Organizational Framework

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49834920

Antecedents of Team Potency and Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Goal and Process Clarity and Servant Leadership

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · February 2011

DOI: 10.1037/a0022465 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

83

READS

2,450

2 authors:

Jia Hu

University of Notre Dame

19 PUBLICATIONS 501 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Robert C Liden

University of Illinois at Chicago

116 PUBLICATIONS 14,383 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Robert C Liden

Retrieved on: 02 November 2016

RESEARCH REPORT

Antecedents of Team Potency and Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Goal and Process Clarity and Servant Leadership

Jia Hu and Robert C. Liden University of Illinois at Chicago

Integrating theories of self-regulation with team and leadership literatures, this study investigated goal and process clarity and servant leadership as 3 antecedents of team potency and subsequent team effectiveness, operationalized as team performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Our sample of 304 employees represented 71 teams in 5 banks. Results showed that team-level goal and process clarity as well as team servant leadership served as 3 antecedents of team potency and subsequent team performance and team organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, we found that servant leadership moderated the relationships between both goal and process clarity and team potency, such that the positive relationships between both goal and process clarity and team potency were stronger in the presence of servant leadership.

Keywords: team potency, goal and process clarity, servant leadership, team performance, team OCBs

Although a substantial literature on individual motivation has amassed over decades, insufficient work has been done to advance our understanding of team motivation processes (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Teams are characterized by members working interdependently toward collective goals and by a period of stable membership (Hackman, 2002). Team potency, defined as shared confidence in a team’s general capabilities (Campion, Med- sker, & Higgs, 1993; Guzzo, Yost, Cambell, & Shea, 1993), is seen as one of the most important ingredients of team motivation (Bandura, 1997) and team effectiveness (Shea & Guzzo, 1987). Although the origins and consequences of individual self-efficacy are well under- stood, less is known about the antecedents of team potency percep- tions (Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). Despite the prevalence of de- signing teams to structure work (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), how the design and the clarification of team roles influence the formation of team potency remains an empirical question of particular relevance to the self-regulation and teams literatures. One suggestion is that per- ceived clarity of team goals and processes creates the psychological condition for the formation of potency beliefs (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Locke & Latham, 1990; Zaccaro, Ely, & Nelson, 2008).

A defining characteristic of teams is the interdependence among members (Wageman, 2001), and as interdependence increases, so

does the need for team interaction and coordination. Team-level leadership may facilitate social integration, efficient processes, and smooth communication within the team, thereby enhancing team motivation (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Zaccaro et al., 2008). Servant leadership, a construct pro- posed by Greenleaf (1970, 1977) and defined as leadership behav- iors in which leaders persevere to be “servant first” rather than “leader first” and put their subordinates’ “highest priority needs” before their own (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 14), appears to be a poten- tially important input for team potency. This strong focus on supporting followers suggests that servant leadership may strengthen the link between goal and process clarity and team potency by elevating team members’ commitment to the goal. Goal commitment is essential for goal setting to motivate follow- ers (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon, 2001; Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988), such that in the absence of goal commit- ment, goal and process clarity become irrelevant.

Our purpose in this research was to make three contributions to the literature: (a) integrate team and leadership literatures with motivation theories by examining goal and process clarity and servant leadership as determinants of team potency beliefs; (b) extend the classic input– process– output model (Hackman, 1987) for team effectiveness by integrating goal and process clarity and servant leadership as contex- tual inputs that may increase team effectiveness through enhancement of team potency; and (c) incorporate servant leadership as a moderator of the relationship between goal and process clarity and team potency. Figure 1 depicts our model.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Goal and Process Clarity and Team Effectiveness

In order to fully complete one’s task roles, one needs to have clear expectations about (a) one’s own subgoals, (b) the paths to

This article was published Online First February 14, 2011. Jia Hu and Robert C. Liden, Department of Managerial Studies, Uni-

versity of Illinois at Chicago. An earlier version of these findings was presented at the annual meeting

of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, Geor- gia, April 2010. We thank Kaifeng Jiang for his assistance with data collection and help in data input. We also thank Sandy J. Wayne for her helpful comments on the earlier version of this paper.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jia Hu, Department of Managerial Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2332 University Hall, MC 243, 601 South Morgan Street, Chicago, IL 60607- 7123. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 96, No. 4, 851– 862 0021-9010/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022465

851

accomplish these subgoals, and (c) the link between one’s work and the work of others (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Because individuals’ roles are embedded in the larger context of teams (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), the clarity of team goals and individual members’ roles in working toward meeting the goals has a powerful impact on team effectiveness (Gladstein, 1984). Sawyer (1992) built on role theory by further demonstrating that goal clarity and process clarity are two distinct constructs of work roles and team structure that not only heighten individuals’ understanding of task goals and paths but also high- light individuals’ connections to coworkers, teams, and the orga- nization. When all team members are provided such clarity, they communicate more effectively with each other, which in turn serves to integrate each team member’s tasks with those performed by others on the team. This mutual understanding facilitates the emergence of a shared vision of their subgoals, team goals, and the processes needed for accomplishing tasks within the team.

Thus, it is possible for both goal and process clarity to serve as properties that operate at the team level (Gladstein, 1984; Stewart, 2006), such that a high level of goal clarity indicates that team members as a whole clearly understand their subgoals and the connection between their work and the team’s objectives. Like- wise, at the team level, a high level of process clarity implies that team members clearly comprehend the procedures that must be followed in order to achieve goals. We contend that team-level goal and process clarity are positively related to team effective- ness, as indicated by team performance and team-level organiza- tional citizenship behavior (OCB).

Goal-setting theory suggests that clear goals lead to improved team performance due to their role in directing team members’ attention and encouraging members to be persistent (Locke & Latham, 1990). At the team level, common objectives can be divided into multiple subgoals for individual members, and when all team members are certain about the successful completion of their own work goals, the team’s objective is likely to be accom- plished (Larson, 2010). Clear procedures toward the goal are also critical for team performance, because they offer an explicit plan and visible tactics for accomplishing goals (Knight, Durham, & Locke, 2001; Weingart, 1992). Furthermore, when the members of the team decipher the connection between their subtasks and the collective task, they are less likely to engage in social loafing, which can be caused by low identification with collective goals (Karau & Williams, 1993; Liden, Wayne, Jaworski, & Bennett, 2004). Team members’ motivation to contribute toward the real-

ization of collective outcomes is enhanced when members have developed a clear vision of the individual contributions needed to attain high levels of collective performance (e.g., Griffith, Fich- man, & Moreland, 1989).

Team OCB is also commonly seen as beneficial and valuable for team effectiveness (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Pearce & Herbik, 2004). Team-level OCB refers to the normative level of OCB performed within the team (Ehrhart, 2004). When team members have a good understanding of their own objectives and procedures and the connection between their own job and the collective tasks, they endeavor to translate their own efforts for the purpose of helping the collective effectiveness of the team. They accomplish this by engaging in OCBs, such as helping new coworkers and making suggestions to improve performance. These individual citizenship behaviors, in turn, become a standard mode of team behavior (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).

Team Potency as a Mediator in the Relationship Between Goal and Process Clarity and Team Effectiveness

Team potency, defined as team members’ shared beliefs about their collective capabilities (Campion et al., 1993), is a critical motivational state in teams (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). Although team potency is related to collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997), potency refers to beliefs in generalized team capability for achieving gen- eral effectiveness (Guzzo et al., 1993), whereas collective efficacy is task specific (Gibson & Earley, 2007). Also, team potency is not a simple sum of the self-efficacy of individual team members, and it develops independently from individual self-efficacy (Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). We contend that team potency serves as a bridge linking goal and process clarity to team effec- tiveness, such that goal and process clarity are positively related to team potency, which in turn leads to team effectiveness.

We integrate motivation theories with team literature by arguing that goal and process clarity are important determinants of team potency. Three prominent theories of motivation, goal-setting the- ory (Locke & Latham, 1990), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), explain how goals and processes employed to achieve the goal guide self-regulatory activity (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). These theo- retical perspectives are also salient in explaining team-level moti- vation, because team- and individual-level motivational processes are functionally similar (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). Based on goal- setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990), clear and achievable goals enhance performance by directing individual action and motivat- ing individuals to exert effort toward the performance goal. Re- search at the team level has shown that clear team goals are also critical for forming a common team identity (Sivunen, 2006) and developing a sense of confidence in the team’s capabilities. Social cognitive theory suggests that work clarity creates an important condition needed for the formation of competence beliefs by providing enactive and vicarious experience to team members (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Chen & Bliese, 2002; Zaccaro et al., 2008). Goal and process clarity often contribute toward the sharing of information and experience. This in turn serves to increase mem- bers’ confidence in the team’s capabilities and ultimate success. Furthermore, drawing on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), people are likely to be intrinsically motivated to work when

Servant Leadership

Team potency

Goal Clarity

Process Clarity

Team Performance

Team OCB

Team Effectiveness

Figure 1. Proposed model of goal and process clarity, servant leadership, team potency, and team effectiveness. OCB ! organizational citizenship behavior.

852 HU AND LIDEN

their innate psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy are satisfied. An important component of goal clarity is that individual members understand how their subtasks relate to the overall objectives of the team (Sawyer, 1992). This under- standing creates a sense of relatedness with other members in the team (Diefendorff & Lord, 2008), which fosters close interactions between members and helps to integrate team members’ tasks. Additionally, when most team members are aware of what to do (i.e., goal clarity) and how to do it (i.e., process clarity), they feel more control over and autonomy in their work (Spreitzer, 1995) and develop high levels of certainty in the competence of the team (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). This sense of relatedness, autonomy, and competence motivates team members to meet the team’s goals and enhances confidence in the team’s capability to be successful.

Team-level motivation is distinct from individual-level motiva- tion because it involves coordination among multiple members (Chen & Gogus, 2008). Through many interactions between mem- bers, a team develops shared beliefs regarding its general capabil- ities (Ford, 1996). Goal and process clarity influence team potency by enhancing collective interactions (Hackman, 1987). Team members with a clear understanding of their own tasks and the connections between their tasks and collective goals are likely to experience smooth coordination with teammates, which reduces process loss (Steiner, 1972). Smooth coordination also serves to increase social integration within the team and enhances members’ expectations concerning collective capabilities to be successful across tasks and contexts. Similarly, with a high level of process clarity, team members are likely to engage in high-quality com- munications and avoid dysfunctional conflicts due to ambiguity regarding their responsibilities in the process (Gladstein, 1984). This harmonious relationship among team members may lead team members to possess high levels of confidence about their team- work, which translates into perceptions of high team potency.

Potency beliefs then energize members to work together toward their common goals with tenacity, even in the face of obstacles and difficulties (Bandura, 1997), which in turn leads to high levels of team performance (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Shared potency beliefs raise consciousness of team effectiveness among team members by generating a strong sense of membership in the team, which in turn motivates them to engage in discretion- ary behaviors, such as OCBs (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Pearce & Herbik, 2004).

Hypothesis 1: Goal clarity positively relates to (a) team performance and (b) team OCB through the partial mediating effect of team potency.

Hypothesis 2: Process clarity positively relates to (a) team performance and (b) team OCB through the partial mediating effect of team potency.

Servant Leadership and Team Effectiveness

Servant leadership, a type of leadership with a strong ethics component (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), promotes organizational functioning through high levels of employee trust in management (Ehrhart, 2004; Graham, 1991; Greenleaf, 1977). Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) described servant leadership as com- posed of seven leader behaviors: behaving ethically, emotional

healing, putting subordinates first, helping subordinates grow and succeed, empowering, creating value for the community, and con- ceptual skills. Although it preceded the most popular contempo- rary leadership theories, servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970) has received relatively less attention in the academic literature, making it necessary to distinguish servant leadership from other major leadership theories. A defining characteristic of servant leaders is the emphasis on personal integrity in all realms of life, work, family, and community (Ehrhart, 2004) that extends beyond other leadership approaches, such as transformational leadership. Inter- nalized moral standards guide servant leaders to serve as role models for their followers (Graham, 1991) and to show deep concern for followers’ growth and development. Whereas trans- formational leaders are seen as putting their organization’s values first and encouraging employees to sacrifice their own interests to satisfy the collective (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), servant leaders put the best interest of followers as their top priority. Empirical research has confirmed the unique impact of servant leadership on employee outcomes after controlling for other leadership behav- iors, such as transformational leadership and leader–member ex- change (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008).

Servant leadership can function at both individual and team levels. At the team level, servant leadership can serve as a type of “ambient stimulus” (Hackman, 1992) in which an overall pattern of leadership behaviors is presented to all members of the team (Ehrhart, 2004; Liao & Chuang, 2007; Morgeson et al., 2010; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). The exchange process be- tween leaders and their work teams is central to servant leadership theory (Liden et al., 2008). Although social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) are often employed to explain dyadic relationships between supervisors and individual subordinates, team-level servant leadership also in- volves an exchange process in which leaders help the team by affirming the strengths and potential of the team, as well as providing developmental support for the team as a whole. Team members reciprocate the benefits they have received by exerting effort, including OCBs that are directed toward team performance. In a finding suggestive of this proposed social exchange process, servant leadership significantly influenced team-level OCB via the mediating role of procedural justice climate (Ehrhart, 2004). Walumbwa et al. (2010) further demonstrated that team-level servant leadership is positively related both to team-level proce- dural justice climate and to service climate and individual-level self-efficacy and commitment to supervisor, which in turn influ- ences individual OCB in the team.

Team Potency as a Mediator Between Servant Leadership and Team Effectiveness

There are at least two reasons why servant leadership increases team potency and subsequent team effectiveness. First, servant leaders act in the best interest of their subordinates (Walumbwa et al., 2010) and care about each individual member’s needs and personal growth (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008). Servant lead- ers gain team member trust and build long-term relationships by showing genuine concern for all team members (Liden et al., 2008). And because it is the leader’s team, follower trust in leadership acts to elevate team members’ trust in the capabilities of the team to be effective. Second, given the complexity of modern

853ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM POTENCY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

work environments, many potential changes and unexpected prob- lems arise that require team members’ collaboration to solve. Servant leaders possess high conceptual skills and provide direc- tion (Van Dierendonck, in press) that guides team members to cultivate an accurate understanding of the changing environment and facilitates the development of team shared mental models (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). We contend that this guidance from servant leaders is crucial for effective collaboration among team members (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993) and results in enhanced team member confidence in their collective capabilities, even in the face of uncertainty and obstacles. Further- more, servant leaders convey the importance of personal integrity, honesty, and fairness to the team (Russell & Stone, 2002), which promotes authentic and problem-driven communication (Harter, 2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2004) and creates a spiritual climate within the team (Liden et al., 2008). A spiritual climate leads team members to cooperate with and care about each other (Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo, 2005; Pawar, 2008) and to be optimistic about their team’s capabilities to be effective (Wong & Davey, 2007).

As illustrated in Figure 1, we anticipated that servant leadership would directly influence team outcomes, such as performance (Liden et al., 2008) and OCBs (Ehrhart, 2004), and would indi- rectly affect these outcomes through its positive relationship with team potency. We derive our expectation of partial mediation from the functional leadership perspective (Hackman, 2002), arguing that a high level of team potency is needed for team servant leadership to promote team effectiveness, because it directs mem- bers’ attention to the common goal, increases their efforts, and enables them to be persistent in the face of adversity (Bandura & Locke, 2003).

Hypothesis 3: Servant leadership relates positively to (a) team performance and (b) team OCB through the partial mediating effect of team potency.

Servant Leadership as a Moderator in the Relationship Between Goal and Process Clarity and Team Potency

Goal and process clarity positively affect work performance only when team members are committed to the goal (Locke & Latham, 1990; Maier & Brunstein, 2001). This increases the im- portance of leaders who can energize team motivation by enhanc- ing team members’ identification and commitment to the work and goals of the team (Zaccaro et al., 2008). We contend that servant leadership is well suited for elevating team commitment to the goal and amplifying the positive influence of goal and process clarity on team potency. This is because servant leaders, rather than engaging in opportunistic behaviors, prioritize individual mem- bers’ personal growth and career development (Greenleaf, 1977; Matteson & Irving, 2006) and align the work objectives with individual members’ needs. The employee-centered focus of ser- vant leaders is manifested in greater team member acceptance of and commitment to work goals and helps to translate goal and process clarity into perceptions of team potency.

This subordinate-first emphasis also helps servant leaders gain employee commitment to the organization (Liden et al., 2008) and to the supervisor (Walumbwa et al., 2010). We contend that commitment to the supervisor and organization is manifested in

team members’ commitment to team goals, because the leader is considered the prototypic member of the team (Hogg, 2001) and the representative of the organization (Erdogan & Liden, 2002). Thus, when team members feel attached to the leader and the organization, they tend to embrace the goals and processes guided by the leader. Furthermore, empowering behaviors, a key dimen- sion of servant leadership (Liden et al., 2008), are especially salient with respect to getting team members involved in the goal-setting process, enabling them to be more committed to goals, and strengthening the role of goal and process on team potency beliefs (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Morgeson et al., 2010). Indeed, empirical evidence has clearly demonstrated the salience of team leaders in empha- sizing the importance of goal and process clarity for developing team potency (Cohen, Chang, & Ledford, 1997; Sivunen, 2006). Hence, goal and process clarity are accelerated to form team potency beliefs in the presence of a servant leader who enables members to embrace team values and encourages commitment to team goals.

In contrast, the absence of servant leadership in the team may neutralize the positive relationship between goal and process clar- ity and team potency. Without a servant leader, teams lack a powerful stimulus for boosting their commitment to team goals, which makes team members indifferent toward the goal and pro- cesses. This in turn decreases their confidence in the team’s capabilities and weakens or even eliminates the motivational effect of goal and process clarity on team potency beliefs (Locke et al., 1988).

Hypothesis 4: Servant leadership moderates the relationships between (a) goal clarity, and (b) process clarity and team potency, such that the relationship is stronger the more the leader engages in servant leadership.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The study was conducted in five banks in China. Employees worked in different functional teams, such as accounting and trust. Each of the teams had a common team task in which every member had a clear role and worked interdependently with team- mates toward common goals. To ensure full team membership, we limited participation in the study to employees with a minimum of 6 months tenure in their current teams.

The 570 employees representing 95 teams and the 80 upper level managers whom we invited to participate were allowed to complete the surveys at home and mail them to us in self- addressed stamped envelopes. Seven teams’ surveys were dis- carded due to the lack of upper level managers’ ratings. A total of 71 teams was included in the analyses, with 304 employees (re- sponse rate ! 53.3%) and 60 upper level managers (response rate ! 75%) forming the final sample. The average team response rate was 74.92%, greater than the 60% recommended by Timmer- man (2005). Every team’s performance and OCB was rated by two upper level managers. We did not choose team leaders as the raters, given that team performance indirectly reflects on their management capability. The 60 upper level managers, working independently of one another, rated team performance and OCB.

854 HU AND LIDEN

Every pair of upper level managers rated an average of 2.37 teams. The average team size was 4.28. Most respondents were men (59%). Their average tenure was 2.99 years in their teams and 4.78 years within the organization.

Measures

Goal and process clarity. Team members rated goal clarity (" ! .87) and process clarity (" ! .84) with five items developed by Sawyer (1992). A sample item for goal clarity asked partici- pants to think of “the degree of clarity felt about my duties and responsibilities,” and a sample item for process clarity evaluated the degree of clarity felt about “the procedures I use to do my job are correct and proper” (1 ! very uncertain to 7 ! very certain).

Team potency. Team potency was rated by team members with Riggs and Knight’s (1994) seven-item scale. An example item is “The team I work with has above average ability” (1 ! strongly disagree to 7 ! strongly agree; " ! .78).

Servant leadership. Team members assessed their leaders with Liden et al.’s (2008) 28-item Servant Leadership Scale. An example item is “My manager seems to care more about my success than his/her own” (1 ! strongly disagree to 7 ! strongly agree). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results, with factor loadings shown in Figure 2, revealed support for a higher order model, #2(342) ! 465, normed fit index (NFI) ! .95, comparative fit index (CFI) ! .99, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ! .07, standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) ! .03, which paralleled fit of the first-order factor model, $#2(14) ! 22.52, ns. As shown in Figure 2, the first-order factors (i.e., seven dimensions) are distinct, but all fell under a higher order factor (i.e., the construct of servant leadership). Therefore, we used overall servant leadership as a latent factor and averaged all items (" ! .96) to represent team-level servant leadership.

Team performance. Using a four-item scale by Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993), two upper level managers rated each

team’s performance. An example item is “rate the overall level of performance that you observe for this team” (1 ! unacceptable to 7 ! outstanding). The two managers’ evaluations were averaged to form every team’s performance score (interrater reliability ! .95; based on individual ratings, " ! .96).

Team-level OCB. Two upper level managers assessed team- level OCB with seven items adopted from Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). An example item is “In general, the team members help others who have been absent” (1 ! never to 7 ! always). The interrater reliability was .98, and alpha was .89, based on all managers’ individual ratings.

Task interdependence. Task interdependence was assessed with five items developed by Pearce and Gregersen (1991). A sample item is “team members work closely with others in doing their work” (1 ! strongly disagree to 7 ! strongly agree; " ! .79). Task interdependence was used to assess whether the study teams satisfied the criteria for a team (Wageman, 2001).

Control variables. We controlled for mean team tenure, team age, and organizational tenure, given their importance in previous research (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). Results of analysis of variance showed that there were significant differences with re- spect to the hypothesized variables across the five banks. Thus, we dummy coded the five banks and controlled for the effects of organizational membership on the dependent variables.

Data Aggregation and Level of Analysis

Given that all of our analyses were at the team level, we assessed the team-level properties of our measures in several ways. First, we examined task interdependence, a prominent and defining feature of work teams, and found that all teams in our sample had a high mean level of task interdependence (M ! 4.94, SD ! 0.50). The within-group agreement test (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) further showed that all team members had a common perception of their task interdependence, indicated by a high rwg(j) value of .92.

! = .99 ! = .88 ! = .93 ! = .92 ! = .99 ! = .98 ! = .99

Behaving ethically

Putting subordinates first

Helping subordinates grow and succeed

Emotional healing

Empowering Conceptual skills

Creating value for the community

.74 .72 .77 .64

y1 y2 y3 y4

.67 .78 .80 .69

y5 y6 y7 y8

.72 .83 .79 .81

y9 y10 y11 y12

.78 .69 .82 .78

y13 y14 y15 y16

.83 .75 .85 .79

y17 y18 y19 y20

.69 .60 .78 .70

y21 y22 y23 y24

.77 .62 ..58 .72

y25 y26 y27 y28

Servant leadership

Figure 2. Results of second-order confirmatory factor analysis results for servant leadership. #2(343) ! 465, normed fit index ! .95, comparative fit index ! .99, root-mean-square error of approximation ! .07, standardized root-mean-square residual ! .03. ys represent items reflecting first-order factors; the numbers below the first-order factors represent factor loadings for the items.

855ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM POTENCY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

This high interdependence among the individual members of teams supported the nature of work teams and provided initial support for the aggregation for all the variables to the team level.

Estimated rwg(j) values for all study variables were acceptable: .96 for goal clarity, .95 for process clarity, .91 for team potency, .95 for team performance, .98 for team OCB, and .99 for servant leadership. Intraclass correlations, ICC1 (reliability of the team means) and ICC2 (to determine whether it was appropriate to create an average rating for a team), were generally acceptable: respectively, goal [.39, .76] and process [.58, .74] clarity; team potency [.16, .69]; servant leadership [.16, .69]; team performance [.64, .78]; team OCB [.63, .77]. Thus, aggregation of all variables was appropriate (Bliese, 2000).

Analysis Strategy

We tested our hypotheses with hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), because pairs of upper level manag- ers rated multiple teams’ performance and OCB (M ! 2.37, SD ! 2.31). This makes the relationships with these variables noninde- pendent, potentially biasing the results (Bliese, 2002). The ICC1 values for team performance (.46, p % .01) and team OCB (.23, p % .05) suggested a lack of independence among multiple teams rated by the same upper level managers. Thus, we estimated a multilevel model where teams (Level 1) are nested within the upper level managers (Level 2). We followed Bauer, Preacher, and Gil’s (2006) lower level mediation approach to test whether team potency mediates the relationships among goal and process clarity, servant leadership, and team effectiveness.

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correla- tions of all variables. We conducted two sets of CFAs, one for team member data and one for variables based on upper level manager data, to assess the discriminant validities of all variables. For the variables rated by team members (i.e., goal clarity, process clarity, team potency, and servant leadership), the CFA results presented in Table 2 suggested that the hypothesized four-factor model (i.e., the four variables as four separate factors) yielded a better fit (CFI ! .99, NFI ! .98, RMSEA ! .03, SRMR ! .02) than a three-factor model (i.e., goal clarity and process clarity as a combined factor) and a one-factor model (all four variables as a combined factor). Team performance and OCB, both rated by upper level managers, were found via a CFA to be distinct, as a two-factor model (CFI ! .99, NFI ! .96, RMSEA ! .05, SRMR ! .02) provided a better fit than a one-factor model.

Hypothesis Testing

As shown in Table 3, results of the X3Y models (Models 1a and 1b) showed that all three hypothesized variables significantly and positively related both to team performance (goal clarity, c ! .29, p % .01; process clarity, c ! .14, p % .05; servant leadership, c ! .77, p % .001) and to team OCB (goal clarity, c ! .41, p % .01; process clarity, c ! .19, p % .01; servant leadership, c ! .59, p % .001). Although the X3M and M3Y models were tested simultaneously, we reported the results separately for clarity (e.g., Bacharach, Bamberger, & Doveh, 2008). Results of the X3M T

ab le

1 T

ea m

C on

st ru

ct M

ea ns

, St

an da

rd D

ev ia

ti on

s, R

el ia

bi li

ti es

, an

d C

or re

la ti

on s

V ar

ia bl

e M

SD 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15

1. O

rg an

iz at

io n

1 0.

25 0.

44 —

2. O

rg an

iz at

io n

2 0.

24 0.

43 .3

1! !

— 3.

O rg

an iz

at io

n 3

0. 21

0. 41

& .3

0! &

.2 8!

— 4.

O rg

an iz

at io

n 4

0. 20

0. 40

& .2

9! &

.2 7!

& .2

6! —

5. O

rg an

iz at

io n

5 0.

10 0.

30 &

.1 8

& .1

6 &

.1 6

& .1

5 —

6. T

ea m

m ea

n ag

e (y

ea rs

) 28

.1 2.

91 .3

3! !

& .3

3! !

& .2

3 .3

2! !

& .1

2 —

7. O

rg an

iz at

io na

l te

nu re

(y ea

rs )

4. 78

2. 96

.4 0!

! &

.3 0!

! &

.3 7!

! .3

5! !

& .1

7 .9

2! !

— 8.

M ea

n te

am te

nu re

(y ea

rs )

2. 99

1. 67

.2 8!

& .3

6! !

& .2

1 .3

1! !

& .0

4 .7

3! !

.7 6!

! —

9. G

oa l

cl ar

it y

5. 74

0. 80

.1 0

.0 1

.1 7

& .0

3 &

.2 1

& .1

0 &

.2 1

& .2

8! (.

87 )

10 .

P ro

ce ss

cl ar

it y

5. 68

0. 67

.1 3

& .1

4 .1

6 .0

7 &

.2 9!

.1 3

.0 4

& .0

4 .7

2! !

(. 84

) 11

. T

ea m

po te

nc y

5. 23

0. 61

.4 6!

! .0

1 .0

6 &

.2 7!

& .3

0! .0

9 .0

9 &

.1 3

.3 2!

! .3

0! !

(. 78

) 12

. S

er va

nt le

ad er

sh ip

4. 93

0. 51

.4 1!

! &

.0 1

& .0

2 &

.1 7

& .2

1 .2

7! .2

5! .0

7 .2

0 .1

2 .5

9! !

(. 96

) 13

. T

ea m

pe rf

or m

an ce

5. 31

0. 76

.5 4!

! &

.2 0

.1 0

& .3

1! !

& .2

1 .1

4 .0

9 .0

6 .4

2! !

.3 2!

! .5

9! !

.6 0!

! (.

96 )

14 .

T ea

m -l

ev el

O C

B 4.

96 0.

68 .5

1! !

& .0

4 &

.0 7

.2 4!

& .2

4! .1

8 .1

8 .0

3 .3

3! !

.3 3!

! .4

8! !

.5 8!

! .7

2! !

(. 89

) 15

. T

as k

in te

rd ep

en de

nc e

4. 94

0. 50

.4 4!

! .0

1 &

.1 5

& .1

9 &

.2 0

.0 4

.0 8

& .0

1 .3

7! !

.3 7!

! .5

0! !

.4 6!

! .5

8! !

.7 8!

! (.

79 )

N ot

e. N

! 71

. C

ro nb

ac h’

s al

ph a

re li

ab il

it ie

s ar

e re

po rt

ed al

on g

th e

di ag

on al

. SD

! st

an da

rd de

vi at

io n;

O C

B !

or ga

ni za

ti on

al ci

ti ze

ns hi

p be

ha vi

or .

! p

% .0

5. ! !

p %

.0 1.

856 HU AND LIDEN

model (Model 2) showed that goal clarity (a ! .31, p % .01), process clarity (a ! .25, p % .05), and servant leadership (a ! .29, p % .01) were all significantly related to team potency. When all of the independent variables were entered into the model, there was a positive relationship between team potency and both team performance (b ! .49, p % .01; Model 3a) and team OCB (b ! .38, p % .01; Model 3b). Also as indicated at Models 3a and 3b, after we included team potency in the model, goal clarity (c' ! .14, ns; c' ! .29, ns) and process clarity (c' ! .01, ns; c' ! .09, ns) were no longer significantly related to team performance and team OCB, respectively. However, servant leadership remained signif- icantly related to team performance (c' ! .63, p % .001) and team OCB (c' ! .48, p % .01). Furthermore, with regard to Hypotheses 1a and 1b, when goal clarity was the independent variable, the indirect effect was significantly positive for the team performance as outcome model, E(ajbj) ! .16, p % .05, SE ! .04, 95% CI [.07, .24], and the team OCB model, E(ajbj) ! .12, p % .05, SE ! .07, 95% CI [.03, .38]. For Hypotheses 2a and 2b, with process clarity as the independent variable, the indirect effect was consistent with hypotheses for the team performance as the outcome model, E(ajbj) ! .10, p % .05, SE ! .06, 95% CI [.01, .21], and for team OCB as outcome model, E(ajbj) ! .10, p % .05, SE ! .05, 95% CI [.01, .21].When servant leadership was the independent variable, the indirect effect was significant in the hypothesized direction for team performance as the outcome, E(ajbj) ! .15, p % .05, SE ! .07, 95% CI [.01, .29], and for team OCB as the outcome, E(ajbj) ! .12, p % .05, SE ! .07, 95% CI [.01, .25].

Before reaching conclusions concerning support for hypotheses, we compared the hypothesized partial mediation models with alternative models using multilevel structural equation modeling techniques (Raykov & Mels, 2007) and LISREL 8.7 software (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Due to the strong impact of goal and process clarity and servant leadership on team potency as well as the close connection between team potency and team effective- ness, it is possible for the influences of goal and process clarity and servant leadership on team effectiveness to be fully reliant on team potency. Hence, the hypothesized model was compared to three full mediation models in which the effects of all three independent variables (i.e., goal clarity in Model 1, process clarity in Model 2, and servant leadership in Model 3) on team effectiveness are fully

mediated via team potency (with the paths from goal clarity, process clarity, and servant leadership to team effectiveness re- moved). Results showed that the full mediation models (Models 1 and 2) yielded fit superior to the models proposed in Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b: Model 1, $#2(4) ! 9.82, p % .05; Model 2, $#2(4) ! 11.96, p % .05. This indicates that removing the paths from goal clarity and process clarity to team performance and OCB significantly improves the hypothesized models, supporting the full mediation models for goal and process clarity as indepen- dent variables. The results also supported the partial mediation model proposed in Hypotheses 3a and 3b, as the model containing the paths from servant leadership to team performance and team OCB was better than the model not containing these direct paths (Model 3), $#2(4) ! 1.83, ns.

Regarding Hypotheses 4a and 4b (see Table 4), we found a positive interaction between goal clarity and servant leadership in predicting team potency ((110 ! .52, p % .01; Model 3) and a positive interaction between process clarity and servant leadership in predicting team potency ((120 ! .27, p % .05; Model 3). Furthermore, we obtained the pseudo $R2 value for expressing the effect size of the interaction (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The pseudo $Rwithin-group

2 value of .04 and pseudo $Rtotal 2 value of .07

indicated that the two interaction terms explained additional 4% within-group variance and additional 7% total variance in the outcome variable (i.e., team potency), respectively. To determine the nature of the interaction, we tested the simple slopes for teams with high servant leadership (1 SD higher) and low servant lead- ership (1 SD lower) in Figure 3 and Figure 4. In support of Hypothesis 4a, we found that the positive relationship between goal clarity and team potency was stronger in the presence () ! .31, p % .01) than in the absence () ! &.22, p % .05) of high servant leadership. The relationship between process clarity and team potency was more positive for high () ! .22, p % .01) than for low () ! &.05, ns) servant leadership, supporting Hypothesis 4b.

In sum, partial support was found for Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b, as tests of alternative models found the strongest support for full mediation as opposed to the hypothesized partial mediation. Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b were fully supported, even after testing alternative models.

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Hypothesized Variables

Model #2 df $#2 $df NFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Independent variablesa

Model 1: Four-factor 123.45 183 .98 .99 .02 .03 Model 2: Three-factorc 146.02 186 22.57!!! 3 .94 .98 .03 .06 Model 3: One-factorb 567.96!!! 189 444.51!!! 6 .81 .89 .12 .17

Dependent variablesc

Model 4: Two-factor 43.51 43 .96 .99 .02 .05 Model 5: One-factord 179.36!!! 44 135.85!!! 1 .89 .93 .09 .21

Note. N ! 71. In Models 1, 2, and 3, to reduce the number of parameters and maintain adequate degrees of freedom, we assigned the items to parcels within and across subdimensions of servant leadership (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). df ! degrees of freedom; NFI ! normed fit index; CFI ! comparative fit index; SRMR ! standardized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA ! root-mean-square error of approximation. a Independent variables include goal clarity, process clarity, team potency, and servant leadership. b Models 2 and 3 were compared with Model 1. c Dependent variables include team performance and team OCB. d Model 5 was compared with Model 4. !!! p % .001.

857ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM POTENCY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Discussion

Theoretical Implications A key contribution of the current study is to demonstrate that

goal clarity and process clarity as well as team servant leadership serve as three important antecedents of team potency and subse- quent team effectiveness. Furthermore, the study emphasized the importance of team servant leadership as a moderator of the positive relationship between goal and process clarity and team potency. The findings contribute to the team motivation and lead- ership literatures in the following ways.

The first major implication of our findings was that we proposed and found that goal and process clarity enhanced team perfor-

mance and team OCB by cultivating team potency beliefs. This result is particularly noteworthy because it complements the sub- stantial body of findings supporting the significance of team po- tency in building team performance (Gully et al., 2002) and enhances theory by shedding light on how team potency emerges. Within true team contexts, characterized by interdependence as with those studied here, goal and process clarity offer team mem- bers a clear view of their goals, paths to the goals, and the connection between their own work and the team’s goal. This guides the team regulation process and promotes the quality of interactions within the team, nurturing a sense of confidence in the team’s potential effectiveness. Second, we found that team servant leadership also enhanced team effectiveness by elevating team

Table 3 Hierarchical Multilevel Fixed Model Analysis Results of Team Potency as a Mediator

Step

Total effects Fixed effects

X3Y X3M M3Y

Model 1a Model 1b Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b

Dependent variables Y: Team performance Y: Team OCB Y: Team performance Y: Team OCB Step 1: Control variables

Organization 1 .82!!! .78!!! .67!!! .52!! .73!!

Organization 2 .12 .37!! .13 .02 .12 Organization 3 .41 .36! .22 .32 .35 Organization 4 .06 .16 &.09 &.08 .17 Team mean age .08 .01 .05 .01 .01 Organizational tenure .05 &.01 &.02 &.04 &.01 Team mean tenure &.14! &.03 &.13! .08 &.03

Step 2: Independent variables Goal clarity .29!! (c) .41!! (c) .31!! (a) .14 (c') .29 (c') Process clarity .14! (c) .19!! (c) .25! (a) .01 (c') .09 (c') Servant leadership .77!!! (c) .59!! (c) .29!! (a) .63!!! (c') .48!! (c')

Step 3: Mediator Team potency .49!! (b) .38!! (b)

X: goal clarity Estimated var (ajbj) ! 0.03

Estimated var (ajbj) ! 0.02

E(ajbj) ! 0.16 E(ajbj) ! 0.12 95% CI [0.07, 0.24];

SE ! 0.04 95% CI [0.03,0.38];

SE ! 0.07 E(ajbj * c'j) ! 0.30 E(ajbj * c'j) ! 0.41 95% CI [0.13, 0.46];

SE ! 0.09 95% CI [0.14,0.69];

SE ! 0.14 X: process clarity Estimated var (ajbj) !

0.02 Estimated var (ajbj) !

0.01 E(ajbj) ! 0.10 E(ajbj) ! 0.10 95% CI [0.01, 0.21];

SE ! 0.06 95% CI [0.01,0.21];

SE ! 0.05 E(ajbj * c'j) ! 0.19 E(ajbj * c'j) ! 0.19 95% CI [0.05, 0.43];

SE ! 0.12 95% CI [0.04,0.41];

SE ! 0.05 X: servant leadership Estimated var (ajbj) !

0.01 Estimated var (ajbj) !

0.01 E(ajbj) ! 0.15 E(ajbj) ! 0.12 95% CI [0.01, 0.29];

SE ! 0.07 95% CI [0.01,0.25];

SE ! 0.07 E(ajbj * c'j) ! 0.78 E(ajbj * c'j) ! 0.60 95% CI [0.48, 0.77];

SE ! 0.15 95% CI [0.32,0.87];

SE ! 0.14

Note. N ! 71. X ! goal clarity/process clarity; M ! team potency; Y ! team performance/team organizational citizenship behavior (OCB); var ! variance; CI ! confidence interval; SE ! standard error. ! p % .05. !! p % .01. !!! p % .001.

858 HU AND LIDEN

potency. This finding integrates team leadership with motivation literature and responds to the call for more attention to the role of team leadership in motivating teams (Morgeson et al., 2010; Zac- caro et al., 2008).

Finally, support for the interaction between servant leadership and goal and process clarity represents an especially critical ex- tension of servant leadership and team potency theories. This

finding suggests that the motivational effects of goal and process clarity may disappear when commitment to the goal (Locke & Latham, 1990) is lacking. Our results clearly demonstrated that goal and process clarity contribute the most to the emergence of team potency when accompanied by servant leaders, whose employee-centered focus is beneficial for facilitating team confi- dence and effective team behaviors. In contrast, the results showed that in the absence of servant leadership, the impact of goal and process clarity on team potency was no longer positive or even became negative.

Practical Implications

The current study has a number of implications for practice regarding the role of goal and process clarity in building effective teams. The findings highlight the importance of teamwork design. The positive effect of goal and process clarity calls attention to the potential benefits of managerial interventions on goal setting, team role design, and process control. One implication of these findings is that for building high potency beliefs in teams and subsequent team outcomes, it is valuable for team members to understand both their own individual task goals and procedures and the connection between their own work and the team goal. This serves to reduce possible conflicts between team members regarding their respon- sibilities and reduces the possibility of social loafing problems.

In addition, our results demonstrate that role clarity alone is not adequate for developing team potency. Leadership training is also needed in order to assist leaders in developing servant leadership behaviors in order to shape employees’ shared beliefs in the team’s general effectiveness. Therefore, organizations should train leaders to encourage followers to provide service to their teams by devel- oping such behaviors as healing, performing ethically, and em- powering. This suggestion is consistent with current needs in organizations and society to foster ethical organizations that are dedicated to serving the needs of employees as well other stake- holders (Cameron, 2008; Luthans & Youssef, 2007).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Strengths include (a) the external validity achieved by collecting data from five organizations and (b) internal validity, given that the

Table 4 Hierarchical Multilevel Analysis Results of the Moderating Role of Servant Leadership in the Relationship Between Goal and Process Clarity and Team Potency

Variable

Team potency

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Step 1: Control variables Organization 1, (10 .88

!!! .57!! .56!!

Organization 2, (20 .39 .19 .16 Organization 3, (30 .52

! .33 .35 Organization 4, (40 &.10 &.16 &.15 Team mean age, (50 .03 0 0 Organizational tenure, (60 .06 .05 .06 Team mean tenure, (70 .16

!! .11! .14 Step 2: Independent variables

Goal clarity, (80 .20 .04 Process clarity, (90 .16 .09 Servant leadership, (100 .40

!! .46!!

Step 3: Moderator Goal Clarity + Servant

Leadership, (110 .52 !!

Process Clarity + Servant Leadership, (120 .27

!

Rwithin-group 2 .15 .17 .21

Rbetween-group 2 .18 .58 .74

Rtotal 2 a .13 .29 .36

$Rwithin-group 2 .03 .04

$Rbetween-group 2 .40 .16

$Rtotal 2 .16 .07

Note. N ! 71. a Rtotal

2 ! Rwithin-group 2 + (1 & ICC1) * Rbetween-group

2 + ICC1. ICC1 indicates the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that resides between groups. ICC1 for team potency as the outcome is .29. ! p % .05. !! p % .01. !!! p % .001.

3

4

5

6

7

hgihwol

Te am

P ot

en cy

Goal Clarity

High Servant Leadership Low Servant Leadership

Figure 3. Interaction between goal clarity and servant leadership on team potency.

3

4

5

6

7

hgihwol

Te am

P ot

en cy

Process Clarity

High Servant Leadership Low Servant Leadership

Figure 4. Interaction between process clarity and servant leadership on team potency.

859ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM POTENCY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

data were collected from employees and upper level managers. Collecting data from different sources reduced the potential for same-source bias in our study. The results supported by hierarchi- cal linear modeling tests increased our confidence by partialing out rater effects due to upper level managers rating multiple teams. Using upper level managers rather than team leaders to rate the team performance and OCB reduced potential rating bias due to social desirability. Also, matching two upper level managers’ evaluations to a specific team enhanced reliability and decreased the likelihood of measurement errors.

Despite the study’s strengths, the findings in the current study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the sample was set in the banking industry, therefore limiting the generalizability of the results. The current investigation of banks could be generalized to traditional teams characterized by stable membership, a shared goal, and a common leader (Hackman, 2002). However, for other settings, such as cross-functional teams and virtual teams, time may be needed to build teamwork and gather leadership support within the team. For example, because cross-functional teams tend not to meet regularly, goal and process clarity may not promote the quality of team member interactions and collective potency beliefs, and servant leadership may not be as powerful in facilitating the positive value of goal and process clarity in team potency as they were in the traditional teams. Second, the relatively small team size (M ! 4.28) may prevent the results from being generalized to larger teams. Third, relationships among goal and process clarity, team potency, and servant lead- ership may have been influenced by common method variance, because these variables were assessed via employees’ self-reports within one time period. Even if the common method bias was not a problem in predicting upper level manager ratings of team performance and OCB, method variance in the predictors might still influence main effects. However, it has been demonstrated that interaction effects may actually become deflated as a result of common method variance (Evans, 1985; McClelland & Judd, 1993).

Finally, variables other than those studied here may influence team potency beliefs. Thus, one promising direction for future research is to examine other determinants of team potency. Poten- tial antecedents of team potency include person–team fit (Hollen- beck et al., 2002) and team positive affective tone (George, 1990). For instance, in a team with high levels of positive mood, members who are emotionally tied together are inclined to be confident about their collective capabilities.

In conclusion, the current research added to the motivation, team, and leadership literatures by examining the positive value of goal and process clarity as well as servant leadership on team potency and subsequent team effectiveness. Also, servant leader- ship was shown to help strengthen the positive association between goal and process clarity and team potency. We hope that our study encourages researchers to explore additional antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness.

References

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The Empowering Leadership Questionnaire: The construction and valida- tion of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249 –269. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099- 1379(200005)21:3::AID-JOB103.0.CO;2-#

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quar- terly, 16, 315–338. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Doveh, E. (2008). Firefighters, critical incidents, and drinking to cope: The adequacy of unit-level performance resources as a source of vulnerability and protection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 155–169. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.155

Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for repre- senting constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45– 87. doi:10.1177/109442819800100104

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.88.1.87

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D. (2002). Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organiza- tional research: Examples using SAS and S-Plus. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 401– 445). San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K. S. (2008). Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823– 847. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549 –556. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.87.3.549

Chen, G., & Gogus, C. I. (2008). Motivation in and of work teams: A multilevel perspective. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 285–317). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239 –290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303

Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E. (1997). A hierarchical construct of self-management leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and perceived work group effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 50, 275–308. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00909.x

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580 –590. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:

860 HU AND LIDEN

Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Goal-striving and self-regulation processes. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 151–196). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as ante- cedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psy- chology, 57, 61–94. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x

Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960 –974. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader– member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65–114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142. doi: 10.2307/259166

Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. Lead- ership Quarterly, 16, 835– 862. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.012

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107

Gibson, C. B., & Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation interaction, examination, and accommodation in the de- velopment and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32, 438 – 458.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211. doi:10.2307/258770

Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effective- ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499 –517. doi:10.2307/ 2392936

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105–119. doi:10.1016/1048- 9843(91)90025-W

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Newton Centre, MA: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Griffith, T. L., Fichman, M., & Moreland, R. L. (1989). Social loafing and social facilitation: An empirical test of the cognitive–motivational model of performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 253–271. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_4

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdepen- dence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819 – 832. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.87.5.819

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Cambell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial

organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199 –267). Palo Alto, CA: Con- sulting Psychologists Press.

Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great perfor- mances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184 –200. doi:10.1207/ S15327957PSPR0503_1

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., . . . Wagner, J. A., III (2002). Structural contingency the- ory and individual differences: Examination of external and internal person–team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599 – 606. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.599

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude–treatment interaction approach to skill acquisi- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657– 690. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.74.4.657

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32–55. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2931

Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implemen- tation, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 326 – 338. doi:10.2307/3069459

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley.

Larson, J. R., Jr. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational lead- ership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006 –1019. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1006

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30, 285–304. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.02.002

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader–member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662– 674. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multilevel assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. doi:10.1016/ j.leaqua.2008.01.006

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240 –246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00207.x

Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review, 13, 23–39. doi:10.2307/ 258352

861ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM POTENCY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349. doi:10.1177/ 0149206307300814

Maier, G. W., & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). The role of personal work goals in newcomers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A lon- gitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1034 –1042. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.1034

Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2006). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: A behavioral comparison of two follow-oriented leadership theories. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 36 –51.

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180 –197. doi: 10.1080/13594320701743558

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detect- ing interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376 –390. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. doi:10.1177/ 0149206309347376

Pawar, B. S. (2008). Two approaches to workplace spirituality facilitation: A comparison and implications. Leadership & Organization Develop- ment Journal, 29, 544 –567. doi:10.1108/01437730810894195

Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 293–310. doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.3.293-310

Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838 – 844. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.76.6.838

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Raykov, T., & Mels, G. (2007). Lower level mediation effect analysis in two-level studies: A note on a multilevel structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 636 – 648.

Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success–failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755–766. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.79.5.755

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. L. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150 –163. doi:10.2307/2391486

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 145–157. doi:10.1108/01437730210424

Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130 – 142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transfor- mational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on

team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020 –1030. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020

Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25–31.

Sivunen, A. (2006). Strengthening identification with the team in virtual teams: The leaders’ perceptive. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 345–366. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9046-6

Smith, A. C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizen- ship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 68, 653– 663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653

Spears, L., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Practicing servant leadership: Suc- ceeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. doi:10.2307/256865

Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Aca- demic Press.

Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29 –55. doi:10.1177/0149206305277792

Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 17–27. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17

Timmerman, T. A. (2005). Missing persons in the study of group. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 21–36. doi:10.1002/job.306

Van Dierendonck, D. (in press). Servant leadership: A review and synthe- sis. Journal of Management.

Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 197–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529. doi:10.1037/a0018867

Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 77, 682– 693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.682

Wong, P. T. P., & Davey, D. (2007, July). Best practices in servant leadership. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Round- table, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and adjust- ment: Theory, research and application (pp. 305–328). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Zaccaro, S. J., Ely, K., & Nelson, J. (2008). Leadership processes and work motivation. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 319 –360). New York, NY: Routledge.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451– 483. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01) 00093-5

Received October 20, 2009 Revision received November 22, 2010

Accepted November 30, 2010 !

862 HU AND LIDEN