My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law office b.docx

My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law
office by my good friend Michelle. I wanted to consult with you
about things that have been taking place at my job where I work
as an Executive Secretary. Male: Nice to meet you, Brittany.
Why don’t you tell me what has been taking place and we will
go from there? I will interject if I have any questions as you
explain what has been taking place. Be sure to start from the
beginning and to tell me everything that has taken place to give
rise to your concern. Female: Sounds good. Here we go. I was
hired by a company called Personal Connections Are Us,
Incorporated as a receptionist in February 2002. My immediate
supervisor was Dwayne Miller. Dwayne was in charge of all
support staff. Because I answered calls for all 20 employees I
was constantly interacting with everyone on a regular basis.
There was no formal dress code so I was able to wear whatever
I wanted to work. I typically wore jeans, sandals and tank tops.
In my work area I had photos of myself and my boyfriend in
bathing suits from one of our vacations. I also had other
pictures of my friends and family. One of the other employees,
Robert Singer, would constantly stand in my work area and
stare at the photos. It seemed that he was staring at the photo of
me in the bathing suit. Twice he made comments about my chest
that made me really uncomfortable. Male: Do you recall
specifically what he said to you? Female: Not exactly, but he
said something like, “Your [beep] are amazing. I would love to
see you in even less than what you are wearing in that photo.”
I laughed at that moment but then went into the restroom and
threw up because the comment made me so sick. The next time
he made a similar comment I told him to stop because it made
me very uncomfortable. In early 2006 I was looking for my
picture, the one of me in my bathing suit, it was missing for a
day. It appeared the next day back in my work area. I thought
nothing of it at the time, then when I walked by Robert’s
computer I saw that my photo of me in my bathing suit was

loaded as a screen saver on his computer. When I went into his
computer I found a file with my name on it. In that file he had
computer altered my photo and the upper part of my body was
exposed. I could not function. I called Robert a pig and told him
to stay away from me. Robert in turn complained to Dwayne
that I was not timely giving him his messages which was totally
untrue. I told some of my coworkers what I saw in Robert’s
computer and the things that he was saying to me. But I was
afraid to tell my supervisor. Finally, after missing several days
of work because I was so upset about what Robert was doing, I
finally told my supervisor. Male: When was that? Who did you
tell? And what did the conversation consist of? Female: Things
get really interesting here. It was about two weeks after I saw
the photo on Robert’s computer that I went in to talk to Dwayne
Miller, my supervisor. I told Dwayne everything that I told you.
Dwayne did not react in any other way than to say, “Oh, no he
is not up to the same stuff again. I cannot believe he did not
learn his lesson.” Although Dwayne told me that he would take
care of it nothing happened to Robert. He is still working there
and is still making comments that make me uncomfortable. He
did take the screen saver off his computer. I do not know if the
file is still on his computer. I tried to look but there is now a
password on his computer. I told Dwayne about two months ago
that things had not gotten any better. Dwayne told me that he
could talk more about it on a trip that he wanted me to go on. I
never had to travel as part of my work requirements before. I
told Dwayne that I preferred not to travel. Dwayne told me that
I was expected to travel on the trip that was work related and
that he and I would be sharing a room. He went on to tell me
that he could transfer me to another division of the office,
which would be a promotion, if I would show him my amazing
breasts that Robert was making comments about during the trip
where we would be sharing a room. I could not believe my ears.
I told him no way. I thought that was the end of it. However,
last week I was demoted to the mailroom and my pay was
reduced. Things do not seem fair. Is there anything I can do

legally? Based upon the scenario does the employee have a legal
viable claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment and/or hostile
environment sexual harassment? What is the likely outcome?
Analyze the legal factor for the potential claim or claims in the
context of employee pursuing legal actions against the
employer. Let’s shift gears. Using the same scenario assume
you are in the HR Department of your organization and you
were just presented with the scenario as a learning tool, as an
example used to explore policies and procedures to avoid sexual
harassment liability. Your boss has asked you to make a
preliminary suggestion which will be presented to the legal
counsel as to sexual harassment protocol to avoid potential
liability. What would your top five – After viewing the
scenario, completing the reading and reviewing the lecture notes
in conjunction with the CO, answer the questions that follow.
Based upon the scenario does the employee have a legal, viable
claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment and/or hostile
environment sexual harassment? What is the likely outcome?
Analyze the legal factor for the potential claim or claims in the
context of employee pursuing legal actions against the
employer. Let’s shift gears. Using the same scenario assume
you are in the HR Department of your organization and you
were just presented with the scenario as a learning tool, as an
example used to explore policies and procedures to avoid sexual
harassment liability. Your boss has asked you to make a
preliminary suggestion which will be presented to the legal
counsel as to sexual harassment protocol to avoid potential
liability. What would your top five suggestions be, and why?
Small Group Research
41(5) 621 –651
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046496410373808
http://sgr.sagepub.com
373808 SGR
1University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
2U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, NY, USA
3Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Corresponding Author:
D. Scott DeRue, Management and Organizations, Stephen M.
Ross School of Business,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Email: [email protected]
Understanding the
Motivational Contingencies
of Team Leadership
D. Scott DeRue1, Christopher M. Barnes2,
and Frederick P. Morgeson3
Abstract
Despite increased research on team leadership, little is known
about the
conditions under which coaching versus directive forms of team
leader-
ship are more effective, or the processes through which team
leadership
styles influence team outcomes. In the present study, the
authors found that
coaching leadership was more effective than directive
leadership when the

team leader was highly charismatic and less effective than
directive leader-
ship when the team leader lacked charisma. Directive leadership
was more
effective than coaching leadership when team members were
high in
self-efficacy and less effective than coaching leadership when
team members
lacked self-efficacy. The moderating effects of leader charisma
and team
member self-efficacy were mediated through motivational
pathways involving
team member effort.
Keywords
teams, leadership, motivation
A growing body of research highlights how important leader
behaviors are
for team performance (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, &
Humphrey, in press;
622 Small Group Research 41(5)
Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997). In
fact, Zaccaro,
Rittman, and Marks (2001) suggest that effective leadership is
one of the
more important factors in the success of organizational teams.
Yet at the same
time, we still have a limited understanding of how leaders
create and manage
effective teams (Burke et al., 2006; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &

Cannon-
Bowers, 1996; Zaccaro et al., 2001).
Research indicates that team leaders engage in a variety of
behaviors
aimed at facilitating team functioning and performance
(Morgeson, DeRue,
& Karam, 2010). One approach involves encouraging the team
to manage its
own affairs and developing the team’s capacity to function
effectively with-
out direct intervention from the team leader. First identified by
Manz and
Sims (1987), and later analyzed by many other scholars (e.g.,
Hackman &
Wageman, 2005; Morgeson, 2005; Wageman, 2001), this form
of leadership
focuses on coaching the team and empowering its self-
management. This
coaching form of leadership is particularly important given that
team leaders
are sometimes external to a team and not involved in its daily
task activities.
Using in-depth interviews and survey-based research, Manz and
Sims found
that team leaders who encourage and coach team self-
management via self-
observation, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement were more
effective than
leaders who did not. Likewise, other researchers have found that
supportive
coaching by a team leader can lead to more effective group
processes, such as
learning and adaptation, and ultimately to higher levels of team
performance
(e.g., Edmondson, 1999; Wageman, 2001). In fact, coaching has

been estab-
lished as an important team leadership behavior in a broad array
of contexts,
including nursing (Hayes & Kalmakis, 2007), sports (Amorose
& Horn,
2000; Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004), and group therapy
(Cohen,
Mannarino, & Knudsen, 2005).
In contrast to the coaching form of leadership, some team
leaders engage
in a more directive style by actively intervening in a team
(Morgeson, 2005).
This approach involves setting clear expectations and goals,
providing
instructions to team members, monitoring team member
performance, and
directly implementing corrective actions in the team. Research
indicates that
this more directive form of leadership can also enhance team
performance.
For example, in their study of team self-management, Manz and
Sims (1987)
also examined more directive forms of leadership and found
these directive
leader behaviors led to positive team leader evaluations.
Likewise, Pearce
and Sims (2002) showed that directive leader behaviors can lead
to higher
team performance.
In their meta-analytic summary, Burke et al. (2006) showed that
these dif-
ferent leadership styles (coaching vs. directive) can both have
positive effects

DeRue et al. 623
on team performance. But at the same time, there is an emerging
recognition
in the team leadership literature that the relative effectiveness
of these different
styles may depend on other factors. For example, Kozlowski,
Gully, Salas,
et al. (1996) discussed how leader behaviors interact with a
team’s stage of
development to shape team processes and performance. In their
model,
effective leaders focus on coaching team members and building
shared affect
and attitudes during early stages of team development but then
shift their
attention to applying and directing team capabilities later on.
Other scholars
have argued that the effectiveness of team leader behaviors
depends on the
nature of a team’s context (e.g., novel events that disrupt team
functioning;
Morgeson, 2005) and such team design features as task
interdependence,
team size, and resource availability (Wageman, 2001). It seems
likely that the
relationship between leader behaviors and team performance is
contingent on
a variety of factors.
Although they recognize the importance of such contingencies,
existing
models of team leadership suffer from three important
limitations. First, the

discussion of contingencies in these models is generally limited
to factors
that are external to the team’s members (e.g., task
characteristics, team size,
event types). A notable exception can be found in a recent study
by Yun,
Faraj, and Sims (2005), who showed that coaching leadership is
more effec-
tive for highly experienced teams, but directive leadership is
more effective
for less experienced teams. This suggests that the characteristics
of team
members can shape how they respond to coaching and directive
behaviors by
a leader. We believe that models of team leadership need to
incorporate other
team member characteristics as potential contingency factors.
A second limitation in existing models of team leadership is
that they
rarely consider characteristics of the leader and how such
characteristics can
shape the relationship between leader behaviors and team
performance. This
is an important theoretical gap because leader characteristics
likely influence
how effective team leaders are at engaging in different types of
behaviors.
For example, coaching leadership is aimed at developing team
member
capabilities and helping team members learn to work together
effectively.
Leader characteristics (e.g., charisma, social influence skills)
that enable
someone to be more effective at motivating team members to
embrace change

should thus enhance the degree to which coaching leadership
facilitates team
performance.
Finally, existing models of team leadership stop short of
identifying the
underlying mechanisms that explain any contingencies in the
link between
leader behavior and team performance. In their review of the
team leadership
literature, Burke et al. (2006) noted that a key “line of inquiry
[for future
research] concerns the identification of the underlying
mechanisms via which
leadership in teams contributes to both team performance and
performance
outcomes” (p. 302).
The purpose of our study is to address these limitations by
developing a
motivationally based contingency model of team leadership. In
our model,
the relationship between a leader’s behaviors and team
performance is con-
tingent on the leader’s charisma and the efficacy of his or her
team members.
We consider two specific behavioral approaches to team
leadership: a coach-
ing approach and a directive approach. Our focus on coaching
and directive
leadership draws on and extends prior research that

conceptualizes team
leadership along these two dimensions (Burke et al., 2006; Yun
et al., 2005).
Adopting a motivational perspective, we then theorize that
coaching and
directive leader behaviors interact with leader charisma and
team member
self-efficacy to differentially affect team performance. We
argue that these
contingencies operate through their effects on team member
motivation,
especially the amount of effort that team members devote to
their tasks. Thus,
not only does our theorizing identify new contingencies in team
leadership,
but it also extends current theory by offering insight into the
underlying
motivational mechanisms that explain the team performance
implications of
complex interactions among team leader behaviors, leader
characteristics,
and team member characteristics.
Coaching and Directive Forms
of Team Leadership
Behavioral perspectives on leadership have flourished since the
mid-20th
century, and so by now, there are numerous systems for
classifying leader
behaviors (see Fleishman et al., 1991 for a review). Despite the
proliferation
of these classification systems, recent reviews suggest there are
two basic
behavioral approaches to team leadership: a coaching (or
developmental),
person-focused approach and a directive, task-focused approach

(Burke
et al., 2006; Pearce et al., 2003).
Leaders engage in coaching behaviors to develop a team’s
capacity to
perform key functions. They do this by encouraging team
members to take
responsibility for, and work together to fulfill, such functions.
Coaching leaders
help team members (when needed) to make coordinated and
task-appropriate
use of their collective resources, and they help team members
through any
performance problems that arise (Hackman & Wageman, 2005).
Coaching
leaders refrain from actively intervening in and assuming
responsibility for
the day-to-day tasks assigned to team members. When
performance problems
DeRue et al. 625
occur, coaching leaders leverage these episodes as learning and
developmental
opportunities for team members, rather than directly intervening
in the task.
Such leaders consistently encourage team members to assume
responsibility
for their own actions and performance.
In comparison, directive leadership represents a more active and
intrusive
approach to team leadership (Pearce et al., 2003). Directive
leaders set the

team’s direction, assign goals for the team and team members,
and give team
members specific instructions about their tasks, including what
is expected of
them, how it should be done, and when it must be completed. A
directive
leader sets clear expectations for the team and then monitors
events to make
sure the team is performing according to plan. When team
members are not
performing well, directive leaders not only point out the
performance prob-
lems, but also direct poorly performing team members, telling
them what to
do and how to do it.
In our study, we examined the conditions under which each of
these
approaches to team leadership is most effective. Existing
research does not
sufficiently consider possible contingencies in team leadership
or the under-
lying mechanisms that explain these relationships. We theorized
that the
effectiveness of coaching versus directive leadership depends
on the charac-
teristics of both a team’s leader and those of the team’s
members. In other
words, either a coaching or a directive approach to leadership
can be effective
when employed by the right leader, in the right context. In the
next section,
we identify two important contingency factors and explain how
they can
influence team performance through their impact on the efforts
of team

members.
Contingencies in Team Leadership:
A Motivational Perspective
In our contingency model of team leadership, we posit that team
member
motivation is one mechanism through which coaching and
directive leadership
affect team performance. Given our interest in motivational
factors, we
focused on leader charisma as a leader attribute that can
moderate how direc-
tive and coaching team leadership influence team performance.
Charisma is
important because it is one of the key resources that leaders can
use to moti-
vate their followers (Bass, 1985; Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2006).
We also
focused on the moderating effects of team members’ perceptions
of self-
efficacy. Efficacy beliefs are important because they represent
an underlying
source of effort among team members that can be directed at a
team’s task
(Bandura, 1997). In this sense, leader charisma and team
member self-efficacy
serve as distinct contingency factors that originate from
different sources, but
may operate through a common motivational pathway. An
illustration of our
model is presented in Figure 1.

Leader Charisma
Charismatic leaders are those who “by the force of their
personal abilities are
capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on
followers” (House
& Baetz, 1979, p. 399). Charismatic leaders are often seen as
agents of
change who are particularly skilled at improving the
performance of followers
and seeking radical reforms in them to achieve a vision or goal
(Conger &
Kanungo, 1987). In essence, charisma is a resource that can
enable leaders
to be more effective at facilitating change by developing
followers’ beliefs
and actions in ways that ultimately produce more effective
methods for
accomplishing an objective. The potential for leader charisma to
positively
affect group outcomes has been illustrated across several
studies done in
many organizational contexts (Bass, 1990; Dvir, Eden, Avolio,
& Shamir, 2002;
Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
First, we focus on how leader charisma affects coaching
behaviors. For
coaching leaders, the primary aim is to develop team members’
individual
capabilities and their ability to work together effectively. As
Hackman and
Wageman (2005) note, coaching leaders “help members learn
new and more
effective team behaviors” (p. 270). Coaching leaders help team
members

Team Leader Behavior
(Coaching/Directive)
Team Member
Self-Efficacy
Leader
Charisma
Team
Performance
Team Member
Motivation
Figure 1. Contingencies in team leadership: A motivational
perspective
DeRue et al. 627
align their performance behaviors with the demands of the task
environment
and seek to foster the development of team members’ skills and
knowledge
related to the team task (Hackman & Wageman, 2005;
Kozlowski, Gully,
McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Schwartz, 1994). So,
coaching
leaders who are charismatic should be more effective at
fostering change and
developing their teams. In contrast, coaching leaders who lack
charisma may
find it difficult to inspire team members in ways that foster

development and
encourage the team to find ways to perform its tasks better.
Whereas high
levels of charisma are an asset for coaching leaders, low levels
of charisma
are a liability.
We posit that charisma is an asset for coaching leaders because
charisma
affects team members’ motivation. Theories of charismatic
leadership often
emphasize motivational factors (Bass, 1985; House, 1977), and
research
suggests that charismatic leaders produce heightened levels of
activation in
followers, which lead in turn to increased levels of effort and
motivation
(Ilies et al., 2006; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998).
In contrast to coaching leadership, directive leadership is much
less about
developing team members’ capabilities. Directive leaders
provide team mem-
bers with a clear course of action by communicating
expectations, goals, and
specific task instructions. As some have argued, in the
substitutes for leader-
ship literature (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater & James, 2002;
Kerr & Jermier,
1978), team members with a clear course of action have less to
gain from the
inspirational actions of charismatic leaders. There is simply less
need for
leadership because the team understands its mission and the
path required
for achieving that mission. The expectations and goals set by a

directive
leader help team members to focus their efforts. Thus, whereas
a lack of
charisma can be a liability for coaching leaders, it may not be a
problem for
directive leaders.
Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between team leader behaviors
and
team performance will be moderated by leader charisma such
that
(a) when leader charisma is high, coaching team leadership will
be
more effective than directive team leadership and (b) when
leader
charisma is low, directive team leadership will be more
effective
than coaching team leadership.
Hypothesis 2: The moderating effect of leader charisma on team
leader
behaviors will be mediated by team member effort.
Team Member Self-Efficacy
Theories of leadership in general (e.g., Hersey & Blanchard,
1982), and of
team leadership in particular (e.g., Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, et
al., 1996),
often claim that the appropriateness of leader behaviors depends

on the fol-
lowers. Of particular importance is what followers believe about
their ability
to accomplish the task at hand. These beliefs determine how
much task-
related effort followers will expend and how long that effort
will be sustained
in the face of challenging situations (Bandura, 1986; Dweck,
1986; Farr,
Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993). Moreover, team members often
have diffi-
culty focusing on team goals and developing appropriate team
strategies,
until they are sure that they can perform their own roles
effectively (Kozlowski,
Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). Self-efficacy embodies beliefs
relevant to
these issues. Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s judgments of
their capabili-
ties to organize and execute courses of action required to attain
designated
types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Individuals
who perceive
themselves as efficacious can muster sufficient effort to
produce successful
outcomes. Individuals who do not perceive themselves as
efficacious are less
likely to muster and sustain such effort. Meta-analytic evidence
supports
these claims (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).
We theorize that the impact of directive and coaching leadership
on team
performance will depend on the average level of team member
self-efficacy.
This is different than collective efficacy, which focuses on

beliefs shared
among team members about their team’s ability to achieve its
overall objec-
tives (DeRue, Hollenbeck, Ilgen & Feltz, 2010; Gully,
Incalcaterra, Joshi, &
Beaubien, 2002; Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). We focus on
self-efficacy
because we believe that individual beliefs about personal
abilities, as opposed
to any collective beliefs about a team, will be more predictive
of team
members’ motivational reactions to team leader behaviors. This
is because
motivation and reactions to leader behaviors are individual
processes and not
the property of a team.
Directive leaders facilitate team performance by setting
expectations,
giving team members specific instructions, and then monitoring
team mem-
bers’ performance for any problems that need to be corrected.
When team
members have high self-efficacy, the directive leader’s
expectations and
task-specific instructions provide a target toward which team
members can
direct the effort and motivation that comes from feeling
efficacious.
Compared with team members with low self-efficacy, those with
high self-
efficacy are more likely to feel that they can accomplish task
objectives. As
a result, they are more likely to put forth effort and persist until
those

DeRue et al. 629
objectives are accomplished. Thus, directive leaders have a
much greater
pool of team member motivation to draw on when team member
self-efficacy
is high.
If team members suffer from low self-efficacy, however, then
we expect
them to respond to directive leadership negatively. Less
efficacious team
members will feel that they cannot meet the leader’s
expectations or effec-
tively carry out the leader’s instructions, and so they will be
less likely to put
forth the effort required to accomplish task objectives. In other
words, direc-
tive leaders are attempting to set expectations and give specific
instructions
to people who already have low expectations regarding task
performance,
and who lack the motivation necessary to persist when task
objectives are not
initially met. As Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, et al.’s (1996) model
of team lead-
ership suggests, it is more appropriate for leaders who have
followers with
low self-efficacy to employ a coaching approach. When
coaching their
followers, such leaders should try to develop the capacity of
team members
in ways that enhance their capacity to perform effectively. By
taking a coaching

approach, a team leader can sometimes build team members’
sense of
efficacy and reshape their expectancies regarding task
performance in ways
that increase their motivation and capacity to perform.
Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between team leader behaviors
and
team performance will be moderated by team member self-
efficacy
such that (a) when team member self-efficacy is low, coaching
team
leadership will be more effective than directive team leadership
and
(b) when team member self-efficacy is high, directive team
leader-
ship will be more effective than coaching team leadership.
Hypothesis 4: The moderating effect of team member self-
efficacy on
team leader behaviors will be mediated by team member effort.
Method
Research Participants and Task
Research participants were 400 upper-level undergraduate
students enrolled
in an introductory management course at a large Midwestern
university.
Their average age was 21.8 years; 53.8% of the participants
were male. Each
student was part of a team that consisted of four regular
members and one
leader, resulting in a total of 80 teams. All individuals were

randomly
assigned to teams and all teams were randomly assigned to
experimental
conditions. In return for their participation, the students
received class credit
and were eligible for a cash prize. At the end of each
experimental session,
the top performing team based on overall team performance was
awarded
$10 per team member.
Participants engaged in a dynamic, networked, military
command-and-
control simulation. The task was a modified version of a
simulation called
Dynamic Decision Making (DDD; see Hollenbeck et al., 2002
and Moon et al.,
2004 for details) that was developed to study team behavior.
This version of
the simulation was suitable for teams with little or no military
experience. In
our study, each team engaged in two 30-minute simulation
exercises that
were the same across all teams. In each exercise, team members
were charged
with keeping unfriendly targets from moving into a restricted
geographic
space while allowing friendly targets to travel freely throughout
that space.
Each team member had four vehicles that he or she could use to
travel through

and monitor the space.
This task required a high degree of interdependence among team
mem-
bers. For instance, each member was stationed at a single
computer terminal
and could only monitor a specific portion of the geographic
space from that
terminal. Individually, no team member could monitor all the
targets in the
space, but collectively, the team could monitor the entire space
and all of the
targets. Furthermore, each team member had only a single type
of vehicle
(four in total), and the vehicles differed in their speed and
power. Certain
targets could only be disabled by certain types of vehicles.
Thus, team mem-
bers had to work together in order to identify the targets as
either friendly or
unfriendly and then to successfully engage all the unfriendly
targets. Together,
these features of the task ensured that team members were
interdependent,
which met the common definition of teams in the literature
(Kozlowski &
Bell, 2003).
The team leader was not positioned at a computer terminal.
Instead, he or
she was free to move around and interact with team members.
This provided
the team leader with several unique abilities. For example, the
leader was the
only person who could monitor the entire geographic space.
This allowed the

leader to monitor team members’ actions, identify opportunities
and threats
for the team, and facilitate team member coordination and
communication.
Moreover, the team leader was free to interact with team
members in ways
that were consistent with the leadership manipulation. For
example, if the
leader needed to coach team members, provide them with
instructions, or
implement corrective actions, then he or she was free to do so.
DeRue et al. 631
Procedure
Each team was scheduled for a 3-hour session. Roles within the
teams were
randomly assigned. The leader role was assigned first; then the
leader was
given private instructions according to the experimental
condition.
Subsequently, the team member roles were assigned.
All individuals and teams, regardless of experimental condition,
next
received (the same) training on the simulation. This training
consisted of two
separate modules. First, all participants watched a 15-minute
video that intro-
duced them to the simulation. Second, all participants were
given hands-on
instruction and time to practice all the possible tasks in the
simulation. This

second module, which lasted approximately 45 minutes, allowed
participants
to learn the basic computer mouse movements and operations
associated with
the simulation.
After their training was complete, team members completed an
online sur-
vey that included a self-efficacy measure. The trainer then
informed the team
of a performance-based incentive. Teams had an opportunity to
earn up to
$50 based on their overall performance in the simulation. Prior
to the first
simulation exercise, teams were given 5 minutes to discuss their
strategies for
the simulation. Most teams used the entire time exactly in this
way. The teams
then performed the first of two 30-minute simulations. Between
the first and
second simulation, the leader was instructed (privately) to lead
a team discus-
sion session and prepare the team for the next simulation using
behaviors
consistent with the leadership manipulation. Teams were given
approxi-
mately 10 minutes to discuss their performance strategies
between the simu-
lations, and again, most teams used the entire time for such
discussions.
Teams then performed the second simulation. After completing
that simula-
tion, team members and their leader completed another survey,
which
included the measure of leader charisma. Teams were then
informed of their

performance relative to other teams in the experimental session,
and the top
performing team was rewarded. To conclude the research
session, partici-
pants were thanked for their participation.
Manipulations and Measures
Team leader behavior. All teams were randomly assigned to one
of two
conditions. In the coaching condition, the leader was instructed
to support the
growth and development of his or her team. In the directive
condition, the
leader was instructed to set the team’s direction and goals,
establish expectations
for the team, and actively direct the actions of team members by
providing
explicit instructions, monitoring team performance for
opportunities to make
corrective actions, and then implementing those corrective
actions. The spe-
cific instructions given to team leaders can be found in
Appendix A.
We assessed the effectiveness of this manipulation by
measuring the
degree to which team members perceived their leader as
engaging in direc-
tive leader behaviors. Two items were used for this
manipulation check:

“When it comes to my team’s work, my team leader gave
instructions on how
to carry it out” and “My team leader set challenging and
realistic goals.”
Ratings of each item were made using a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree;
5 = strongly agree). The two ratings made by each person were
averaged
together to produce a single index (coefficient alpha was .82,
indicating that
the index had good reliability). We expected team leaders in the
directive
condition to earn higher index scores than team leaders in the
coaching con-
dition, and that is in fact what occurred. The mean index score
for leaders in
the directive condition (M = 3.77) was significantly higher than
the mean
score for leaders in the coaching condition (M = 3.53), t(df) =
1.81(79), p <
.05, one-tailed. To see whether team members agreed in their
assessments of
the leader, we computed the intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) as a test
of intermember reliability. James (1982) recommends using the
ICC as a cri-
terion for aggregation, and in this case, we found support for
aggregation
(ICC
1
= .29; ICC
2
= .62; p < .01). These results provided evidence supporting

the validity of our leader behavior manipulation.
Leader charisma. After the second simulation, but before team
results were
shared, team members were asked to rate the leader’s charisma
using Yukl and
Falbe’s (1991) measure. This measure included three items (see
Appendix B for
the actual items). On each item, participants made a rating on a
5-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Once again, an
index was created
by averaging the ratings together. The coefficient alpha for that
index was .88,
indicating that it had good reliability, and aggregation analyses
again sug-
gested that team members agreed in their assessments of the
leader (ICC
1
=
.30; ICC
2
= .63; p < .01). We also asked team leaders to rate their own
cha-
risma using the same three items, which were also averaged to
produce an
index of leader charisma (α = .92). These self-ratings converged
with the team
member ratings (r = .33; p < .05), providing additional support
for the cha-
risma measure.
Team member self-efficacy. After the training session, but

before the first
simulation exercise, each team member completed Quinones’s
(1995) mea-
sure of self-efficacy. This measure included 10 items (see
Appendix B). Team
members rated each item on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 5 = strongly
agree). Ratings across the 10 items were averaged together to
produce an
DeRue et al. 633
index. The coefficient alpha for that index was .92, indicating
that it had good
reliability. To obtain an aggregate assessment of team members’
self-efficacy,
we calculated the mean score for the team. Agreement was
unnecessary in
this case because we are focused on team members’ self-
efficacy ratings and
therefore used an additive model (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) for
operational-
izing the construct.
Team member effort. To assess team member effort, we
measured how
quickly team members identified and engaged targets. Speed of
identification
and speed of engagement (two separate variables) provide good
measures of
effort because all the tasks involved a simple point-and-click
operation of the
computer mouse, making it unlikely that any skill or ability-
related differ-

ences among team members would affect how quickly members
identified or
engaged targets. Speed of identification was operationalized as
the number of
seconds that elapsed between the time a target appeared in the
geographic
space and the time that target was identified by a team member.
Speed of
engagement was operationalized as the number of seconds that
elapsed
between the time a target appeared in the geographic space and
the time that
target was engaged by a team member. Because a greater
number of seconds
reflected slower play, and thus less effort, we reverse-coded
each measure so
that higher numbers reflected more effort. To obtain an
assessment of team
members’ effort, we calculated the mean score for the team
across both simu-
lation exercises. The correlation between speed of identification
in the first
and second simulations was .74 (p < .01); the correlation
between speed of
engagement in the first and second simulations was .69 (p <
.01). The correla-
tion between the overall team member effort in the first and
second simula-
tions was .71 (p < .01). ICC
1
and ICC
2
values for team member effort across

the two simulations were .42 and .59, respectively (p < .01). So,
there was
justification for using the mean index across simulations.
Team performance. Teams started each simulation with 50,000
defensive
points and 1,000 offensive points. Teams could not gain
defensive points, but
they could lose defensive points if unfriendly targets entered the
restricted
geographic space. Teams gained offensive points for each
unfriendly target
that was destroyed in that space but lost offensive points for
mistakenly
destroying targets outside the restricted space or destroying
friendly targets
anywhere. Thus, for each simulation exercise, teams had both an
offensive
and a defensive score. To assess aggregate team performance,
we standard-
ized the data by subtracting the sample mean from each datum,
summed the
offensive and defensive scores for each simulation, and then
took the mean
score across both simulations. The correlation for offensive
scores across the
two simulations was .49 (p < .01), and the correlation for
defensive scores
across simulations was .71 (p < .01). The correlation between
overall team
performance in the first and second simulation was .59 (p <

.01). ICC
1
and
ICC
2
values for team performance across the two simulations were
.59 and
.74, respectively (p < .01).
Data Analyses
To examine the contingencies associated with team leader
behaviors, leader
characteristics, and team member characteristics, we used
moderated regres-
sion analyses. To begin, we dummy coded the team leader
behaviors, using
coaching behavior as the referent condition (coaching = 0;
directive = 1). All
the measured variables were centered by subtracting the
variable’s mean
from each datum, which helps reduce multicollinearity among
the variables
and their interaction terms (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West,
2003). With team
performance as the dependent variable, we then entered team
leader behav-
iors, leader charisma, and team member self-efficacy in the first
step of the
regression. Next, two interaction terms were created by
multiplying the
leader behavior dummy code by the leader charisma and by the
team member
self-efficacy index scores, and then entering these two

interaction terms in
the second step of the regression. To determine the variance in
team perfor-
mance explained by each interaction, we also conducted
separate moderated
regression analyses for leader charisma and team member self-
efficacy.
Moderated regression analysis was used for testing Hypotheses
1 and 3. To
test Hypotheses 2 and 4, which suggested that team member
effort would
mediate the moderating effects of leader charisma and team
member self-
efficacy, we used Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt’s (2005)
methodology for testing
mediated moderation.
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and
correlations for all the
variables. Based on these data, there were moderate levels of
leader charisma
and team member self-efficacy in our sample. On average,
teams required
104 seconds to identify and engage targets in the simulation,
which is gener-
ally equivalent to the performance levels observed in previous
pilot tests
with similar ad hoc groups. Our manipulation of team leadership
had no
significant effect on team member effort or team performance,
and probably
because of random assignment of leader behavior conditions,
was not related
to leader charisma or team member self-efficacy. So, any
differential effects

of coaching versus directive team leadership had to be
contingent on other
DeRue et al. 635
factors. Both leader charisma and team member self-efficacy
were positively
related to team performance (also see Table 2, Model 1), and
team member
effort was positively related to team performance. These results
offered pre-
liminary evidence that a motivational pathway may be the
mechanism that
links leadership with team performance.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b predicted that a leader’s behavioral style
(coaching,
directive) would interact with leader charisma to affect team
performance.
Specifically, when leader charisma was high, we expected
coaching leader-
ship to be more effective than directive leadership (Hypothesis
1a). But
when leader charisma was low, we expected directive leadership
to be more
effective than coaching leadership (Hypothesis 1b). As shown in
Table 2
(Model 2), leader charisma interacted with leadership behavior
in just this
way (β = −.22; p < .05). As an aid in understanding the form of
the interac-
tion, the relationship between team performance and leader
behavior for high
and low levels of leader charisma (defined as +1 and −1

standard deviations
from the mean, respectively; see Aiken & West, 1991) is shown
in Figure 2.
As expected, coaching leaders who were highly charismatic
fostered higher
levels of team performance than did directive leaders or
coaching leaders
who were not very charismatic. Moreover, directive team
leaders fostered
higher levels of team performance than coaching team leaders
who lacked
charisma. We conducted a simple slopes analysis for this
interaction and
found that the difference between coaching and directive team
leaders was
significant for low-charisma leaders (p < .01), but not for high-
charisma ones
(p = .28). Hypotheses 1a and 1b were thus supported.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable Meana SDa 1 2 3 4 5
1. Leader behaviorb 0.48 0.50 —
2. Leader charisma 3.63 0.53 −.04 —
3. Team member
self-efficacy
3.58 0.34 −.06 .03 —
4. Team member effort −104.01 18.68 .02 .02 .14 —
5. Team performance 38671.74 3183.21 .00 .22* .22* .61** —
Note: N = 80 teams.
a. Unstandardized.
b. Dummy coded (coaching = 0; directive = 1).

*p < .05. **p < .01.
In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that team member effort would
mediate the
interactive effect of leader charisma and coaching leadership on
team perfor-
mance. To provide evidence of mediated moderation, a set of
data must meet
three conditions (Muller et al., 2005). First, the independent
variable (leader
behavior) must interact with the moderator (leader charisma) to
affect the
outcome of interest (team performance). Our tests of Hypothesis
1 showed
that the data met this first condition. Second, the interaction
between leader
behavior and leader charisma must predict the mediator (team
member
effort). To test this condition, we conducted a separate
hierarchical regression
analysis in which team member effort was predicted from leader
behavior,
leader charisma, and the interaction between those variables. As
shown in
Table 3, leader behavior indeed interacted (though the effect
was only
marginally significant) with leader charisma (β = −.20; p < .10)
to influence
team member effort. The data thus met the second condition for
mediated
moderation. The third and final condition required that the
interaction

between leader behavior and leader charisma be reduced in
magnitude (and
become nonsignificant for full mediated moderation) when team
member
–0.5
–0.4
–0.3
–0.2
–0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Low Leader Charisma High Leader Charisma
T
e
a
m
P
e

rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
Coaching Leadership Directive Leadership
Figure 2. Interactive effects of leader behavior and leader
charisma on team
performance
DeRue et al. 637
effort was included as a predictor of team performance. As
shown in Table 2
(Model 3), the interaction term for leader behavior and leader
charisma
dropped from −.22 to −.11 and became nonsignificant when
team member
effort was added to the regression. Thus, team member effort
fully mediated
the interactive effect of leader behavior and leader charisma on
team perfor-
mance, supporting Hypothesis 2.
Hypotheses 3a and 3b suggested that leadership behavior
(coaching vs.
directive) would interact with team member self-efficacy to

influence team
performance. Specifically, when team members were low in
self-efficacy, we
expected coaching leadership to be more effective than directive
leadership
(Hypothesis 3a). In contrast, when team members were high in
self-efficacy,
we expected directive leadership to be more effective than
coaching leadership
(Hypothesis 3b). As shown in Table 2 (Model 2), team member
self-efficacy
indeed interacted with leader behavior (β = .22; p < .05) to
predict team
performance. To help understand the form of this interaction,
the relationship
between team performance and leader behavior for high and low
levels of
team member self-efficacy (defined as +1 and −1 standard
deviations from
Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Team Performance
From Leader Behavior, Leader Charisma, Team Member Self-
Efficacy, and Team
Member Effort
β
Independent Variable
Model 1:
Main Effects
Model 2:
Moderated Effects
Model 3: Mediated

Moderation Effects
Leader behaviora .03 .03 .01
Leader charisma .22* .23* .21*
Team member self-efficacy .22* .24* .15
Leader behavior × leader
charisma
−.22* −.11
Leader behavior × team
member self-efficacy
.22* .09
Team member effort .54**
R2 .10 .19 .45
∆R2 .09* .26**
F 2.76* 4.18* 34.32**
∆F 1.42* 30.14**
Note: N = 80 teams.
a. Dummy coded (coaching = 0; directive = 1).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
the mean, respectively; see Aiken & West, 1991) is shown in
Figure 3. This
figure shows that directive leadership produced higher levels of
team perfor-
mance than coaching leadership when team members were high
in self-effi-
cacy. When team members were low in self-efficacy, however,
coaching

leaders produced higher levels of team performance than did
directive leaders.
We conducted a simple slopes analysis for this interaction and
found that the
difference between coaching and directive leaders was
significant when team
member self-efficacy was low (p < .01), but not when it was
high (p = .21).
Hypotheses 3a and 3b were thus supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that team member effort would mediate
the inter-
active effect of team member self-efficacy and team leader
behaviors on team
performance. To test for mediated moderation, we again
followed the proce-
dure outlined by Muller et al. (2005). The support we found for
Hypothesis 3
met the first of the three conditions. And as shown in Table 3,
team leader
behavior and team member self-efficacy had no main effects on
team
member effort, but they did have an interactive effect (β = .23;
p < .05), so the
second condition was also met. Finally, when team member
effort was included
–0.5
–0.3
–0.1
0.1
0.3

0.5
0.7
Low Member Self-Efficacy High Member Self-Efficacy
T
e
a
m
P
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e
Coaching Leadership Directive Leadership
Figure 3. Interactive effects of leader behavior and team
member self-efficacy on
team performance
DeRue et al. 639
as a predictor of team performance, the interaction between

leader behavior
and team member self-efficacy was reduced in magnitude (from
.22 to .09)
and became nonsignificant (see Model 3 in Table 2). Thus, team
member effort
fully mediated the interactive effect of team leader behavior and
team mem-
ber self-efficacy on team performance, supporting Hypothesis 4.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine selected
contingencies in
the relationship between team leader behaviors and team
performance.
Specifically, we investigated how leader charisma and team
member self-
efficacy interact with two different approaches to leadership
(coaching and
directive) to influence team member motivation and overall
team perfor-
mance. Our results suggest that leader charisma and team
member self-
efficacy each have unique effects on the relationship between
team
leadership, team member effort, and overall team performance.
A coaching
approach to team leadership had a stronger positive effect on
team perfor-
mance when the leader was highly charismatic, but coaching
leadership was
less effective than directive leadership when leader charisma
was low.
Charisma was thus an important asset for coaching leaders.
Moreover, we
Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting

Team Member Effort
From Leader Behavior, Leader Charisma, and Team Member
Self-Efficacy
β
Independent Variable Main Effects Moderated Effects
Leader behaviora .03 .03
Leader charisma .14 .16
Team member self-efficacy .02 .02
Leader behavior × leader charisma −.20†
Leader behavior × team member
self-efficacy
.23*
R2 .02 .11
∆R2 .09*
F 0.51 3.71*
∆F 3.20*
Note: N = 80 teams.
a. Dummy coded (coaching = 0; directive = 1).
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
found that when team member self-efficacy was low, a coaching
approach to
leadership was more effective, but when team member self-
efficacy was
high, a directive approach resulted in higher team performance.

These inter-
actions were mediated by team member effort.
Strengths and Limitations
Our study had several strengths that should be noted. First,
much of the
existing literature on team leadership relies on subjective
measures of team
processes and performance. In contrast, our study uses objective
measures of
team member effort and team performance, which helps avoid
many of the
methodological problems associated with self-report data and
enabled us to
empirically link team leader behaviors with team member effort
and overall
team performance.
A second strength of our study was its ability to assess causal
mechanisms.
We manipulated team leader behaviors and controlled the team
context in
ways that would be nearly impossible in a field setting. For
example, in field
settings, teams often differ on a variety of meaningful factors
(e.g., task char-
acteristics, developmental stages), and these between-team
differences would
make it difficult to isolate the motivational and performance
implications of
contingencies associated with directive and coaching form of
team leader-
ship. By conducting a controlled experiment, we were able to
isolate the
effects of team leadership and rule out other factors as potential
explanations

for our results.
Finally, the importance of contingencies is well-documented in
the leader-
ship literature (see Vroom & Jago, 2007 for a review).
However, scholars
often note how rarely researchers have studied the underlying
theoretical
mechanisms that explain these contingencies. In our study, we
used mediated
moderation analyses (Muller et al., 2005) to show empirically
that team
member motivation mediates key contingencies in team
leadership.
Notwithstanding these strengths, our study also had some
limitations
that should be noted and might guide future research. First, we
tested our
hypotheses via a laboratory experiment with college students, so
it is not
clear to what extent our findings will generalize beyond this
setting. For this
reason, we encourage researchers to test our theoretical
propositions in other
contexts, and examine whether our findings generalize to field
settings where
team leaders must adapt to changing work demands and may
have a harder
time assessing the efficacy of individual team members.
Another potential
limitation of our study concerns the manipulation of team
leadership. Because
leaders were selected randomly and leader behaviors were
manipulated, it is

DeRue et al. 641
not clear if leaders selected through natural organizational
processes or lead-
ers whose behaviors vary more naturally would display the same
pattern of
relationships found in our study. Also, leaders selected at
random might not
have the same credibility with followers, or identify as strongly
with the lead-
ership role, as leaders formally appointed to leadership roles by
an organiza-
tion (DeRue & Ashford, in press; DeRue, Ashford, & Cotton,
2009). These
credibility and identification processes may influence how our
findings gen-
eralize to field settings. We also tried to minimize (within
conditions) any
variability in leadership behaviors. As a result, our
manipulation may have
produced even stronger effects than one would observe in field
settings. And
we encourage other researchers to focus not only on the actual
behavior of
leaders, but also on the intentions underling that behavior. It
would also be
interesting to explicitly model and test the impact of blended
leadership
behaviors that mix the coaching and directive approaches.
Finally, we encourage
researchers to consider the possibility that our model may be
recursive—the
efforts and performance of team members may influence leader
behaviors.

Implications for Theory and Practice
Our study contributes to the understanding of team leadership in
several
unique ways and thus has important implications for both theory
and prac-
tice. First, current theory and research on leadership has
generally considered
a limited set of contingencies, focusing primarily on features of
the situation
(e.g., event types) or on a team’s task (e.g., task
interdependence). Contrary
to traditional leadership theories (e.g., House & Mitchell,
1974), theories of
team leadership have generally overlooked the issue of whether
the effective-
ness of different team leader behaviors is contingent on the
personal charac-
teristics of the leader or those of team members. In our study,
we extended
existing models of team leadership by showing that both leader
charisma and
team member self-efficacy serve as important boundary
conditions on the
relationship between leader behaviors and team performance.
Our contingency model of team leadership has several important
implica-
tions for managerial practice in organizations. For one thing,
team leaders
must find a match between their behavioral approach to
leadership, their own
personal characteristics, and the characteristics of their team’s
members.
Only when a match occurs will team leaders be able to
effectively facilitate

key team processes and generate high levels of team
performance. Thus, our
findings suggest that it might be important for team leaders to
adapt their
behavioral approach to circumstances over time. In particular,
as team mem-
bers develop a stronger sense of self-efficacy, team leaders
should try to
adapt their behavior accordingly. For example, coaching
leadership will help
develop team member self-efficacy, but as team member
efficacy grows,
directive leadership will be necessary to focus that efficacy and
the resulting
effort toward task accomplishment. One implication of this
finding is that
leaders must be able to accurately identify team members’ self-
efficacy
beliefs. Although our study did not explicitly examine
adaptations in leader-
ship behavior over time, or the ability of leaders to identity
team members’
efficacy beliefs, our results imply that moving from a coaching
to a directive
form of leadership as a team develops should (if it can be done)
be helpful.
Interestingly, this conclusion runs counter to suggestions that
leaders
should act in a less directive manner as a team develops
(Kozlowski, Gully,

Salas, et al., 1996) and its members acquire a clearer
understanding of perfor-
mance demands. One way to reconcile this apparent
contradiction is to rec-
ognize that directive forms of team leadership do not
necessarily imply
micromanagement. An important role of team leaders is to help
provide
broader strategic direction and help establish challenging team
goals, two
forms of direction that do not require strong hierarchical
control. Future
research should investigate the extent to which team leaders can
effectively
adapt their behavioral approach to leadership and how that
adaptation pro-
cess influences team functioning, particularly as the team
develops.
Finally, the contingencies identified in our study offer insight
into how
organizations might select and assign team leaders. For
example, if a par-
ticular team needs coaching and development, then our results
suggest that a
team leader should be selected who has the charisma necessary
to motivate
team members to embrace learning and development. Less
charismatic
leaders in this situation would be unable to facilitate the
necessary develop-
mental processes, and team performance would suffer as a
result.
Considering the many traits and attributes that have been
theorized to

influence leadership processes and outcomes (see Zaccaro,
Kemp, & Bader,
2004 for a review), our study also opens up a multitude of
avenues for future
research on how team leader behaviors interact with leader and
team member
characteristics to affect team performance. We were particularly
interested in
the motivational implications of team leadership, and so we
chose to focus on
leader charisma and team member self-efficacy as potential
moderators of the
relationship between leadership behaviors and team
performance. However,
future research might adopt alternative perspectives that lead to
the discovery
of other important leader and team member characteristics. For
example,
whereas we examined team member self-efficacy, future
research might
consider collective efficacy (DeRue et al., 2010). Future
research might also
embrace an information-processing perspective (e.g., Hinsz,
Tindale, &
DeRue et al. 643
Vollrath, 1997) and examine how the cognitive abilities of a
team’s leader, or
the cognitive abilities of its members, can shape the behaviors
that team
leaders use to manage information within the team, and how
such behaviors
influence team processes and performance. For example, team

members with
greater cognitive ability may be more efficient and accurate at
processing
information related to team functioning, which would reduce the
need for a
leader to monitor and process information for them.
We also encourage researchers to heed the advice of Zaccaro
(2007) and
integrate situational perspectives on team leadership with the
trait or attribute-
oriented approach used in this study. For example, certain
characteristics of
work tasks (e.g., autonomy) foster higher levels of motivation
(Campion &
Thayer, 1985; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006).
Future research might examine the motivational and
performance implica-
tions of team leader behaviors when both task characteristics
and the charac-
teristics of a team’s leader and its members are considered
simultaneously.
For example, autonomy (a task characteristic) may be
particularly motivating
when team members are experienced with a task, but
demotivating other-
wise. Examining potential contingency factors in this way
would yield a
more integrative contingency theory of team leadership than any
of those that
now exist.
Another important contribution of our study is its emphasis on
the under-
lying motivational mechanisms that explain contingencies in

team leader-
ship. Prior research on such contingencies has generally fallen
short of
identifying these mechanisms. We theorized about the
motivational implica-
tions of contingencies in team leadership and then provided
empirical
evidence for how team member motivation serves as a mediator
of the link
between team leader behaviors and team performance. That
finding has
important implications for current theory because this is the
first study to
document team member motivation as a mechanism through
which team
leader behaviors affect team performance. Future research
should extend this
motivational perspective by exploring other mediational
mechanisms that
could explain important contingencies in team leadership. For
example,
researchers might explore how leader behaviors influence
intrinsic or extrin-
sic motivation or explore such nonmotivational processes as
identification
with the leader. In addition, given the emergence of affective
events theory
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) as a way of analyzing the impact
of discrete
events on individual psychological processes, future research
might try to
extend that theory to the team level and build on existing
research that
suggests a key function of team leaders is to manage events that
occur in the
team context (Morgeson, 2005; Morgeson & DeRue, 2006).

Drawing from
affective events theory and research on affect in teams (George,
1990), we
believe that the nature of team events, and the ways in which
team leaders go
about managing those events, could influence team functioning
through
affective pathways such as affective tone (Sy, Cote, &
Saavedra, 2005) and
collective emotion (Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld,
2000; Bartel &
Saavedra, 2000; Ilies, Wagner, & Morgeson, 2007). These
extensions of our
theory and empirical findings would go a long way toward
enhancing under-
standing of team leadership and the contingencies that explain
how leader-
ship processes influence team performance.
Appendix A
Instructions Provided to Leaders in the Directive Condition
Prior to the first simulation. As the leader, your job is to direct
this team. You
should set the team’s direction and give specific instructions
regarding what
individual members should be doing and when they should be
doing it.
Ensure that your team members stick to your plan for
accomplishing your

objectives. Monitor your team members’ actions, and correct
them when they
are not following your plan. Tell them not only when they are
wrong, but
what they should be doing instead. It is important that you are
clear and direc-
tive in your leadership.
Between the first and second simulation. You will now have 10
minutes to
discuss Game 1 and prepare for Game 2. Your job will be to
direct the discus-
sion. Make sure you clearly communicate your observations
about the first
game to your team members. Additionally, make sure you
clearly state your
goals and plans for the second game. It is important that you
direct the discus-
sion so as to obtain maximum performance in the second game.
Instructions Provided to Leaders in the Coaching Condition
Prior to the first simulation. As the leader, your job is to coach
this team. You
should support their growth and learning so that your team will
fulfill its
potential. Help your members make coordinated and task-
appropriate use of
their collective resources in accomplishing the team’s work.
Monitor your
team members, encouraging them when they have difficulties
and praising
them when they do well. Provide aid when requested, and make
sure your
team members have the information that they need. It is
important that you

take this coaching-like approach in your leadership.
(continued)
DeRue et al. 645
Between the first and second simulation. You will now have 10
minutes to
discuss Game 1 and prepare for Game 2. Your job will be to
serve as a coach
during the discussion. Make sure your team members share their
observa-
tions about the first game. Additionally, make sure your team
members create
plans for the second game. It is important that you serve as a
coach during the
discussion so as to obtain maximum performance in the second
game.
Appendix B
Leader Charisma (Yukl & Falbe, 1991)
1. He/she knows how to appeal to the emotions and values of
people.
2. He/she is the type of person that I would like to have as a
close
friend.
3. He/she has the ability to communicate a clear vision of what
our
team could accomplish or become.

Team-Member Self-Efficacy (Quinones, 1995)
1. I feel confident in my ability to perform this task effectively.
2. I think I can reach a high level of performance in this task.
3. I am sure I can learn how to perform this task in a relatively
short
period of time.
4. I don’t feel that I am as capable of performing this task as
other
people. (reverse-scored)
5. On the average, other people are probably much more
capable of
performing this task than I am. (reverse-scored)
6. I am a fast learner for these types of tasks, in comparison
with other
people.
7. I am not sure I can ever reach a high level of performance in
this
task, no matter how much practice and training I get. (reverse-
scored)
8. It would take me a long time to learn how to perform this
task effec-
tively. (reverse-scored)
9. I am not confident that I can perform this task successfully.
(reverse-
scored)
10. I doubt that my performance will be very adequate in this
task.

(reverse-scored)
Appendix A (continued)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Sean Burke and Carrie Beia for their
support in collecting
data for this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to
the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
We would like to thank the Eli Broad College of Business for
its financial support.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression:
Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation:
Relationships with colle-
giate athletes’ gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of
their coaches’ behavior.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: Freeman.
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J.
A. (2000). To your
heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top
management teams. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802-836.
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective
construction of work group
moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197-231.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership
(3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Free Press.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E.,
& Halpin, S. A. (2006).
What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A
meta-analysis.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.
Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. (1985). Development and
field-evaluation of an
interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 70, 29-43.
Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., & Knudsen, K. (2005). Treating
sexually abused children:

1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 29, 135-145.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
DeRue et al. 647
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral-
theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 12, 637-647.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (in press). Who will lead and
who will follow? A social
process of leadership identity construction in organizations.
Academy of Manage-
ment Review.
DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Cotton, N. (2009). Assuming
the mantle: Unpacking
the process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In
L. M. Roberts &
J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and
organizations: Building a the-
oretical and research foundation (pp. 213-232). New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.
DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Feltz, D.
(2010). Efficacy dispersion in
teams: Moving beyond agreement and aggregation. Personnel

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E.
(in press). Trait and
behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-
analytic test of their
relative validity. Personnel Psychology.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R.
(2002). Neutralizing
substitutes for leadership theory: Leadership effects and
common-source bias.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 454-464.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the
boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 46,
435-457.
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of
leader role, team-set
goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness.
Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 203-231.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact
of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field
experiment. Academy
of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist,
41, 1040-1048.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal
orientation and action
control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational
psychology. In C. L.
Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (pp. 193-232). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y.,
Korotkin, A. L., &
Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of
leader behavior: A
synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2,
245-287.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in
groups. Journal of Applied
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M.
(2002). A meta-analysis
of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence
and level of analysis
as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team
coaching. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 269-287.
Hayes, E., & Kalmakis, K. A. (2007). From the sidelines:
Coaching as a nurse practi-
tioner strategy for improving health outcomes. Journal of the
American Academy
of Nurse Practitioners, 19, 555-562.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of
organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The
emerging conceptualization
of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin,
121, 43-64.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ilgen,
D. R., Sheppard, L., . . .
Wagner, J. A. (2002). Structural contingency theory and
individual differences:
Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of
Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87, 599-606.
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.
G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207).
Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some

empirical generalizations and
new research directions. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in
organizational behavior
(Vol. 1, pp. 399-401). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of
leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
Ilies, R., Judge, T. A., & Wagner, D. T. (2006). Making sense
of motivational leader-
ship: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated
followers. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, 1-22.
Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining
affective linkages in
teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and
individualism–
collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1140-1148.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual
agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:
Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,
22, 375-403.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel
theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions. College
Park, MD: University of Maryland at College Park.

DeRue et al. 649
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and
teams in organizations.
In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook
of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-
375). London, Eng-
land: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., &
Cannon-Bowers, J. A.
(1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness:
Developmental
and task-contingent leader roles. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research
in personnel and
human resources management (Vol. 14, pp. 253-305).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M.
(1999). Develop-
ing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance
across levels and
time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing
nature of performance:
Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp.
240-292). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers,
J. A. (1996). Team
leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines
for training lead-
ers and teams. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.),

Advances in interdisci-
plinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3, pp.
251-289). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates
of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic review of the
MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
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.
Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R.,
West, B., Ellis, A. P. J., &
Porter, C. O. L. H. (2004). Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic
team structures as
one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 681-695.
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-
managing teams: Intervening
in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90,
497-508.
Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality,
urgency, and duration:
Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team
leader intervention.
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 271-287.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010).
Leadership in teams: A func-

tional approach to understanding leadership structures and
processes. Journal of
Management, 36, 5-39.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for
assessing job design and
the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-
1339.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When
moderation is mediated and
mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared
leadership as predictors
of the effectiveness of change management teams: An
examination of aversive,
directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering
leader behaviors.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 6, 172-197.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E.,
Smith, K. A., & Trevino,
L. (2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-
method development of
a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management
Development, 22,
273-307.

Quinones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training
assignment as feedback.
Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions
of coaching behavior,
need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of
young athletes.
Motivation and Emotion, 28, 297-313.
Schwartz, R. (1994). Team facilitation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998).
Correlates of charismatic
leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit
characteristics, and
superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of
Management Journal,
41, 387-409.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-
related performance:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader:
Impact of the leader’s
mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and
group processes.
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development
of collective efficacy
in teams: A multilevel longitudinal perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology,
92, 17-27.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in
leadership. American
Psychologist, 62, 17-24.
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team
effectiveness: Design
choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12,
559-577.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events
theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
affective events at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power
sources in downward
and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-
423.
Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P. (2005). Contingent leadership
and effectiveness of
trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1288-1296.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership.
American Psychologist,
62, 6-16.
DeRue et al. 651
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and
attributes. In J. Antonakis,

A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of
leadership (pp. 101-124).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team
leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 451-483.
Bios
D. Scott DeRue is an assistant professor of management and
organizations at the
University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business.
His research focuses
on leadership and team dynamics, with a particular interest in
understanding how
leaders and teams in organizations adapt, learn, and develop
over time.
Christopher M. Barnes is an assistant professor in the Army
Center of Excellence
for the Professional Military Ethic, United States Military
Academy at West Point. He
received his PhD in organizational behavior from Michigan
State University. His
research interests include team performance and fatigue in
organizations.
Frederick P. Morgeson, PhD, is a professor of management and
Valade Research
Scholar in the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State
University. His cur-
rent research interests revolve around understanding the role of
leadership in self-
managing teams and exploring fundamental questions about the
design of work,

including team-based designs.
First among Equals: The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics
on the Internal Dynamics of Cross-Functional Product
Development Teams
�
Shikhar Sarin and Gina Colarelli O’Connor
Drawing on the path-goal theory of leadership, the present study
examines the effect
of team leader characteristics on an array of conflict resolution
behavior, collab-
oration, and communication patterns of cross-functional new
product development
(NPD) teams. A hierarchical linear model analysis based on a
survey of 246 mem-
bers from 64 NPD teams suggests that participative management
style and initi-
ation of goal structure by the team leader exert the strongest
influence on internal
team dynamics. Both these leadership characteristics had a
positive effect on func-
tional conflict resolution, collaboration, and communication

quality within the NPD
team while discouraging dysfunctional conflict resolution and
formal communica-
tions. Comparatively, team leader’s consideration, initiation of
process structure,
and position had a surprisingly weak effect on internal team
dynamics. Further, the
findings underscore the differential effects on various
dimensions of team dynamics,
the importance of controlling for project and team
characteristics, and the use of
multilevel modeling for studying nested phenomena related to
NPD teams. Impli-
cations of these findings are discussed.
Introduction
R
ecognizing the long-term competitive advan-
tage offered by successful new product
development (NPD), organizations are rely-
ing heavily on cross-functional teams to improve their
NPD processes (Barczak and Wilemon, 1992; Griffin,
1997; McDonough, 2000; Sarin and Mahajan, 2001;

Sarin and McDermott, 2003; Ulrich and Eppinger,
1995; Wind and Mahajan, 1997). Typically these
teams, composed of individuals drawn from a variety
of functional specialties within the organization, are
responsible for taking a product from conceptualiza-
tion to commercialization.
Growing popularity and anecdotal evidence notwith-
standing, the results achieved from the use of cross-
functional teams in NPD efforts have been decidedly
mixed (Barczak and Wilemon, 1989; Katzenbach and
Smith, 1993; Sarin and Mahajan, 2001). Among other
reasons, this lack of consistent success has been at-
tributed to poor project leadership, which often fails
to appreciate the diversity of cross-functional teams
and mismanages team dynamics—essential compo-
nents to the performance of any NPD team (Henke,
Krachenberg, and Lyons, 1993; Parker, 1994; Robbins
and Finley, 1995).

Effective project leadership has been identified as
one of the most important mechanisms not only for
managing team dynamics but also for steering the
teams successfully and efficiently through the new prod-
uct development process (McDonough and Griffin,
�
The authors are grateful to Tony Di Benedetto for processing
this
manuscript. They would also like to thank Robert Baron and
Stacey
Hills for their help on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Address correspondence to: Address correspondence to: Shikhar
Sarin, College of Business and Economics, Boise State
University,
Boise, ID 83725. Tel.: (208) 426-2721. Fax: (208) 426-5384. E-
mail:
[email protected]
J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205
r 2009 Product Development & Management Association
i:/BWUS/JPIM/345/[email protected]
1997). Team leaders coach team members, help de-
velop their capabilities, foster interactions and learning
within the team, and champion the team’s activities

to others in the organization (Ancona and Caldwell,
1992a; Barczak and Wilemon, 1992; McDonough and
Barczak, 1991; McDonough and Griffin, 1997; Sarin
and McDermott, 2003). Nurick Thamhain (2006) sug-
gest that effective project team leaders are social ar-
chitects who understand the interaction between
organizational and behavioral variables; suggesting
that such team leaders should be able to minimize
dysfunctional conflict and to foster a climate of active
participation.
Despite the focused attention from the academic
community, much of the past research in the NPD
literature is based largely on anecdotal data (e.g.,
Jassawalla and Sashittal, 2000), case studies (e.g.,
Hershock, Cowman, and Peters, 1994), or qualitative
data (e.g., Barczak and Wilemon, 1989; Donnellon,
1993). Although some studies (e.g., McDonough,
1993; Norrgren and Schaller, 1999) have explored

NPD team leadership empirically, these studies were
limited in their scope by the univariate analyses em-
ployed. Moreover, when empirical examinations were
undertaken, few studies controlled for the character-
istics of the team or the project, which could have
profound effects on how team leadership effects the
internal dynamics and performance of the NPD teams
(Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Griffin, 1979; Sarin and
Mahajan, 2001; Sarin and McDermott, 2003). The
NPD literature lacks a comprehensive and robust em-
pirical examination of the influence of team leadership
on the dynamics and performance of cross-functional
new product development teams. The present study
addresses this void in the NPD literature by empiri-
cally examining the effect of team leaders’ manage-
ment styles and position on an array of internal NPD
team dynamics. Such a comprehensive examination
is critical for understanding the inherent trade-offs

and synergies involved between various dimensions of
team dynamics.
Drawing on the path-goal theory of leadership
(e.g., Evans, 1970; House, 1971), this study focuses
on the team leader’s management style in terms of his
or her interactions with team members, style prefer-
ences for organizing work, and position and power in
the organization (Yukl, 1994). The effects of these
team leader characteristics on three broad areas of
internal team dynamics are examined: (1) conflict res-
olution behavior; (2) collaboration; and (3) commu-
nication behavior. In addition, the study controls for
key NPD team characteristics such as team size and
functional diversity and for project characteristics in-
cluding project length, complexity, and risk. Hierar-
chical linear modeling (HLM) is used to analyze the
data, which affords a number of analytical and inter-
pretive advantages over methods previously employed

in research on NPD teams.
Theoretical Background
Team Leader Characteristics
The team leader plays a pivotal role in setting the
work climate within the team, motivating team mem-
bers and affecting their behavior (Burke et al., 2006;
Norrgren and Schaller, 1999). Team leaders direct the
manner in which the NPD team presents itself and its
ideas to achieve personal and organizational goals
(Barczak and Wilemon, 1989; McDonough, 2000;
Sarin and McDermott, 2003).
Yukl (1994) suggests that leaders’ effectiveness is
derived from four sources: (1) the level of power and
influence possessed by the leader; (2) how the leader
interacts with others; (3) the leaders’ personal quali-
ties; and (4) the situation in which the leader is asked
to lead. Given their managerial controllability, this
research focuses on the first two sources of leader

effectiveness: (1) the NPD team leader’s power and
influence (as reflected by position in the organization);
and (2) interactions with the members of the NPD
team, as reflected by his or her management style
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Shikhar Sarin is the Kirk and Marsha Smith Professor of
Mar-
keting at Boise State University. His research and teaching
interests
include marketing strategy, new product development,
marketing of
high-tech products, and electronic commerce. He has published
in
the Journal of Marketing, Decision Sciences, Journal of the
Academy
of Marketing Science, Journal of Product Innovation
Management,
Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Marketing Theory
and
Practice, and Engineering Economist.
Dr. Gina Colarelli O’Connor is associate professor of marketing
at

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Lally School of Management
and
Technology. She previously worked for McDonnell Douglas
Cor-
poration and Monsanto Chemical Company. Her teaching and
re-
search efforts focus on how large established firms link
advanced
technology development to market opportunities, how they
create
new markets, and how they develop sustainable capabilities for
breakthrough innovation. Dr. O’Connor has published more than
30 articles in refereed journals and is coauthor of the book
Radical
Innovation, How Mature Firms Can Outsmart Upstarts (Harvard
Business School Press, 2000) and Grabbing Lightning: Building
a
Capability for Breakthrough Innovation (Jossey-Bass, 2008).
TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL
DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205
189

(Muczyk and Reimann, 1987; Sarin and McDermott,
2003). The path-goal theory of leadership (e.g., Evans,
1970; House, 1971) is used to help explain the
dynamics of these effectiveness dimensions.
The basic premise of the path-goal theory of lead-
ership is that a primary function of the leader involves
clarifying and outlining the kinds of paths and be-
haviors that will lead to goal attainment and valued
rewards (Griffin, 1979). Four distinct characteristics
or behaviors of the team leader related to his or her
management style can be identified based on this
framework (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al., 2006;
Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl, 1994):
1. Participative leadership or participation: Participa-
tion is the degree to which the team leader invites
members’ involvement in the decision-making pro-
cess. Participative leaders consult with the mem-

bers of their teams, solicit their input, and take
these suggestions into account when making deci-
sions. Participation represents the way the leader
behaves toward others as well as his influence over
the team members.
2. Supportive leadership or consideration: Consider-
ation is the degree to which the team leader is
friendly and approachable and demonstrates inter-
est in the well-being of the team members. It indi-
cates his or her respect for others and conveys cues
about his or her own personal qualities. By treating
others with respect considerate team leaders create
a pleasant work environment.
3. Achievement-oriented leadership or initiation of goal
structure: Goal structuring is the degree to which
the team leader conveys to the members what out-
come or objective is expected of them. By goal
structuring team leaders set challenging goals for

the team members, expecting them to assume re-
sponsibility and perform to their highest level.
Through the use of such behavior team leaders
show confidence that the members of the team will
put forth the level of effort necessary to attain the
goals set for them.
4. Directive leadership or initiation of process struc-
ture: Process structuring is the degree to which the
team leader organizes and directs the activities of
team members. Process structuring by team leaders
gives specific guidance to the team members re-
garding what needs to be done and how it should
be done. The team leader schedules the work to be
done, lays out the rules and regulations to be fol-
lowed, and maintains standards of performance.
Finally, an additional source of team leaders’ effec-
tiveness identified by Yukl (1994) is considered: the
level of power/influence possessed by the leader:

5. Team leader’s position: The team leader’s position
is a measure of the formal as well as informal
power and influence enjoyed by the team leader
within the organization. Team leaders in high po-
sition enjoy a high stature in the organization and
are well respected for their management or techni-
cal skills. Such leaders tend to be politically savvy
and well networked within the organization. As a
result they are able to acquire needed resources, to
promote the team’s project within the organiza-
tion, and to shield the team from unwanted inter-
ference and pressures when needed.
Following Sarin and McDermott (2003), these five
team leader characteristics were considered because
they are not only managerially controllable but also
are strongly supported by established theoretical
frameworks (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Yukl, 1994).
Internal Dynamics of NPD Teams

Healthy internal dynamics are essential for effective
cross-functional NPD teams and, consequently, for
the successful development of new products (e.g.,
Burke et al., 2006). Specifically, the conflict resolu-
tion behaviors (e.g., Pinto, Pinto, and Prescott, 1993;
Song, Xie, and Dyer, 2000), collaboration (e.g., Jassa-
walla and Sashittal, 1998; Pinto et al., 1993), and com-
munication behaviors (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell,
1992b; Griffin and Hauser, 1992) of cross-functional
NPD teams have been shown to have a tremendous
impact on their performance. However, the misman-
agement of these internal dynamics is among the most
often cited barriers to effective NPD team functioning
(Henke et al., 1993). In the present study three types
of internal team dynamics is considered: (1) conflict
resolution strategies; (2) collaboration; and (3) com-
munication behaviors.
Conflict resolution strategies. Individuals from

different functional backgrounds develop different
thought worlds and perspectives (Dougherty, 1992;
Maltz and Kohli, 1996; Sarin and McDermott, 2003).
Besides developing different worldviews, differences
can also result from variety in procedures or termi-
nology followed by each functional area, differences in
information processing techniques used, or differences
190 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205
S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR
in task/role ambiguity tolerated (Kolb and Rubin,
1990). These differences may create conflict, which is
inherent in all cross-functional teams (Parker, 1994;
Sarin and Mahajan, 2001). It is not the existence of
conflict, per se, but rather the mechanisms used to
resolve it that is of interest in terms of the effective
functioning of NPD teams (Amason, 1996; Pinto
et al., 1993).

Research on conflict management (e.g., Blake and
Mouton, 1964; Song et al., 2000; Thomas, 1977) iden-
tifies different mechanisms for resolving conflicts:
� Confronting: open discussion of the disagreement.
� Compromising: mutual bargaining amongst the
disagreeing parties; smoothing, meaning building
on the areas of agreement.
� Forcing: the coercive imposition of a solution by
an individual or a group on others.
� Withdrawal: refusal to deal with the conflict.
Cross-functional NPD teams may exhibit all of
these forms of conflict resolution to varying de-
grees.
Amason (1996) suggests that depending on how it is
resolved, conflict can either be functional (productive)
or dysfunctional (disruptive). Dysfunctional forms of
conflict resolution such as forcing or withdrawal com-
pel one disagreeing party to concede, either involun-
tarily or under duress, to eliminate further conflict.

Such a win–lose situation is ineffective and can de-
crease team morale, productivity, and satisfaction
(Muczyk and Reimann, 1987; Thomas, 1977). The
preferred or more functional mechanisms for resolv-
ing conflict include confronting, compromising, and
smoothing. These may enhance team operations by
bringing together the ideas of all parties and may aid
in reaching a solution that satisfies or benefits all par-
ties involved in the conflict (Kolb and Rubin, 1990;
Song et al., 2000; Thamhain and Nurick, 1994).
Collaboration. Collaboration is defined as the de-
gree to which the members of the NPD team work
together to accomplish specific tasks (Jassawalla and
Sashittal, 1998; Pinto et al., 1993). Collaboration is
indicative of effective team dynamics and an anteced-
ent to improved team performance (Ancona and
Caldwell, 1992a; Pinto et al., 1993). Although some
researchers (e.g., Thomas, 1977) consider collabora-

tion as yet another form of functional conflict reso-
lution strategy, others (e.g., Jassawalla and Sashittal,
1998; Pinto et al., 1993) suggest that it as a much
broader construct indicative of general integrative and
supportive interpersonal cooperation among team
members. Though some overlap is expected with func-
tional conflict resolution strategies, collaboration is
considered to be a distinct but related component of
the internal dynamics of NPD teams.
Communication. Poor communication among
team members has long been considered a detriment
to effective operation (Wilemon and Thamhain, 1983;
Henke et al., 1993), whereas effective communication
among team members has been linked to greater NPD
productivity and performance (Ancona and Caldwell,
1992b; Griffin and Hauser, 1992). Much of the focus
in the extant literature has been on the frequency of
communication between team members, with the gen-

eral consensus being that higher communication
frequency is positively associated with NPD perfor-
mance (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Gladstein,
1984). Maltz (2000), however, notes that there is an
inherent and erroneous assumption in the NPD liter-
ature that all types of cross-functional communication
are equally important or that increased communica-
tion frequency equals good information quality.
Meanwhile, the focus on communication frequency
has resulted in other important dimensions of com-
munication remaining underexplored (Maltz, 2000;
Van de Ven and Ferry, 1980).
Although important, frequency is not the only rel-
evant aspect of NPD team communication that needs
to be considered. Team communication is a broad
concept that encompasses additional attributes. For
example, communication quality has been suggested
as a critical element in improving communication

My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law office b.docx

My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law office b.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law office b.docx

Similar to My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law office b.docx (7)

More from roushhsiu

More from roushhsiu (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

My name is Brittany Murphy and I was referred to your law office b.docx