals and show team members how this new frame of mind helps to look at problems from new angles, will stimulate the formation of a shared vision within teams and, subsequently, increase reflexivity within teams.

Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership is positively related to team reflexivity.

Hypothesis 2. A shared vision mediates the relationship between trans- formational leadership and team reflexivity.

Besides the proposed relationship with team process, many researchers argue that a link between transformational leadership and team performance should exist (Yukl, 1998), and several studies have tested this link. For instance, Lim and Ployhart (2004) examined the impact of transformational leadership on team performance in combat teams and found a positive relationship. Another study found that transformational leadership positively affected group potency, and in turn group effectiveness (Sosik et al., 1997). Furthermore, a study among 47 intact teams found that transformational leadership was related to group effectiveness, through the effect on group cohesion, empowerment and collective efficacy (Jung & Sosik, 2002). It is important to note that, although we do expect a relationship between transformational leadership and team performance, other variables that are not measured in the current study, such as motivation, group cohesion and collective efficacy, are also likely to influence team performance (e.g. Jung & Sosik, 2002; Sosik et al., 1997; West, 2000). We thus expect reflexivity (and a shared vision) to partially mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. This line of thinking also assumes that reflexivity mediates between a shared vision on the one hand, and team performance on the other hand. The research model is depicted in Figure 1. Thus, we expect:

Hypothesis 3. A shared vision and reflexivity both partially and sequentially mediate the relationship between transformational leader- ship and team performance.

Human Relations 61(11)1 5 9 8

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Method

Participants and procedure

Thirty-two teams from nine different organizations participated in this study. The teams included management teams, service teams, production teams, teams in government service, and facilitating teams. The teams came from companies in the IT, insurance and banking sector, government and chemical industry. Following Hackman (1987), we considered teams as composed of individuals who both see themselves and are seen by others as an inter- dependent social entity. Furthermore, teams are embedded in a larger organization, and the team’s performance affects others, for instance suppliers or customers. Only teams that met these criteria were considered for participation. In most cases team members were assigned to the teams when they were first formed; teams did not select members themselves. We purposely sought teams with different, but relatively knowledge-intensive, tasks to include in the study. Teams with very routine jobs were not considered for inclusion in the study, as reflexivity is likely to be less relevant for such teams. The team tasks of the participating teams differed widely, from administrative or production work (production teams) to leading a company (management teams).

Teams were recruited by phone. For all teams, questionnaire packages were mailed to the team leaders who had agreed to participate in the study. These team leaders then handed the questionnaires to their team members, and ensured that these questionnaires were completed in private. A cover letter described the purpose of the study and guaranteed the respondents confidentiality. Instructions for completion of the questionnaire were given

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 5 9 9

H1/H2

Transformational leadership

Shared vision

Team reflexivity

Team performance

Figure 1 Hypothesized direct and indirect relationships in this study Note: Hypotheses in bold are the hypotheses including the mediator(s)

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

on the first page. All teams had an appointed team leader, which enabled the researchers to ensure that all team members were referring to the same team leader when filling out the questionnaire. All individual team members sent the questionnaires directly to the researchers. Feedback sessions with the teams were held to explain the results.

The response rate was 95 percent. Two questionnaires were incom- plete and thus excluded from further analyses. The remaining respondents (N = 238) were from 32 teams ranging in size from four to 14 members with an average of 7.56 persons per team and at least two respondents per team. In most teams, all team members returned the questionnaire. Of these respondents, 68 percent were male. The mean age of respondents was 38 years (SD = 9.28).

Measures

Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership was measured using six items based on Den Hartog et al. (1997). Because we had access to the teams on the condition that the survey would be as short as possible, we were unable to measure transformational leadership with a lengthy questionnaire. The items in the scale were formulated to measure a combination of intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and charisma, which we argue are the key elements of transformational leadership in this context (Waldman et al., 2006). Other studies have used similar short measures to tap such forms of leadership (De Hoogh et al., 2005; Den Hartog et al., 2007; Waldman et al., 2006). The items were: ‘The team leader serves as a role model for me’, ‘The team leader makes me aware of strongly held values, ideals, and aspirations which are shared in common’, ‘I have complete confidence in him/her’, ‘In my mind, he/she is a symbol of success and accomplishment’, ‘Shows us how to look at problems from new angles’, ‘Stimulates me to back up my opinions with good reasoning’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), α = .85. The first pair of items concerns the subscale inspirational motivation, the second pair charisma, and the last pair intellectual stimulation.

Shared vision

Shared vision was measured with five items, developed in the context of this research and in line with previous literature (e.g. Burningham & West, 1995; Senge, 1990; Tindale & Kameda, 2000). The items were ‘This team has a vision’, ‘Team members are acquainted with the vision’, ‘Team members

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 0 0

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

agree on the team’s vision’, ‘The vision provides team members with clear directions with respect to the work that has to be done’, and ‘This team has a clear vision of what it wants to achieve’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), α = .92.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity was measured by six items from the reflexivity measure of Schippers et al. (2007) that are in part based on the scale developed by Swift and West (1998). Examples of items are: ‘We regularly discuss whether the team is working effectively’, ‘The methods used by the team to get the job done are often discussed’, and ‘We regularly reflect on the way in which we communicate’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), α = .86.

Performance

In order to avoid potential common source bias, external managers or super- visors (who were not team members) were asked to rate the performance of the 32 teams on a scale from one to ten (1 = very bad to 10 = very good). We asked team members and team leaders to identify such a manager who had detailed knowledge about their team performance. In all teams, team members and the leader agreed on a manager that could best rate their team performance. The researchers checked this with the proposed managers, before asking them to rate the teams’ overall performance. This relatively simple measure was used because some managers had to rate up to six teams.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis of the transformational leadership scale and measurement model

In order to test for convergent and discriminant validity of the trans- formational leadership scales as well as the measurement model, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses, using LISREL. Although confirma- tory factor analyses sometimes offer support for the hypothesized dimensions of transformational leadership, a major problem is that transformational leadership dimensions do not have differential relations with outcome variables (Bycio et al., 1995). Over the last decades, the transformational leadership scale has also often been used as a unidimensional construct (Judge & Bono, 2000; Kark et al., 2003; Lim & Ployhart, 2004). While the

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 0 1

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

more parsimonious measurement of our hypotheses would thus reflect the unidimensional construct of transformational leadership, an obvious issue is whether the model with one unidimensional factor reflects the data satisfac- torily. Therefore, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses on the transformational leadership items, to see if a unidimensional scale would fit the data better than a two- or three-factor model. We estimated the models using maximum likelihood techniques within LISREL VIII. Subsequently, we tested our entire measurement model with all constructs in one analysis.

Based on prior research, the following subscales of transformational leadership were distinguished: inspirational motivation, charisma and intel- lectual stimulation. Since an often-used subscale refers to the combination of intellectual stimulation and charisma, (for a review, see Avolio et al., 1999) we composed this scale for the two-factor solution. We compared the fit of the unidimensional model to the two- (i.e. charisma/inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation) and three-factor structure (i.e. inspirational motivation, charisma and intellectual stimulation). In these models, the factors were allowed to correlate. For the unidimensional model, χ2(9, N = 222) = 13.18 (p < .01), AGFI = .95, and RMSEA = .05; for the two-factor structure χ2(8, N = 222) = 8.12, AGFI = .98, and RMSEA = .00; for the three-factor structure χ2(6, N = 222) = 1.04, AGFI = .98, and RMSEA = .00. These results show that the chi-squares and fit indices do not differ much between these three models. Although the improvement in fit of the two- factor solution over the unidimensional model was significant (χ2diff = 8.12, d.f. = 1, p < .05), the absolute difference in fit is small. The improvement in fit of the three-factor solution over the two-factor solution was not signifi- cant (χ2diff = 1.04, d.f. = 2, NS). A test of discriminant validity (recommended by Fornell & Larcker, 1981, and described in full by Netemeyer et al., 1990), is to test whether the variance extracted estimates of the two- and three- factor solutions exceed the square of the correlation between the constructs. If this is the case, evidence of discriminant validity exists (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The variance extracted estimates for the two-dimensional construct are .56 for inspirational motivation/charisma, and .51 for intellectual stimulation. These are both lower than the square of the correlations between the constructs (φ = .86, φ2 = .74), indicating that no support for discriminant validity of the two-factor solution exists. The variance extracted estimates for the three-dimensional construct are .67 for inspirational motivation, .49 for charisma and .51 for intellectual stimulation. These are lower than the square of the correlations between the constructs (φIM/C = .96, φIM/C2 = .92; φIM/IS = .84, φIM/IS2 = .71; φC/IS = .86, φC/IS2 = .74). These results indicate that there is no support for discriminant validity of the three scales. The standardized loadings suggest convergent validity of a single factor of

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 0 2

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

transformational leadership (see Table 1). Concluding, we used trans- formational leadership as one factor in subsequent analyses.

Using the same procedures as described above, we tested the measure- ment model by comparing the fit of the unidimensional model to the hypoth- esized three-factor structure (i.e. transformational leadership, shared vision and reflexivity as separate constructs). For the unidimensional model, χ2(119, N = 225) = 815.14, p < .001, AGFI = .49, RMSEA = .21; for the three-factor structure χ2(116, N = 225) = 158.51, p < .001, AGFI = .89, RMSEA = .04. The significant improvement in fit of the three-factor solution over the unidimensional model, χ2diff = 656.63, d.f. = 3, p < .001, offers support for the discriminant validity of the scales.

We then tested whether the variance extracted estimates exceeded the squares of the correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The variance extracted estimates are .50 for transformational leadership, .73 for shared vision and .41 for reflexivity. All exceed the square of the correlations between the constructs (φs are .10, .11, and .29 respectively), which offers further support for the discriminant validity between these three constructs (see Table 1). The

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 0 3

Table 1 Measurement properties

Construct and indicators Standardized loading Variance extracted estimate

1 Transf. leadership .50 λx1 .81 λx2 .78 λx3 .65 λx4 .73 λx5 .60 λx6 .67

2 Shared vision .73 λx1 .85 λx2 .87 λx3 .85 λx4 .88 λx5 .81

3 Reflexivity .41 λx1 .58 λx2 .61 λx3 .53 λx4 .72 λx5 .65 λx6 .72

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

standardized loadings for the three scales show that the items load signifi- cantly on their respective constructs, offering support for the convergent validity of the three scales. Support for the nomological validity will be presented in the next section, where we discuss the expected relationships (Hair et al., 2006).

Data aggregation

Although we handed out questionnaires to the individual team members, our measures were clearly aimed at the team level, and therefore the variables in this study are expected to operate at the team level of analysis. Furthermore, our hypotheses identified the group as the unit of analysis. ICC-values reported in Table 2 support this. James (1982) reports a median ICC(1) of .12 for the organizational literature. The ICC(1) values for the variables in this study are all higher than .12. In the table, we also report the ICC(2) values. However, since the ICC(2) value also depends on team size, with higher values of ICC(2) as team size increases (Bliese, 2000), we chose to depend mainly on the outcomes of ICC(1) in deciding whether or not to aggregate the individual-level scores. To further assess within-team agree- ment, we calculated the rwg(j) (James et al., 1984, 1993). A value of .70 or above is suggested as ‘good’ with respect to within-group interrater agree- ment (James et al., 1993). Rwg(j) averaged .81 for transformational leader- ship, .74 for vision, and .79 for reflexivity, all were well above .70 and suggesting that aggregating to the team level is justified.

The team level correlations between all variables are presented in Table 2. As expected, significant positive correlations are found for trans- formational leadership and team performance, as well as shared vision and team reflexivity.

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 0 4

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, F-values, ICC-values, aggregate level intercorrelations and Cronbach’s alphas (N = 32 teams)

Variable M SD F(59, 392) ICC(1) ICC(2) 1 2 3 4

1 Transf. leadership 3.34 .44 2.84** .21 .68 .85 2 Shared vision 3.24 .61 3.51** .32 .79 .43** .92 3 Reflexivity 2.92 .39 2.33** .16 .61 .32* .61** .86 4 Performancea 7.03 .97 – – – .32* .33* .44** –

Note: * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; one-tailed. a Supervisor ratings of performance.

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Hypotheses testing

Hypotheses 1 through 3 predicted direct and mediating relationships. We tested these relationships through series of regression analyses. These relationships are described below. We ran all analyses with and without team size and kind of team as control variables. Doing so did not change our results significantly, and thus, to increase power, the results of the analyses without control variables are reported. In order to account for nested effects of teams within organizations, we performed hierarchical linear modeling using STATA in addition to the regression analysis performed in SPSS.

We hypothesized a main effect of transformational leadership on team reflexivity (Hypothesis 1) and sequential mediational effects: Trans- formational leadership is expected to result in a shared vision amongst followers and a shared vision is expected to be related to enhanced team reflexivity (Hypothesis 2), which in turn is expected to lead to enhanced team performance (Hypothesis 3).1

To examine the sequential mediating roles of a shared vision and reflex- ivity in the relationship between transformational leadership and perform- ance, three steps were followed, in line with the suggestions of Baron and Kenny (1986). First, we should demonstrate that there is a relationship between the antecedent and the consequence. Regression analyses showed significant relationships (see Figure 2). As predicted by Hypothesis 1, a relationship between transformational leadership and team reflexivity was found (β = .32, p < .01), as well as a relationship between transformational leadership and team performance (β = .32, p = .05). Second, the relationship between the antecedent and the mediator should be significant, as well as the relationship between the mediator and the consequence. A relationship between transformational leadership and a shared vision was indeed found (β = .43, p < .01), as well as a relationship between a shared vision and reflexivity (β = .58, p < .01). Furthermore, the mediator shared vision was positively related to team reflexivity, and the mediator team reflexivity was positively related to team performance (see Figure 2).

Finally, the unique impact of the mediators (shared vision and reflex- ivity) should be demonstrated. In line with this, our hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the betas of the simple main effects declined and became non-significant when shared vision was added to the equation (change in beta from .32 to .08), supporting Hypothesis 2. Moreover, the beta values also declined and became non-significant when reflexivity was added in the last step (change in beta from .32 to .19; see Figure 2), corroborating Hypothesis 3. When reflexivity was added to the equation, the relation between a shared vision and team performance also became non- significant (change in beta from .33 to .09). With respect to performance, we

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 0 5

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

expected a partial mediational effect, as other variables besides the ones measured in the current study are also expected to influence performance, and the remaining beta coefficient seems to point in that direction, although it is not significant after adding the mediators.2

We then performed Sobel tests in order to assess whether the decreases in the betas of the hypothesized mediational models are significant (Goodman, 1960). For the relation transformational leadership–shared vision–reflexivity, the z-value (one-tailed) was 2.15, p < .05. For the relation shared vision–reflexivity–team performance the z-value (one-tailed) was 1.62, p < .05.

Our results thus suggest that transformational leadership is related to a shared vision among team members, which is in turn related to increased team reflexivity. This is ultimately related to enhanced performance as proposed in Hypothesis 3.

Mediation can also be demonstrated by a procedure put forward by Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2007a), involving bootstrapping (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Bootstrapping is a nonparametric method for assigning measures of accuracy to statistical estimates (Efron & Tibishirani, 1998; Mooney & Duval, 1993), whereby the standard errors are estimated using the available data. It is an alternative test to normal-theory tests of mediation (e.g. Shrout & Bolger, 2002), and has been used in previous research to test for mediation (Brown et al., 2006), and moderated mediation (Giessner &

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 0 6

Figure 2 Main and mediating relationships of transformational leadership with supervisor-rated team performance (N = 32 teams)a a Numbers above the arrows represent standardized coefficients (betas). Betas in bold are based on regression equations including the connecting mediator. Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, one-tailed tests.

.32*/.19

.32*/.08

.43** .58**

.33*/.09

Transformational leadership

Shared vision

Team reflexivity

Team performance

.52**

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

van Knippenberg, 2008). This procedure is recommended for testing of indirect effects, especially with smaller sample sizes, because it has no assump- tions regarding underlying sampling distributions (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The formal test for mediation involves computing confidence intervals around the product term (a*b), and if zero falls outside of this 95 percent confidence interval, the indirect effect is significant and mediation has occurred. Follow- ing recommendations, we resampled 1000 times, and used the percentile method to create 95 percent intervals (Preacher & Hayes, 2007b). This approach provided consistent results with the mediation analyses described above. Specifically, zero fell outside the confidence interval around the indirect effects, ranging from .01 to .94. These results provide convergent evidence that, in line with our hypotheses, shared vision mediates between trans- formational leadership and reflexivity, and that shared vision and reflexivity mediate between transformational leadership and performance.

In order to account for the nested effects of teams within organizations, we estimated multilevel regression models using the linear mixed effects program xtmixed in STATA 9.1 (StataCorp., 2005), in addition to the regression analysis performed in SPSS. Multilevel regression analysis stat- istically models both within-groups as well as between-groups relations (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). In our case, within-group effects refer to the team-level effects, whereas between-group relations refer to the organizational-level effects. Unlike ordinary least squares regression (OLS), multilevel analysis considers statistical dependencies of observations within groups as well as differences across groups, and hence provides less biased estimates for standard errors of regression coefficients. We estimated a two-level model with teams nested within organizations, using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. We reported fixed effects (gammas) analogous to regression coefficients. To evaluate whether each study variable signifi- cantly added to the explanation of team performance, we calculated likeli- hood ratio tests. Likelihood ratio tests determine whether model fit (i.e. log-likelihood values) of a model with more parameters is significantly better than one with fewer parameters. We also computed the proportional re- duction of prediction error when predictors were added to the model, which is analogous to effect sizes or R2 in multiple regression analysis (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).

Results of these analyses showed virtually the same results as reported for the multiple regression analyses. Specifically, a relationship between transformational leadership and team reflexivity was found (γ = .36, p < .01), as well as the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance (γ = .69, p < .05). Also a relationship between a shared vision and reflexivity (γ = .38, p < .01) was found. Furthermore, shared vision was

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 0 7

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

positively related to team reflexivity, and the mediator team reflexivity was positively related to team performance. Finally, the gammas of the simple main effects declined and became non-significant when shared vision (change in gamma from .46 to .00) and reflexivity (change in gamma from 1.07 to .87) were subsequently added in the last steps. These results show that our predicted model also holds when the nested structure of the data is accounted for.

Discussion

Team reflexivity is seen as a key factor in team effectiveness and enhancing reflexivity is therefore important to organizations. A relevant question related to this is whether and how reflexivity can be fostered by team leaders (Hirst et al., 2004; Somech, 2006; see Gersick & Hackman, 1990). The current study therefore focused on potential determinants of reflexivity, and more specifically on the relation between transformational leadership and reflexiv- ity through the establishment of a shared vision. Results supported our hypotheses. Positive relationships between team leaders’ transformational leadership, a shared team vision, team reflexivity and team performance were found, as predicted. The predicted mediational model was also supported. We found that where team leaders were rated as more transformational, teams reported a stronger shared vision, and having this shared vision was positively related to team reflexivity. This was in turn positively related to team perform- ance, as rated by an external manager. These results highlight the direct and the indirect relations between transformational team leadership, shared vision, reflexivity and performance in work teams.

The current study showed that one way in which the team leader’s behavior plays a role in enhancing reflexivity and performance is through engendering a shared vision within the team. The current research is the first to show that transformational leadership is important in stimulating team reflexivity and subsequent team performance. Moreover, the results from this study suggest that this effect might be mainly due to the transformational leader’s role in creating a shared team vision. In our study, the impact of transformational leadership (operationalized as a combination of intellectual stimulation, charisma and inspirational motivation) on reflexivity was mediated by a shared vision. In teams with leaders who inspire confidence and awe, present new ways of seeing the world, and who stimulate their team members to rethink old habits, team members report having a shared vision. In teams with a shared vision, team members see their team as having a common view on the goals and vision of the team and are also aware that team members share this view. In turn, this stronger shared outlook of team

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 0 8

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

members is related to increased reflection on, and communication about, objectives, strategies and processes within the team. Sharing this vision or basic outlook on end-goals seems to make it easier for the team to reflect on whether it is still on the right path as well as on alternative ways forward. Finally, in line with previous studies, we found that teams higher on re- flexivity outperform those lower on reflexivity. As noted earlier, several theorists have advanced such propositions, but the available empirical body of knowledge on the role of team leaders as well as the process of reflex- ivity in teams is small. Hence, an important contribution of the present research is that it provides empirical support for a compelling argument that is often advanced but hardly tested.

The current study has several strengths and limitations. An important strength of this research lies in the fact that it was done amongst several different teams from different kinds of organizations, which means that the findings can probably be generalized to several work settings. However, some limitations can be outlined as well. A first limitation lies in the cross-sectional nature of this study. This design does not allow for testing of directionality of the results. Although the mediational tests are consistent with a causal chain between transformational leadership, a shared vision, reflexivity and team performance, according to Shrout and Bolger (2002: 439): ‘statistical mediation analyses based on non-experimental data provide suggestive rather than definitive evidence regarding causal processes’. In other words, reverse causality (e.g. performance increasing reflexivity) cannot be ruled out based on these data and the causal ordering should be tested. In order to test for directionality, longitudinal and experimental research will be necessary.

Second, the performance of teams could not be measured through more ‘objective’ measures, for instance, team output or customer satisfaction. This was due to the fact that the teams in our sample had very different kinds of tasks and roles that could not easily be compared in terms of team output or customer satisfaction (e.g. not all teams had customers or produced tangible output). To minimize bias, we did ensure that the team was rated by an external (higher level) manager, who had detailed knowledge of the teams’ performance, rather than by the team members themselves or even the internal team leader, whose behavior was rated by the relationships with more comprehensive measures of performance and, of course, with more teams as another limitation of our study is that the sample size at the team level is limited. Note, however, that the sample size in the current study is similar to many other team studies and based on a sizeable underlying set of individual ratings and responses.

A final limitation may lie in the questionnaire used to measure trans- formational leadership. Some researchers argue that this construct should be used as a formative construct (the measures come together to form the

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 0 9

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

construct, e.g. socio-economic status) as opposed to a reflective construct (the measures are seen as reflections of the underlying latent construct; Jarvis et al., 2003; MacKenzie et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, since in our research we used items from an existing scale that was originally developed as a reflective construct, it may be hard to use that same scale as a formative construct, even if this theoretically makes sense. Research by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006) showed that the perspective taken in developing a measure has a profound influence on the content of that ques- tionnaire. In their research, they developed a questionnaire measuring export coordination, starting with an item pool of 30 items, adopting a reflective versus a formative perspective. Results showed that only two items of the original 30-item pool were common to both measures. A key difference between the two perspectives is that scale development procedures (reflec- tive) tend to retain highly intercorrelated items, whereas index construction procedures (formative) tend to eliminate highly intercorrelated items. The current version of the transformational leadership scale has very high inter- correlations, which makes it hard to consider the scale as formative. Future research could focus more on transformational leadership as a formative measure.

Overall the results of this study suggest that transformational leader- ship can positively influence reflexivity through the formation of a shared vision and this in turn may influence team performance. The finding that reflexivity is positively related to team performance (in our and other studies) is interesting for practicing managers. However, according to West (1996, 2000), teams in organizations are generally not very reflexive. Organizational objectives and the organizational culture are considered as givens and often not subject to discussion (Allen, 1996). Teams tend to behave in habitual ways, even when faced with evidence that this behavior might be dysfunc- tional in reaching team or organizational goals (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). An emphasis on action exists in most companies, which might explain why in most companies teams do not take the time to reflect and learn from past activities. Yet, our results suggest that enhancing team reflexivity may provide an important tool for improving team performance. Our research suggests that one way to do so is to build a shared vision in the team, and that this shared vision can be built through transformational team leader behavior. However, other ways to more directly stimulate reflexivity in teams may also be relevant. For example, teams could be trained to be more re- flexive. Research is needed to assess how, besides through transformational leadership, reflexivity of teams can be enhanced and how reflexivity can become more customary and built into teams’ daily, rather than exceptional, functioning.

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 1 0

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Christian Troester and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

1 One could argue that intellectual stimulation might be more strongly related to reflexivity, whereas fostering a shared vision would be more strongly related to charisma. Although the analyses favored a one-factor solution, we decided to look at the correlations for the subscales and compare these. Results show that the corre- lation between charisma and a shared vision (.43, p < .01) is not significantly higher than the correlation between intellectual stimulation and a shared vision (.37, p < .05), and the relationship between inspirational motivation and a shared vision is .33 (p < .05). Using Steiger’s test for comparing elements of a correlation matrix (Steiger, 1980), these differences in magnitude between the correlations proved not significant (z = .57, NS, and z = –.42, NS respectively) The same holds for the relation between intellectual stimulation and reflexivity, which is .35 (p < .05), versus .33 (p < .05) for the relation between charisma and reflexivity, and.19 (NS) for the relation between inspirational motivation and reflexivity (z = .19, NS; and z = –1.3, NS respectively). Thus, none of the magnitudes of the differences in correlations is significant.

2 One could argue that transformational leadership has an effect on team reflexivity, which in turn has an effect on a shared vision (see van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2008). We therefore tested whether transformational leadership affected team re- flexivity, a shared vision and in turn, team performance. However, this relationship did not hold; when adding shared vision in the last step, the effect of reflexivity stayed significant, while the effect of a shared vision was not significant anymore.

References

Allen, N.J. Affective reactions to the group and the organization. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 1996, pp. 371–96.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. & Sivasubramaniam, N. Context and leadership: An exam- ination of the nine-factor Full-Range Leadership Theory using the Multifactor Leader- ship Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 2003, 14, 261–95.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. & Jung, D.I. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 1999, 72, 441–62.

Barge, K.J. Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs, 2004, 71, 70–96.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho- logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 1173–82.

Bass, B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press, 1985. Bass, B.M. The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership

Studies, 2000, 7, 18–40.

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 1 1

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. The implications of transactional and transformational leader- ship for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1990, 4, 231–72.

Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. Transformational leadership, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B.J. & Popper, M. The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadership Quarterly, 2001, 12, 53–73.

Bliese, P.D. Within-group agreement, non-independence and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K.J. Klein & W.J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp. 349–81.

Brown, A.L. Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1978.

Brown, D.J., Cober, R.T., Kane, K., Levy, P.E. & Shalhoop, J. Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91, 717–26.

Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. London: SAGE, 1992.

Burningham, C. & West, M.A. Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 1995, 26, 106–17.

Burns, J.M. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. & Allen, J.S. Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptual-

ization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 1995, 80, 468–78.

Carter, S.M. & West, M.A. Reflexivity, effectiveness and mental health in BBC production teams. Small Group Research, 1998, 29, 583–601.

Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 1987, 12, 637–47.

Cooke, N., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. & Stout, R. Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 2000, 42, 151–73.

Daley, B.J. Learning and professional practice: A study of four professions. Adult Education Quarterly, 2001, 52, 39–54.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N. & Koopman, P.L. Linking the Big Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership: Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26, 839–65.

Den Hartog, D.N., De Hoogh, A.H. & Keegan, A.E. The interactive effects of belonging- ness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92, 1131–9.

Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J. & Koopman, P.L. Transactional versus trans- formational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organiz- ational Psychology, 1997, 70, 19–34.

Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.A. Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 2006, 17, 263–82.

Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44, 350–83.

Efron, B. & Tibishirani, R.J. An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall, 1998.

Flavell, J.H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 906–11.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equations models with observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18, 39–50.

Gersick, C.J. & Hackman, J.R. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organiz- ational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1990, 47, 65–97.

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 1 2

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Giessner, S.R. & van Knippenberg, D. ‘License to fail’: Goal definition, leader group proto- typicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organiz- ational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2008, 105, 14–35.

Goodman, L.A. On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1960, 55, 708–13.

Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N.K. & Nägele, C. Getting groups to develop good strat- egies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007, 102, 127–42.

Guzzo, R.A. & Dickson, M.W. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 1996, 47, 307–38.

Hackman, J.R. The design of workteams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987, pp. 315–42.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. & Tatham, R.L. Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2006.

Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S. & Vollrath, D.A. The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 1997, 121, 43–64.

Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A. & Richter, A. Learning to lead: The develop- ment and testing of a model of leadership learning. Leadership Quarterly, 2004, 15, 311–27.

House, R.J. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 1996, 7, 323–52.

James, L.R. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 219–29.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. & Wolf, G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69, 85–98.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. & Wolf, G. An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78, 306–09.

Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. & Podsakoff, P.M. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 2003, 30, 199–218.

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85, 751–65.

Jung, D.I. & Sosik, J.J. Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empower- ment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 2002, 33, 316–36.

Kark, R., Shamir, B. & Chen, G. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empower- ment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 246–55.

Lim, B.C. & Ployhart, R.E. Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 2004, 89, 610–21.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. & Sivasubramaniam, N. Effectiveness correlates of trans- formational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ litera- ture. Leadership Quarterly, 1996, 7, 385–425.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. & Jarvis, C.B. The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90, 710–30.

Mooney, C.Z. & Duval, R.D. Bootstrapping: A nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1993.

Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, M.W. & Burton, S. Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75, 148–57.

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 1 3

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1990, 1, 107–42.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. & Lee, J.Y. The mismeasure of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 2003, 14, 615–56.

Preacher, K.F. & Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2004, 36, 717–31.

Preacher, K.F. & Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Working paper, 2007a.

Preacher, K.F. & Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS macros for bootstrapping specific indirect effects in multiple mediator models, 2007b, available online at: [http:/quantpsy.org], accessed May 2007.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A. & Tannenbaum, S.I. Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R.W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds), Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1992, pp. 3–29.

Sashkin, M. The visionary leader. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 1988, pp. 122–60.

Schippers, M.C. Reflexivity in teams. Unpublished dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2003.

Schippers, M.C., Den Hartog, D.N. & Koopman, P.L. Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2007, 56, 189–211.

Schippers, M.C., Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L. & Wienk, J.A. Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity, and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003, 24, 779–802.

Schön, D. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, 1983. Senge, P.M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:

Doubleday Currency, 1990. Shrout, P.A. & Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New

procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 2002, 7, 422–45. Snijders, T.A.B. & Bosker, R.J. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced

multilevel modeling. London: SAGE, 1999. Somech, A. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation

in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 2006, 32, 132–57. Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J. & Kahai, S.S. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group

potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82, 89–103.

StataCorp. Statistical software (Version 9.1). College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2005. Steiger, J.H. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin,

1980, 87(2), 245–51. Swift, T.A. & West, M.A. Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. Sheffield:

The ESRC Centre for Organization and Innovation, 1998. Tindale, R.S. & Kameda, T. ‘Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information process-

ing in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2000, 3, 123–40. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M.M.L. & West, M.A. Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The

contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 2004, 29, 540–59.

Tourish, D. & Pinnington, A. Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 1 4

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 2002, 55, 147–72.

van Ginkel, W.P. & van Knippenberg, D. Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2008, 105, 82–97.

Waldman, D.A., Siegel, D.S. & Javidan, M. Components of CEO transformational leader- ship and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 2006, 43, 1703–25.

West, M.A. Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 1996, pp. 555–79.

West, M.A. Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds), Product development teams, Vol. 5. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 2000, pp. 1–29.

Yukl, G. Leadership in organizations, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998. Yukl, G. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 1999, 10, 285–305. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. & Marks, M.A. Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 2001,

12, 451–83.

Michaéla Schippers is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. She received her PhD from the Psychology Depart- ment at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her current research interests include team reflexivity, team diversity and team leadership, as well as team cognition, learning and decision-making. Her work has been published in journals such as Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Applied Psychology: An International Review. [E-mail: [email protected]]

Deanne N. Den Hartog is Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She is program director of several Business Studies programs and received her PhD from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU University), The Netherlands. Her current research addresses leadership, especially cross-cultural, charismatic and ethical leadership processes, as well as leadership in project based organizations. Other research interests include team reflexivity, employees’ proactive and innovative behavior at work and human resource management. She is on the editorial boards of Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Applied Psychology: An International Review. [E-mail: [email protected]]

Schippers et al. Transformational leadership and team reflexivity 1 6 1 5

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

Paul Koopman is Emeritus Professor of the Psychology of Management and Organization at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He is interested and actively involved in cross-cultural research, in particular in relation to issues of HRM, leadership and organizational culture. [E-mail: [email protected]]

Daan van Knippenberg is Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and co-founder of the Erasmus Centre for Leadership Studies. He received his PhD from Leiden University, The Netherlands. His current research interests include leadership, in particular the roles of self/identity and emotions, work group diversity, group decision-making, social identity processes in organizations and creativity and innovation. Currently, he is Associate Editor of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and of Journal of Organizational Behavior. [E-mail: [email protected]]

Human Relations 61(11)1 6 1 6

at LIBERTY UNIV LIBRARY on August 17, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/