Leadership Question

Topic11PowerpointReadingReview.pptx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Leadership Question

Topic 11. Substitutes/Neutralizers and Team. Readings.

Text

Kerr and Jermier (1978) Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) Meta-Analaysis of the Relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s Substitutes for Leadership and Employee Job Attitudes, Role Perceptions, and Performance

Supplemental

Jordan and Troth (2004) Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution

Solansky (2008) Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams

Theories of leadership share a conviction that hierarchical leadership is always important

However, data from numerous studies demonstrate that in many situations, leader behaviors are irrelevant and hierarchical leadership does not seem to matter

Research question: how can the “occasional successes and frequent failures” of leadership theories and models be explained?

Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement Kerr & Jermier (1978)

Neutralizers

Paralyze, destroy, or counteract effectiveness of leadership, making it impossible

Substitutes

May render leadership not only impossible, but unnecessary

Will take the place of leadership

Tasks

Unambiguous and routine

Methodologically invariant

Provides its own feedback concerning accomplishment

Intrinsically satisfying

Organizations

Formalization

Inflexibility

Highly specified staff functions

Closely-knit cohesive work groups

Organizational rewards not under the leader’s control

Physical distance between leader and subordinates

Subordinates

Ability, experience, knowledge

Need for independence

Professional orientation

Indifference toward organizational rewards

Leadership

Acid

Alkaline

Characteristics of

Subordinates

Tasks

Organizations

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Kerr & Jermier predicted that substitutes and neutralizers will affect (moderate) the relationship between leadership and subordinate attitudes and perceptions.

Numerous studies have failed to support this prediction.

Leader behavior

Outcome

Substitute/ neutralizer

Not supported by research

However, substitutes for leadership variables do account for substantial proportions of the variance in subordinate attitudes and perceptions

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Substitute/ neutralizer

Outcome

Leader behavior

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Research question: What is the relative importance of leader behaviors and substitutes?

Meta analysis

Identified 24 studies reporting a relationship between at least one leader substitute variable and one leader behavior, leader substitute, and/or employee criterion variable

two studies were excluded and some used two samples, so a total of 36 samples were found

the 36 samples reported relationship between 13 substitutes, 7 leader behaviors, and 10 criterion variables

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Variables included

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

General satisfaction

Substitutes 40% of variance

Leader behaviors 17% of variance

Commitment

Substitutes 50% of variance

Subordinate characteristics 23%, indifference to org. goals strongly negative

Leader behaviors 2% of variance

Role ambiguity

Substitutes 29% of variance

Leader behaviors 9% of variance

In-role performance*

Substitutes 3% of variance

Leader behaviors 7% of variance

*only category that leader behavior was more important the substitute variables

From Table 3

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

The combination of leader behavior and substitutes accounts for…

75% of variance in employee attitudes

60% of variance in role perceptions

21% of variance in performance

On average, substitutes account for almost three times as much variance in criterion variables than leader behaviors (20.2% vs 7.2%)

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Research question: Can emotional intelligence predict individual and team performance, and conflict resolution style?

Study

350 university students in 108 teams enrolled in an introductory management course (Most teams have 3 members)

Participants complete

emotional intelligence questionnaire

survival situation exercise (individually and in team)

interpersonal conflict questionnaire

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Mayer & Salovey (1997) model of emotional intelligence, four components:

Perception

Self-awareness

Accurate expression

Assimilation

Use of emotions to prioritize thinking

Ability to adopt multiple perspectives

Understanding

Ability to understand complex emotions

Management of emotions

Ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in a given situation

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Hypothesis 1 – Emotional intelligence will not predict the performance of individuals in undertaking the cognitive problem-solving task

Team performance and emotional intelligence

Hypothesis 2 – Teams will perform better than individuals on the problem-solving task

Hypothesis 3 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence will perform better than teams with lower-average levels of emotional intelligence

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Conflict, emotional intelligence and performance

Hypothesis 4a – Teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence will be more likely to adopt avoidance conflict resolution patterns compared with teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence

Hypothesis 4b – Teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence will be more likely to adopt dominance conflict resolution patterns compared with teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence

Conflict resolution patterns: dominating, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, collaborating/ integrating

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Hypothesis 5 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence will be more likely to report adopting collaborative conflict resolution patterns compared with teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence

Hypothesis 6 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence are more likely to experience task conflict that teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence during the problem-solving task

Hypothesis 7 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence will experience less relationship conflict that teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence during the problem-solving task

Conflict types: task, relational

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

H1 supported (individual performance)

H2 supported (group vs. individual performance, see Table 2)

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

H4a

H4b

H3 supported (team performance) H5 supported (collaboration)

H4a partially supported (conflict avoid.) H6 not supported (task conflict)

H4b not supported (dominance) H7 not supported (relationship conflict)

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Conclusions

No link found between emotional intelligence and performance at individual level

Significant difference between individual and group performance

Teams with higher overall level of emotional intelligence and ability to deal own emotions had higher performance

Ability to deal with own emotions linked to team performance; ability to deal with others’ emotions, not linked

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Research question: What do leadership processes look like in self-managed teams?

motivational processes

cognitive processes

social processes

Definition of team

A team is group with…

assigned role functions

usually limited life span

conscious awareness of interdependency

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Types of leadership in self-managed teams

single leadership

shared leadership

Hypothesis 1 – Teams that establish shared leadership will have higher collective efficacy scores that those without shared leadership

Hypothesis 2 – Teams that establish shared leadership will have lower relational conflict scores that those without shared leadership

Hypothesis 3 – Teams that establish shared leadership will have higher transactive memory system scores that those without shared leadership

Transactive memory is all members of team knowing each others’ special knowledge or expertise

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Laboratory study of 20 work teams

undergraduate management class

3-5 member teams, voluntarily formed

16 weeks of competition on various projects

Data

Collective efficacy

Relational conflict

Transactive memory system

Role chart

Journal entries

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Hypothesis 1 – supported

Shared leadership related to a greater sense of collective efficacy

Hypothesis 2 – not supported

Difference between shared and not leadership teams on relational conflict not significant, but in right direction

Hypothesis 3 – supported

Shared leadership related to a stronger transactive memory system