One Question only
Falcon 
nano_2015_1.docxRunning head; Solansky’s article
Title: Brief summary of Solansky’s article
Name;
Course;
Tutor;
Date;
According to the Solansky’s article, two leadership styles are compared: that is the shared leadership and single leadership and how each style influences the key processes in teams which are motivational, cognitive and social.
In the article, the definition of a team is given, which is defined as a group for which there are assigned role functions, with limited life span membership and a conscious awareness of interdependency. Therefore, for these role functions to be maintained there is need for several team processes to be undertaken and the suggested processes are motivation, cognition and socialization all of which are critical processes.
Team motivation is critical because with it, the teams will be able to put forth the necessary effort needed to complete tasks. On the other hand, team socialization is a critical team process because teams need to be cohesive in order to perform well and for there to be commitment to the team’s objectives. Team cognition is equally critical since it represents the acquisition, storage, manipulation and use of information within teams. The three team processes are also influenced by leadership processes because they are linked. Leadership processes also affects the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of the team members.
The leadership of a team could either be shared or non-shared wherein the case in which it is shared, the team members are empowered to share the tasks and responsibilities of leadership. But in the case where leadership is non- shared which is also known as the traditional view of leadership, the leader directs all activities.
It is claimed that some members of a group can share leadership roles and that the activities of an individual leader are less significant than the likelihoods of a collective leadership. The article points out that those individuals in self-managed teams which are characterized by shared leadership have much of the duty and authority to make vital decisions turned over to them. They have the power to make decisions, set goals, assign work, and determine schedules among other duties. These teams have better coordination and cooperation because shared leadership enhances the team’s interpretation of needs.
It is therefore proposed that shared leadership is beneficial to team processes because there are more leaders attending to the team’s evolving and operative needs, particularly the motivational, social and cognitive processes needed for the team’s performance.
In the case of the social process, the issue of conflict is discussed in relation to shared and non-shared leadership. The article points out the two primary dimensions of conflict which include task conflict and relationship conflict. Relationship conflict is defined as tension generated by emotional and interpersonal struggles and it usually inhibits teams from accomplishing tasks.
Therefore, in order to enhance the efficacy of a team, the leader of the team has the responsibility of minimizing the team’s relationship conflict and instead builds team cohesion and identity. The article suggests that the development of team vision is likely to occur if imposed by multiple team members than by a single leader. This is because in shared leadership, there is a stronger team cohesion which means that in such teams there is less relational conflict because the cohesion is allowed to emerge naturally rather than being imposed by a single leader.
The other process which is also a key process in team functioning is the cognition process. It is an important part since it relates to the process responsible for obtaining, storing, manipulating and using information with the intention of creating a group-level knowledgeable product. This process has a component known as transactive memory that represents a shared system for storage, encode and retrieve information: it is the metaknowledge of who knows what in the team. In other words it represents knowing what other team members know which could be in terms of their experience and skills.
The principle of the transactive memory function is the identification of capabilities and understanding what is possible based on who knows what. In as much as a single leader may be able to enable the development of the team’s transactive memory, a broader participation among the team members would be a plus since it will give the team a more inclusive knowledge of their possible and understanding of team competences to complete tasks. Therefore, shared leadership may be more effective in diagnosing and solving problems because there are several people in attendance to the mindfulness of team member skills.
The article also reported the results of a laboratory study of 20 work teams which indicated that a work team can find a strong sense of capability and a stronger transactive memory system when leadership is shared. There were also a number of managerial implications that were noted in the study which included the following:
· Shared leadership having the potential of providing great benefits for all types of teams
· Shared leadership provides team members with confidence, satisfaction and ownership because they are part of the creation and maintenance of team processes and objectives.
· It was noted that there are several team processes at work within the team that impact the extent to which teams meet expectations.
Based on the report of the study in the article, it can be concluded that in the non-shared leadership, the leader is seen as the focal point where all the responsibility is accumulated. The centrality of the single leader helps in making clarifications on role boundaries, procedures and hierarchical arrangements. On the other hand, shared leadership makes the working environment complex and that is why there is need for team cohesiveness and ability to communicate effectively. But again, shared leadership is not a guarantee of a team’s work success.
The article only presented an example of a study conducted in a laboratory to compare the shared and non-shared leadership which does not fully give adequate reasons why shared leadership is better compared to the traditional leadership. Maybe if it can be observed in other wider contexts, we will be able to know the kind of roles that are shared, the mechanism that enable the teams to manage the shared roles and lastly the tactics used to avoid chaos and confusion.
