leadership & team effectiveness
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
1/29
PAPER ON
Transformational Leadership: Impact of Team Leader on TeamEffectiveness
PRESENTED BY
SAMAN AHMAD (02)
SHAILENDER KUMAR SINGH (08)PADMENDRA SINGH PATWAL (09)
ABHISHEK KOHLI (17)
PGDM (PT) 2009-12
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
2/29
Transformational Leadership: Impact of Team Leader on TeamEffectiveness
We investigated the relationship between the leadership style and the impact on theeffectiveness of team performance & clarity of Vision, Roles, Structure of team and
objectivity in the team. Total 10 teams of 5 member each were selected that were partof pharmaceutical & IT sales companies. Transformational leadership influenced teamperformance through the mediating effect of team potency. The effect oftransformational leadership on team potency was moderated by clarity of vision, clarityof goals, conflict management, and structure of the team.
Transformational leadership is a leadership approach that is defined as leadershipthat creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal ofdeveloping followers into leaders. A transformational leader focuses on "transforming"others to help each other, to look out for each other, to be encouraging and harmonious,
and to look out for the organization as a whole. With this leadership, the leaderenhances the motivation, morale and performance of his followers through a variety ofmechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to themission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followersthat inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, andunderstanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can alignfollowers with tasks that optimizes their performance.
James MacGregor Burns (1978)[1] first introduced the concepts of transformationalleadership in his descriptive research on political leaders, but this term is now used inorganizational psychology as well. According to Burns, transformational leadership is a
process in which "leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level ofmorale and motivation". Burns related to the difficulty in differentiation betweenmanagement and leadership and claimed that the differences are in characteristics andbehaviors. He established two concepts: "transformational leadership" and"transactional leadership". According to Burns, the transformational approach createssignificant change in the life of people and organizations. It redesigns perceptions andvalues, and changes expectations and aspirations of employees. Unlike in thetransactional approach, it is not based on a "give and take" relationship, but on theleader's personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation ofan energizing vision and challenging goals. Transformational leaders are idealized inthe sense that they are a moral exemplar of working towards the benefit of the team,organization and/or community.
The full range of leadership introduces four elements of transformational leadership:
1. Individualized Consideration the degree to which the leader attends to eachfollower's needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower and listens to thefollower's concerns and needs. The leader gives empathy and support, keepscommunication open and places challenges before the followers. This also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_MacGregor_Burnshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership#cite_note-0%23cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_MacGregor_Burnshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership#cite_note-0%23cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor -
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
3/29
encompasses the need for respect and celebrates the individual contribution thateach follower can make to the team. The followers have a will and aspirations forself development and have intrinsic motivation for their tasks.
2. Intellectual Stimulation the degree to which the leader challengesassumptions, takes risks and solicits followers' ideas. Leaders with this style
stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers. They nurture and developpeople who think independently. For such a leader, learning is a value andunexpected situations are seen as opportunities to learn. The followers askquestions, think deeply about things and figure out better ways to execute theirtasks.
3. Inspirational Motivation the degree to which the leader articulates a visionthat is appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders with inspirational motivationchallenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about futuregoals, and provide meaning for the task at hand. Followers need to have a strongsense of purpose if they are to be motivated to act. Purpose and meaningprovide the energy that drives a group forward. The visionary aspects of
leadership are supported by communication skills that make the visionunderstandable, precise, powerful and engaging. The followers are willing toinvest more effort in their tasks, they are encouraged and optimistic about thefuture and believe in their abilities.
4. Idealized Influence Provides a role model for high ethical behavior, instillspride, gains respect and trust.
Leadership and team effectiveness
Team effectiveness refers to the system of getting people in a company or institution towork together effectively. The idea behind team effectiveness is that a group of people
working together can achieve much more than if the individuals of the team wereworking on their own. Team effectiveness is determined by a number of factors, suchas:
The right mix of skills. Team effectiveness depends in part on bringing togetherpeople who have different skills that somehow complement each other. This canmean different technical abilities or communication skills. In fact, teaming uppeople who share the exact same characteristics is often a recipe for disaster.Team effectiveness depends on people taking on different roles in a groupsetting. If there is no agreement on who does what in the group, it is unlikely thatthe team will prosper.
The right motivation. Team effectiveness is directly linked to the interest thatthe group has on the project. If the job is too easy or too difficult, or if the rewardsfor achieving the end result do not seem worth the effort, the team may end upworking half-heartedly in the project. The task should also have a clear outcome.Working towards a specific goal enhances team effectiveness significantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation -
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
4/29
The ability to solve conflicts without compromising the quality of theproject. Team work has one major downfall. Sometimes groups end up makingdecisions they know are not in the best interest of the project, just so they cankeep the process moving. Conflict is innate to any work done in groups, andshould be taken as part of the challenge rather than as something to be avoided
by compromising. Team effectiveness should be increased, not compromised,through conflict.
One way to enhance team effectiveness is to agree beforehand on a code of conduct.As conflicts arise, it is important to know how to deal with them. What is allowed andwhat is not? How will the team deal with disagreements? Is open discussion favored orwill the group vote on major decisions? Knowing what to expect and having the plan willmake the process of working in group much easier.
Relationship between team effectiveness and leadershipIn this study we aim to explain the patterns of leadership roles for team effectiveness in
non economic organizations compared to economic organizations. For this purpose, westudied three successful organization types, i.e the amateur sports clubs (football,basketball), theater companies and, regional folk groups. Our basic hypothesis is thatthe relationship between the type of organization (specially teams) and the role ofleadership is not random. Therefore, we believe that an empirical approach isnecessary to test the assumptions about leadership and team effectiveness. Also theseempirical results are supposed to lead to professional managers in economicorganizations. First, we constructed thirteen key dimension variables for leadershipbehavior as follows: coaching, effective communication, encouraging teamwork,establishing high standards and getting results, effective delegation, rewardingperformance, developing and releasing employees, building consensus, supporting
reasonable risk- taking, forecast thinking, improving the organization, managingdiversity, and overall effectiveness . Second, we defined team standards andeffectiveness in twenty items. And finally, we tried to emphasize factors affectingleadership roles and team effectiveness. In this study, Natemeyer and Babko (1992)Management Practices Survey data are used. Data reliability are tested before theanalysis and results are discussed at the end of the study.
Review: Article 1This research study offers the first empirical test of the relationships among:1. Creativity2. Standardization3. Team effectivenessThe article examines both customer satisfaction and performance as outcomes becausethey are critically important, but very different, effectiveness criteria that exist for thisand many other organizations. It also says creativity and standardization have similareffects on both variables. Focuses strictly on the main effects for a moment, one sees
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
5/29
an interesting picture emerge. For customer satisfaction, it is sgnificant, positiveassociation for standardization, but none for creativity.Therefore, it the teams that adhere to established practices and follow documentedprocedures have higher levels of customer satisfaction. However, teams with morecreative environments have significantly higher levels of performance, with work
standardization not being a significant predictor.Conclusion:It can be concluded that customers prefer standardization as it removes ambiguity fromtheir service interactions. However, with a highly skilled and well-trained workforce, likethe service technician teams in this research, creative team environment rather thanwork standardization appears to benefit performance. Consequently, teams and,ultimately, organizations face an interesting dilemma in that they need to strike abalance between being creative and employing standardized work practices.
Article 2:RELATING MEMBER ABILITY AND PERSONALITY TO WORK TEAM PROCESSES
& TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Review:The article emphasizes that teams are important to Organizational Effectiveness, andthe number of Organizations using teams is increasing, but little is known about therelationship between Team composition variables and Team effectiveness in actualwork settings. The present study addresses the issue and also provides some insightinto the way ability and personality is related to team viability through an indicator ofteam processes (social cohesion).Conscientious teams and high cognitive-ability teamsperform better than teams that are less conscientious and lower in cognitive ability. Itcan also been seen that teams thatare more agreeable and more emotionally stable
are likely to have higher performance.Further, it can also be concluded that teams donot have any particularly disagreeable or introverted members were found to be higher
performing teams.Conclusion:The Study suggests that interpersonally oriented personality characteristics such asagreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability, can also be important predictors ofteam effectiveness. Agreeableness and emotional stability have not been found toconsistently relate to performance for individuals, the article also suggests on team-levelconstructs that predict team performance and team viability. Article also demonstratedthat part of the effect for some of these interpersonally oriented personality variables onteam viability comes through social cohesiveness. Composing teams with memberswho develop positive social interactions and thereby experience synergistic cohesionthus enhances work-team performance. The study highlights the importance ofchoosing appropriate methods of operational composition variables.Article 3:Vertical Vs Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of ChangeManagement Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional,Transformational, & Empowering Leader Behaviors
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
6/29
Review:Important outcome from the mentioned study is that shared leadership is found to be animportant predictor of team effectiveness. The results in the study state that a consciousstrategy of distributing leadership to team members is likely to enhance teameffectiveness. The article addresses the issue of Heroic Vs Shared Leadership
findings in the study show that shared leadership is a more useful as compared to teameffectiveness. It explains more (heroic) leadership. Vertical transformational leadershipis found to be positively related to manager and team self-ratings of team effectiveness,and shared transformational leadership is found to be positively related to all threeratings of team effectiveness. Further the study concludes that affect the effectivenessof empowered teams by identifying leadership, in its many forms, as important factor ofthe effectiveness of empowered teams.Conclusion:Teams are becoming an increasingly important component in organizations. There hasbeen an increasing need to better understand team leadership and team effectiveness.This research study examined a non-traditional social source of team leadership and
examined its relationship. The study has examined an alternate social source ofleadership, shared leadership, and found this alternate source of leadership to beimportant in explaining the effectiveness of teams. In this paper seven dimensions ofeffectiveness were measured with ratings from three sources:(a) Managerial ratings(b) Internal customer ratings(c) Team self-ratings
Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams
ARTICLE REVIEW - 4
The article follows the trend toward physically dispersed work groups that havenecessitated a fresh inquiry into the role and nature of team leadership in virtualsettings. To accomplish it thirteen culturally diverse global teams from locations inEurope, Mexico, and the United States, were taken and assigned each team a projectleader and task to complete.
Later the findings suggested that effective team leaders demonstrate the capability todeal with paradox and contradiction by performing multiple leadership rolessimultaneously (behavioural complexity). It was discovered that highly effective virtualteam leaders act in a mentoring role and exhibit a high degree of understanding(empathy) toward other team members. At the same time, effective leaders are alsoable to assert their authority without being perceived as overbearing or inflexible.
Thus effective leaders are found to be extremely effective at providing regular, detailed,and prompt communication with their peers and in articulating role relationships(responsibilities) among the virtual team members. It provides useful insights formanagers interested in developing global virtual teams, as well as for academicsinterested in pursuing virtual team research.
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
7/29
Virtual team leaders are rated as effective by their members, demonstrate as first andforemost a mentoring quality characterized by concern for the members, understanding,and empathy.
ARTICLE 5
The Importance Of Self- And Shared Leadership In Team Based Knowledge Work
A MESO-LEVEL MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DYNAMICS
ARTICLE REVIEWThe research addresses the increasing need for novel approaches to leadership thatdeal with the challenges that the organizations face as they flatten, diversify, andconfront increasingly the complex problems.For this they developed A Meso-Level Theoretical Model that outlined the relationshipbetween self- and shared leadership, focusing on the intermediary processes of trust,potency, and commitment that would lead to the development of shared leadership and
ultimately more of innovative knowledge creation.
Implication An important boundary implication that the model follows is that theyassumes team and organizational incentives as a place to encourage team building andto facilitate team over individual achievements.
Conceptualizing leadership in this way lead to numerous unanswered questionsregarding how team dynamics influence, and are influenced by, various forms ofleadership (including lateral, upward, and downward influence attempts).
As more work becomes knowledge work, work within organization is more to likely
become more flexible and varied. This in turn requires teamwork of a new kind, one thatis conducive to the expression of creativity and innovation. Decentralized forms ofleadership are more necessary as well as the shared forms of leadership.
ARTICLE 6RELATING MEMBER ABILITY AND PERSONALITY TO WORK-TEAM PROCESSESAND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
ARTICLE REVIEWThe study emphasises on examining the relationships among team composition (abilityand personality), team process (social cohesion), and team outcomes (team viabilityand team performance).
To optimise this for further results for finding out tem members characteristics fourscoring methods were used:
Mean
Variance
Minimum
Maximum
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
8/29
With respect to composition variables, teams higher in general mental ability (GMA),conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received highersupervisor ratings for team performance.
Teams higher in GMA, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisorratings for team viability. Results also show that extraversion and emotional stabilitywere associated with team viability through social cohesion. The major purpose of thisstudy is to assess how member characteristics (e.g., ability and personality) offunctioning work teams relate to differences in team effectiveness. This also included ananalysis to examine various methods for operationalzing member characteristics (mean,variance, minimum, and maximum). They also explored social cohesion as an indicatorof synergistic group processes through which some of the team compositioncharacteristics operate.
ConclusionMany higher-education institutions around the world are increasingly relying on theonline learning model to deliver education to students who otherwise cannot or wouldnot physically attend. This study examines the effect of different predictor variables ontwo variables of effectiveness of virtual learning teams: team performance and teamsatisfaction. Specifically, the diversified roles played by learning team leaders andleadership effectiveness, as well as team trust and propensity to trust, are examined.This study integrates the theories of both leadership and virtual teams in the context ofe-learning, and through a field study of an undergraduate MIS online course collectsdata to investigate the existence of significant paths among the variables.The results of this study show that, in a virtual learning environment, diversified
leadership roles contribute to leadership effectiveness; diversified leadership roles,leadership effectiveness, and propensity to trust all positively influence team trust, whichin turn contributes to two indicators of team effectivenessperformance andsatisfaction.
In addition, team trust is found to be a significant variable that mediates the effecttransmitted from leadership effectiveness to team performance, as well as fromleadership effectiveness to team satisfaction. Educators can gain insight from theproposed theoretical model and field study results. To improve effectiveness of onlinelearning teams, educators can consider assigning effective virtual team leaders andpromoting trust among team members.
Methodology:
Samples & Procedures:
The participants in the study represented 10 sales teams working in India inpharmaceutical sector and in IT sales. All the teams have achieved more than 100% ofthere repective budgets in the year 2009. By sampling teams both in pharmaceuticals
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
9/29
and It sector, we planned to increase our chances of obtaining substantial variation inthe team values that were the focus of this study.
Each team consisted of five members working together in an independent fashion tomake the sales in there desigmnated territory. Each team reported to a manager and
comprised a geographically isolated area, meaning that none of the teams included inthis study shared the office facilities.
Questioners were sent to the potential participants through individual emails. Each ofthe mail included an introductory letter from the authors, the mail explained that theparticipation in the study was strictly voluntary & the anonymity of respondents wasensured. All the respondents were male of different age group, and experience in thererespective industry ranges from 1 year to 25 years.
Measures
The questionnaire contains 47 questions at all on the different parameters. One set wason Vision, Values, another was on Objectivity, another was on Roles, Structure,Resources and the last set of questions was on the leadership. All questions wereanswered on 5 a point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree).We obtained indexes of Clarity of Vision, Clarity of Values, Clarity of Roles, Objectivity,Structure of team, Ideal leadership, Inspirational Leadership, Intellectual Leadership &Individualized Leadership. In predicting the leadership style we tested the Clarity ofVision, Values & Roles with chi-square testing.
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Member * Clarity of Vision 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Member * Clarity of Value 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Member * Clarity of Roles 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Age * Clarity of Vision 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Age * Clarity of Value 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Age * Clarity of Roles 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Experience * Clarity of Vision 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Experience * Clarity of Value 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
Experience * Clarity of Roles 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
10/29
Member * Clarity of Vision
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 41.997a 36 .227
Likelihood Ratio 46.587 36 .111
Linear-by-Linear Association .002 1 .968
N of Valid Cases 50
50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.
Since the table value of chi-square of 36 df at .227 significance level is higher than41.997, it establishes that there was clarity of vision among all the teams.
Member * Clarity of Value
Clarity of Vision
Total1 2 3 4 5
Member Team A 0 2 1 1 1 5
Team B 0 2 1 2 0 5
Team C 2 1 0 2 0 5
Team D 0 0 1 3 1 5
Team E 0 0 0 5 0 5
Team F 0 0 1 2 2 5
Team G 0 2 0 2 1 5
Team H 0 1 1 1 2 5
Team I 0 3 0 0 2 5
Team J 1 2 1 1 0 5
Total 3 13 6 19 9 50
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
11/29
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Value
Total1 2 3 4 5
Member Team A 0 1 0 1 3 5
Team B 0 0 3 1 1 5
Team C 0 0 0 1 4 5
Team D 0 0 1 4 0 5
Team E 0 0 1 3 1 5
Team F 0 0 0 2 3 5
Team G 0 0 0 2 3 5
Team H 0 0 1 2 2 5
Team I 2 0 1 2 0 5
Team J 0 0 1 2 2 5Total 2 1 8 20 19 50
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 49.395a 36 .068
Likelihood Ratio 39.817 36 .304
Linear-by-Linear Association .745 1 .388
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .10.
Member * Clarity of Roles
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
12/29
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Roles
Total1 2 3 4 5
Member Team A 0 1 0 4 0 5
Team B 0 1 1 3 0 5
Team C 0 0 0 2 3 5
Team D 0 0 0 3 2 5
Team E 0 1 0 4 0 5
Team F 0 0 1 1 3 5
Team G 0 0 0 3 2 5
Team H 0 0 3 1 1 5
Team I 1 1 1 2 0 5
Team J 2 0 1 2 0 5Total 3 4 7 25 11 50
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 48.984a 36 .073
Likelihood Ratio 50.003 36 .060
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.901 1 .048
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.282 .139 -2.038 .047c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.243 .142 -1.738 .089c
N of Valid Cases 50
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Age * Clarity of Vision
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
13/29
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Vision
Total1 2 3 4 5
Age 20 0 0 0 0 1 1
21 0 4 0 0 0 4
22 0 3 0 1 2 6
23 1 0 0 0 1 2
24 0 0 0 2 0 2
25 0 0 0 1 0 1
26 0 0 2 2 1 5
27 0 0 1 2 0 3
28 0 0 0 1 1 2
29 0 1 0 1 0 2
31 0 2 0 0 0 2
32 0 1 0 0 0 1
33 0 0 0 1 0 1
34 0 2 0 0 0 2
35 0 0 0 1 0 1
36 0 0 1 1 0 2
38 0 0 0 1 1 2
39 1 0 0 2 2 5
41 0 0 1 0 0 1
42 0 0 0 1 0 1
43 0 0 0 1 0 1
44 0 0 0 1 0 1
45 1 0 1 0 0 2
Total 3 13 6 19 9 50
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 96.041a 88 .262
Likelihood Ratio 91.292 88 .384Linear-by-Linear Association .105 1 .745
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
14/29
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .046 .153 .322 .749c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .061 .159 .421 .676c
N of Valid Cases 50a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Age * Clarity of Value
Clarity of Value
Total1 2 3 4 5
Age 20 0 0 0 1 0 1
21 1 0 2 1 0 4
22 1 1 0 2 2 6
23 0 0 0 0 2 2
24 0 0 1 1 0 2
25 0 0 0 1 0 1
26 0 0 1 2 2 5
27 0 0 0 3 0 3
28 0 0 1 0 1 2
29 0 0 0 1 1 2
31 0 0 2 0 0 2
32 0 0 0 0 1 1
33 0 0 0 0 1 1
34 0 0 0 1 1 2
35 0 0 0 1 0 1
36 0 0 0 0 2 2
38 0 0 0 0 2 2
39 0 0 0 2 3 5
41 0 0 1 0 0 1
42 0 0 0 1 0 1
43 0 0 0 1 0 1
44 0 0 0 1 0 1
45 0 0 0 1 1 2
Total 2 1 8 20 19 50
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
15/29
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 69.954a 88 .921
Likelihood Ratio 68.025 88 .944Linear-by-Linear Association 5.132 1 .023
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .02.
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .324 .108 2.370 .022c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .303 .129 2.200 .033c
N of Valid Cases 50
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Age * Clarity of Roles
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
16/29
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Roles
Total1 2 3 4 5
Age 20 0 0 0 1 0 1
21 1 1 1 1 0 4
22 1 1 1 3 0 6
23 0 0 0 1 1 2
24 0 0 1 1 0 2
25 0 1 0 0 0 1
26 0 0 2 3 0 5
27 1 0 0 2 0 3
28 0 0 0 1 1 2
29 0 0 0 2 0 2
31 0 1 1 0 0 2
32 0 0 0 1 0 1
33 0 0 0 1 0 1
34 0 0 0 1 1 2
35 0 0 0 1 0 1
36 0 0 0 2 0 2
38 0 0 0 0 2 2
39 0 0 0 1 4 5
41 0 0 0 0 1 1
42 0 0 0 1 0 1
43 0 0 1 0 0 1
44 0 0 0 1 0 1
45 0 0 0 1 1 2
Total 3 4 7 25 11 50
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 81.874a 88 .664
Likelihood Ratio 74.391 88 .849
Linear-by-Linear Association 11.297 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
17/29
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .480 .090 3.792 .000c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .513 .105 4.138 .000c
N of Valid Cases 50a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Experience * Clarity of Vision
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Vision
Total1 2 3 4 5
Experience 1 1 7 0 1 2 11
2 0 0 0 2 2 4
3 0 0 0 1 0 1
4 0 0 2 0 1 3
5 0 0 1 3 1 5
6 0 0 0 3 0 3
8 0 3 0 0 0 3
9 0 1 0 0 0 1
10 0 1 0 0 0 1
12 0 0 1 2 0 3
14 0 1 0 0 0 1
15 1 0 0 1 2 4
17 0 0 0 1 1 2
18 0 0 0 1 0 1
19 0 0 0 1 0 1
20 0 0 0 2 0 2
21 0 0 1 0 0 1
22 0 0 1 0 0 1
24 1 0 0 0 0 1
26 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 3 13 6 19 9 50
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
18/29
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 100.427a 76 .032
Likelihood Ratio 88.467 76 .155
Linear-by-Linear Association .140 1 .708N of Valid Cases 50
a. 100 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .053 .148 .371 .713c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .090 .156 .627 .534c
N of Valid Cases 50
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Experience * Clarity of Value
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
19/29
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Value
Total1 2 3 4 5
Experience 1 2 1 2 4 2 11
2 0 0 1 1 2 4
3 0 0 0 1 0 1
4 0 0 1 2 0 3
5 0 0 0 3 2 5
6 0 0 1 1 1 3
8 0 0 2 0 1 3
9 0 0 0 0 1 1
10 0 0 0 1 0 1
12 0 0 0 1 2 3
14 0 0 0 0 1 1
15 0 0 0 1 3 4
17 0 0 0 0 2 2
18 0 0 0 1 0 1
19 0 0 0 0 1 1
20 0 0 0 2 0 2
21 0 0 1 0 0 1
22 0 0 0 1 0 1
24 0 0 0 0 1 1
26 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 2 1 8 20 19 50
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 50.775a 76 .989
Likelihood Ratio 52.500 76 .982
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.844 1 .028
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 100 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
20/29
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .314 .106 2.295 .026c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .321 .131 2.352 .023c
N of Valid Cases 50a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
Experience * Clarity of Roles
Crosstab
Count
Clarity of Roles
Total1 2 3 4 5
Experience 1 2 2 2 5 0 11
2 0 0 1 2 1 4
3 0 0 0 1 0 1
4 0 0 2 1 0 3
5 1 1 0 2 1 5
6 0 0 0 3 0 3
8 0 1 1 1 0 3
9 0 0 0 1 0 1
10 0 0 0 1 0 1
12 0 0 0 3 0 3
14 0 0 0 0 1 1
15 0 0 0 1 3 4
17 0 0 0 0 2 2
18 0 0 0 1 0 1
19 0 0 0 0 1 1
20 0 0 1 1 0 2
21 0 0 0 0 1 1
22 0 0 0 0 1 1
24 0 0 0 1 0 1
26 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 3 4 7 25 11 50
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
21/29
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 64.990a 76 .812
Likelihood Ratio 64.917 76 .814
Linear-by-Linear Association 10.681 1 .001N of Valid Cases 50
a. 99 cells (99.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.
Symmetric Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .467 .085 3.658 .001c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .510 .103 4.106 .000c
N of Valid Cases 50
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
All the above statistical analysis establishes that there was a positive relationship between the age,experience with the clarity of Vision, Values, Roles among the tem members. Now we want to
correlate that these parameters were because of leadership style. It was leader who was responsible
in inculcating all these parameters in to the teams so that the teams can work effectively. So we
correlate the following
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
22/29
Correlations
Mean
Leadership
Mean Structure
Adequate
Resource &
Training
Mean Objectivity
Among TM
Mean Conflicts,
Cohesiveness &
Working
Accountability
Mean Clar
Vision & R
Among TMean Leadership Pearson Correlation 1 .788** .608** .580**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Structure Adequate
esource & Training
Pearson Correlation .788** 1 .443** .625**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Objectivity Among TM Pearson Correlation .608** .443** 1 .362**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .010
N 50 50 50 50Mean Conflicts,
ohesiveness & Working
ccountability
Pearson Correlation .580** .625** .362** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .010
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Clarity of Vision &
oles Among TM
Pearson Correlation .699** .654** .562** .594**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The value of corelations which are more than .60 signifies the high positive corelationsamong the variables & less than .60 signifies that there is moderate correlation amongthe selected variabls. As evedent from the above table the leader of the team isresponsible for the Structure of the team,Adequate Resources, Training, Objectiveityamong the team, cohesiveness, accountabilty & clarity among the team members. Nowwe tested each variable of leadership style with the other variables and found out thefollowing results.
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
23/29
Correlations
Mean Ideal
Leader
Adequate
Training
Provided
Adequate
Resources Structure Objectivity Accountab
Mean Ideal Leader Pearson Correlation 1 .656
**
.581
**
.634
**
.258Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .070
N 50 50 50 50 50
Adequate Training
Provided
Pearson Correlation .656** 1 .763** .549** .251
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .079
N 50 50 50 50 50
Adequate
Resources
Pearson Correlation .581** .763** 1 .498** .118
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .413
N 50 50 50 50 50
Structure Pearson Correlation .634
**
.549
**
.498
**
1 -.029Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .841
N 50 50 50 50 50
Objectivity Pearson Correlation .258 .251 .118 -.029 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .079 .413 .841
N 50 50 50 50 50
Accountability Pearson Correlation .357* .316* .308* .478** .192
Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .025 .029 .000 .182
N 50 50 50 50 50
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
24/29
Correlations
MeanInspirational
Leader
Mean Clarity ofVision & Roles
Among TM
Mean Structure
AdequateResource &
Training
Mean Objectivity
Among TM
Mean Confli
CohesiveneWorking
Accountab
Mean Inspirational Leader Pearson Correlation 1 .651** .790** .583** .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Clarity of Vision &
Roles Among TM
Pearson Correlation .651** 1 .654** .562** .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Structure AdequateResource & Training
Pearson Correlation .790
**
.654
**
1 .443
**
.Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Objectivity Among
TM
Pearson Correlation .583** .562** .443** 1 .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Conflicts,
Cohesiveness & Working
Accountability
Pearson Correlation .545** .594** .625** .362**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .010
N 50 50 50 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed.
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
25/29
Correlations
Inspitational
Leader -
Simplify
procedures
Mean Clarity of
Vision & Roles
Among TM
Mean Structure
Adequate
Resource &
Training
Mean Objectivity
Among TM
Mean Confli
Cohesivene
Working
Accountabnspitational Leader -
Simplify procedures
Pearson Correlation 1 .465** .697** .445** .4
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .001
N 49 49 49 49
Mean Clarity of Vision &
Roles Among TM
Pearson Correlation .465** 1 .654** .562** .
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000
N 49 50 50 50
Mean Structure Adequate
Resource & Training
Pearson Correlation .697** .654** 1 .443** .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 49 50 50 50Mean Objectivity Among
TM
Pearson Correlation .445** .562** .443** 1 .
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .001
N 49 50 50 50
Mean Conflicts,
Cohesiveness & Working
Accountability
Pearson Correlation .456** .594** .625** .362**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .010
N 49 50 50 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
26/29
Correlations
Mean Clarity of
Vision & Roles
Among TM
Mean Structure
Adequate
Resource &
Training
Mean Objectivity
Among TM
Mean Conflicts,
Cohesiveness &
Working
Accountability
Mean
Individualise
LeaderMean Clarity of Vision &
Roles Among TM
Pearson Correlation 1 .654** .562** .594** .5
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .0
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Structure
Adequate Resource &
Training
Pearson Correlation .654** 1 .443** .625** .6
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .0
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Objectivity
Among TM
Pearson Correlation .562** .443** 1 .362** .6
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .010 .0
N 50 50 50 50Mean Conflicts,
Cohesiveness &
Working Accountability
Pearson Correlation .594** .625** .362** 1 .5
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .010 .0
N 50 50 50 50
Mean Individualised
Leader
Pearson Correlation .550** .658** .639** .507**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 50 50 50 50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
27/29
Correlations
Mean
Ideal
Leader
Mean
Inspirati
onal
Leader
Mean
Intellectual
Leader
Mean
Individualiz
ed Leader
Adequate
Training
Provided
Adequate
Resources Structure Objectivity Accounta
ean Ideal
ader
Pearson Correlation 1 .701** .850** .793** .656** .581** .634** .258
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .070
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
ean
spirational
ader
Pearson Correlation .701** 1 .805** .736** .733** .650** .673** .366** .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .009
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
ean Intellectual
ader
Pearson Correlation .850** .805** 1 .846** .762** .662** .565** .281* .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .048
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
ean
dividualized
ader
Pearson Correlation .793** .736** .846** 1 .672** .554** .517** .428** .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
equate
aining
ovided
Pearson Correlation .656** .733** .762** .672** 1 .763** .549** .251
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .079
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
equate
sources
Pearson Correlation .581** .650** .662** .554** .763** 1 .498** .118
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .413
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
ructure Pearson Correlation .634** .673** .565** .517** .549** .498** 1 -.029 .
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .841
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
bjectivity Pearson Correlation .258 .366** .281* .428** .251 .118 -.029 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .009 .048 .002 .079 .413 .841
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
countability Pearson Correlation .357* .411** .446** .418** .316* .308* .478** .192
Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .003 .001 .003 .025 .029 .000 .182
N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
28/29
-
7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness
29/29
Model Summaryb
Model
R R Square
Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
dime
nsio
1 .693a .481 .447 .60773
a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean Objectivity Among TM, Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working
Accountability, Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM
b. Dependent Variable: Mean Ideal Leader
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 15.728 3 5.243 14.195 .000a
Residual 16.989 46 .369
Total 32.717 49
a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean Objectivity Among TM, Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working
Accountability, Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM
b. Dependent Variable: Mean Ideal Leader
Discussions:
This study explored how team leaders behaviour influence and motivate the team members to
perform there job better by inculcating the team value, clarify the roles, managing conflicts, put
adequate process with in the team, reorganize the team structure. The individualized leadership &
intellectual leadership styles were more of value than other leadership styles.