Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 5 and 16 in Northouse course text, which focus on situational approaches with leadership and team leadership. Also, read Chapters 2 i

Chapter 16 Leadership & Teamwork

"Work teams are very prevalent in today’s organizations. The reliance on teams is due partially to increasingly complex tasks, more globalization, and the flattening of organizational structures. A team is a type of organizational group that is composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals. Team members must work collectively to achieve their goals. Examples of organizational teams include senior executive teams, project management teams, task forces, work units, standing committees, quality teams, and improvement teams. Teams can be located in the same place meeting face-to-face, or they can be geographically dispersed “virtual” teams meeting across time and distance via various forms of communication technology. Teams can also be hybrids of face-to-face and virtual teams with some members being co-located and some being dispersed. Exactly what defines an organizational group as a team or not is constantly evolving as organizations confront the many new forms of contemporary collaboration (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012).

The study of organizational teams has focused on strategies for maintaining a competitive advantage. Team-based organizations have faster response capability because of their flatter organizational structures, which rely on teams and new technology to enable communication across time and space (Porter & Beyerlein, 2000). These newer organizational structures have been referred to as “team-based and technology-enabled” (Mankin, Cohen, & Bikson, 1996).

Before the COVID-19 pandemic spread globally and people were forced to work remotely from their homes, relying on videoconferencing for meetings and engagement, a majority of multinational companies were already depending on virtual teams, or teams that are geographically dispersed and rely on technology to interact and collaborate (Muethel, Gehrlein, & Hoegl, 2012). Such teams allow companies to (1) use the best talent across the globe, (2) facilitate collaboration across time and space, and (3) reduce travel costs (Paul, Drake, & Liang, 2016) and, as experienced during the pandemic, allow organizational work to continue when physical locations are shut down or unavailable. The development of social media, video communication technologies, and software applications for meeting management has given virtual teams richer and more realistic communication environments where collaboration is facilitated (Schmidt, 2014; Schouten, van den Hooff, & Feldberg, 2016; Scott, 2013). Despite this, virtual teams face more difficulty with members separated by time, distance, and culture. In virtual teams, face-to-face communication is rare, with decisions and scheduling taking more time. In addition, they often have less trust, more conflict, and more subgroup formation. Breuer, Hüffmeier, and Hertel (2016) found that trust is an important factor when leading virtual teams because trust has been shown to be more important to virtual teams compared to face-to-face teams.

The Center for Creative Leadership worked with 141 virtual teams around the world and found that three key factors influence the effectiveness of virtual teams (Leslie & Hoole, 2018):

Technology. Effective team leadership uses technology to create connections among team members and make team members feel like they are working face-to-face. The use of videoconferencing (e.g., Zoom) became critical during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for team success.Managing distance. In many cases, virtual teams work across different time zones, and accommodating differing schedules is important. Virtual team leadership must share the burden of early-morning and late-night meetings among team members so that certain members are not always the ones to accommodate the time zone differences. Physical distance is a challenge to the engagement of team members, and team leaders must work to ensure members’ commitment to team goals.Team structure. Virtual team leadership must carefully consider the members of the team and ensure that those on the team are committed. While this is true for all teams, it is even more critical in a virtual team, since it is easier for team members to “check out.” Often, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, some people were members of many different virtual teams, which resulted in less effort toward any one team and harmed the overall effectiveness.

Whether traditional or virtual, the organizational team-based structure is an important way for organizations to remain competitive by responding quickly and adapting to constant, rapid changes. Studies of both face-to-face and virtual teams have increasingly become focused on team processes and team outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Thomas, Martin, & Riggio, 2013). Also, researchers focused on the problems work teams confront as well as how to make these work teams more effective (Ilgen, Major, Hollenbeck, & Sego, 1993). Effective organizational teams lead to many desirable outcomes, such as

greater productivity,more effective use of resources,better decisions and problem solving,better-quality products and services, andgreater innovation and creativity (Parker, 1990)."

"Work teams are very prevalent in today’s organizations. The reliance on teams is due partially to increasingly complex tasks, more globalization, and the flattening of organizational structures. A team is a type of organizational group that is composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals. Team members must work collectively to achieve their goals. Examples of organizational teams include senior executive teams, project management teams, task forces, work units, standing committees, quality teams, and improvement teams. Teams can be located in the same place meeting face-to-face, or they can be geographically dispersed “virtual” teams meeting across time and distance via various forms of communication technology. Teams can also be hybrids of face-to-face and virtual teams with some members being co-located and some being dispersed. Exactly what defines an organizational group as a team or not is constantly evolving as organizations confront the many new forms of contemporary collaboration (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012).

The study of organizational teams has focused on strategies for maintaining a competitive advantage. Team-based organizations have faster response capability because of their flatter organizational structures, which rely on teams and new technology to enable communication across time and space (Porter & Beyerlein, 2000). These newer organizational structures have been referred to as “team-based and technology-enabled” (Mankin, Cohen, & Bikson, 1996).

Before the COVID-19 pandemic spread globally and people were forced to work remotely from their homes, relying on videoconferencing for meetings and engagement, a majority of multinational companies were already depending on virtual teams, or teams that are geographically dispersed and rely on technology to interact and collaborate (Muethel, Gehrlein, & Hoegl, 2012). Such teams allow companies to (1) use the best talent across the globe, (2) facilitate collaboration across time and space, and (3) reduce travel costs (Paul, Drake, & Liang, 2016) and, as experienced during the pandemic, allow organizational work to continue when physical locations are shut down or unavailable. The development of social media, video communication technologies, and software applications for meeting management has given virtual teams richer and more realistic communication environments where collaboration is facilitated (Schmidt, 2014; Schouten, van den Hooff, & Feldberg, 2016; Scott, 2013). Despite this, virtual teams face more difficulty with members separated by time, distance, and culture. In virtual teams, face-to-face communication is rare, with decisions and scheduling taking more time. In addition, they often have less trust, more conflict, and more subgroup formation. Breuer, Hüffmeier, and Hertel (2016) found that trust is an important factor when leading virtual teams because trust has been shown to be more important to virtual teams compared to face-to-face teams.

The Center for Creative Leadership worked with 141 virtual teams around the world and found that three key factors influence the effectiveness of virtual teams (Leslie & Hoole, 2018):

Technology. Effective team leadership uses technology to create connections among team members and make team members feel like they are working face-to-face. The use of videoconferencing (e.g., Zoom) became critical during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for team success.Managing distance. In many cases, virtual teams work across different time zones, and accommodating differing schedules is important. Virtual team leadership must share the burden of early-morning and late-night meetings among team members so that certain members are not always the ones to accommodate the time zone differences. Physical distance is a challenge to the engagement of team members, and team leaders must work to ensure members’ commitment to team goals.Team structure. Virtual team leadership must carefully consider the members of the team and ensure that those on the team are committed. While this is true for all teams, it is even more critical in a virtual team, since it is easier for team members to “check out.” Often, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, some people were members of many different virtual teams, which resulted in less effort toward any one team and harmed the overall effectiveness.

Whether traditional or virtual, the organizational team-based structure is an important way for organizations to remain competitive by responding quickly and adapting to constant, rapid changes. Studies of both face-to-face and virtual teams have increasingly become focused on team processes and team outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Thomas, Martin, & Riggio, 2013). Also, researchers focused on the problems work teams confront as well as how to make these work teams more effective (Ilgen, Major, Hollenbeck, & Sego, 1993). Effective organizational teams lead to many desirable outcomes, such as

greater productivity,more effective use of resources,better decisions and problem solving,better-quality products and services, andgreater innovation and creativity (Parker, 1990)."

"However, for teams to be successful, the organizational culture needs to support member involvement. The traditional authority structure of many organizations does not support decision making at lower levels, and this can lead to the failure of many teams. Teamwork is an example of lateral decision making as opposed to the traditional vertical decision making that occurs in the organizational hierarchy based on rank or position in the organization. The dynamic and fluid power shifting in teams has been referred to as heterarchy (Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, & Paul, 2014). Such power shifting within teams can lead to positive outcomes as long as team members see these shifting sources of power as legitimate. Teams will have great difficulty in organizational cultures that are not supportive of such collaborative work and decision making. Changing an organizational culture to one that is more supportive of teams is possible, but it takes time and effort (Levi, 2011).

Leadership of teams has also become an important area of study. The ideas of “team leadership” are quite different from leadership within the organizational vertical structure. Many theories of leadership, such as situational (discussed in Chapter 5) and transformational (discussed in Chapter 8), can be applied in the team setting. However, team leadership is a unique setting for leadership, and it is very process oriented. How do teams develop their “critical capabilities”? How do team leaders shift their actions over time to deal with contingencies as they arise? How do leader actions promote task and interpersonal development (Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009)? Effective team leadership facilitates team success and helps teams to avoid team failure (Stagl, Salas, & Burke, 2007; Stewart & Manz, 1995). Effective leadership processes are the most critical factor in team success (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001, p. 452).

Shared or Distributed Leadership.

The complexities of team processes demand the attention and focus of all members of the team. Some teams are autonomous and self-directed with no formal leader. But even those with a formal leader will benefit from shared leadership among team members. Team leadership functions can be performed by the formal team leader and/or shared by team members. Shared team leadership occurs when members of the team take on leadership behaviors to influence the team and to maximize team effectiveness (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012). Shared leadership has been referred to as team leadership capacity, encompassing the leadership repertoire of the entire team (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). Such distributed leadership involves the sharing of influence by team members. Team members step forward when situations warrant, providing the leadership necessary, and then step back to allow others to lead. Such shared leadership has become more and more important in today’s organizations to allow faster responses to more complex issues (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2009; Solansky, 2008).

Shared leadership, while very important, does involve risk and takes some courage for the member who steps forward to provide leadership outside the formal role of team leader (Amos & Klimoski, 2014). Risks aside, teams with shared leadership have less conflict, more consensus, more trust, and more cohesion than teams that do not have shared leadership (Bergman et al., 2012). Shared leadership is even more important for virtual teams. Empowering leadership that shares power with virtual team members promotes both effective collaboration and performance (Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Hill & Bartol, 2016). Virtual teams are simply more effective when there is shared team leadership (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Muethel et al., 2012; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). How leaders and members can share the leadership of teams so that these teams can truly become effective and achieve excellence is discussed in this chapter. It introduces a model that provides a mental road map to help the leader or any team member providing leadership diagnose team problems and take appropriate action to correct those problems.

Team Leadership Model

The Hill Model for Team Leadership (Figure 16.1) is based on the functional leadership claim that the leader’s job is to monitor the team and then take whatever action is necessary to ensure team effectiveness. The model provides a tool for understanding the very complex phenomenon of team leadership, starting at the top with its initial leadership decisions, moving to leader actions, and finally focusing on the indicators of team effectiveness. In addition, the model suggests specific actions that leaders can perform to improve team effectiveness. Effective team leaders need a wide repertoire of communication skills to monitor and take appropriate action. The model is designed to simplify and clarify the complex nature of team leadership and to provide an easy tool to aid leadership decision making for team leaders and members alike.

Effective team performance begins with how the leader sees the situation that the team is experiencing (the leader’s mental model). This mental model reflects not only the components of the problem confronting the team, but also the environmental and organizational contingencies that define the larger context of team action. The leader develops a mental conception of what the team problem is and what solutions are possible in this context, given the environmental and organizational constraints and resources (Zaccaro et al., 2001).

To respond appropriately to the problem envisioned in the mental model, a good team leader needs to be behaviorally flexible and have a wide repertoire of actions or skills to meet the team’s diverse needs (Barge, 1996). When the leader’s behavior matches the complexity of the situation, the leader is behaving with “requisite variety,” or the set of behaviors necessary to meet the team’s needs (Drecksel, 1991). Effective team leaders are able to construct accurate mental models of the team’s problems by observing team functioning, and can take requisite action to solve these problems. Effective team leaders can diagnose correctly and choose the right action.

The leader has special responsibility for functioning in a manner that will help the team achieve effectiveness. Within this perspective, leadership behavior is seen as team-based problem solving, in which the leader attempts to achieve team goals by analyzing the internal and external situation and then selecting and implementing the appropriate behaviors to ensure team effectiveness (Fleishman et al., 1991). Leaders must use discretion about which problems need intervention, and make choices about which solutions are the most appropriate (Zaccaro et al., 2001). The appropriate solution varies by circumstance and focuses on what should be done to make the team more effective. Effective leaders have the ability to determine what leadership interventions are needed, if any, to solve team problems. When leadership is shared throughout the team, various members are diagnosing problems and intervening with appropriate behaviors. The monitoring and selection of behaviors is shared throughout the team membership. Given the complexity of team functioning, such shared leadership can—and, in fact, does—lead to greater team effectiveness."

,

Chapter 5 Leadership & Teamwork

"Situational Approach”

Description

One of the more widely recognized approaches to leadership is the situational approach, which was developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1969a) based on Reddin’s (1967) 3-D management style theory. The situational approach has been refined and revised several times since its inception (see Blanchard, 1985; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 2013; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977, 1988), and it has been used extensively in organizational leadership training and development.

As its name implies, the situational approach focuses on leadership in situations. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership. From this perspective, effective leadership requires that people adapt their style to the demands of different situations.

The situational approach is illustrated in the model developed by Blanchard and his colleagues (Blanchard et al., 1993; Blanchard et al., 2013), called SLII® (Figure 5.1). The SLII® model, which is Blanchard’s situational approach to effective leadership, is an extension and refinement of the original model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1969a). This chapter focuses on the SLII® model.

Blanchard’s model stresses that leadership is composed of both a directive and a supportive dimension, and that each has to be applied appropriately in a given situation. To determine what is needed in a particular situation, leaders must evaluate their followers and assess how competent and committed the followers are to perform a given goal. Based on the assumption that followers’ skills and motivation vary over time, Blanchard’s SLII® suggests that leaders should change the degree to which they are directive or supportive to meet the changing needs of followers.

In brief, the essence of Blanchard’s SLII® approach demands that leaders match their style to the competence and commitment of their followers. Effective leaders are those who can recognize what followers need and then adapt their style to meet those needs.

The dynamics of this approach are clearly illustrated in the SLII® model, which comprises two major components: leadership style and development level of followers.

Leadership Style

Leadership style consists of the behavior pattern of a person who attempts to influence others. It includes both directive behaviors and supportive behaviors. Directive behaviors help individuals and group members accomplish goals by giving directions, establishing goals and methods of evaluation, setting timelines, defining roles, and showing how the goals are to be achieved. Directive behaviors clarify, often with one-way communication, what is to be done, how it is to be done, and who is responsible for doing it. Supportive behaviors help individuals and group members feel comfortable about themselves, their coworkers, and the situation. Supportive behaviors involve two-way communication and responses that show social and emotional support to others. Examples of supportive behaviors include asking for input, solving problems, praising others, sharing information about oneself, and listening. Supportive behaviors are mostly job related.

Leadership styles can be classified further into four distinct categories of directive and supportive behaviors (Figure 5.1). The first style (S1) is a high directive–low supportive style, which is also called a directing style. In this approach, the leader focuses communication on goal achievement, and spends a smaller amount of time using supportive behaviors. Using this style, a leader gives instructions about what and how goals are to be achieved by the followers and then supervises them carefully.

The second style (S2) is called a coaching approach and is a high directive–high supportive style. In this approach, the leader focuses communication on both achieving goals and meeting followers’ socioemotional needs. The coaching style requires that leaders involve themselves with followers by giving encouragement and soliciting follower input. However, coaching is an extension of S1 in that it still requires that the leader make the final decision on the what and how of goal accomplishment.

The third style (S3) is a supporting approach that requires that the leader take a high supportive–low directive style. In this approach, the leader does not focus exclusively on goals but uses supportive behaviors that bring out followers’ skills around the goal to be accomplished. The supportive style includes listening, praising others, asking for input, and giving feedback. A leader using this style gives followers control of day-to-day decisions but remains available to facilitate problem solving. An S3 leader is quick to give recognition and social support to followers.

DescriptionFigure 5.1 SLII® ModelSource: From Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership® II, by K. Blanchard, P. Zigarmi, and D. Zigarmi, 2013, New York, NY: William Morrow. Used with permission. This model cannot be used without the expressed, written consent of The Ken Blanchard Companies. To learn more, visit www.kenblanchard.com

Last, the fourth style (S4) is called the low supportive–low directive style, or a delegating approach. In this approach, the leader offers less goal input and social support, facilitating followers’ confidence and motivation in reference to the goal. The delegative leader lessens involvement in planning, control of details, and goal clarification. After the group agrees on what to do, this style lets followers take responsibility for getting the job done the way they see fit. A leader using S4 gives control to followers and refrains from intervening with unnecessary social support.

The SLII® model (Figure 5.1) illustrates how directive and supportive leadership behaviors combine for each of the four different leadership styles. As shown by the arrows on the bottom and left side of the model, directive behaviors are high in the S1 and S2 quadrants and low in S3 and S4, whereas supportive behaviors are high in S2 and S3 and low in S1 and S4.

Development Level

A second major part of the SLII® model concerns the development level of followers. Development level is the degree to which followers have the competence and commitment necessary to accomplish a given goal or activity (Blanchard et al., 2013). Stated another way, it indicates whether a person has mastered the skills to achieve a specific goal and whether a person has developed a positive attitude regarding the goal (Blanchard et al., 1993). In earlier versions of the model, this was referred to as the readiness or maturity of the follower (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969a, 1969b, 1977, 1996).

Followers are at a high development level if they are interested and confident in their work and know how to achieve the goal. Followers are at a developing level if they have little skill for the goal at hand but believe that they have the motivation or confidence to get the job done.

The levels of development are illustrated in the lower portion of the diagram in Figure 5.1. The levels describe various combinations of commitment and competence for followers on a given goal. There are two aspects of commitment: motivation and confidence; and two aspects of competence: transferable skills and task knowledge. Development levels are intended to be goal specific and are not intended to be used for the purpose of labeling followers.

On a particular goal, followers can be classified into four categories: D1, D2, D3, and D4, from developing to developed. Specifically, D1 followers are low in competence and high in commitment. They are new to a goal and do not know exactly how to do it, but they are excited about the challenge of it. D2 followers are described as having some competence but low commitment. They have started to learn a job, but they also have lost some of their initial confidence about the job. D3 represents followers who have moderate to high competence but may have variable commitment. They have essentially developed the skills for the job, but they are uncertain as to whether they can accomplish the goal by themselves. Finally, D4 followers are the highest in development, having both a high degree of competence and a high degree of commitment to getting the job done. They have the transferable skills and task knowledge to do the job and the confidence and motivation to get it done.

How Does SLII® Work?

SLII® is constructed around the idea that followers move forward and backward along the developmental continuum, which represents the relative competence and commitment of followers. For leaders to be effective, it is essential that they determine where followers are on the developmental continuum and adapt their leadership styles to directly match their followers’ development levels.

In a given situation, the first task for leaders is to determine the nature of the situation. Questions such as the following must be addressed: What goal are followers being asked to achieve? How complex is the goal? Are the followers sufficiently skilled to accomplish the goal? Do they have the desire to complete the job once they start it? Answers to these questions will help leaders to identify correctly the specific development level at which their followers are functioning. For example, new followers who are very excited but lack understanding of job requirements would be identified as D1-level followers. Conversely, seasoned followers with proven abilities and great devotion to an organization would be identified as functioning at the D4 level.

Having identified the correct development level, the second task for leaders is to adapt their style to the prescribed leadership style represented in the SLII® model. There is a one-to-one relationship between the development level of followers (D1, D2, etc.) and the leader’s style (S1, S2, etc.). For example, if followers are at the first level of development, D1, the leader needs to adopt a high directive–low supportive leadership style (S1, or directing). If followers are more advanced and at the second development level, D2, the leader needs to adopt a high directive–high supportive leadership style (S2, or coaching). For each level of development, there is a specific style of leadership that the leader should adopt.

An example of this would be Rene Martinez, who owns a house painting business. Rene specializes in restoration of old homes and over 30 years has acquired extensive knowledge of the specialized abilities required including understanding old construction, painting materials and techniques, plaster repair, carpentry, and window glazing. Rene has three employees: Ashley, who has worked for him for seven years and whom he trained from the beginning of her career; Levi, who worked for a commercial painter for four years before being hired by Rene two years ago; and Anton, who is just starting out.

Because of Ashley’s years of experience and training, Rene would classify her as primarily D3. She is very competent, but still seeks Rene’s insight on some tasks. She is completely comfortable prepping surfaces for painting and directing the others but has some reluctance to taking on jobs that involve carpentry. Depending on the work he assigns Ashley, Rene moves between S3 (supporting) and S4 (delegating) leadership behaviors.

When it comes to painting, Levi is a developed follower needing little direction or support from Rene. But Levi has to be trained in many other aspects of home restoration, making him a D1 or D2 in those skills. Levi is a quick learner, and Rene finds he only needs to be shown or told how to do something once before he is able to complete it easily. In most situations, Rene uses an S2 (coaching) leadership behavior with Levi. If the goal is more complicated and requires detailed training, Rene moves back into the S1 (directing) behavior with Levi.

Anton is completely new to this field, developing his skills but at the D1 level. What he lacks in experience he more than makes up for in energy. He is always willing to jump in and do whatever he’s asked to do. He is not as careful as he needs to be, however, often neglecting the proper prepping techniques and cleanup about which Rene is a stickler. Rene finds that not only he, but also Ashley, uses an S1 (directing) behavior with Anton. Because Levi is also fairly new, he finds it difficult to be directive with Anton, but likes to give him help when he seems unsure of himself, falling into the S3 (supporting) behavior.

This example illustrates how followers can move back and forth along the development continuum, requiring leaders to be flexible in their leadersh