The relationship between leadership, attitude,
team-oriented behavior, and team effectiveness
December, 2011 CHANTAL VERKERK Studentnumber: 1624423 Spicastraat 136 9742 LW Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 51269617 e-mail: C.J.Verkerk@student.rug.nl Supervisor/University M. Fennis-Bregman Second assessor F. Walter
Page | 2
ABSTRACT
In this paper a study has been conducted to investigate which factors have an important relationship with team performance. The literature study has concluded that the factors leadership, team-oriented behavior, and the attitude of the employees all have a relationship with team effectiveness. Also, a survey has been conducted at Incassade to see how these factors work in practice. Incassade wanted to know how their teams perform in terms of team effectiveness, and in terms of attitude and team-oriented behavior of the individuals within the teams. A questionnaire has been distributed among the employees of this large collection agency. Although the literature study has suggested that leadership style, attitude, and team-oriented behavior have a relationship with team effectiveness, it could not be confirmed in this study. In conducting a correlation analysis among the variables, only a significant relationship between transformational leadership and attitude was found.
Page | 4
INTRODUCTION
Incassade is a large collection agency. The company has offices which are located in Leeuwarden, Amsterdam, Apeldoorn, and Veghel. The activities of Incassade are concentrated on prevention, payment management, collection, education, and collection online. Incassade has grown out to be one of the largest collection agencies in the Netherlands. The vision of Incassade is to be a trendsetting and customer-focused
organization, which edits profitable markets with products that are lucrative. By having well-trained and capable personnel, which makes use of available processes and up-to-date tools in a flexible way, Incassade tries to accomplish a work method which is legally, morally, and socially responsible. The company makes continuous investments in keeping the knowledge of her employees up-to-date in the field of law and legislation. Incassade employs around 150 employees, divided into 16 teams. The 150 employees are all capable and well-trained. In line with the vision of Incassade they want to keep the performance of their teams as high as possible. The questions Incassade wants to have answered are: how do our teams perform? Which factors have an influence on the performance of our teams? How can we improve the performance of our teams? This information is of importance to Incassade, because then they will have a clear understanding of which teams perform well and which teams do not perform well. They can use the outcomes to enhance the performance of their teams through the factors which will be identified in this study. The purpose of this study is to investigate which factors can influence the performance of a team, by answering the forementioned questions. First, a literature study will be performed. Second, a questionnaire will be distributed among the employees of Incassade with questions regarding their performance, leadership, attitude, and team-oriented behavior. Finally, the outcomes of the literature study will be compared to the outcomes of the questionnaire.
Page | 5
team effectiveness is an important issue in team research (Pina, Martinez and Martinez, 2008). Othman, Abdullah and Ahmad (2009) state, that managing an effective team involves difficult and complex processes, which makes it a very challenging task.
According to Ross, Jones, and Adams (2008) ineffective teams can cause organizations to fall short of performance objectives and to waste resources. Thus, it is important for Incassade to know what factors can influence the performance of their teams. A lot of research has been done on the effect of leadership on team effectiveness (DeGroot, Kiker and Cross, 2000; Morgeson, 2005; Manz & Simms, 1987; Patterson, Fuller, Kester and Stringer, 1995; Kuo, 2004). For example, Morgeson (2005) has explored the role of leaders in managing team boundaries and Manz and Simms (1987) have studied how leaders can help a team through coaching-related activities. Hu and Liden (2011) have completed a study about the
antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness. They have found that goal and process clarity enhance team performance and team Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). These different studies, in different time frames, on the factors leadership, team effectiveness, and OCB indicate that it is still an interesting topic to investigate whether team-oriented behavior (which is operationalized as organizational citizenship behavior, OCB, in this paper) and attitudes of team members are factors which influence the team effectiveness. One
component of the attitude of employees in this paper is trust in management. Different studies have investigated the relation between leadership, trust, and knowledge sharing (Shrivastava, Bartol, and Locke, 2006 and Renzl, 2008). Kuo (2004) has stated that future research on the influence and effect to team effectiveness should include more variables. He mentions that variables such as characteristics of the team and mission, and team structure could be examined for their impact on team effectiveness (Kuo, 2004). Team-oriented behavior and employee attitude are kinds of team characteristics. Hu and Liden (2011) concluded their study about team potency and team effectiveness with the statement that they hoped that their study would encourage researchers to explore additional antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness. Team-oriented behavior and the attitude of employees can be seen as such antecedents of team effectiveness. This means that a contribution can be made by
investigating whether team-oriented behavior and attitude can be of influence on team
Page | 6
focus their training and development on a certain type of leadership or to raise team-oriented behavior to increase team effectiveness. Or they can focus their attention to the attitudes of team members in order to increase the effectiveness of their teams. Therefore it is interesting to study which factors can influence the performance of a team.
As stated before, an area that is receiving a lot of attention is the role of leadership in team settings and in team success (Morgeson, DeRue and Karam, 2010). According to Yukl (1994) leadership is the process of influencing followers. Burns (1987) distinguishes two types of leadership: transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Transformational leaders focus on long-term goals and on higher order intrinsic needs. Transactional leaders have clear goals, performance expectations and a path that links rewards to the achievement of goals. Burns (1987) states that transformational leadership and transactional leadership are the complete opposite of each other. Bass (1985) disagrees with this statement. He argues that a leader needs to be both transformational and transactional. The theory of Bass and Avolio (1994) distinguishes four dimensions of transformational leadership, three dimensions of transactional leadership and a non-leadership dimension. The four dimensions of
transformational leadership are idealized influence or charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. The three dimensions of
transactional leadership are contingent reward, management by exception (active) and management by exception (passive). Management by exception entails that, when necessary, corrective actions are being taken by the leader (Bass and Avolio, 1994). The active form of management by exception means that the leader actively monitors if mistakes and errors are being made and intervenes when necessary. The passive form of management by exception entails that the leader is, instead of actively monitoring, waiting passively if mistakes and errors are being made, and then intervenes when necessary (Bass and Avolio, 1994). The final form of leadership is the non-leadership dimension. This dimension is also called the laissez-faire dimension which can be described as the absence, or sometimes avoidance, of leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
Page | 7
when team members are working on their own career rather than working for the good of the organization or when the behaviors of team members do not coincide, it will be more likely that a team fails. With team-oriented behavior is meant the behavior of individuals in the setting of a team. Thus, it can be said that team-oriented behavior is likely to be an important item in increasing the effectiveness of a team. One concept of team-oriented behavior is Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). According to Organ (1990) OCB is a construct which captures the willingness of employees to go beyond what is necessary. It consists of five dimensions: altruism, generalized compliance, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). This will be elaborated further below.
Cohen and Bailey (1997) state they take a broad approach to effectiveness to include the multiplicity of outcomes that matter in organizational settings. These outcomes occur at the individual, group, and organizational level (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). Effectiveness at one level can interfere with the effectiveness at another level. Therefore, ―it is important to be clear about the dimensions of effectiveness that are being considered and the level at which they are being considered‖ (Cohen and Bailey, 1997:243). Cohen and Bailey (1997) have categorized team effectiveness into three major dimensions. These dimensions are:
1. Performance effectiveness 2. Behavioral outcomes 3. Attitudinal outcomes
The aim of this paper is to investigate which factors can influence the performance of a team. Because of a limited scope of the study there will be a focus on the factors leadership,
Page | 8
In summary: in this paper a model will be presented which investigates if the factors leadership, team-oriented behavior, and attitude influence the effectiveness of the teams at Incassade. Using the theories, which are mentioned above, leadership, team-oriented
behavior, and attitude, will be expected to have an influence on the performance of a team. In the following chapters the forementioned theories will be explained in more detail.
THEORY Leadership
―Every great group has a strong leader. This is one of the paradoxes of creative collaboration. Great groups are made up of people with rare gifts working together as equals. Yet in virtually every group there is one person who acts as maestro, organizing the genius of the others. Within the group, the leader is often a good steward, keeping the others focused, eliminating distractions, keeping hope alive in the face of setbacks and stress.‖ (Bennis & Biederman, 1997:199-200) From this citation it can be said that leadership is, thus, an essential element in teams who really want to achieve something. Especially a strong personal leadership with followers and leaders is a basis for an investigative attitude, an open interaction, and a healthy productivity in teams (van den Berg, 2009). Van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003:19-20)
Page | 9
several new models like the managerial grid of Blake and Mouton (1964), and the model of Bass and Avolio (1994). The majority of the literature about leadership is based on the paradigm of ―the leader‖, which is one person or one physical unit (van den Berg, 2009). Different forms of this so-called ―one-leadership‖ can be distinguished. Transactional- and transformational leadership is one of these forms. They differ in the way the leader and the followers shape their interaction, not in the fact that only one is in charge (van den Berg, 2009).
Transformational leadership
A transformational leader is characterized by its ability to motivate others to do more than they intended in the first place, and often to do more than they thought was possible. A leader who is transformational typically achieves higher performance, for instance, by setting more challenging expectations (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Also, transformational leaders execute more with colleagues and followers than just setting up simple agreements or exchanges (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Bass and Avolio (1994) have distinguished four dimensions of
transformational leadership. They state that transformational leaders behave in ways to
achieve superior results by employing one or more of the ―Four I’s‖. The Four I’s of Bass and Avolio (1994) are:
1. Idealized influence. This behavior means that a transformational leader acts as a role model. The leader is trusted, admired, and respected and followers identify themselves with the leader. A transformational leader demonstrates high standards of ethical and moral conduct, and the leader avoids using power for personal gain.
2. Inspirational motivation. A transformational leader provides meaning and challenge to the followers’ work, in order to motivate and inspire them. A feeling of team spirit is created and enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. Cleary communicated expectations are created by the leader and the leader demonstrates commitment to goals and the shared vision. 3. Intellectual stimulation. The follower’s efforts to be creative and innovative are stimulated, by reframing problems, approaching an old situation in a new way, and by questioning assumptions. Followers are encouraged to take new approaches, and their ideas won’t be criticized because they are different from the ideas of the leader.
Page | 10
Transactional leadership
When a leader disciplines or rewards its followers on the adequacy of the follower’s
performance, it is a transactional leader (Bass and Avolio, 1994). In transactional leadership the leader assigns or gets agreement on the task to be performed and in turn promises rewards or actually gives rewards when the assignment is carried out satisfactorily. Bass and Avolio (1994) state that transactional leadership depends on contingent reinforcement. There are three ways of contingent reinforcement, namely contingent reward, management by exception (passive), and management by exception (active):
1. Contingent reward. It is the more positive form of contingent reinforcement. It makes use of positive reinforcement to create a long-term and mutual beneficial relationship between the employer and employee and between employees. Contingent reward is reasonably effective in motivating others to achieve higher levels of performance and development.
2. Management by exception (passive). The leader waits passively for deviances from standards, errors, and mistakes in the follower’s assignment and will then take corrective action.
3. Management by exception (active). The leader actively monitors deviances from
standards, errors, and mistakes in the assignment of the follower. The focus is more on setting standards so that deviances can be directly detected. When necessary, the leader will take corrective action.
From the above mentioned can be seen that transactional leadership places an emphasis on the transactions or exchanges between leaders, colleagues, and followers. This transaction is based on the fact that the leader discusses with other people what is required and specifies the conditions and rewards these others will receive if they fulfill the requirements.
Team effectiveness
According to studies that have been conducted, there are influential factors to improve team effectiveness. These factors are team structure (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Wang, 2001), team formation (Early and Mosakowski, 2000), and leadership (Kahai, Sosik and Avolio, 1997; Schminke and Wells, 1999). Team effectiveness is mostly studied by measuring the team performance (Kuo, 2004). But, as Kuo (2004, p.267) states, ―different researchers have heterogeneous research purposes as they take different perspectives in their studies of teams. As a result, the evaluation of team effectiveness has diversified characteristics.‖ The study of Ross, Jones, and Adams (2008) shows that team effectiveness can be predicted by an
Page | 11
standardizing the measurable variables of team effectiveness. According to Piña, Martínez and Martínez. (2008) researchers have had difficulties in defining the boundaries of team effectiveness and operationalizing this construct. For instance, Cummings (1981) considered commitment and satisfaction next to performance and productivity. In this paper team effectiveness will be studied using two aspects: team performance and behavioral outcomes (i.e. turnover and absenteeism).
Team performance
Team performance is defined as ―the extent to which the productive output of a team meets or exceeds the performance standards of those who review and/or receive the output‖ (Hackman, 1987: 323). De Jong and Elfring (2010) have conducted a study regarding the relationship between intrateam trust and team performance, with team reflexivity, team monitoring, and team effort as mediators. In their research about how trust affects performance of ongoing teams, De Jong and Elfring (2010) evaluate team performance using three items: the quality of the output, the quantity of the output and the overall assessment of the team performance. In this study the model of De Jong and Elfring (2010) will be used to assess the performance of the team. As well as in the study of De Jong and Elfring (2010), in this study the team leaders will be asked to evaluate the performance of their own team.
Behavioral outcomes
Behavioral outcomes is a concept developed by Cohen and Bailey (1997). It consists of the degree to which there is absenteeism and turnover in the organization (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). Thus the measures for behavioral outcomes are absenteeism and turnover (Cohen and Bailey, 1997).
Turnover. Turnover consists of involuntary turnover and voluntary turnover. Involuntary turnover is turnover initiated by the organization; voluntary turnover is turnover initiated by the employees (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, and Wright, 2006). Thus, turnover is about the amount of people that have been discharged or left voluntarily in the organization.
Absenteeism. Being absent is a way of physically removing oneself from a dissatisfying work environment, without actually leaving (i.e. quitting) the job (Noe et al., 2006).
Leadership versus team effectiveness
Page | 12
effective team. Every team members must feel responsible and take responsibility in completing the tasks and processes (Parker, 1990). A transformational leader is not completely the same as shared leadership, but it is more like shared leadership then a
transactional leader. This is because a transformational leader acts more as a role model or a mentor and inspires the team members (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Leadership processes are a crucial determinant of team performance and effectiveness (Kerber and Buono in Buono, 2004) Wang (2001) has conducted a study on the topic of R&D team interaction. In this study it has been found that transformational leadership has a positive impact on the performance of teams. Sosik, Avolio and Kahai (1997) have carried out a study, regarding the topic of team leadership, which focused on team variable. They have also found that transformational leadership has a positive impact on the effectiveness of teams. From these studies it can be hypothesized that transformational leadership will have a positive influence on team effectiveness.
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership has a positive influence on team effectiveness. Moreover, Cheng (2000) and Shea (2000) have conducted a study concerning the effect of leadership on leadership satisfaction, organizational commitment, team effectiveness, and individual and organizational performance. They have found that when a leader is strict and fair in giving rewards and punishments it will cause a positive impact on team effectiveness, leadership satisfaction, organizational commitment, and individual and organizational
performance. Cheng (2000) and Shea (2000) have also found that when a leader is not fair and strict in giving rewards and punishments there will be a negative impact on team
effectiveness. From the definition of transactional leadership of Bass (1985) stated above, it can be said that transactional leadership corresponds with a leader who is strict and fair in giving rewards and punishments, which is mentioned by Cheng (2000) and Shea (2000). Therefore, it can be expected that transactional leadership will also most likely have a positive influence on team effectiveness.
Page | 13
Team-oriented behavior
It has been recognized by the management theorists from Chester Barnard that an important issue for organizations is the willingness of participants to go beyond what is required – to take that extra step (Organ, 1990). Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is one such construct that has been suggested to capture a discretionary distribution (Organ, 1990). In this paper the variable team-oriented behavior will be measured using the concept of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, because this concept captures the behavior that can be exposed in a team composition.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organ (1988, p.4) has defined OCB as ―individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization‖. As Organ (1997) explained in a later work was that he was thinking of OCB as a contribution that may or may not encourage some future reward. Five dimensions of OCB have been distinguished by Organ (1988):
Altruism. Altruism is the behavior which is directed at helping a particular person on the job, for instance a colleague.
Generalized compliance. This is the general conscientiousness of an employee that exceeds the work standards which are enforceable.
Sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is the tolerance of obstacles on the job. This is the case, for instance, when an employee undergoes discomfort without complaining.
Courtesy. With courtesy is meant the way an employee will first propose/deliberate with others before acting or making decisions that could or would affect their work.
Civic virtue. Civic virtue behavior is when an employee participates actively and is involved in corporate affairs (e.g. responds to mail, attends meetings).
Bolino (1999) states that the empirical work on OCB is mostly based on the model of Organ (1988), and that empirical support for his conceptualization has indeed been found by MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991). Different researchers of OCB have argued that OCB is critical to the functioning of an organization (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988). From this literature it can be concluded that OCB will have a positive relationship with team effectiveness and is thus a factor which can influence the effectiveness of a team.
Page | 14
Leadership versus team-oriented behavior
Transformational leaders motivate their subordinates, act as coach or mentor, and stimulate a shared vision (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Transactional leaders discuss what is required and rewards if these requirements are met, and takes corrective actions when necessary (Bass and Avolio, 1994). By looking at these two leadership styles, it can be seen that transformational leaders will most likely achieve more OCB by motivating their employees and acting as a role model. Researchers have thus emphasized the advantage of transformational over
transactional leaders in achieving greater levels of OCB (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman and Fetter, 1990; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine and Bacharach, 2000). Podsakoff et al. (2000) have found, in their critical review of the theoretical and empirical research on OCB, that transformational leaders had effects on every form of OCB. They also state that: ―Perhaps this should not be surprising, since the heart of transformational leadership is the ability to get employees to perform above and beyond expectations (Bass, 1995; Burns, 1987), and this extra effort may show up in the form of citizenship behavior.‖ They have also found that transactional leaders have a less effect on OCB, because a formal reward system does not fully recognize the OCB (Podskakoff et al., 2000). Thus, it will be likely that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with OCB and transactional leadership a negative relationship.
Hypothesis 3a: Transformational leadership has a positive influence on OCB. Hypothesis 3b: Transactional leadership has a negative influence on OCB. Attitude
Not many days go by without the media reporting the results of yet another attitude survey. Meanwhile, organizations are conducting attitude surveys to monitor things as job satisfaction (Buelens, van den Broek, and vanderHeyden, 2006). According to Buelens et al. (2006) the attention to attitudes is based on the basic assumption that attitudes in some way influence behavior, e.g. working hard or quitting one’s job. ―Attitudes are beliefs and feelings people have about specific ideas, situations and people, which influence their behavior‖ (Buelens et al., 2006:98). As mentioned in the introduction, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have developed a model of attitudes and behavior. They suggest that behavior is best predicted by the intention of an individual to perform that behavior. This intention, in turn, can be predicted by two basic perceptions of the individual: (1) the attitude of the individual toward performing the behavior, which is a result from his or her idea about the consequences of his or her
Page | 15
important to him or her regard his or her performance (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Attitude is thus an important issue in discussing the behavior that exists within different teams.
Attitudinal outcomes can be measured by looking at a number of different items (Cohen and Bailey, 1997):
Employee satisfaction. Buelens et al. (2006) state that employee satisfaction is the general attitude the employee has towards his or her job. It is an emotional response toward various facets of someone’s job and it refers to the degree of pleasure and fulfillment an employee has (Buelens et al., 2006).
Employee commitment. The extent to which an employee identifies his or herself with an organization/team and is committed to its goals (Buelens et al., 2006).
Trust of employees in management. The amount of trust an employee contains about the leadership in the organization.
Leadership versus attitude
Transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio (1994) consists of the leader to be a role model, who is highly trusted and respected by his/her employees. The leader motivates and inspires and emphasizes a shared vision and commitment to this vision. The leader also stimulates creativity and innovativeness among his or her employees and acts as a coach and mentor. In light with this definition it is most likely that transformational leadership will create a high level of employee satisfaction and employee commitment. Also the trust of employees in management will be high when having a transformational leader. There are several studies which have shown that transformational leadership has a positive influence on the attitude of the employees (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia, 2004; Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio,2002). Bishop (2000), and Walumbwa, Wang and Lawler (2003) have indicated the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee satisfaction. A positive influence of transformational leadership on employee commitment has also been found by several researchers (Dumdum et al, 2002; Walumbwa et al., 2003). Therefore it will be likely that transformational leadership will have a positive influence on attitude.
Hypothesis 4a: Transformational leadership has a positive influence on attitude.
Page | 16
this type of leadership it will be likely that the commitment and satisfaction among employees will be higher with transactional leadership, because the leader motivates and has a fair
rewarding system.
Hypothesis 4b: Transactional leadership has a positive influence on attitude. Attitude versus team effectiveness
Employee satisfaction can be seen as the most important predictor of perceived effectiveness, according to Kim (2005). Ostroff (1992) has conducted a study among school teachers. He found that schools with satisfied teachers had a higher degree of effectiveness, e.g. better scores on student achievement tests, than schools with teachers who were unsatisfied. Boardman and Sundquist (2009) have also found that employee satisfaction has a positive relationship with organizational efficacy. Thus, it can be said that employee satisfaction can be of influence on the effectiveness of a team.
According to Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1982) many studies are focused on ways of enhancing and gaining commitment among employees, which suggests that employee commitment is seen as a positive factor. These studies show a link between employee commitment and voluntary turnover, absenteeism (Mowday et al. 1982), and employee performance (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and Jackson, 1989). Even a link between employee commitment and organizational citizenship has been found by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) and by Shore and Wayne (1993).
The amount of trust an employee has in his or her management is the third item of attitudinal outcomes. There are several studies which have shown that the trust of employees is a critical factor in affecting the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of organizations (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Mayer and Davis, 1999; Whitney, 1994). But there is not only a link between trust and performance, effectiveness, and efficiency. Several
researchers have concluded that trust is an important factor in gaining desirable work-related behaviors (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Mayer and Davis, 1999; Zand, 1972).
To sum up, the literature mentioned above states that employee satisfaction can be of influence in team effectiveness. Also, employee commitment has been found to have a
Page | 17
team effectiveness. Therefore it can be concluded that attitude is a factor which can have a distinctive influence on the effectiveness of a team.
Hypothesis 5: Attitude has a positive influence on team effectiveness.
The theories which are mentioned above all indicate that there are several relationships between leadership, team-oriented behavior, attitude, and team effectiveness. The literature states that the effects of the different factors leadership, team-oriented behavior, and attitude on team effectiveness are all positive; except for hypothesis 3b (i.e. transactional leadership has a negative influence on team-oriented behavior). In figure 1 a conceptual model is presented. In this paper the different relationships, which are indicated in the conceptual model, will be investigated.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
METHOD Data collection
Page | 18
organizational study, because it is carried out once in the organization and represents a snapshot of one point in time.
Incassade currently employs 150 employees, with a total of 14 teams. In total 89 people filled out the questionnaire (response percentage 59.33%), but only 38 respondents could be used in this research. This is because this paper investigates the performance of teams and the attitude and team-oriented behavior of employees within these teams. For instance, a whole team had to be deleted if the team leader did not participate or the team leader did complete the
questionnaire, but none of the team members did. There were 3 team leaders who did not fully completed the questionnaire, so their teams could not participate in the results. Also the team members of two other teams did not (fully) complete the questionnaire, so these teams also had to be excluded. This means that in this research 9 teams participated. But not all teams were complete (i.e. not all team members filled in the questionnaire), but because at least 2 team members of each team did completely fill in the questionnaire, these 9 teams eventually participated in the study. The 9 teams consist of a total of 87 employees. Of the 87 team members and 9 team leaders, 38 people completed the questionnaire. The percentage of team members, of the 9 teams, who participated, was 43.68%. A percentage of 25.33% of all employees of Incassade (i.e. 150) were included in this study. Which gives a percentage of 43.68% of the team members and a percentage of the total employees of 25.33% employees who were included in this study. Of the respondents 30.4% is male and 69.6% is female and their ages range from 19 to 54 with a mean age of 31.74 (SD = 8.15). The average team size was 9.17 (SD = 3.604) ranging from 2 to 17. On average the respondents worked 27.9 months in the team (SD = 37.716).
The aim of the questionnaire is to determine the type of leadership among the team leaders, the team effectiveness, and the behavior within the teams. The participants were divided into the team leaders and the team members. The team leaders answered questions regarding the effectiveness of their team. The team members answered questions regarding their own behavior, attitude, and how they perceive the leadership style of their team leader. Leadership
The leadership style was measured using the different dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership as stated by Bass and Avolio (1994). A Dutch version of the
Page | 19
from this contains 27 questions concerning the transformational and transactional leadership style. Cronbach’s alpha is .95 for transformational, and .60 for the transactional questions. The questions for the transformational leadership consisted of the Four I’s, and for
transactional leadership the three ways of contingent reinforcement was used. Team leaders and team members rated the items using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, ―totally disagree‖, to 5, ―totally agree‖.
Team effectiveness
Team effectiveness was measured by a multidimensional model, meaning that team
effectiveness was measured by measuring team performance and behavioral outcomes. For measuring the team effectiveness some data from Incassade itself was used. Their data about absenteeism and turnover (i.e. behavioral outcomes) was collected and analyzed to get an overall team effectiveness. Absenteeism was analyzed in terms of presence of people in percentages. Turnover was analyzed using the difference in inflow and outflow. In the questionnaire questions about the team performance were asked, because Incassade has no available data to collect. The questions about the team performance, quantity of the output, and quality of the output were based on the three aspects of team performance of De Jong and Elfring (2010). These three aspects are: (1) the quality of the output, (2) the quantity of the output, and (3) the overall team performance (De Jong and Elfring, 2010). For these items a cronbach’s alpha of .87 has been found. A 5-point Likert scale has been used for this 3-item team performance measure, which ranges from 1, ―extremely low‖, to 5, ―extremely high‖. Team-oriented behavior
Team-oriented behavior was measured using the model of Organ (1988) about Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The questions were based on the five dimensions of OCB (Organ, 1988). In this study the OCB measure of Konovsky and Organ (1996) has been used. The questionnaire consists of 18 items which measure the five dimensions of OCB: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, and generalized compliance. A 5-point Likert scale has been used which ranges from 1, ―strongly disagree‖, to 5, ―strongly agree‖. Cronbach’s alpha is .86 for this 18-item OCB measure.
Attitude
Page | 20
(1951). It has been demonstrated by previous studies that this global satisfaction index with six items is valid and reliable (Brooke, Russell, and Price, 1988; Sorenson, 1985; Wakefield, 1982). The satisfaction scale reached a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 in the study of Agho, Price, and Mueller (1992). All the items were rated using the 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, ―strongly disagree‖ to 5, ―strongly agree‖. Employee commitment and Trust in
management were measured using the scale of Cook and Wall (1980). They use three dimensions of organizational commitment: organizational identification, organizational involvement, and organizational loyalty. For trust in management they have developed questions for two dimensions, namely faith in intentions of management, and confidence in actions of management. A Cronbach’s alpha of .78 has been found for the scale of Cook and Wall (1980). All the items were rated using the 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, ―strongly disagree‖ to 5, ―strongly agree‖.
Data analysis
In table 1 the outcome of the Cronbach’s alpha of the different components in the
questionnaire is stated. From these numbers it can be concluded that the reliability of the questionnaire was sufficient.
TABLE 1
Cronbach’s alpha for different components of the questionnaire
Literature Data
Transformational leadership .95 .929 Transactional leadership .60 .731 Team performance (quantity of the
output, quality of the output, overall team performance)
.87 .50 (.71 if quality deleted)
Team behavior (OCB) .86 .736
Attitude (employee satisfaction) .90 .920 Attitude (employee commitment and
trust in management)
.78 .611
Page | 21
leadership, attitude, team-oriented behavior, and team effectiveness. This is to determine whether the different variables have an influence on team effectiveness.
RESULTS
In this section the results of the survey, which has been conducted at Incassade, will be presented. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the type of leadership among the team leaders, the team effectiveness, team-oriented behavior, and attitude of team members. This information was then used to investigate whether there is a relationship between the variables leadership, team-oriented behavior, attitude, and team effectiveness.
TABLE 2
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Pearson-correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1.Transformational leadership 3.63 .47 1 2.Transactional leadership 3.38 .44 -.01 1 3.Team-oriented behavior 3.99 .19 .54 -.24 1 4.Attitude 3.51 .27 .65* -.24 .58* 1 5.Team effectiveness 22.31 .51 -.05 .23 -.40 -.06 1 N=9 * p< 0.05
As can be seen from table 2, two significant relationships between the variables leadership, team-oriented behavior, attitude, and team effectiveness has been found. There is a negative relationship between transformational leadership and team effectiveness (r = -.05, n.s.), which does not correspond to the findings in literature (H1a). Transactional leadership has a positive relationship with team effectiveness (r = .23, n.s.), which was also found in the literature (H1b). Team-oriented behavior has a negative relationship with team effectiveness (r = -.40, n.s.), which also does not correspond to the findings in literature (H2).Transformational leadership has a positive relationship with team-oriented behavior (r = .54, n.s.), which corresponds with the findings in literature (H3a). A negative relationship between
transactional leadership and team-oriented behavior has been found (r = -.24, n.s.), which corresponds to the findings in literature (H3b). Transformational leadership and attitude have a positive relationship (r = .65, p < .05), which was also found in literature (H4a).
Page | 22
does not corresponds to the findings in literature (H4b). Finally, a negative relationship between attitude and team effectiveness is shown in table 2 (r = -.01, n.s.), which was not found in the literature (H5). The correlation analysis also shows a relationship between team-oriented behavior and attitude. Because these variables are on an individual level and not on team level they will not be discussed further in this paper. However, in appendix A more findings on an individual level will be presented.
To conclude, only for hypothesis 4a a significant relationship has been found. Hypothesis 4a can thus be confirmed. Unfortunately no other conclusions can be drawn from these
outcomes, because no significant relationships have been found there.
DISCUSSION
Discussion of results
The aim of this study was to identify important factors which can influence the performance of teams and how these factors relate to each other. The literature study presented above has indeed identified several factors which can influence the performance of teams. A few studies have indicated that transformational and transactional leadership have a positive influence on team effectiveness (H1a and H1b). Also, according to research, stated above, OCB (i.e. team-oriented behavior) has a positive influence on team effectiveness (H2). Employee satisfaction, employee commitment, and trust in management (i.e. attitude) have been found in literature to have a positive link with team effectiveness (H5). Therefore the conclusion that can be drawn from all the literature stated above is that the factors leadership, team-oriented behavior, and attitude all three influence the effectiveness of a team. But studies have indicated that they can also be of influence to each other. Transformational leadership has been shown to have a positive influence on OCB (H3a), while transactional leadership has a negative influence on OCB (H3b). Both types of leadership have been found to have a positive influence on attitude (H4a and H4b). Also, it has been shown that attitude (e.g. trust in management, and
organizational commitment) has a positive link with team effectiveness (H5).
Page | 23
be investigated in further research. There were some similarities between the findings in the literature and in the survey. Of the hypotheses 1b, 3a, 3b, and 4a the findings of the survey corresponded to the findings in the literature. The findings did not correspond on the
hypotheses 1a, 2, 4b, and 5. No other apparent conclusions can be drawn from these results, because the relationships were significant. Further research should be performed to
investigate these relationships in a significant manner. Practical implications
According to Ross, Jones, and Adams (2008) ineffective teams can cause organizations to fall short of performance objectives and to waste resources. Thus, it is important for organizations to know what factors can influence the performance of their teams. The literature study has shown that leadership, attitude, and team-oriented behavior are factors which influence team effectiveness. Knowing this, an organization can gain a deeper understanding of how to increase the effectiveness of their teams. They can, for instance, adapt their training and development to this. Training should not be directly focused on increasing team effectiveness, but rather on teaching leaders how they can increase the team-oriented behavior within their team. Or they can show leaders that by gaining a better attitude amongst the team members they can in effect increase the effectiveness of their team. This paper has shown that
transformational leaders improve the attitude of the employees. An organization can use this knowledge to focus their training and development on the characteristics of transformational leadership when they want to increase the employee satisfaction, employee commitment, and the trust in management of the employees. Also when a team is not as effective as an
organization wants it to be, the organization now knows that it may have to take a closer look at the leadership style of the team leader or the team-oriented behavior within the team, or at the attitude of the team members.
Limitations
Page | 24
team leaders had to score the effectiveness of their own team. The team effectiveness was quite high at the organization, which was not surprisingly because the team leaders had to rate their own team on effectiveness. But also the objective data about absenteeism came out positively, so the team leaders may be biased, but they were not completely wrong. Finally, Further research
This paper was not able to prove empirically that the factors leadership, team-oriented behavior, and attitude influence team effectiveness. The only relationship which was proven to be significant was the effect of transformational leadership on the attitude of the
employees. The literature, however, did state the different relationships between leadership, team-oriented behavior, attitude, and team effectiveness. Further research can be conducted to investigate these relationships. By performing a hierarchical regression analysis it could be investigated whether team-oriented behavior and attitude can act as a mediator in the relationship between leadership and team effectiveness. Also the relationship between team-oriented behavior and attitude should be further investigated. A start has been made in the appendix of this paper. A conceptual model for further research has been shown below.
Page | 25
REFERENCES
Agho, A., Price, J. en Mueller, C. 1992. Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65:185-96.
Avolio, B.J., Reichard, R.J., Hannah, S.T., Walumbwa, F.O., and Chan, A. (2009) A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5):764-784.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., and Bhatia, P. (2004) Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and
Moderating Role of Structure Distance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25: 951–968. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bateman, T. S., and Organ, D. W. (1983) Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26:587-595.
Belbin, R.M. (1996). The Coming Shape of Organizations. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Bennis, W. & Biederman, P.W. (1997). Organizing genius, the secrets of creative
collaboration. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Berg, van den, B. (2009) Over leiderschap in teams: leiderschap is een groepsproces. Management en Consulting, 4: 22-25.
Bishop, K. (2000) Understanding Employee Empowerment in the Workplace: Exploring the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership, Employee Perceptions of Empowerment, and Key Work Outcomes. unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Claremont, California, UMI number: 9984244.
Blake, R.R., and Mouton, J.S. (1964) The managerial grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf.
Boardman, C., and Sundquist, E. (2009) Toward understanding work motivation: Worker attitudes and perception of effective public services. American Review of Public
Page | 26
Bolino, M.C. (1999) Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1):82-98.
Brayfield, A. H. and Rothe, H. F. (1951) An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35:307-311.
Brooke, P. P., Jr, Russell, D. & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73(2):139—145.
Buelens, M., Broek, van den, H., Vanderheyden, K., Kreitner, R. And Kinicki, A. (2006). Organizational Behaviour. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Buono, A.F. (2004) Creative Consulting: Innovative perspectives on management consulting. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cheng, B.S. (2000) The paternalistic leadership of Chinese organization: concept,
reconstruction, measurement, and model building. Taipei: National science specific research issue report.
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.
Cook, J.M. and Wall, T. (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment, and personal need fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1):39– 52.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2006) Business Research Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill companies
Cummings, T. (1981) Designing effective work groups. New York: Oxford University Press. Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J. en Koopman, P. L. (1997) Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70:19-34.
Delgado Piña, M.I., Romero Martínez, A.M., and Martínez, L.G. (2008) Teams in
Page | 27
Dirks, K. T. and D. L. Ferrin (2001) The role of interpersonal trust in organisational settings. Organization Science, 12: 450–467.
Driedonks, B.A., Gevers, J.M.P. and Weele, van, A.J. (2010). Managing sourcing team effectiveness: The need for a team perspective in purchasing organizations. Elsevier. Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B., and Avolio, B. (2002) A Meta-analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds. B.J. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino, North Holland: JAI Elsevier Science, 35–65. Early, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 26-49.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Galton, F. and Eysenck, H.J. (1869) Hereditary genius. London, England: Macmillan. Hackman, J.R. (1987) The design of work teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hemphill, J.K, and Coons, A.E. (1957) Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire.In Stogdill RM, Coons AE (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement, 6–38. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23:409−474.
Hu, J., and Liden, R.C. (2011) Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: an examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4):851-862.
Page | 28
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style problem
structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Personnel Psychology, 50:121-146.
Kim, S. (2005) Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 15(2): 245–262. Knippenberg, van, D. & Hogg, M.A. (2003) Leadership and Power. London: Sage. Konovsky, M. A., and Organ, D. W. (1996) Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16:215–224.
Konovsky, M. A. and Pugh, S. D. (1994) Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 656–669.
Kramer, R. M. and T. R. Tyler (1996) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuo, C. (2004) Research on impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5:266-277.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., and Fetter, R. (1991) Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons'
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50:123-150. Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-128. Mayer, R. C. and J. H. Davis (1999) The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasiexperiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123–136. Meyer, J., and Allen, N. (1997) Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Meyer. J. P., Paunonen, S. V. Gellatly. J. R., Goffin, R. D., and Jackson, D. N. (1989) Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 152-156.
Page | 29
Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S., Karam, E.P. (2009). Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of management, 36:5.
Mowday. R. T, Portor. L. W., and Steers, R. M. (1982) Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P.M. (2006) Human Resource Management: gaining a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. O'Reilly, C. & Chatman. J. (1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment 'The erfecls of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492-499.
Organ, D. W. (1988) Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990) The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997) Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10:85−97.
Ostroff, C. (1992) The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6): 963–974.
Othman, A.K., Abdullah, H.S. and Ahmad, J. (2009). The influence of work motivation on emotional intelligence and team effectiveness. The Journal of Business Perspective. 13:4. Parker, G.M. (1990) Team players and team work: the new competitive business strategy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., and Fetter, R. (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1:107−142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, B. J., and Bacharach, D. J. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
Page | 30
Renzl, B. (2008) Trust in Management and Knowledge Sharing: The Mediating Effects of Fear and Knowledge Documentation. International Journal of Management Science 36(2): 206–20.
Ross, T.M., Jones, E.C., and Adams, S.G. (2008) Can team effectiveness be predicted? Team Performance Management, 14:248-268.
Schminke, M., & Wells, D. (1999). Group process and performance and their effects on individual’s ethical frameworks. Journal of Business Ethics, 18: 367-381.
Shea, P.W. (2000) Principal leadership style, up down relationship quality and teacher organizational behavior citizenship research. National Taipei Teachers college, Graduate School of Nationalist Education Master Thesis.
Shore. L. M., and Wayne, S. (1993) Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774-780.
Sorenson, W. B. (1985). A Causal Model of Organizational Commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa.
Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., and Kahai, S.S. (1997) Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1): 89-103.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M. and Locke, E. A. (2006) Empowering Leadership in Management Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, and Team Performance. Academy of Management Journal 49(6): 1239–51.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of interterm process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 135-148.
Stogdill, R.M. (1963) Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire: Form XII. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration.
Page | 31
Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wakefield, D. S. (1982). Organizational Commitment of Full-time and Part-time Registered Nurses: A Contingency Approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa. Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., and Lawler, J.J. (2003) Exploring New Frontiers: The Role of Collective Efficacy in Relations Between Transformational Leadership and Work-related Attitudes. Paper presented in Charting New Territory And Exploring New Frontiers, Midwest Academy of Management Annual Conference, 3–5 April.
Wang, G.S. (2001) Team leadership and team effectiveness: The inter mediator effect of intra team. National Taiwan University, Graduate School of Psychology Master Thesis.
Whitney, J. O. (1994) The Trust Factor: Liberating Profits and Restoring Corporate Vitality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Page | 32
APPENDIX A
analysis of attitude and team-oriented behavior on individual level
The paper presented above is focused on the teams within an organization. However the variables attitude and team-oriented behavior can also be analyzed on individual level. Next some outcomes of these analyses, on an individual level, can be found. The analysis have been performed on the non-aggregated scores of the members on attitude and team-oriented behavior (N=36).
Correlation within the variable attitude
The team members had to score their own attitude, using different questions, on a scale of 1 to 5. On average the team members rated their attitude a 3.52 (SD = .41), with a minimum of 2.81 and a maximum of 4.70. The variable attitude can be split up into the components employee satisfaction, employee commitment, and trust in management. The outcomes of these separate components are displayed below in table A1.
TABLE A1
Average scores per team on three components of “Attitude”
Satisfaction Commitment Trust in Management
Team 1 3.33 3 2.96 Team 2 3.61 3.43 3.11 Team 3 3.33 3.44 3 Team 4 4.28 3.5 2.8 Team 5 4.39 3.7 3.39 Team 6 3.98 3.36 3.21 Team 7 4.42 3.72 3.71 Team 8 3.92 3.33 2.83 Team 9 3.97 3.76 3.3 Average 3.91 3.47 3.15
From table A1 it can be seen that teams that score high on satisfaction and on commitment, do not necessarily have high scores on trust in management (e.g. teams 1, 4, and 8). The teams scored relatively low on trust in management, four teams even scored lower than or equal to 3 (on a scale of 1 to 5). To confirm this, a correlation analysis has been conducted. The
outcomes can be found below in table A2 and A3. It can be seen that no significant
Page | 33
TABLE A2
Correlation analysis between Employee satisfaction and Trust in Management Employee satisfaction Trust in management Employee satisfaction Pearson Correlation 1 -,10 Sig. (2-tailed) ,56 N 36 36 Trust in management Pearson Correlation -,10 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,56 N 36 36 TABLE A3
Correlation analysis between employee commitment and trust in management Employee commitment Trust in management Employee commitment Pearson Correlation 1 ,08 Sig. (2-tailed) ,63 N 36 36 Trust in management Pearson Correlation ,08 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,63 N 36 36
Page | 34
Correlation between the variables attitude and team-oriented behavior TABLE A4
Correlation analysis between Attitude and Team-oriented behavior Attitude Team-oriented Behavior
Attitude Pearson Correlation 1 ,49**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 N 36 36 Team-oriented Behavior Pearson Correlation ,49** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 N 36 37
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
