IS BOUNDARY SPANNING ALWAYS POSITIVE?
A STUDY ON THE MODERATING ROLE OF THE LEADERSHIP STYLE ADOPTED BY THE TEAM LEADER ON INTRA-TEAM CONFLICT
Master Thesis Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 11, 2017 Chiara Floreanini Student number 3200817 De Laan 2 C5 9712AV Groningen Tel.: +31(0)645878464 e-mail: chiara.floreanini@gmail.com
Supervisor: Dr. Thomas A. de Vries
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Thomas A. de Vries for his support and helpful feedback. Many thanks to Antia and Hannah, for the great team work and the precious
ABSTRACT
Team boundary spanning is becoming more crucial for organizations working in a dynamic environment. Evidence has been shown that boundary spanning behaviors may have positive effects on team performance but few studies have looked at the other side of the coin. Using these few studies as a starting point, this academic work argues that boundary spanning may also have negative impacts, especially on intra-team conflict. Moreover, the autocratic leadership style adopted by the team leader is proposed to moderate the supposed negative relationship between boundary spanning and team performance, as mediated by intra-team conflict. By gathering data from 40 teams working in different organizations, the hypotheses have been tested and a quantitative research has been conducted. Evidence has shown that team members experience less intra-team conflict when performing boundary spanning activities, and no significance was found for the moderating role of the leadership style. Although the hypotheses were not supported, the present research provides a new perspective on examining boundary spanning and it is interesting for managers to understand which strategies to adopt in order to prevent intra-team conflict to happen.
INTRODUCTION
The increasing complexity of the work environment and the consequently work dynamics emphasize the need for organizational teams to face such challenges through coordination and collaboration. Connecting teams with external members and finding support (e.g. searching for information, representing the team to outsiders) is necessary to assist the team in performing its tasks (Marrone, 2010). In order to be able to do so, teams need to engage in boundary spanning activities, defined as “team’s actions to establish linkages and manage interactions with parties in the external environment” (Marrone, 2010, p. 914). Team boundary spanning refers to actions that link the team with external entities (e.g. outside experts, other organizations) (Marrone, 2010) but also to actions linking team’s interactions with those of other teams and entities inside the same organization, here referred as internal boundary spanning. Ancona (1990) provides evidence that teams interacting with the external environment and outsiders result as higher performers, whereas isolated teams seem to be the worst performers. The positive relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance is also underlined by Marrone and colleagues (2007), who find positive correlations of boundary spanning on team viability and team performance. Moreover, the authors find that team members engaging in high levels of boundary spanning experience less role overload. Team boundary spanning may therefore be of crucial importance for organizations whose aim is increasing their team performances.
spanning (2010), we can find examples of antecedents such as team strategy, team leadership, tenure, team psychological safety, and diversity. A recurring antecedent in literature studies is leadership, which has been shown to be particularly important when looking at the leadership style adopted by the team leader. For example, Ancona (1990) provides evidence that leader strategies influence team’s performance, and Edmonson’s (2003) results provide the coaching leadership style as a promoter for team boundary spanning behaviors.
However, previous research that took leadership as an antecedent for boundary spanning behaviors did not address the impact of the leadership style on the behavior of the team and whether it affects the relationship between boundary spanning behaviors and team performance. Such relationship has in fact always been thought to be positive, as shown in analysis conducted by Gladstein (1984), Ancona (1990) and Marrone (2007), where team boundary spanning is positively related to team performance. Nevertheless, the present research aims at analysing the role of the leadership style adopted by the team leader on intra-team conflict, examining if the leadership style creates more intra-team conflict resulting therefore in a negative effect on team performance. The choice of focusing on intra-team conflict relies in the fact that performing boundary spanning actions may not always result in desirable consequences, as the continuous interaction with external parties and the extra time that this entails, may result in experiencing conflict within the team (Marrone, 2007). Existing evidence suggests that boundary spanning requires time and effort, which are likely to increase the role overload of individuals working in the team (Marrone, 2007). As a consequence, team viability is harmed by members who are not satisfied with their experience and are not willing to further work together.
to interact with external parties, resulting in discontent and hostility and therefore in a worse team performance (De Hoogh et. al., 2015). More specifically, the combination of high autocratic leaders and high levels of boundary spanning is expected to decrease team performance as a result of the mentioned reasons. On the other hand, a non-autocratic leadership style based on involving subordinates in the decision making process, is likely to result in higher levels of job satisfaction (Bhatti, 2012) and thus in an expected positive relation between boundary spanning and team outcomes.
best performance. The empirical findings of this study are interesting to managers, who may be able to understand which leadership style strengthens or weakens the relationship between boundary spanning behaviors and intra-team conflict, which in turn affects team performance. Therefore, by knowing the leader behavior that creates more conflict, managers can be able to better translate the organizational goals towards a higher performance, which is not affected by the wrong attitude of leaders. Moreover, on the theoretical level, researchers may take advantage of this work by changing their perspective when examining boundary spanning, looking also at the downsides it could bring to intra-team conflict and team performance.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
As aforementioned, boundary spanning activities are decisive for teams to manage interactions and successfully complete their tasks. A clarification of the definition is although necessary to place this concept in the right context. Team boundary spanning actions are considered external team processes, indicating team’s interactions with external parties, and are opposed to internal team processes, which define intra-team interactions among members (e.g. conflict management, strategy development, members coordination) (Marrone, 2010). Therefore, teams that boundary span engage in processes dealing with interactions taking place across the team towards external parties, to achieve performance goals (Marrone, 2010). It is also worthy mentioning that boundary spanning activities in teams originate at the individual level of the team’s members, who are of central importance for the team to meet performance objectives (Marrone et. al., 2007).
approaches to environmental demands and on the role that the environment plays when interacting with teams, finding that teams who use probing strategies – using feedback and coordination with outsiders – achieve a higher performance. Furthermore, activities such as mapping, coordinating, negotiating and opening up communication channels could help the team to achieve performance goals (Marrone, 2010). For example, evidence has been shown that the ambassadorial activity of a team, defined as the process through which teams negotiate through the use of social relations in order to acquire organizational support (Koc-Menard, 2009), is positively associated with team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).
However, boundary spanning activities could not always result in desirable consequences for the team and its performance. More specifically, internal processes may be negatively affected by teams opening their boundaries. In fact, they may suffer from less cohesion and satisfaction in the short term, due to the extra time that boundary spanning requires and to the different views that are brought inside the team itself. Marrone and colleagues (2007) also underline the possible negative effects of boundary spanning on role overload at the individual and at the team level, as a result of the significant pressure team members have to face when performing boundary spanning activities. Existing literature therefore calls the attention to the negative effects of boundary spanning on internal processes for individuals, but no research has further analysed how these negative results affect the overall team and its performance.
negative consequences for group satisfaction and commitment, affecting group performance as well (Curşeu, 2011). Both the two components – task and relationship – form intra-team conflict, occurring when team members hold different opinions and attitudes towards each other (Curşeu, 2011). In order to manage intra-team conflict, Weingart and Jehn (2009) propose collaboration as the best strategy to deal with it and divide the process into three stages: identify the type of intra-team conflict, identify collaborative strategies to handle it and improve conditions that foster the likelihood of collaboration.
H1: Intra-team conflict mediates the negative indirect relationship between internal boundary spanning and team performance.
In order to further understand the mediation relationship predicted, the present research takes leadership as a moderator, in an attempt to understand which leadership style adopted by the team leader is responsible for the creation of more or less intra-team conflict. Leadership can be defined as “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2010, p. 8). According to the literature, five main approaches have been proposed about leadership: the trait approach, whose focus is on personality traits that form a leader; the behavior approach, whose focus is on task-oriented or relationship-oriented leaders’ behaviors; the power-influence approach, focusing on power basis and influence tactics used by leaders to influence followers; the contingency approach, based on situational factors determining how effective leaders can be; and the integrative approach, which is a combination of all the previous ones (Yukl, 2010). The function of a leader inside a team is to ensure that all activities that are decisive to task and team maintenance are accomplished (Burke et. al., 2006). Moreover, team leadership can be considered as a dynamic process of problem solving accomplished through four responses to social problems: information search and structuring, information use in problem solving, managing material personnel resources, and managing material resources (Fleishman et. al., 1991).
achieve implementation success (Edmonson, 2003). Ancona and Caldwell (1992), taking an external perspective and identifying fifteen different external activities, show that team’s external boundary activities are linked to team performance and underline the role of the leader in determining which external strategy the team should follow.
Existing literature suggests that certain leadership styles may have negative impacts. The present research focuses on the autocratic leadership style in particular, chosen because of its consequences on team members’ attitude towards conflict and team communication. Indeed, autocratic leadership, used by leaders whose main concern is retaining control over subordinates’ activities, with no consideration for employees’ inputs, is mainly negative (De Hoogh, 2015). Subordinates without any power over group decisions are therefore likely to experience unfairness and undervaluation, with negative consequences on team climate and team performance (De Hoogh, 2015). A highly autocratic leader is typically depicted as dominant, focused on power centralization and interacting with team members in a directive way (Warrick, 1981). Conversely, a low-autocratic leader is less focused on controlling and directing, and is less likely to contribute to power struggles in the team that could widen to conflicts (De Hoogh, 2015).
autocratic, thanks to the employees’ involvement in team decisions and to the motivation they have for reaching organizational objectives using their full potential (Warrick, 1981).
The following hypothesis is then proposed:
HP2: The autocratic leadership style adopted by the team leader moderates the relationship between boundary spanning and intra-team conflict. The positive relationship is stronger when the leadership style is highly autocratic, and weaker when the leadership style is poorly autocratic.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
METHODS Sample and procedure
TABLE 1 Sample descriptives
Industry # teams perindustry in % Response rate Nationality
Construction 1 2,5% 57% German Education 3 7,5% 50% German Engineering 1 2,5% 100% German Financial 1 2,5% 27% French Health 4 10,0% 44% German Insurance 5 12,5% 34% German/Spanish Legal 1 2,5% 80% Cypriot
Public service 14 35,0% 31% Belgian/German
Retail 5 12,5% 29% Portuguese/German/Italian
Service 2 5,0% 38% Italian
Technology 3 7,5% 85% Cypriot
Average: 52%
The chosen procedure to develop the research was to use a survey, which was composed assembling survey questions already used in the literature by selected authors, and it was anonymous for members to complete, so that confidentiality was provided (see Appendix). In this regard, I decided to use an anonymous survey link rather than email distribution because it was more likely to be perceived as respecting employees’ privacy. Furthermore, given the diverse set of organizations used and their geographical location, an online survey was considered as the best option in order to reach the sample. Team members were requested to answer questions about the boundary spanning activities of their team, the level of intra-team conflict present and to rate the leadership style and performance of their own leader. In order to gather the more objective data as possible, the overall performance of the team was rated by the team leader only, who was also asked to rate the extent to which his/her team engaged in boundary spanning.
teams with multiple respondents, I considered a team when it was formed by four employees: one team leader and at least three team members. Therefore, the final number of answers that I was able to use was 176, consisting of 40 answers of team leaders and 136 answers of team members. Among this 176 participants, the mean age was approximately 41 years old (SD = 11.18) and data revealed that 58% of the respondents were female, 39.8% were male and a residual 2.3% decided to stay anonymous. Moreover, the sample is composed by 17 different nationalities, among which 54.5% are German, 10.8% are Cypriot, 9.7% are Italian, 4.5% are Belgian.
Measures
The principal measures used in this study are boundary spanning activities, intra-team conflict, autocratic leadership style and team performance. Each measure consists of a series of items to which team members/team leaders were asked to answer using a 5-point Likert scale.
Boundary spanning. Five items were used to measure boundary spanning behaviors of team
members, taken from 24 survey items developed by Ancona and Caldwell (1992). The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement, and examine the extent to which they rated the activities as part of their job when interacting with external entities (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). Examples of items are: “Coordinate activities with external groups” and “Procure things which the team needs from other groups or individuals in the company”.
Intra-team conflict. The measurement of the mediating variable “intra-team conflict” was assessed
Autocratic leadership style. In order to understand if the autocratic leadership style moderates the
supposed mediating relationship, team members were asked to assess the extent to which the leadership style adopted by their leader is autocratic. Therefore, four items taken from the work of De Luque and colleagues (2008) were used. For example, team members were asked to what extent they agreed with the following statements regarding the leader: “My leader tells subordinates what to do in a commanding way” and “My leader makes decisions in a dictatorial way”.
Team performance. As previously mentioned, only the team leader assessed the overall team
performance, to prevent any biased ratings from team members and get the most objective results. Accordingly, six items developed by Wakefield and colleagues (2008) were applied. Therefore, team leaders were supposed to indicate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = far below average, 5 = far above average) their rating of the team’s performance. Examples of items are: “Efficiency”, “Quality” and “Adherence to deadlines”.
Together with the items assessing team performance, I also asked the leaders to rate the innovation of their team using four items taken from the work of De Dreu and colleagues (2001). In the analysis of the data, team innovation was considered as part of the overall performance and therefore not considered as a single variable. Specific items are: “The team often produces new services, methods or procedures” and “The team is an innovative team”.
Control variables
therefore considered as a control variable to test the extent to which it correlated with other variables. Moreover, age was also considered as a control variable for this study in order to examine its relationship with the dependent variable team performance.
Interdependence. Four items taken from Bishop (2000) about task interdependence were
considered as within-team interdependence, for example: “Within my team, we must frequently coordinate efforts with fellow team members” and “Jobs performed by team members are related to one another”. Three out of these four items were adapted to investigate between-team interdependence, for example: “For the team to perform well, members must communicate well with other teams” and “To achieve high performance it is important that team members work with members of other team”.
Age. Age was measured asking participants how old they were through a text entry question.
Data analysis
The dataset resulting from employees answering the survey was aggregated in order to put the respondents into their respective teams composed by one team leader and at least three team members. Since the participants of the study were involved in different working areas in their organizations, I first calculated the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess the level of inter-rater reliability (IRR) and consistency among ratings (Hallgren, 2012). Table 2 indicates the ICC values and the Cronbach’s Alpha for each variable. With ICC values ranging from .390 to 1 and signalling a good IRR on average (Cicchetti, 1994), the subsequent aggregation of data resulted possible. Furthermore, I ran a test of normality on the variables to test for normal distribution and I used a log transformation to transform the variables whose Shapiro-Wilk test indicated non significance (< .05).
autocratic leadership style was also estimated through regression analysis. Finally, a PROCESS analysis was conducted to test the whole conceptual model.
Table 2
ICC values and Cronbach’s Alpha
RESULTS Descriptive statistics
Table 3 reports descriptive statistics and correlations, including means, standard deviations and Pearson bivariate correlation for the variables used in the study. As expected, boundary spanning was significantly related to team performance (r = .35, p < .05) and it showed a negative significant relation to intra-team conflict (r = -.58, p < .01). Results also indicated a negative significant relation between intra-team conflict and team performance (r = -.44, p < .01). Furthermore, the autocratic leadership style was positively significantly related to intra-team conflict (r = .49, p < .01).
The control variable interdependence was positively related to the main variable boundary spanning (r = .56, p < .01) and the control variable age correlated negatively with team performance (r = -.31, p < .01).
Variable ICC1 ICC2 Cronbach’s Alpha
Performance N/a N/a .82
Innovation N/a N/a .86
Boundary spanning team leader N/a N/a .89
Boundary spanning team member 0.543 0.804 .87
Relationship conflict 0.565 0.818 .88
Task conflict 0.449 0.738 .82
Autocratic leadership 0.593 0.835 .80
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
N = 40 *p< .05, **p<.01 (two-tailed significance) Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1 proposed that the main effect between boundary spanning and team performance is negative when mediated by intra-team conflict. Accordingly, I ran a series of regression analyses following Baron and Kenny’s procedure (1986): once the main effect between boundary spanning and team performance was significant (B = .351, SE = .152, p < .05), I regressed intra-team conflict on boundary spanning (B = -.582, SE = .132, p < .01) and team performance on intra-team conflict (B = -.441, SE = .146, p < .01). Furthermore, I conducted a multiple regression analysis with both boundary spanning and intra-team conflict together predicting team performance. As a result, boundary spanning was no longer significant when controlling for intra-team conflict, therefore supporting a full mediation. However, the proposed positive relationship between the two variables turned out to be negative: the first hypothesis was not supported.
The second hypothesis posited that the leadership style adopted by the team leader would moderate the indirect relationship between boundary spanning and team performance, as mediated by intra-team conflict. Accordingly, I proposed that a highly autocratic leadership style would accentuate such negative relation, whereas a poorly autocratic leadership style would attenuate it. Therefore, a
multiple regression analysis was run to test for the interaction effect and the results indicated non significance (B = -.063, SE = .116, p = n.s.) Moreover, a PROCESS analysis was conducted. As visible in Table 5, the interaction was non significant, thus rejecting the second hypothesis.
TABLE 4
Multiple Regression Analysis
Predictors Team performance 95% Confidence Interval
for B B SE t p LLCI ULCI Main effects Boundary spanning .3765 .1788 2.1049 .0423* .0137 .7392 Intra-team conflict -.3968 .1740 -2.2803 .0288* -.7501 -.0435 Control variables Interdependence -.0512 .1695 -.3021 .7643 -.3952 .2928 Age .3218 .1414 2.2748 .0292* .0346 .6089 Note. N = 40, *p<.05 R2=.4586, R2∆=.2103, F=3.1958, p=.0349 TABLE 5
Multiple Regression Analysis, Moderating Effect
Predictors Intra-team conflict 95% Confidence Interval
for B B SE t p LLCI ULCI Main effects Boundary spanning -.6355 .1621 -3.9206 .0004** -.9643 -.3068 Autocratic leadership .4947 ,1469 3.3680 .0019** .1962 .7933 Interaction effect Boundary spanning x
autocratic leadership style -.0807 .1075 -.7511 .4578 -.2991 .1377
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between boundary spanning and team performance considering the negative aspects that could influence it. Findings of the present research indicate that boundary spanning activities actually decrease the amount of intra-team conflict perceived by team members, which is negatively related to the overall performance of the team. Moreover, the autocratic leadership style adopted by the team leader was taken as a moderator of such negative relationship, proposing that it would create more or less intra-team conflict. However, the results did not support this last hypothesis.
Theoretical contributions
Drawing from Marrone’s investigation of antecedents and consequences of team members spanning behavior (2007), in which the author found a positive relationship between individual-boundary spanning and individual role overload, the present study further explores the possible negative consequences that boundary spanning could entail. Therefore, the first hypothesis posited that intra-team conflict mediates the relationship between boundary spanning and intra-team performance. I predicted that team members would experience intra-team conflict when constantly linking their activities to those of other teams, due to extra effort and stress experienced. Previous research emphasized the stress felt by employees in boundary roles (Aldrich, 1977) but this work contributes to existing literature by expanding the individual negative consequences proposed by the aforementioned authors on the team level. Nevertheless, results indicate that boundary spanning is negatively related to intra-team conflict, so that team members experience less conflict when performing boundary spanning activities. Although these findings add an interesting point of view on current research about this topic, they signal that internal team processes are not affected by team members’ interactions with external parties.
focused on the antecedents of boundary spanning behaviors, for example team leadership, but did not address the impact of the leader’s behavior on team members’ boundary spanning (Marrone, 2010). Taking the autocratic leadership style as moderator, the present work attempts to further explain if and how the leadership style of the team leader could affect the supposed negative relationship between boundary spanning and intra-team conflict. Still, no supporting evidence was found for the moderating role of the autocratic leadership style. Even though I found significant correlation between the style and the mentioned variables of boundary spanning and intra-team conflict, the interaction effect tested was not significant. An explanation for these findings could be found in the diverse set of teams examined, working in different organizations and subordinated to different team leaders. Moreover, adopting the rule of considering a team composed by a team leader and at least three team members, the average number of team components was rather small and therefore perhaps not sufficient to provide significant results. Finally, I identify one more reason for this results in the choice of testing the moderator role of the leadership style on the linkage between boundary spanning and intra-team conflict. Existing literature has investigated the negative effects of autocratic leadership on team climate and team performance (Bass & Bass, 2008). Thus, one could argue that the proposed moderating role should have been tested on the negative relationship between intra-team conflict and team performance.
Practical implications
As the results of this study showed, boundary spanning is mainly positively associated with team performance. Moreover, contrary to expectations, the participants that took part in the survey experienced less intra-team conflict when performing boundary spanning activities. The findings of this study do not align with previous research, according to which the constant management of interactions with external parties is time consuming and stressful. However, managers should carefully consider the amount and the type of external linkages that employees need to perform, in order to avoid potential conflict and adopt different strategies accordingly.
Moreover, the role of the team leader is important in understanding subordinates’ needs and promoting healthy confrontation within the group. A practical solution that managers can adopt could be to set up regular meetings in which team leaders can discuss boundary spanning-related issues of their teams, considering together possible ways to solve them. In this way, team members are supported and may feel less stress when performing boundary spanning activities.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESERCH DIRECTIONS
Despite some interesting findings that this study provides, some limitations must be taken into account when interpreting the results. First of all, given the limited sample size, findings can not be generalized for larger groups. By reason of the sample size, the response rate is therefore relatively low. This constraint could be explained by the choice of sending anonymous links to the employees for survey completion: as the pool of companies was so diverse and geographically dispersed, this methodology resulted the more immediate and efficient one, given the fact that the contact persons were not willing to share their working emails. Future research could hence improve this aspect by contacting managers who are consenting the use of email addresses so that researchers can send reminding emails to employees and achieve a higher response rate.
different business contexts. However, it also constitutes a considerable limit, as investigating a range of teams working in the same organization could produce more significant and coherent results. Moreover, since the average number of employees composing a team is rather small, it would be desirable to examine bigger teams, in order to get a better overview of how the teams experience boundary spanning and intra-team conflict. Therefore, I would suggest future researchers to increase the sample of analysis and conduct a thorough investigation in a big company with multiple teams in each department.
Finally, the present study focused on external team processes (Marrone, 2010) but referring to boundary spanning activities internal to the organization. As such, interactions between teams working in the same company have been analysed. For future research it would be interesting to analyse external boundary spanning, thus the amount and quality of interactions that teams need to perform within different organizations. Along these lines, researchers can gain evidence on whether and how results change when switching the context of analysis.
CONCLUSION
References
Aldrich, H., Herker, D. (1977) Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 217-230
Ancona, D. S. (1990) Outward Bound: Strategies for Team Survival in an Organization, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 334-365
Ancona, D. S., Caldwell, D. (1990) Beyond Boundary Spanning: managing External Dependence in Product Development Teams, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 1, No. 2, pp. 119-135
Ancona, D. S., Caldwell, D. (1992) Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 634-665
Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., Michael, J. H. (2009) Unlocking the Influence of Leadership Network Structures on Team Conflict and Viability, Small Group Research, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 301-322
Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173–1182
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications, Simon and Schuster.
Bishop, J. W. (2000), An Examination of Organizational and Team Commitment in a Self-Directed Team Environment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 439-450
Blanchard, K. H. (1985) A Situational Approach to Managing People, in Leadership and the One Minute Manager, Blanchard Training and Development Inc.
Burke, S. C., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., Halpin, S. M., (2006) What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 288–307
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 284–290
Curşeu, P. L. (2011) Intra-Group Conflict and Teamwork Quality: The Moderating Role of Leadership Styles, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 3-13
De Dreu, Carsten K.W., and Michael A. West (2001), Minority Dissent and Team Innovation: The Importance of Participation in Decision Making, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 1191-1201
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Greer, L. L., Den Hartog, D. N. (2015) Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 687-701
De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A. (2008) Unrequited Profit: How Stakeholder and Economic Values Relate to Subordinates’ Perceptions of Leadership and Firm Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 626-654
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Mason, G., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., Hein, M. B (1991) Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior: a Synthesis and Functional Interpretation, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 245-287
Gamero, N., González-Romá, V., Peiró, J. M. (2008) The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: A longitudinal study, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 47–69
Gladstein, D. L. (1984) Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 499-517
Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23–34 Jehn, K. A. (1995) A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup
Conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 256-282
Koc-Menard, S. (2009) Team performance in negotiation: a relational approach, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15(7/8), pp. 357-365
Marrone, J. A. (2010) Team Boundary Spanning: A Multilevel Review of Past Research and Proposals for the Future, Journal of Management, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 911-940
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., Carson, J. B. (2007) A Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences of Team Member Boundary-spanning Behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 1423–1439
Wakefield, Robin L., Dorothy E. Leidner, and Gary Garrison (2008), A model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams, Information Systems Research, Vol. 19, pp. 434-455
Warrick, D. D., (1981) Leadership styles and their consequences. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 155-172
Weingardt, L. R., Jehn, K. A., (2009) Manage Intra - team Conflict through Collaboration, in Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior, Wiley and Sons Publications, second Edition
APPENDIX: SURVEY
Dear participant,
Thank you for taking the time to fill in our survey. We are three students of the University of Groningen attending a Master in Human Resource Management. For our Master Thesis, we would like to examine how teams are working together and how different factors can influence such work. Therefore, we kindly request you to complete the following survey.
All the data will be collected anonymously.
This study takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.
If you have any questions or feedback, please do not hesitate to contact us. In the end of the survey you are able to leave a message.
Thank you!
The company you work in: _____________________
In your current job position you are: Team leader
Team member
If In your current job position you are: Team leader Is Selected
Please name the team/department you are currently responsible for. ____________________
How many members does your team/department currently have? ____________________
1 - Far bel1o1w
average
2 - Below
average 3 - Average 4 - Aboveaverage
5 - Far above average Efficiency. Quality. Overall achievement. Productivity. Adherence to deadlines. Work excellence.
Please rate the following statements concerning the innovation of your team: 1 - Strongly
disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4 - Agree 5 - Stronglyagree The team implements new
ideas to improve the quality
of products and services.
The team gives little consideration to new and
alternative methods and procedures for doing their
work.
The team often produces new services, methods or
procedures.
The team is an innovative
team.
1 - Not at
all 2 - Verylittle Somewhat3 - 4 - To a bigextent
5 - To a very great
extent Resolve problems with
external groups
Coordinate activities with
external groups
Procure things which the team needs from other groups or
individuals in the company
Negotiate with others for
delivery deadlines
Review ideas and processes
with outsiders.
If In your current job position you are: Team member Is Selected
In which team/department are you currently working? _____________________
Please rate the following statements concerning the extent to which your team engages in actions and interactions with other teams inside the organization:
1 - Not at
all 2 - Verylittle Somewhat3 - 4 - To a bigextent
5 - To a very great
extent Resolve problems with
external groups
Coordinate activities with
external groups
Procure things which the team needs from other groups or
individuals in the company
Negotiate with others for
delivery deadlines
Review ideas and processes
with outsiders.
1 - None 2 - Low Moderate3 - 4 - High 5 - A lot How much friction is there
among members in your work
unit?
How much are personality conflicts evident in your work
unit?
How much tension is there among members in your work
unit?
How much emotional conflict is there among members in
your work unit?
Please rate the following questions concerning the presence of disagreements on the task to be performed in your team:
1 - None 2 - Low Moderate3 - 4 - High 5 - A lot How often do people in your
work unit disagree about opinions regarding the work
being done?
How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your
work unit?
How much conflict about the work you do is there in your
work unit?
To what extent are there differences of opinion in your
work unit?
1 - Not at
all 2 - Verylittle Somewhat3 - 4 - To a bigextent
5 - To a very great
extent My leader forces his/her
values and opinions on others.
My leader tells subordinates what to do in a commanding
way.
My leader makes decisions in
a dictatorial way.
My leader is inclined to
dominate others.
Please rate the following statements concerning how you are dependent on other members of your team: 1 - Strongly
disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4 - Agree 5 - Stronglyagree Within my team, we must
frequently coordinate efforts
with fellow team members.
Jobs performed by team members are related to one
another.
For the team to perform well members must communicate
well with each other.
To achieve high performance it is important that team members work with each
other.
Please rate the following statements concerning how you are dependent on members of other teams: 1 - Strongly
disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4 - Agree 5 - Stronglyagree To perform well, we must
frequently coordinate efforts with members from other
teams.
For the team to perform well, members must communicate
well with other teams.
To achieve high performance it is important that team members work with members
of other teams.
In which country are you currently working? __________________
How old are you? __________________ What is your nationality? __________________ What is your gender? Male
Female Anonymous
