Part I 1 Page: How Does Each Of The Five Types Of Teams Mana

Part I 1pagehow Does Each Of The Five Types Of Teams Manage Their Team

Part I 1page how does each of the five types of teams manage their team boundaries? What are the trade-offs between internal cohesion and external ties within each type of team? (Challenging; Concept Q) Part II 1 page What skills, behaviors, and personality traits are common to transformational leaders? How does this leadership style affect their team, and how are those results different than those of a transactional leadership style?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding the management of team boundaries and leadership styles is essential in organizational behavior. Teams are fundamental units within organizations, and their effectiveness depends significantly on how they manage internal cohesion and external connections. This paper examines the five types of teams—problem-solving teams, self-managed work teams, cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and leadership teams—focusing on how each manages its boundaries and the inherent trade-offs. Additionally, it explores the skills, traits, and behaviors characteristic of transformational leaders, contrasting their impact with transactional leadership.

Management of Team Boundaries in Different Team Types

Each team type operates within a distinct boundary management framework that influences its functioning and effectiveness.

Problem-Solving Teams

These teams are typically temporary and focus on specific issues or challenges. They manage boundaries primarily through limited external engagement, emphasizing internal cohesion to generate effective solutions. The trade-off here involves a strong internal focus that enhances problem-solving efficiency but may limit external information flow, reducing adaptability.

Self-Managed Work Teams

Self-managed teams operate with considerable autonomy, managing their boundaries by controlling their work processes and interactions with the broader organization. Their internal cohesion is crucial for autonomy, but excessive insularity may hinder external collaboration, constraining innovation and resource access.

Cross-Functional Teams

These teams comprise members from different departments or functions, with boundaries intentionally porous to facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration. The trade-off involves balancing internal cohesion—necessary for unified purpose—against the potential for external conflicts and coordination challenges. Managing boundaries here aims for effective external ties while maintaining internal unity.

Virtual Teams

Virtual teams operate across geographical and organizational boundaries, often with limited face-to-face contact. Managing boundaries involves establishing clear communication protocols to maintain cohesion despite physical separation. The challenge is avoiding isolation and fostering trust, with a trade-off between the flexibility of external ties and potential internal disconnects.

Leadership Teams

These teams consist of top managers or key decision-makers. Their boundaries are often highly porous, facilitating extensive external information flow for strategic advantage. However, maintaining internal cohesion among high-status members can be difficult, risking siloed decision-making or internal slack, contrasting with the need for broad external engagement.

Trade-offs Between Internal Cohesion and External Ties

The degree of internal cohesion and external engagement affects team performance. High internal cohesion fosters trust, coordination, and commitment but may create insularity, reducing openness to external information and innovation. Conversely, strong external ties can bring fresh perspectives and resources but might undermine internal unity if not managed carefully. Each team type must balance these elements based on its objectives, lifecycle, and environment.

Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers through vision, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Common traits include high emotional intelligence, charisma, confidence, and openness to change. Their behaviors often involve inspiring shared vision, providing intellectual challenges, and supporting followers' personal development (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Transformational leadership positively affects team performance by enhancing motivation, commitment, innovation, and adaptability (Kark et al., 2018). Team members often exhibit increased engagement, creativity, and resilience. This style promotes change and growth, fostering environments where members are inspired to transcend their self-interests for the collective good.

In contrast, transactional leaders focus on clear structures, tasks, and performance standards, using rewards and punishments to motivate followers (Burns, 1978). They emphasize routine, compliance, and short-term goals. The results tend to be more predictable but may limit innovation and long-term development. Transactional leadership is effective in stable, routine environments but less capable of stimulating change or fostering deep commitment.

Impacts on Teams

Transformational leadership tends to lead to higher team cohesion, innovation, and morale by aligning team members with a shared vision and emphasizing personal growth (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). It encourages followers to develop higher levels of trust and commitment. Conversely, transactional leadership may result in compliance and task completion but can hinder creativity and intrinsic motivation, potentially stifling initiative (Bass, 1995).

Conclusion

In sum, managing team boundaries involves balancing internal cohesion with external ties, tailored to each team's nature and purpose. Leadership style profoundly influences team dynamics—transformational leaders inspire higher engagement and innovation, while transactional leaders focus on performance and compliance. An understanding of these dynamics supports organizational strategies aimed at effective team management and leadership development.

References

  • Bass, B. M. (1995). Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact. CRC Press.
  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
  • Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.
  • Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. R. (2018). Charisma as a process. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 415-441.
  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
  • Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and leadership processes in small groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 193–229.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
  • Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483.
  • Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Pearson.

Related Assignments