Leadership Styles and Team Success

The Leadership Game
The effect of vertical versus shared
leadership on team success
Rico van Leeuwen

Objectives
 Give insight in the theory of vertical and
shared leadership
 Create a clear understanding of the
research method
 Give insights in results and inform the
meaning of these results
 Answer your questions
 Point you towards additional information
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 2

Todays topic is about…
Gallup research shows that worldwide:
• 13% of employees are actively engaged in their jobs
• 63% are not engaged
• 24% are actively disengaged
Gallup estimate 2013:
• Cost the U.S. economy up $450-550 billion per year in
lost productivity

…leadership...
• Apparently..
• …the direct relationship with one’s manager is the
strongest of all drivers!
• Other important drivers are:
– Teamwork
 effective teamwork occurs when a group is well developed.
– Autonomy
– Efficacy
– … (for a full overview, see Bakker, 2009; 2011)

…leadership…
• Thus..
– what would happen if there was no leader?
– What would the effect be?
• Two types of leadership:
• Shared leadership
– (because of organizational flattening, research says that this might be a suitable
solution to traditional models of leadership)
• Vertical leadership
– (traditional model)

…leadership
Vertical Leadership Shared Leadership
Vertical leader is someone who is
appointed or selected as the leader
for a group or organization.
V
F
F
F
Shared leadership is leadership
that emanates from the members of
the team.
S S
S S

…and its effects.
Vertical Leadership
V.S.
Team success
Performance
Group Development
Engagement
Shared Leadership
What are the effects of vertical versus shared leadership on team success,
consisting of team performance, group development and engagement?

Expectations
• Expected shared leadership teams to have higher
levels of…
– Engagement
– Group development
– Performance
• …compared to vertical leadership teams.

Reasons
– autonomy is positively related to engagement (Bakker 2009; 2011)
– Teamwork is positively related to engagement (Bakker 2009; 2011)
– Transformational and empowering leadership are positively related to
engagement. Due to rotation of leadership, higher possibility of these styles.
– In shared leadership teams there are no hierarchical levels and no person to be
seen as different from the group (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011).
– Shared leadership is a better predictor of manager, customer and team self-ratings
of effectiveness compared to vertical leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Ensley Hmieleski, &
Pearce, 2006)
– Teams that actively engaged in shared leadership perform better compared to
those who do not (Kazenbach & Smith, 1993).

Questions about the Theory?
Method section
Results &
Discussion
Questions

Method
• 20 teams
• Team consisted of 4 people
• Meeting room
• Teams..
– Played a serious game TeamUp.
– Had to solve 5 puzzles.

Two leadership styles
Vertical Leadership Shared Leadership
– One person wore a Tie and
– was responsible for results
and direction of the team
• “You are all scouts, and you all
search for solutions on how the
puzzles can be solved. However,
you (random someone) are
responsible for the results the
team delivers. This means that
you, the scouts, search for
solutions and that you (points to
leader) are responsible for the
direction the team is moving in.
You are also responsible for
achieving the goal.”
– All had button with “scout”
– Shared responsiblities
• “From you I expect perfect
collaboration. Basically, within
the game you are all scouts, and
if you think you have found the
right way, or know how to solve
the puzzle, share your expertise
with your team members and
help the team to achieve its goal.
This means that you have a
shared responsibility to achieve
the goal, and that you are all
responsible for what happens.”

Measurement
Measurement
Questionnaire
Video Analysis
Conversation
Analysis
Time & Errors in
game

Participants*
• 80 participants
• 70% were men
• Average age 29.85 years (SD = 6.04)
• Dutch (91.3%)
• University (73.8%) / University of Applied Sciences
(25.00%)
• Level: Analyst (27.5%), Consultant (43.8%), Manager
(11.3%)
*In the analysis social styles, personality and team composition were
not taken into account due to low amount of participants.
Also research would have been too complex and extensive.

Theory
Questions about the
Method?
Results &
Discussion
Questions

Scientific Results
• Manipulation had failed
– Source of influence
• No difference between vertical and shared leadership teams
– Strength of influence (overall team level by summing up
• No difference between vertical and shared leadership teams
 Then search for unofficial vertical leaders in teams.
• 4 unofficial vertical leadership teams
• 4 official shared leadership teams
– no significant difference between these two groups on
team performance, group development and engagement.

Scientific Results
• Shared leadership teams…
– Made 20.92% less errors
– Time was 10.96% better
• Compared to vertical leadership teams. However this
is not a significant difference.

Scientific Results
• Video analysis
– It was expected that
• the assigned leader would show more leader typical behavior that the followers
• Leader typical behaviors were more distributed in shared leadership teams
• Leader typical behaviors are structuring the conversation, informing, visioning,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Weenink, 2012)

Scientific Results
Figure 7. Leadership Behaviors in Shared Leadership Team 3
Showi
ng
Disint
erest
Defen
ding
ones
own
positi
on
Provid
ing
negati
ve
feedb
ack
Directi
ng /
Corre
cting
Directi
ng /
Deleg
ating
Verifyi
ng
Struct
uring
the
Conv
ersati
on
Inform
ing
Vision
ing
Disag
reeing
Agree
ing
I.C.
Askin
g for
Idea's
I.C.
Coop
eratin
g
I.Con.
Positi
ve
Rewa
rding
I.Con
Encou
raging
I.Con
Being
Friend
ly
I.Con
Showi
ng
perso
nal
intere
st
Active
Listen
ing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Member1 0 1 0 3 4 22 0 60 2 1 1 7 6 0 0 3 0 0
Member2 0 0 2 11 24 34 0 61 5 3 1 12 4 4 0 0 0 1
Member3 0 1 3 11 32 23 2 52 14 9 5 5 6 4 3 0 1 0
Member4 0 2 2 1 12 17 1 43 3 3 2 2 5 1 2 0 0 0
Frequency

Scientific Results
Show
ing
disint
erest
Defen
ding
ones
own
positi
on
Leadership Behaviors in Vertical Team 2
Provi
ding
negat
ive
feedb
ack
Direct
ing /
Corre
cting
Direct
ing /
Deleg
ating
Verify
ing
Struct
uring
the
conve
rstati
on
Infor
ming
Visio
ning
Disag
reein
g
Agree
ing
Askin
g for
Idea's
Coop
eratin
g
Positi
ve
Rewa
rding
Enco
uragi
ng
Being
Frien
dly
Show
ing
perso
nal
intere
st
Activ
e
Listen
ing
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Leader 0 3 1 5 8 23 2 76 9 2 7 18 5 2 4 4 2 8
Follower1 12 1 7 7 0 31 0 77 10 8 5 6 8 4 1 4 0 7
Follower2 0 0 1 2 3 21 0 79 12 8 4 3 4 0 1 6 2 10
Follower3 0 0 4 9 14 19 2 70 4 10 3 4 7 1 3 4 2 15
Frequency

Scientific Results
• Leader showed even LESS leader typical behavior
compared to the team members.
Why?
• Conversation analysis (3 teams), results
show that:
• Vertical leader was seen as out-group
member in the team and thus behaved as an
external source of influence.
• Teams listened when they needed information.
• ‘scouts’ behaved as an autonomously
regulated team.
• Shared leadership teams are suggested to,
indeed, rotate leadership more.
F
L
F
F

Thus this means that.. (1)
1. Shared leadership might be a better alternative in
interdependent, complex and creative settings.
– Assigning a leader here might be ineffective.
Why?
Leader is seen as ‘different’ from the
group, an out-group member. This
leads to exerting ‘power over’ (telling
others what you want them to do),
instead of ‘power through’ letting them
do what they want to do and use this
as a motor for action. Power over leads
to private rejection and followers do the
opposite of what the leader want them
to do (Haslam, Reicher, Platow, 2011; Reynolds & Platow,
2003, Turner, 2005).
Research confirms these
results and suggest that
this is mainly true for
knowledge work (Pearce, 2004;
Carson et al, 2007 a.o.)

Thus this means that.. (2)
2. TeamUp might stimulate shared leadership
• Almost all teams were approx. shared.
• Manipulation had ‘failed’.
 TeamUp can possibly be used to develop shared
leadership. Or at least, create awareness.

To conclude..
• What are the effects of vertical versus shared leadership
on team success, consisting of team performance, group
development and engagement?
– Shared leadership > performance
– Vertical leadership (on long term) is suggested to have negative effect in
interdependent, complex and creative settings
• Leader is seen as different
–  ‘Power over’ effect instead of ‘power through’.
•  hierarchy, possiblity of lower psychological safety and thus group development (Haslam, et al. 2011)
• However!
• Small sample, only high educated people, knowledge work, not representative for all settings.
Further research is needed to further validate this data.

Final note
• So..if you are ever in a situation where there is a..
– ..rather unclear assignment, you’re mutually dependent
on others, and you have to be creative, let expertise do
the saying and thus share leadership.
– ..new group, have bad teamwork, or have a very
controlling / ineffective leader use TeamUp.

Theory
Method
Questions about the
Results & Discussion
Questions

More information?
Engagement
• Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 50-
72). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
• Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. (link)
Shared leadership
• Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management
teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217-231. (link)
• Pearce, C. L. (2007). The Future of Leadership Development: The Importance of Identity, Multi-Level Approaches, Self-Leadership, Physical
Fitness, Shared Leadership, Networking, Creativity, Emotions, Spirituality and On-Boarding Processes. Human Resource Management
Review, 17(4), 355-359 (link).
• Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of
Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.
• Van Leeuwen, J. C. (2014). Building a peak performance organization. (link)
Group development
• Rijnbergen, T. (2007). Samenwerking in teams: de impact van verticaal en gedeeld taak- en relatiegericht leiderschap en groepsontwikkeling
op team prestatie. Unpublished master theses, University of Utrecht (link)
Gaming & Leadership
• Siewiorek, A. (2012). Playing to Learn: Business Simulation Games as Leadership Learning Environments. Dissertation. (link)
Self-Managing Work Teams
• Weenink, L.A.M. (2012). Behaviors in highly effective continous imporovement teams: Two types of video-analysis of three prototypical work
situations. Unpublished master theses, Twente School of Management, Enschede. (link)

Wrap-up
 Gave insight in the theory of vertical and
shared leadership
 Created a clear understanding of the
research method
 Gave insights in results and inform the
meaning of these results
 Answered your questions
 Pointed you towards additional
information

Rico van Leeuwen
T : 00 31 (0)6 290 44 279
E : Ricovleeuwen@gmail.com

Leadership Styles and Team Success

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Leadership Styles and Team Success

Similar to Leadership Styles and Team Success (20)

More from Rico Leeuwen

More from Rico Leeuwen (9)

Leadership Styles and Team Success