Chapter 16: Leadership And Teamwork Are Very Prevalent

Chapter 16 Leadership Teamworkwork Teams Are Very Prevalent In Toda

Work teams are very prevalent in today’s organizations. The reliance on teams is due partially to increasingly complex tasks, more globalization, and the flattening of organizational structures. A team is a type of organizational group that is composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals. Team members must work collectively to achieve their goals. Examples of organizational teams include senior executive teams, project management teams, task forces, work units, standing committees, quality teams, and improvement teams.

Teams can be located in the same place meeting face-to-face, or they can be geographically dispersed “virtual” teams meeting across time and distance via various forms of communication technology. Teams can also be hybrids of face-to-face and virtual teams with some members being co-located and some being dispersed. Exactly what defines an organizational group as a team or not is constantly evolving as organizations confront the many new forms of contemporary collaboration (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012). The study of organizational teams has focused on strategies for maintaining a competitive advantage. Team-based organizations have faster response capability because of their flatter organizational structures, which rely on teams and new technology to enable communication across time and space (Porter & Beyerlein, 2000).

These newer organizational structures have been referred to as “team-based and technology-enabled” (Mankin, Cohen, & Bikson, 1996). Before the COVID-19 pandemic spread globally and people were forced to work remotely from their homes, relying on videoconferencing for meetings and engagement, a majority of multinational companies were already depending on virtual teams, or teams that are geographically dispersed and rely on technology to interact and collaborate (Muethel, Gehrlein, & Hoegl, 2012). Such teams allow companies to (1) use the best talent across the globe, (2) facilitate collaboration across time and space, and (3) reduce travel costs (Paul, Drake, & Liang, 2016) and, as experienced during the pandemic, allow organizational work to continue when physical locations are shut down or unavailable.

The development of social media, video communication technologies, and software applications for meeting management has given virtual teams richer and more realistic communication environments where collaboration is facilitated (Schmidt, 2014; Schouten, van den Hooff, & Feldberg, 2016; Scott, 2013). Despite this, virtual teams face more difficulty with members separated by time, distance, and culture. In virtual teams, face-to-face communication is rare, with decisions and scheduling taking more time. In addition, they often have less trust, more conflict, and more subgroup formation. Breuer, Höffmeier, and Hertel (2016) found that trust is an important factor when leading virtual teams because trust has been shown to be more important to virtual teams compared to face-to-face teams.

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

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

Whether traditional or virtual, the organizational team-based structure is an important way for organizations to remain competitive by responding quickly and adapting to constant, rapid changes. Studies of both face-to-face and virtual teams have increasingly become focused on team processes and team outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Thomas, Martin, & Riggio, 2013). Researchers have also focused on the problems work teams confront and how to make these work teams more effective (Ilgen, Major, Hollenbeck, & Sego, 1993). Effective organizational teams lead to many desirable outcomes, such as greater productivity, more effective use of resources, better decisions and problem solving, better-quality products and services, and greater innovation and creativity (Parker, 1990).

However, for teams to be successful, the organizational culture needs to support member involvement. The traditional authority structure of many organizations does not support decision making at lower levels, which can lead to the failure of many teams. Teamwork exemplifies lateral decision making as opposed to the traditional vertical decision-making based on rank or position in the organizational hierarchy.

The dynamic and fluid power shifting in teams has been referred to as heterarchy (Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, & Paul, 2014). Such power shifting within teams can lead to positive outcomes as long as team members see these shifting sources of power as legitimate. Teams face considerable difficulty in cultures that are not supportive of collaborative work and decision making. Changing an organizational culture to support more team-based and collaborative work takes time and effort (Levi, 2011).

Leadership in teams has become a significant area of study, with traditional leadership theories such as situational and transformational leadership being applicable but adapted to the team setting. Team leadership is different from vertical leadership and is very process-oriented. It involves developing crucial capabilities, shifting actions over time to handle contingencies, and fostering task and interpersonal development within the team (Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009). Effective team leadership promotes success and helps prevent team failure (Stagl, Salas, & Burke, 2007; Stewart & Manz, 1995).

Shared or distributed leadership is increasingly recognized as vital in modern teams. It occurs when team members take on leadership behaviors to influence and support the team’s effectiveness (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012). In today’s organizations, shared leadership allows for quicker responses to complex issues and fosters less conflict, greater trust, and cohesion among team members (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). This approach is especially crucial in virtual teams, where empowerment and shared influence promote better collaboration and performance (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Muethel et al., 2012).

The Hill Model for Team Leadership offers a framework for understanding team leadership dynamics. It emphasizes that effective leaders monitor team functioning, assess the situation, and take appropriate action based on their mental models of the problem. The model underscores the importance of a wide behavioral repertoire, situational awareness, and flexible leadership behaviors that match the complexity of team needs. Leaders and team members are encouraged to diagnose problems, intervene appropriately, and share leadership responsibilities to maximize team performance (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001).

Ultimately, the integration of effective leadership practices, supportive organizational culture, and adaptive team structures is essential for developing high-performing teams in modern organizations. As workplaces evolve amid technological advances and globalization, organizations that foster collaboration, trust, and shared leadership are better positioned to navigate the challenges of contemporary work environments and sustain competitive advantage (Levi, 2011; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

Paper For Above instruction

In the contemporary organizational landscape, teams have become the fundamental unit for operational efficiency, innovation, and strategic agility. The shift toward team-based organizational structures arises from the necessity to manage increasingly complex tasks, embrace globalization, and flatten traditional hierarchies. This essay explores the nature of work teams, their technology-enabled virtual forms, the influence of organizational culture, and the evolving leadership paradigms that underpin effective team functioning.

Understanding Modern Work Teams

Work teams are interdependent groups sharing common goals, necessitating coordinated efforts for success. Examples include executive teams, project groups, task forces, and quality improvement teams. The geographical distribution of teams—either face-to-face or virtual—presents distinct challenges and advantages. Virtual teams, increasingly prevalent post-pandemic, rely heavily on digital communication tools like videoconferencing to facilitate collaboration (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012). Such teams leverage global talent, reduce travel costs, and maintain organizational continuity amid physical restrictions (Muethel, Gehrlein, & Hoegl, 2012; Paul, Drake, & Liang, 2016).

Technological Advancement and Virtual Teams

The rise of social media, video communication, and collaborative software has enriched virtual communication environments, making remote teamwork more effective. Despite technological progress, virtual teams encounter issues such as reduced trust, increased conflict, and subgroup formation, which can hinder performance (Breuer, Höffmeier, & Hertel, 2016). Trust remains pivotal; leaders must foster trust proactively through transparent communication and shared goals (Leslie & Hoole, 2018). Managing geographical and temporal distances requires leaders to be flexible with scheduling and to promote member commitment to collective goals.

Organizational Culture and Decision-Making

For virtual and traditional teams alike, organizational culture significantly impacts success. Culture that supports member involvement, decentralized decision-making, and collaboration enhances team effectiveness. Conversely, rigid hierarchical cultures impede the lateral decision-making crucial to teams. Shifting organizational culture towards more supportive and flexible norms involves deliberate change management efforts (Levi, 2011). Such cultural adaptation empowers teams to operate with higher autonomy, innovation, and responsiveness.

Leadership in Teams: Traditional to Shared Paradigms

Leadership within teams diverges from conventional hierarchical models, emphasizing process-oriented, adaptable, and shared influence approaches. Theories such as situational and transformational leadership are applicable but require modification to suit team contexts (Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009). Effective team leadership involves diagnosing internal and external conditions, selecting appropriate intervention behaviors, and fostering developmental processes in team members (Stagl, Salas, & Burke, 2007). Such leadership is dynamic, requiring behavioral flexibility and situational awareness.

The Role of Shared and Distributed Leadership

Recent leadership paradigms favor shared or distributed leadership, where influence and decision-making are flexible, extending beyond formal leaders to team members. This model encourages influence from multiple sources, fostering trust, cohesion, and faster response to complex challenges (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012). Shared leadership proves particularly beneficial in virtual settings, promoting empowerment and collaboration (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Implementing shared leadership requires cultivating legitimacy for influence shifts and supporting members to take initiative when necessary.

The Hill Model for Team Leadership and Practice

The Hill Model provides a comprehensive framework that emphasizes continuous monitoring, diagnosis, and action by team leaders and members. It advocates a broad behavioral repertoire and situational awareness, where leaders adapt behaviors to meet team needs effectively (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). The model encourages shared responsibility in diagnosing problems and implementing interventions, which enhances adaptability and overall performance. Its utility lies in simplifying complex leadership dynamics into actionable steps for both formal leaders and team members.

Conclusion

In sum, modern organizations must cultivate collaborative, flexible, and adaptive team environments. Success hinges on integrating supportive cultural norms, embracing shared leadership practices, and leveraging technological tools to overcome geographical and cultural barriers. Effective leadership—whether centralized or distributed—serves as a catalyst for high-performing teams that can innovate, respond swiftly, and sustain competitive advantage (Levi, 2011; Pearce & Conger, 2003). As workplaces continue to evolve in complexity and scope, fostering a culture of trust, shared influence, and continuous development remains essential for organizational success.

References

• Breuer, C., Höffmeier, C., & Hertel, G. (2016). Trust and virtual team performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1847–1872.
• Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.
• Fleishman, E. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Hernez, L. R. (1991). The behavioral evaluation of leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 243–261.
• Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical, shared, and distributed leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 54–74.
• Ilsen, C. H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., & Jundt, D. K. (2005). Clarifying antecedents and consequences of team performance in organizations. Journal of Management, 31(3), 357–382.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., Watola, D., Jensen, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Botero, I. C. (2009). Developing adaptive teams: A dynamic perspective on team development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 479–497.
• Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structure and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.
• Muethel, M., Gehrlein, A., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Virtual team collaboration: The role of communication, trust, and team cohesion. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 994–1000.
• Parker, G. M. (1990). Team players and teamwork: The new electronic competence. Jossey-Bass.