The combined use of transactional and transformational
semi-virtual leadership communication styles within semi-semi-virtual
project teams
Name: Ka Wai Tam Student number: 10970886 Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication
Supervisor: James Slevin Date: 24 June 2016
Abstract
This paper examines how the combined use of transactional and transformational semi-virtual leadership communication styles influences the knowledge sharing process within semi-virtual project teams. Primary data is collected via in-depth interviews with eight project team members from sectors that organize their
knowledge intensive work around project teams. The results showed that project team members preferred face-to-face communication to virtual communication with project leaders, as the former allows better, and much needed, emotional exchanges with the project leaders. The transactional leadership communication style showed to have positive influences on knowledge sharing between members, because of the financial benefits and emphasis on the clear purposes of knowledge sharing. However, it does not have an influence on the trust between members and has a negative influence on team commitment. The transformational leadership communication style showed that by giving support and creating an open knowledge appreciative culture; the
knowledge sharing process is stimulated. Furthermore, this style positively influenced the team commitment. Other factors that influenced the knowledge sharing process are the reputation and dedication of other project team members. The study is limited to eight Dutch respondents from four sectors. Future research should include more international project team members from a greater variety of sectors. It is advised that future studies should also include other factors that influence the knowledge sharing such as: the reputation and dedication of other members and the different personalities and the multicultural backgrounds of project leaders and members. The findings of this research provide key points for project leaders pertaining to the influence of the combined use of transactional and transformational leadership communication styles
on the knowledge sharing process within the semi-virtual project team, which can diminish the chance of project failures in the future by preventing the lack of knowledge sharing.
The combined use of transactional and transformational semi-virtual leadership communication styles within semi-virtual project teams
Organizational competitiveness is, nowadays, derived predominately from intangible, rather than tangible resources such as knowledge and its transferring process (Zareie & Navimipour, 2016). Companies organize their knowledge intensive work more and more around project teams (PT) (Hobday, 2000; Sydow, Lindkvist, & DeFillippi, 2004; Turner, 2006). A PT is a team whose members usually belongs to different departments and is assigned to the same project, with a specific purpose or objective (Hsu, Yang, & Huang, 2011). The aim of most PT is the creation of new services, products or business solutions. These creations are dependent on the
creativity of PT, which is mainly determined by the knowledge sharing (KS) process between project team members (PTM) (West, 2002).
The composition of PTM by the management is not a guarantee for effective KS. PTM often do not integrate and embrace the ideas of others, which interrupt the PT creativity and subsequently leads to project failures (West, 2002). Project leaders (PL) are determinative for successful KS within these PT (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006), because they coordinate the expertise or information about who knows what in the group and they are able to motivate PTM to share their knowledge, which is mainly determined by their leadership communication styles (LCS) (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Faraj & Sproull, 2000).
The PL is not only communicating face-to-face with PTM, but also often through computer-mediated tools (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003; Avolio, Kahai, Dodge, 2001). The virtual context has not been taken into account as much during previous research on the influences of LCS. The combination of virtual and face-to-face
communication, and the different LCS is defined as semi-virtual leadership communication styles (Sivasubramaniam, 2001).
The motivation of this study mainly lies in: addressing key points for PL regarding the combined use of transactional and transformational semi-virtual LCS in order to stimulate the KS process between PTM within semi-virtual teams, which can diminish the chance that projects are failing through the lack of KS between PTM in the future. This leads to the main research question of this study:
What are the effects of semi-virtual leadership communication styles on the knowledge sharing process within semi-virtual project teams?
Theoretical framework
The first part of this section will describe semi-virtual PT and explore the challenges faced by PL during the execution of projects. The second part presents the theoretical framework constructed around the relationships among semi-virtual LCS, trust between team members, team commitment and KS within semi-virtual PT.
Semi-virtual project teams
More and more companies are organizing their knowledge intensive work around PT (Hobday, 2000; Sydow, Lindkvist, & DeFillippi, 2004; Turner, 2006). These PT have various aims, but most objectives are focused on the creation of new services, products and business solutions.
These PT consist of individuals from various departments with different expertise and complementary skills, who mutually exchange their knowledge
a higher level of team creativity and allows them to generate new and innovative services and products (Cardy & Selvarajan, 2006; Da Silveira, Lages & Simoes, 2013; Whittington, Pettigrew, Peck, Fenton & Conyon, 1999). The LCS of PL is
determinative for successful KS between PTM (Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006). The main difference between standard organizational teams and PT is that the latter are unique in terms of tasks and have a limited duration and short-term
orientation (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2014; Schwindt & Zimmermann, 2015). The technological advancement forced PT to communicate and to operate face-to-face, but also virtually through computer mediated tools; these teams are defined as semi-virtual PT (Sosik, Avolio, Kahai, & Jung, 1998).
Challenges for project leaders in semi-virtual project teams
Previous research shows that PT operates in different circumstances compared to standard organizational teams, which pose specific challenges for PL (Wastian, Rosenstiel, West, & Braumandl, 2014; Chen, Donahue & Klimoski, 2004).
PL need to achieve short-term results, but also need to consider that the decisions and actions taken will an impact in long term, both on a social and
economical level for the organization. The long-term effects increase the complexity of decision-making (Chiocchio, Forgues, Paradis & Iordanova, 2011).
These contemporary teams are characterized by discontinuous compositions of PTM and a cross-disciplinary integration of experts (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2014; Brown & Duguid, 2001). When management forms PT, they often take the fit of PTM for granted and expect them to start performing immediately (Wastian et al., 2014). However, when people interact and work together there is an inherent aversion and skepticism regarding cooperation. Furthermore, there arises a need for self-promotion,
both cases cause barriers for the KS process and subsequently can cause projects to fail (Wastian et al., 2014; Brown & Duguid, 2001).
Theorists have identified two kinds of statuses for leaders: ascribed status and achieved status (Barnard, 1946; Getzels & Guba, 1957). Ascribed status is assigned to an individual because of his position regardless of his ability or performance. A leader has an achieved status, when he or she earned it because of his or her special qualities and performances. Leaders with an achieved status have more influence on the trust and perception of subordinates compared to the leaders with an ascribed status (Barnard, 1946). PL often has an ascribed status since PTM are not aware of their achievements, which can diminish the effectiveness of their leadership
communication.
Organizations and PT are using virtual communication in order to reduce costs and to improve efficiency. PL and PTM often communicate through
videoconferences, e-mail or phone instead of attending real life meetings (Wastian et al., 2014). The lack of face-to-face contact as well as the asynchronous nature of virtual communications, where they are communicating at different times (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Baker, 2002), creates the challenge for PL in how to motivate their PTM to share knowledge and to manage team dynamics (Avolio et al., 2009; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Purvanova & Bono, 2009; Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003).
Semi-virtual leadership communication
Leadership can be defined as the ability of an individual to influence, motivate and to enable others to pursue team or organizational goals (Bass, 2008; House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan, Dickson & Gupta, 1999). PL needs this
ability to motivate PTM to share their knowledge in order to create new services, products and business solutions (Bass, 2008; Avolio et al., 2009). The core of this definition is the relationship and communications between a leader and subordinates and the process of influence (House et al., 1999).
Leadership communications can be defined as the controlled, purposeful transfer of meaning by which leaders influence a single person, a team or an
organization (Barrett, 2006). Effective leadership communication enables, fosters, and creates the understanding and trust that is necessary to get things done with and by people (Barrett, 2006).
Previous studies have shown that PL activities are occupied for 70-90% by phone calls, e-mail and online chats every day (Mintzberg, 1973; Barrett, 2006). The environment and its various communication technologies have created a new context for leadership communications (Avolio et al., 2001). Leadership communications within this new context has been referred to semi-virtual leadership communication, which can be defined as ‘‘a social influence process mediated by advanced
information technologies to produce changes in attitudes, feelings, thinking and behaviors of individuals’’ (Sivasubramaniam, 2001).
PL uses different communication styles in their daily virtual and face-to-face transactions with PTM (Vries, Bakker-Pieper & Oostenveld, 2009). While there are many different approaches to the study of leadership communications, transactional and transformational LCS will be investigated in this study. Both LCS received extensive research support since their inception (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Penley & Hawkins, 1985; Zulch, 2014) and have been shown to impact the KS process in meaningful and different ways (Sosik, Avolio, Kahai & Jung, 1998).
Moreover, according to the research of Conger (1999) both LCS are required for effective KS within PT.
The traditional view of leadership communications was the transactional LCS, which was based on legitimate power and is primarily focused on the task, content and process (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Müller & Turner, 2007; Meindl, 1990; Penley & Hawkins, 1985). The transactional leader uses task-orientated communication to emphasize contingent rewards and show how current needs of subordinates can be satisfied (Bass, 1985; Sivasubramaniam, 2001; Yang, Wu & Huang, 2012). The communication of transactional leaders includes clarification of PT goals and objectives, active monitoring of PTM, rewarding PTM with bonuses or other secondary advantages for achieving good results and penalizing them when they deviate from expectations (Bass, 1985; Bass, 1990; Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003; Kerzner, 2013).
The alternative leadership communications research shifted from transactional towards transformational LCS. This human-orientated communication style
emphasizes relationships and the concerns of individual PTM. This communication style stresses the importance and values of the task outcomes, activates the higher-order needs of PTM, such as development and induces them to transcend self-interests for the sake of the PT or organization through dramatic and persuasive words and actions (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989; Zulch, 2014; Deanne & Hartog, 2001).
This LCS shows charisma, pride, respect, trust, support and a vision (Müller & Turner, 2007; Bass, 1985; Yang, Wu & Huang, 2012). Furthermore, it motivates and inspires PTM to perform beyond expectations (Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Knowledge sharing within semi-virtual project teams
The creation of services, products and business solutions in today’s knowledge-intensive economy is mainly dependent on the KS process within PT (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Knowledge is the concept, skill, experience, and vision that provide a framework for creating, evaluating, and using the information (Soltani & Navimipour, 2016). To make knowledge available, PL have to manage the team’s resource of knowledge by using their leadership communications to get PTM
involved in the process of KS (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). KS is the process where individuals mutually exchange their both, tacit and explicit, knowledge and jointly create new knowledge (Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). Tacit knowledge consists of knowledge that we do not recognize in ourselves or that is based on the experience of the individual that is not easily shared, for example riding a bicycle. Explicit knowledge is easily communicated, codified and is clearly in our awareness, for example the design of a product.
The KS process consists of two central behaviors: donating knowledge (communicating one’s personal intellectual capital to others) and collecting
knowledge (consulting others to get them to share their intellectual capital) (Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004).
The donating process can be distinguished in willingness and eagerness. Willingness can be defined as the extent to which an individual is prepared to grant other group members access to his or her individual intellectual capital (Van den Hooff, De Ridder & Aukema, 2004). Eagerness can be defined as the extent to which an individual has a strong internal drive to communicate his or her individual
an orientation toward the group and eagerness can be characterized by an orientation toward the subject about which knowledge is being shared.
People that are willing to share expect others to contribute as well, and seek to attain a balance between donating and collecting knowledge (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Putnam, 1993). Eager people are expecting more benefits such as elevated reputation and recognition of peers or PL in return for sharing their knowledge.
Trust between team members
Trust can be defined as a decision to become vulnerable to or dependent on another in return for the possibility of shared positive outcome (Munns, 1995; Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995). According to Giddens (1994, 2013) trust can be
distinguished in personal trust and abstract trust. Personal trust refers to the
assumption made, that the other person has good intentions, whether they are familiar with that person or not (Cook & Wall, 1980; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Abstract trust is called upon when a person is not familiar with the other party but is reliant on them for their expert knowledge and competence (Giddens 1994, 2013; Cook & Wall, 1980; Simons & Peterson, 2000).
According to Edwards, Alexander and Temple (2006) a key conceptual element of trust is that it can never be complete, because it always involves an element of contingency, risk and incomplete knowledge. Trust is the means of mediating risks in an uncertain situation (Edwards, Alexander & Temple, 2006).
The level of contingency and uncertainty within PT forces PTM to actively construct trust rather than relying on the solid and durable base of social rules, which is called ‘active trust’ as coined by Giddens (1994; 2013). PTM have to actively take
a risk and evaluate whether or not to trust their PTM (Giddens, 1994; 2013), who depend on both, personal and abstract trust.
Team commitment
Team commitment can be defined as the psychological attachment that the PTM feel toward the PT (Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Meyer & Allen, 1984). Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a three-component model, which distinguishes affective, continuous, and normative commitment. A member will remain with a team because he or she wants to (affective commitment), has to (continuous commitment), or feels compelled to do so (normative commitment).
The affective commitment has been conceptualized in terms of strength of a PTM involvement in and identification with a PT (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). PTM may develop more involvement and identification on the basis of being
positively attracted by the sense of belonging to the PT (Meyer & Allen, 1997). It is not only a form of social identification, but it is also the highest degree of attachment a PTM can develop toward the PT (Carmeli, 2005). Team commitment also depends on what the PTM experiences during a project and how they perceived the PL and the PT (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982).
The influence of semi-virtual leadership communication styles on the knowledge sharing process, trust between team members and team commitment
PL coordinate the expertise or information about who knows what in the PT through face-to-face and virtual communication, which is crucial for the KS process within semi-virtual PT (Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Faraj & Sproull, 2000). The influence of the different LCS on KS, the trust between
PTM and team commitment will be discussed in the first part. The influence of the trust between team members and team commitment on the KS process will be discussed in the second part.
As mentioned earlier the transactional LCS is task and process orientated. Moreover, it focuses on rewards and punishments. According to Davenport and Prusak (1997) when PL are lacking in properly rewarding team members with
incentives, this becomes an obstacle for sharing knowledge as, people are reluctant to share without recompense. According to the research of Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee (2005) rewards only secure the temporary compliance of KS. Which is advantageous for temporarily semi-virtual PT, where PL has difficulties in motivating PTM to share knowledge, because of the limited face-to-face contact and lack of trust (Avolio et al., 2001; Baker, 2002).
There is limited time during projects to build up the trust between team members in order to share knowledge, that is why Müller and Turner (2007) suggest that in order to stimulate the KS process it is much more effective to focus on the actual task and rewards instead of building relationships which lack trust.
Furthermore, team rewards will stimulate the trust between PTM according to Müller and Turner (2007), because in order to receive these team rewards, PTM need to trust each other despite their different backgrounds in order to share knowledge.
The transactional LCS can also have negative influences on the KS process according to Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995), as it lacks inspirational
motivation, which leads to less positive emotions and moods and subsequently leads to less positive development of positive perceptions of others intentions and abilities (Jones & George, 1998). This means that the transactional LCS could negatively influence the development of the personal and abstract trust.
Team rewards that are provided by PL, may serve as an important function in shaping members’ identity and eliciting their commitment towards their PT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tyler, 1999). PTM tend to develop an attachment to a group when their membership is valued. This valuation can be dependent on rewards both monetary as well as non-monetary (Cacioppe, 1999). These team rewards represents powerful signals that show that the PT is successful and collective effort is valued by the organization, which diminishes the aversion and skepticism of PTM regarding the cooperation and the need for self-promotion (Wastian et al., 2014; Brown & Duguid, 2001).
Transformational LCS focuses on inspirational and intellectual stimulation of PTM, which creates a more open and accepting group environment where PTM are freer to speak their mind (Bass, 1985). This LCS stimulates team members to share their tasks, ideas and knowledge (Boies, Fiset & Gill, 2015), despite the lack of face-to-face contact as well as the asynchronous nature of the virtual communications. The coaching and motivating aspects of transformational LCS guide and support PTM to share their knowledge. McDermott and O’Dell (2001) suggest that professionals share knowledge predominantly to have a sense of involvement and contribution rather than receiving any other form of reward.
Trust is an important antecedent to risk-taking behavior according to Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995). The transformational LCS intellectually stimulates PTM to rethink problems and take risk. This communication style motivates PTM to trust the good intentions (personal trust) and expertise (abstract trust) of other PTM during the cooperation.
The transformational leader can instill confidence among PTM about the ability of individuals in the PT, through considering and encouraging consideration of
input provided by every team member and express confidence in PTM collective ability to accomplish a task all members identify with (Sosik, Avolio & Kahai, 1997).
The coaching and advising aspects of the transformational LCS, allow PTM to exercise some degree of independence rather than merely giving instructions, which leads to a higher levels of PTM motivation and team commitment, especially in times of uncertainty (Heinz, Baga, Gebert, & Kearney, 2006; House & Aditya, 1997). In exchange for the guidance or emotional support of PL, PTM will often in exchange commit him or her to the PT (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979).
Influence of trust between team members and team commitment on knowledge sharing
Trust is fundamental to cooperative relationships; it is the emotional glue that binds people and plays a key role in the willingness of PTM to donate and collect knowledge (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). It has been cited as the most direct and powerful way for a PL to enhance KS between PTM, because it strongly influences interpersonal attitudes and behavior (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).
A high level of trust increases the likelihood that one will communicate, cooperate and share knowledge with others (Chiocchio et al., 2011; Tyler, 2003; Yang, Wu & Huang, 2012). Trust also activates PTM to collaborate with each other in order to achieve collective goals (Chiocchio et al., 2011; Tyler, 2003; Yang, Wu & Huang, 2012). When there is an absence of trust, formal KS practices are insufficient to encourage individuals to share knowledge with others (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000).
When PTM trust each other’s capabilities and competencies, which refer to the abstract trust of Giddens (1994, 2013), they share information more freely (Zand, 1972), they coordinate knowledge between PTM more effectively, and the
information shared is higher in quality (Bernhardt & Ragsdell, 2006; Zand, 1972). The willingness to share knowledge with PTM is higher when individuals are committed to the PT and identify themselves with the others (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; MacNeil, 2003). When PTM are committed to the goals and values of their PT and have emotional attachments to the PT and its members, it seems likely that they would engage in behavior that would be beneficial to the KS process. PTM with a high level of commitment to their PT are motivated to maintain the relationship with their team and tend to act in ways that benefit their PT and to put forth greater effort on behalf the team (Lin, 2011; Pearce & Herbik, 2004).
In the previous sections the relationships among the semi-virtual LCS, trust between team members, team commitment and KS within semi-virtual PT are
explained by the use of different academic literature. Which leads to the interpretative scheme of this study below:
Method
Previous section outlined the theoretical fundament of this research. The following parts will describe the data, research design, methods and techniques respectively. Which will be followed by the reliability, validity and the ethical considerations of this study.
Data
It was important for this research to select respondents who already had working experience as a PTM within companies that often uses PT to create new services or products. These respondents are capable of providing relevant in-depth information regarding the discussed topics.
The criteria for respondents was that they had at least two years of working experience as a PTM and did more than one project before. In general professionals need at least two months to get acquainted with their work, which means that after this period they begin to understand different aspects and focus of their work, such as how they perceive the face-to-face and virtual communication of their PL. PTM who have experienced more than one project can compare their experience with different PL, which increases their abilities to clearly convey this during the in-depth
interviews. The final criterion for the respondents was to that they needed to be fluent in English, as the interviews were entirely conducted in English. All of the
respondents possess a full English master degree, which guaranteed their English proficiency.
The study assigned eight professionals to participate in this research. All eight professionals are currently working as PTM at companies that are located in the Netherlands. The respondents represent four sectors: Recruitment (participant 1& 2),
Consultancy (participant 3, 4 & 5), Public transportation (participant 6 & 7) and Banking (participant 8). These four sectors often use PT to improve their efficiency and effectiveness of the organizations as a whole and to create new services and products, which makes the results of this research representative and useful for PL as key points for their combined use of transactional and transformational leadership communication style in the future.
Four males and four females participated; the youngest was 24 years old and the oldest 29 years old. The additional characteristics of the respondents are shown in a schema in the Appendix. The respondents were approached through different channels. Some were personal contacts of the researcher or had a wider connection to the author’s network and others through LinkedIn.
Research design
Semi-virtual leadership communication styles and KS processes within PT are social and complex processes, which cannot simply be measured by numbers. In such cases using quantitative methods might rather limit the chances of discovering certain aspects of these phenomena (Schwindt & Zimmermann, 2015). According to
Marschall and Rossman (2014) qualitative interviews gives the opportunity to acquire a deeper understanding of the behavior and motivation of people. As a result this research has chosen for qualitative in-depth interviews method, which focuses on the words, opinions and experiences from PTM rather than numbers. The interviews were all done in English.
Methods and techniques
The researcher of this study created a semi-structured interview protocol as guidance for the interviews. The interview questions were based on academic literature of semi-virtual LCS, KS, the trust between team members, team commitment, and a framework the researcher developed through contemporary research. During the research process the researcher adapted the questions in order to get more accurate information, which is of importance to measure the influence of the selected concepts. This had no consequences for the interviews that were done before the adaptation, because during every interview the researcher asked extra questions in order clarify certain aspects. The final interview protocol can be found in the
Appendix. The interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. In order to prevent the loss of information during the interviews, the researcher recorded every interview and transcribed it afterwards.
To measure the concepts, this research operationalized the concepts and created an operationalization schema. By defining the theoretical concepts, this research can be delimited. The indicators decide which manifestations the theoretical concepts have in daily practices, and which ones will be used in this research to measure. The schema is present in the appendix of this research.
Data analyzes procedures
First the researcher reduced the voluminous amount of information, which has been obtained from the interviews, in certain categories and codes (Marschall & Rossman, 2014). The categories and codes ensure that the transcriptions of the unstructured data can be shaped (Tesch, 1990). Coding is understood as representing the operations by which data are pinned down, conceptualized and put back together
in new ways (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Open coding is aiming at expressing data and phenomena in the form of concepts. Expressions of respondents were classified by their units of meaning (single words, short sequences of words) in order to attach annotations and above all ‘concepts’ (codes) to them. The researcher interpreted the information by using the operationalization schema. This process is called ‘de-contextualization’ and ‘re-‘de-contextualization’. This process results in a higher-level analysis: while requiring significant effort, the analysis process consists of ‘taking apart’; the final goal is the emergence of a larger consolidated picture (Tesch, 1990).
No computer programs were used during the coding, the transcripts were printed out in order to code and analyze. The researcher used different colors to mark the indicators that identified the concepts. The coding was not very difficult since most of the respondents used the same indicators for certain concepts. When there was a doubt about a word or phrase that was given, the researcher searched in existing literature for extra clarification.
Validity & Reliability
The internal validity is the accuracy of the information and whether it matches the reality (Merriam, 1988). It shows to which extent the measures represent all facets of the concepts. The concepts originated from academic literature, which secures the internal validity, as these concepts have been thoroughly researched and reviewed
After the interviews the researcher did ‘member checks’ with the respondents (Merriam, 1988). The member check takes place directly after the interview. During this check the researcher will show his results to the respondent in order to receive feedback about the accuracy of the conclusions (Merriam, 1988), which ensure the
truth-value of the data. The use of only in depth interviews and no other methods can diminish the internal validity, which is caused by the limited time and resources.
The external validity is the generalizability of the findings (Merriam, 1988). The limited amount of PTM that participated in this research can diminish the external validity. Also the respondents were only representing four sectors, from a single relatively homogeneous country.
The influence of the leadership communication is dependent on the situation according to previous researches, which means that each project differs and can show different influences, which lowers the external validity of this research. (Zulch, 2014; Müller & Turner, 2007). The respondents were also all active in Dutch companies, which makes the results less generalizable for PTM that are operating in other countries and cultures.
The reliability is to which extent this research is replicable (Merriam, 1988). This reliability depends really on the context, when PTM from Dutch context will be participating; the possibility that this results in comparable findings is higher than when it will be done in other countries.
This study only included respondents from four specific sectors, which can influence the possible findings when this research would be done in the future in other sectors.
Ethical considerations
The researcher of this study respected the rights, needs, values, and desires of the respondents. Before every interview the researcher discussed the purpose of the research, the rights and interests of the respondents and subsequently asked if they agreed to participate. After every interview the conclusions were summarized and
shown to the respondents, which gave the respondents the opportunity to respond. In order to maintain the privacy of respondents no names of respondents or their
organizations are mentioned in this research.
Results
In this section an extensive overview is provided of the data collected through the interviews with individual PTM. The findings are presented per research concept, as laid down in the theoretical background, and based on their corresponding
proposition.
The respondents from the recruitment sector perceived the virtual
communication of their PL as task-orientated. ‘‘I perceived the virtual communication
as direct and to the point from my project leader’’ (It1-projectteammember). The
communication through virtual conferences, phone calls and online chat systems were perceived as less task-orientated compared to emailing (It1-projectteammember). The difference was caused by the possibility to respond and to exchange emotions with the PL, which increases the human aspect of the communication. ‘‘The possibility to
respond and to see the emotions of my project leader made the communication more human and natural’’ (It1-projectteammember). Both noticed that the LCS changes
from task to more human orientated, when the communication changed from virtual to face-to-face. ‘‘I’ve noticed that, when we’re meeting face-to-face the
communication style changes’’ (It2-projectteammember).
The face-to-face communication was compared to the virtual communication more motivating for the respondent from the recruitment sector to share her
knowledge and show her capabilities. ‘‘I would be more motivated to show my
through the email, because I could directly see his reactions’’
(It2-projectteammember). Another respondent from the same sector perceived the virtual communication as unnatural and preferred face-to-face meetings with her PL: ‘‘I
perceive communicating through computer mediated tools as unnatural, because the limited possibility to convey your emotions and opinions, I prefer the face-to-face meetings with him’’ (It1-projectteammember).
PTM in the consultancy sector perceived the virtual communication style of the PL as transactional. ‘‘The virtual communication style was more task-orientated,
it was focused on the progress and end result of the project’’
(It3-projectteammember). ‘‘The emails were mainly focused on the realization of targets
and things that needed to be done’’ (It4-projectteammember). The face-to-face
leadership communication of the consultancy PL was perceived as transformational.
‘‘The face-to-face contact was much more focused on the human aspects, such as the relationships between members and it was much easier to show my emotions’’
(It4-projectteammember).
The respondent from the consultancy sector preferred the face-to-face communication instead of the virtual communication, because of the possibility to exchange emotions and the ability to make faster decisions. ‘‘Yes there was a
difference between talking face-to-face and through email, the face-to-face meetings were more emotional and decisions were made faster’’(It5-projectteammember).
The respondents from the public transportation sector perceived the virtual communication as task-orientated. ‘‘The communication with my project leader was
used to monitor the progress of the project and information of the content’’
(It6-projectteammember). ‘‘The emails were mainly about the progress of the project’’
was a policy that emails needed to be short and clearly, which automatically leads to a more transactional LCS (It6-projectteammember & It7-projectteammember). The face-to-face meetings were perceived as more human-orientated: ‘‘Digital is the hard
side, and face-to-face is the soft side of communication, the soft side made it possible to create a bond’’ (It7-projectteammember).
The respondent from the public transportation sector preferred the face-to-face communications above the virtual communication, because of the possibility to exchange emotions and personal concerns. ‘‘Face-to-face communications with the
project leader makes it easier to connect with the project leader and show emotions and personal concerns compare to virtual communications’’
(It6-projectteammember).
The communication between the PTM and leader of the banking sector was mostly through email. The virtual communication was transactional, short and task-orientated, but when he was communicating face-to-face it switched to a
transformational, focused on personal concerns. ‘‘The communication through email
with my project leader was short and focused on the tasks, but when we were communicating in real life it was much more about personal concerns’’
(It8-projectteammember).
The respondent from the banking sector mentioned that he preferred the face-to-face communication, because of the possibility to ask further questions, which made everything more clearly. ‘‘The face-to-face meetings with my project leader
were much more human-orientated and made things much more clear, because of the possibility to ask further questions’’ (It8-projectteammember).
The respondents from the recruitment mentioned that they respected the status of their PL, because they were aware of their achievements: ‘‘I respected the status
my project leader, because I know that he has achieved a lot within the organization the past ten years’’ (It1-projectteammember). ‘‘I heard about the accomplishments of my project leader, that's why I respected him as my leader’’
(It1-projectteammember). Regarding to the status of the PL, a respondent from the consultancy sector mentioned that the perceived status of his PL changed during the project: ‘‘In the beginning I had my doubts about my project leader, but after a while
he showed his capacities, which increased my respect for his status’’
(It4-projectteammember). The respondent from the public transportation sector mentioned that he directly respected the status of his PL from the beginning of the project. ‘‘My
project leader was a well known person within the organization, that's why I respected him directly’’ (It6-projectteammember). All the given answers by PTM
were positive about the status of their PL.
The virtual communication was according to the recruitment respondent focused on the promised rewards and the face-to-face communication on the importance and value of the project, both were motivating factors for her to share knowledge and should be in balance. ‘‘The virtual communication with my project
leader was more focused on the rewards and the face-to-face communication on the importance and value of the project, both motivating me to share knowledge, but I appreciated that both focus were in balance’’ (It1-projectteammember).
The virtual transactional LCS had no influence on their trust towards other PTM according the respondents of the recruitment sector (It1-projectteammember & It2-projectteammember), but it does negatively influence their commitment towards the PT according to one respondent. ‘‘I feel less involved with the project team when
personal and as if there’s lack of dedication towards the project’’
(It2-projectteammember).
The influence of the virtual transactional LCS was according to the respondent of the consultancy sector positive on his will to share knowledge, because of the financial benefits in the end in exchange for his unique knowledge. ‘‘The financial
benefits that were promised through email by my project leader in exchange for my unique knowledge, motivated me to share knowledge unique knowledge’’
(It3-projectteammember).
The virtual transactional LCS of the consultancy project leaders did not influence the trust between PTM. ‘‘The project leader motivated me to trust and to
collaborate with the others through the email, but this did not influence my trust towards the others, because this was determined by how I perceive the others’’
(It4-projectteammember). The respondent from the consultancy sector mentioned that the virtual transactional LCS did not affect his commitment towards the PT. ‘‘The virtual
communication with my project leader didn't affect my commitment towards the team, since the project had a clear end result and I was mainly focused on the financial benefit at the end when we achieve the targets’’(It3-projectteammember).
According to the respondents of the public transportation sector did the virtual transactional LCS emphasize the purpose of the KS process, which motivated the PTM from the public transportation sector to share her knowledge. ‘‘My project
leader clearly emphasized the importance and purpose of the knowledge sharing process within the team, which motivated me to share and donate knowledge if that was necessary’’ (It7-projectteammember).
The virtual transactional LCS did not influence the trust of the respondent from the banking sector towards others. ‘‘The virtual communication with my project
leader had no influence on my trust towards the others, since I could not see what his intention was, that's why I prefer the face-to-face communication’’
(It8-projectteammember).
The respondent mentioned that the virtual transactional LCS of his PL was sometimes so impersonal that it negatively influenced his commitment towards the PT. ‘‘Our project leader had an impersonal way of communicating through the
computer, which made me feel less involved sometimes, since it felt like I was a number instead of a person’’ (It8-projectteammember). But he also mentioned that
his commitment towards this project was really high before he met the PL, which maintained his motivation to share knowledge that was needed in order to achieve the project goals. ‘‘Because I was really committed towards this team, that's why I always
shared the knowledge that was needed in order to achieve the project goals’’
(It8-projectteammember).
As mentioned in the previous part the recruitment respondents valued the balance between rewards, which is transactional, and the focus on the importance and value of the project, which is transformational (It1-projectteammember). The
motivating speeches of PL, which are characteristics of transformational LCS, had little influence on the trust of the respondent from the recruitment sector towards other PTM. ‘‘During our face-to-face meetings, my project leader motivated me to
trust the others, because of their expertise, this increased my trust a little towards them’’ (It2-projectteammember).
The responsibility and freedom that was given by the recruitment PL
positively influenced the commitment of the PTM. ‘‘He gave us responsibilities and
which made me feel more committed towards the project team
(It1-projectteammember).
The face-to-face transformational LCS of the consultancy PL had a positive influence on the motivation of the PTM of the consultancy sector to share knowledge.
‘‘The emails were much more stiff and about the content, but when I was
communicating face-to-face I could easier ask for more information and ask which knowledge was needed, which motivated me to share more knowledge’’
(It5-projectteammember).
The open culture that was created by the transformational LCS of the consultancy PL during face-to-face meetings, partly stimulated the PTM to share knowledge, but the will was mainly dependent on the band with others. ‘‘The project
leader created an open culture during the face-to-face meetings in order to stimulate us to share knowledge, this partly motivated me to share knowledge, but my will to share knowledge was mainly determined by my band with others’’
(It5-projectteammember).
The transformational LCS of the public transportation PL created a culture where KS is appreciated, which stimulated the will of the PTM to share his
knowledge. ‘‘During the face-to-face meetings with my project leader, he promoted a
culture where knowledge sharing is appreciated, which stimulated my will to share knowledge’’ (It6-projectteammember).
The virtual transactional LCS of the PL did not stimulate the will of the respondent from the banking sector to share his knowledge, but when he was communicating face-to-face it motivated him to share knowledge, because he felt more obliged to do so (It8-projectteammember).
The respondents from the recruitment sector mentioned that both trust and team commitment is crucial for their will to share knowledge (It1-projectteammember & It2-projectteammember). ‘‘When there is trust between project team members, you
will trust them to make good use of the given knowledge and assume they really need it to achieve team goals’’ (It2-projectteammember). The capabilities of other PTM
were also mentioned as an important factor for their will to share knowledge, but the main factor were the intentions of others (It1-projectteammember &
It2-projectteammember). They both mentioned that their team commitment motivated them to share their knowledge in order to contribute to the PT goal. ‘‘I felt committed
towards this team, which motivated me to contribute in every possible way in order to achieve the purpose of the team’’ (It1-projectteammember).
Trust is crucial for the will of the respondent from the public transportation sector to share his knowledge, because he would otherwise grant them less. ‘‘When
you don't trust your team member, you will grant someone less and will put less effort to share your unique knowledge with them’’(It6-projectteammember).
Respondents from the recruitment sector also mentioned other factors that influenced their will to share knowledge such as: the reputation of PTM within the organization and regular meetings with others PTM (It1-projectteammember & It2-projectteammember). ‘‘Positive reputation of other team members will have a positive
influence on my will to share knowledge’’ (It2-projectteammember). ‘‘Meeting regularly with my project team members has a positive influence on how I perceive and trust my team members, because you get used to each others way of working and communicating’’ (It1-projectteammember).
The team commitment of the respondent from the recruitment sector was also determined by the dedication of other PTM and their effort towards the project.
‘‘Other factors that have influenced my commitment towards the team are the commitment and dedication of my team members’’ (It2-projectteammember).‘‘As a project team member, you would want other project team members put in the same amount of time and work and dedication towards the project’’
(It2-projectteammember).
According to the respondent of the consultancy sector does the appreciation of the PL increase her motivation to share knowledge, but mainly it was determined by her own intrinsic motivation. ‘‘When I go for something, I would put 100% effort in it,
the appreciation of the leader will motivate me more, but it is definitely not crucial’’
(It5-projectteammember). The respondent from the same sector mentioned that his motivation to share knowledge also depends on if the other PTM have used the given knowledge, when he or she did, this will increase his motivation to share it again in the future. ‘‘When I don't see team members using the given information in their
work, my will to share knowledge will decrease’’ (It4-projectteammember).
The respondent from the public sector mentioned that his trust and team commitment was mainly determined by the actions of others instead of the leadership communication. ‘‘My trust in others and my commitment towards the team do not
depend on the virtual or face-to-face communication with my project leader, but on the actions of the other team members’’ (It6-projectteammember). The respondent
from the same sector mentioned that the experience and support of others mainly determined her trust towards the other PTM. ‘‘My trust in other team members,
depends mainly on the experience of the others and their support, but during the face-to-face communication, I experienced good intentions of my project leader, which does positively trigger my trust towards the others’’ (It7-projectteammember).
Time was another factor that determined the will of the PTM from the public transportation to share his knowledge. ‘‘When there is less time, knowledge sharing
will get a lower priority and I will focus on my own tasks first’’
(It6-projectteammember).
The respondent from the banking sector mentioned that trust in other PTM was mainly determined by what the other PTM promised and did in the past. ‘‘My
trust in other team members is mainly determined by what my project team members promised me to do and what they have actually done’’ (It8-projectteammember).
Discussion
In this section a closer look is taken at the results of the findings in relation to the research concepts of this study. The central question of this research is answered with substantiation of elaboration on the formulated propositions. This section further discusses on some implications for practitioners and for future research and ends with an overall conclusion.
Implications
The results showed that the respondents of all four sectors: recruitment, consultancy, public transportation and banking perceived the virtual communication of their PL as transactional and the face-to-face communication as transformational. The virtual communication such as email is focused on short and clear
communication messages and allow for less opportunities to exchange emotions (Wastian et al., 2014), which explains the fact that PTM perceived the virtual communication more as transactional and the face-to-face meetings more as
communication, because the PTM do not only want to communicate about the tasks and content of projects, but they also have a need for the opportunity to exchange their emotions and personal concerns with their PL, which is less possible through virtual communications.
This finding confirms the theory of Bass (1985) that people do not only want rewards for their effort, but also have higher order needs such as: relationships and the possibility to exchange emotions and concerns. Based on the research of Bass and Avolio (1993), PL should pay attention towards the personal concerns of PTM during the face-to-face meetings, because this will have a positive influence on the
motivation and inspiration of PTM to perform beyond expectations.
This finding also showed that despite the limited time, PTM valued the higher order needs more than they valued tasks or rewards. This stands in contrast with the expectations of Müller and Turner (2007), who suggest that PL should be more focused on the tasks and rewards instead of relationships in order to stimulate the KS process.
According to the research results all respondents respected the status of their PL and were aware of their reputation within the organization, which refers to the achieved status of Barnard (1946). Status did not show influence on the effect of leadership communications on KS within the PT, but these given answers can be influenced by the social desirability bias, since in general people in general don't want to be disrespectful towards others and maintain the mutual respect (Billot, West, Khong, Skorobohacz, Roxå, Murray & Gayle, 2013).
The respondent of the recruitment sector valued the balance between virtual transactional and face-to-face transformational LCS, which had a positive influence
on her motivation to share knowledge. This corresponds with the suggestions of Conger (1999) that both types of LCS are required for effective KS within PT.
Respondents from the consultancy and public transportation sector mentioned that the financial benefits as well as an emphasis on KS (both of which are aspects of the transactional LCS) positively triggered and influenced their will to share
knowledge. This confirms the finding of Davenport and Prusak (1997) that people are willing to share knowledge, when they get compensated for it. It also corresponds with the theory of Bass (1985) that when PL clearly explains the purpose of the KS process in order to achieve the specific goals, it will positively influence the will of PTM to share knowledge (Bass, 1985).
The virtual transactional LCS showed no influence on the trust between PTM, which can be explained by the fact that this style does not build on the higher needs of PTM such as trust (Bass, 1985). Team commitment was negative influenced by the virtual LCS according to the respondents from the recruitment and banking sectors. This finding confirms the expectation of Tajfel and Turner (1979) that in order to increase the commitment of PTM, team rewards and valuations are needed, which are not given by the concerned PL.
The face-to-face transformational LCS positively influenced the will to share knowledge according to the respondents. Meetings face-to-face made it easier for the respondents from the consultancy sector to ask which knowledge was needed, which motivated him to share more knowledge for the sake of the PT. This corresponds with the theory of Bass (1985) and Yukl (1989) that the transformational LCS motivates PTM to induce them to transcend self-interests for the sake of the PT.
The respondents from the consultancy and the public sector both mentioned that the open culture that is created by the transformational LCS of their PL increased
their will and motivation to share knowledge. This finding corresponds with the expectation of Boies, Fiset and Gill (2015) that by creating an open and accepting group climate will increase the will of PTM to share knowledge.
The respondent from the recruitment sector also mentioned that the given responsibility and support by the PL made her feel more committed towards the PT. This confirms the expectations of Heinz et al., (2006) that the degree of independence have a positive influence on team commitment. And also in exchange for the given support, PTM will be more committed towards the PT (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979).
According to the respondents from the recruitment sector is trust crucial for their will to share knowledge. This corresponds with the expectations of Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Inkpen and Tsang (2005) and Reagans and McEvily (2003) that trust is the emotional glue that binds people and it plays a key role in the willingness of team members to donate and collect knowledge.
The respondents determined trust in others by the expertise and the intentions of others. This corresponds with the suggestion of Giddens (1994; 2013) that PTM have to actively take a risk and evaluate whether or not to trust their PTM, which depends on the personal trust (intentions of others) and the abstract trust (expert knowledge).
The results showed that KS is not only dependent on the semi-virtual LCS, but also on other factors. The respondents from the recruitment sector mentioned that the positive reputations of others will positively influences her will to share knowledge and also does regular meetings with other PTM.
According to the respondent of the public transportation sector time was also an important factor for KS, because when there is less time available, KS will be less
of a priority and the motivation to share knowledge will also be lower. The dedication of other PTM is according to the respondent from the recruitment sector crucial for her motivation to share knowledge, because she want others to put the same time and work in the project as their colleagues do. This confirms the expectation of Adler and Kwon (2002) that people are willing to share knowledge if they expect that the others are contributing as well.
The implications showed that the transactional and transformational semi-virtual LCS have diverse influences on the KS process within semi-semi-virtual PT. Below, this part of the research will address six key points for PL about the combined use of the transactional and transformational LCS. These six points will be presented with the objective to stimulate the KS process between PTM within semi-virtual PT, which diminish the chance of project failures through the lack of KS between PTM.
1. Despite the limited time during projects, project leaders should always pay attention to relationships and personal concerns of each individual project team member, which will stimulate the motivation to share knowledge (Transformational leadership communication style).
2. Project leaders should create a culture where knowledge sharing is
appreciated; this will stimulate the willingness of PTM to share knowledge with other PTM (Transformational leadership communication style). 3. Project leaders should give PTM more responsibility and support. This will
increase their commitment towards the project team and subsequently increase their willingness to share knowledge (Transformational leadership
4. Project leaders should emphasize team rewards, which will have a positive influence on the trust between team members and their commitment towards the project team. This will subsequently influence the willingness of PTM to share knowledge (Transactional leadership communication).
5. Project leaders should clearly explain the purpose of sharing knowledge with other PTM, which will positively influence the motivation of PTM to share knowledge (Transactional leadership communication).
6. The virtual leadership communication can be perceived as lack of dedication towards the project. In order to prevent this, project leader should pay attention to their virtual communication and show dedication during face-to-face meetings with PTM.
Limitations and future research
This study has some limitations. First, there is a limited generalizability of the results of this study. The sample only contains eight respondents from four different sectors. While these eight respondents represent four sectors that are often making use of PT, the results are still limited to these four sectors. Future research should include more respondents and more sectors in order to increase the generalizability. Only Dutch PTM were included, future research should also select international PTM in order to create a higher generalizability.
Second, the influence of the LCS also depends on the situation, which means that each project differs and lowers the generalizability of the findings (Zulch, 2014; Müller & Turner, 2007). Future studies should conduct a long-term research with repeated observations of similar PT in order to discover consistent patterns of the LCS influences.
Third, all the variables in the study were assessed via in-depth interviews, which focuses on the words, opinions and experiences of PTM. This poses the common method bias. Future studies should triangulate the data, which means that data should be collected through multiple sources and prevent the method bias. The interpretations of words, opinions and experiences are also sensitive for subjectivity. However the variables were all operationalized and interpreted based on academic literature. Future research could diminish the subjectivity by using quantitative methods such as surveys, which can counts and measures events and performing the statistical analysis of a body of numerical data (Smith, 1988).
Fourth, all respondents perceived the status of the PL positively, which is possible caused by the social desirability bias. Future research should use other methods, which are more anonymous in order to diminish the possibility of this bias.
Fifth, this study focused mainly on the influences of the transactional and transformational LCS on the KS process within semi-virtual PT. The findings showed that, next to those previously mentioned, other factors influenced the motivation to share knowledge such as: the reputation and dedication of other members. According to the academic literature the different personalities of PL and PTM (Barling, Slater & Kelloway, 2000) and the multicultural and cross-disciplinary backgrounds of PL and PTM (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2014) do influence the motivation to share knowledge. However, the in-depth interviews allowed for the possibility to ask further questions in order to discover these possible influences. Future research should study these factors to gain more in-depth knowledge and insights on the effect of these influences.
Six, virtual communication tools were not distinguished during the interviews. The different virtual communication tools have different influences on behaviors of people according to Avolio et al., (2001) and Baker (2002). Future studies should
measure the influence of the different virtual communication tools, which can create new key points for the virtual communication use of PL.
Conclusion
This research shows that project team members have a need for an emotional exchange; therefore, project leaders should favor the use of face-to-face
communication over virtual communication, which will stimulate the members’ motivation to share knowledge. The result of this study suggests that the combined use of transactional and transformational semi-virtual leadership communication styles positively influence the knowledge sharing among project team members. The financial benefits and emphasis on the clear purpose of knowledge sharing, which are aspects of the transactional leadership communication style and support the creation of an open knowledge appreciative culture. Moreover, all aspects of the
transformational leadership communication style showed positive influences on the knowledge sharing process. The team commitment was negatively influenced by the transactional leadership communication style, but positively influenced by the transformational leadership communication style. Other factors that influenced the will of project team members to share knowledge were the reputation and dedication of other project team members.
Suggestions for future research were given and include for example, the effect of other factors that could have an influence on the knowledge sharing. Examples of such factors are: the different personalities and the multicultural backgrounds of project leaders and members. This research has limitations due to time limitations and scope; therefore, interview data was collected from just eight respondents. Further research would entail gathering data from more respondents from different sectors.
The propositioned key points for project leaders pertaining to the influence of the combined use of transactional and transformational semi-virtual leadership communication styles on the knowledge sharing process within the semi-virtual project team, can diminish the chance of project failures in the future through the prevention of limited knowledge sharing.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Andrews, K.M., & Delahaye, B.L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: the psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 797–810.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421–449.
Baker, G. (2002). The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on decision-making: a study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(4), 79–93.
Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kelloway, E.K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 21(3), 157–161.
Barnard, C. I. (1946). Functions and pathology of status systems in formal organizations.
Barret, D. J. (2006). Leadership Communication: A Communication Approach for Senior-Level Managers. Rice University. Houston. Handbook of Business Strategy.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 385–390.
Bartol, K.M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64–77.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. Theory, research and
managerial applications, 4.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Leadership: A Response to critiques en MM Chemers & RA Ayman (Eds.) Leadership theory and research perspective and directions.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. Z. (2003). Predicting Unit
Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14–49.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). The strategies for taking charge. Leaders, New
York: Harper. Row.
Bernhardt, N., & Ragsdell, G. (2006). Exploring the relationship between
collaboration, trust and knowledge sharing: a case study from the air-conditioning industry. OR Insight, 19(1), 9–17.
Billot, J., West, D., Khong, L., Skorobohacz, C., Roxå, T., Murray, S., & Gayle, B. (2013). Followership in Higher Education: Academic Teachers and their Formal Leaders. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 91–103.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 1113–1132.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005), Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Boies, K., & Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. Leadership
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social practice perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198–213.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
Cabrera, E.F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–35.
Cacioppe, R. (1999). Using team - individual reward and recognition strategies to drive organizational success. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(6), 322–331.
Cardy, R., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2006). Competencies: Alternative frameworks for competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 49(3), 235–245.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors. Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464.
Cascio W. F., & Shurygailo S. (2003). E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 27– 40.
Chiocchio, F., Forgues, D., Paradis, D., & Iordanova, I. (2011). Teamwork in integrated design projects: Understanding the effects of trust, conflict, and collaboration on performance. Project Management Journal, 42(6), 78–91.
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(3), 239–290.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 145–169.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
53(1), 39–52.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
Da Silveira, C., & Lages, C., & Simoes, C. (2013). Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic environment. Journal Of Business Research, 66(1), 28–36.
