Part 1: According to the Sarin and O’Connor (2009) article, certain team leader styles have a strong influence on internal team dynamics.  

Please identify and describe at least 4 team leader styles.

What team leader style do you want your manager to use?  What style do you want to use? and why?  

Part 2: DeRue, Barnes, and Morgeson (2010) found that team leadership style effectiveness depended on the level of charisma exhibited by the leader.  

Please define charisma. 

Please identify and describe a charismatic leader you have worked for or worked with.  What did she or he do that was charismatic? 

What style (coaching or directing) did that leader administer?  

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,

199

2; 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:
ssarin@boisestate.edu.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–

205

r 2009 Product Development & Management Association

i:/BWUS/JPIM/345/ssarin@boisestate.edu

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,

197

9; 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

(Bauer and Green, 1996), especially across different

functional areas (Maltz, 2000). Communication qual-

ity can be measured in terms of its accuracy, clarity,

detail, relevance, and timeliness (Van de Ven and

Ferry, 1980).

Similarly, information exchanges take place not

only through formally designated channels (e.g.,

meetings, memos, letters) but also through informal

mechanisms (e.g., impromptu meeting, hall talk)

(Maltz and Kohli, 1996; Van de Ven and Ferry,

1980). Maltz and Kohli (1996) suggest that although

informal communication may be more timely, formal

communication tends to be more accurate and detail

oriented. Therefore, in instances where speed and in-

novation are important, more informal channels of

communication may be desirable, whereas in other

cases where adherence to budget and schedule and

product quality are important, more formal channels

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

191

of communication might be preferable. As such, com-

munication formality may be regarded as another

appropriate indicator of team interaction and com-

munication (Kezsbom, 2000).

What is needed in the literature is an examination

of a broad set of leader characteristics on a compre-

hensive array of conflict resolution behaviors, collab-

oration, and communication behaviors of NPD teams

to gain insights that can translate to actionable pre-

scriptions for NPD managers. Particularly, the simul-

taneous consideration of a variety of internal dynamics

can help understand how the characteristics of the

NPD team leaders differentially affect various aspects

of internal team dynamics.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework proposed in this study

is shown in Figure 1. The following section discusses

the effects of specific team leader characteristics

on the internal dynamics of cross-functional NPD

teams.

The Effect of Team Leader Participation and
Consideration on Internal Team Dynamics

Participation and consideration are perhaps the most

visible indicators of a team leader’s management style.

Participative team leaders consult their team mem-

bers, solicit their input, and involve them in the deci-

sion-making process (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al.,

2006; Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl,

1994). Thomas (1977) suggests that the key to resolv-

ing conflicts in a group is to understand the underly-

ing power structure within the group. A participative

team leader creates an environment in which power is

dispersed more evenly among the team members.

Such power equity limits the ability of individuals or

subgroups to unduly dominate the conflict resolution

process in the team at the expense of others, thereby

creating a more open and productive approach to

resolving conflicts as they occur (Burke et al., 2006;

Norrgren and Schaller, 1999). Participation sets the

tone in which the leader exerts his or her influence

over the team and has been shown to be positively

related to learning within NPD teams (Sarin and

McDermott, 2003). Thus participative leadership in

NPD teams should therefore be positively related to

the use of functional conflict resolution strategies and

negatively related to the use of dysfunctional conflict

resolution strategies within the

team.

Studies of high-involvement leadership suggest that

when leaders delegate decision-making authority,

team members become more actively engaged in dis-

cussions and communication among them improves

(Kidd and Christy, 1961; Wilemon and Thamhain,

1983). In contrast, low-involvement or autocratic

leaders discourage team members from actively

communicating and participating in team activities

(Bolman and Deal, 1993; Stewart and Manz, 1995).

When a team leader actively engages team mem-

bers in the decision-making process, members have an

opportunity to make a contribution to how a new prod-

uct development project should proceed (McDonough,

2000). As they seek to make their contributions in a

well-informed manner, the relevance and reliability of

the information exchanged increases (Kidd and

Christy, 1961; Peterson, 1997), increasing the com-

munication and cooperation within the team (Maltz,

2000). Participation by the team leader sets a more

inclusive work environment, which encourages team

members to interact with each other using informal

rather than formal channels of

communication.

Therefore participative behavior by team leaders is

likely to be related to greater frequency and quality of

communication within NPD teams and greater team

collaboration. Greater participation is also likely to

be associated with the use of less formal channels of

communication.

Considerate team leaders demonstrate concern and

interest for the well-being of their team members.

They are friendly and approachable and treat others

with respect. In so doing, they not only convey cues

about their own personal qualities but also create a

pleasant work environment in general (Antonioni,

1996; Burke et al., 2006; Evans, 1970; House, 1971;

Conflict Resolution Behavior

•

Confronting

•

Compromising

•

Smoothing

•

Forcing

•

Withdrawal

Collaboration

Communication Behavior

• Frequency
•

Formality

•

Quality

Participation

Consideration

Initiation of Goal

Structure

Initiation of

Process

Structure

Team Leader

Position

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Effect of

Team Leader

Characteristics on the Internal Dynamics of NPD Teams

192 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Griffin, 1979; Yukl, 1994). By being perceived as

approachable and empathetic, a considerate team

leader creates an environment of psychological safety

that encourages team members to openly voice dis-

senting opinions without fear of reprisal or backlash

(Edmondson, 1999). This allows the team members to

pursue constructive approaches to settling disagree-

ments within the team (Burke et al., 2006; Norrgren

and Schaller, 1999; McDonough, 2000). Thus team

leader consideration is expected to be positively re-

lated to collaboration and the use of functional con-

flict resolution strategies and negatively related to the

use of dysfunctional conflict resolution strategies

within NPD teams.

Additionally, due to the cultural norms set by his

or her own behavior as a model, considerate team

leaders encourage more frequent communication, fos-

ter a nurturing environment, and instill a willingness

among team members to listen to one another. As a

result, team communication tends to be more honest,

spontaneous, and unstructured (Peterson, 1997). Thus

consideration by NPD team leaders is expected to be

positively related to communication frequency and

quality and negatively related to the formality of in-

ternal communication.

The Effect of Initiation of Goal and Process
Structure on Internal Team Dynamics

In general, initiation of structure is conceptualized as

the degree to which supervisors assign tasks, prescribe

behaviors, and focus actions and expectations toward

process performance or goal achievement. In the

NPD context, initiation of structure is often used to

influence team member behavior and performance via

the work environment (Antonioni, 1996; Porter and

Lilly, 1996). Extant literature (e.g., Cleland, 1999;

Teas, 1981, 1983) suggests that initiation of structure

can take two distinct forms: (1) structuring that is

focused on outlining the goals and expectations of the

end result of the project (goal structuring); and (2)

structuring that is focused on outlining the activities

and behaviors for achieving the desired results (pro-

cess structuring).

Goal structuring is defined as the degree to which

the team leader conveys to the members what out-

come or objective is expected of them. In so doing, the

team leader sets challenging goals for the team mem-

bers and expects them to take responsibility for de-

livering on those goals (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al.,

2006; Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl,

1994). By engaging in goal structuring, the team

leader demonstrates confidence that the members of

the team will perform to a high level and will put forth

the effort necessary for attaining the goals outlined

(Teas, 1981, 1983).

A clear exposition of expectations and expected

outcomes by the team leader helps focus the team on

a superordinate goal and helps the team members

develop a stronger sense of the team mission and

identity (Antonioni, 1996; McDonough, 2000; Sethi,

2000). Such goal structuring encourages team mem-

bers to share problems and to work cooperatively to-

ward the common overarching goal (McDonough,

2000), creates a learning environment within the team

(Sarin and McDermott, 2003), and encourages func-

tional conflict resolution strategies over dysfunctional

ones (Antonioni, 1996). Thus initiation of goal struc-

ture by the team leader is expected to be positively

related to collaboration and the use of functional con-

flict resolution strategies and negatively related to the
use of dysfunctional conflict resolution strategies

within

the NPD team.

By explicitly stating goal expectations, team leaders

empower members to seek information related to

their own activities, to confer with others to achieve

their objectives (Bolman and Deal, 1993), and to by-

pass traditional and more formal channels of com-

munication, if necessary (Sarin and McDermott,

2003). Antonioni (1996) suggests that implementation

of a goal-focused structure is likely to increase pro-

ject-related communication. Therefore, initiation of

goal structure by the team leader is expected to be

positively related to the frequency and quality and

negatively related to the formality of internal com-

munication within the NPD teams.

Process structuring, on the other hand, is defined as

the degree to which the team leader organizes and di-

rects the activities of team members, by giving them

specific guidance as to what needs to be done and how

it should be done (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al., 2006;

Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl, 1994).

Initiating of process structure involves scheduling of

the work to be done, clarifying the rules and regula-

tions to be followed, and maintaining performance

standards (Teas, 1981, 1983).

While process structuring ensures that the behav-

iors and activities of the team members are in sync

with project goals, it can limit opportunities for new

direction (Floyd, 1992). Excessive structuring of pro-

cesses can undermine the flexible, autonomous, and

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

193

decentralized nature of the team approach to NPD,

innovation, and creativity (McDonough, 2000; Par-

ker, 1994). However, a lack of process structure can

create ambiguity about the roles, activities, and re-

sponsibilities of team members, leading to confusion

and chaos (Wilemon and Thamhain, 1983). A lack of

structure regarding workable plans and daily activities

of the NPD team increases the potential for conflict

and dysfunctional conflict resolution (Porter and

Lilly, 1996). Therefore, initiation of process structure

is expected to be positively related to collaboration

and the use of functional conflict resolution strategies

and negatively related to the use of dysfunctional con-

flict resolution strategies within NPD teams.

Process structuring favors a management style that

is more definite and focused on achieving positive

results through a process of formal delineation (Pe-

terson, 1997). Many team leaders see such a directive

management style as an approach to reducing the un-

certainty inherent in the NPD process. Tightly struc-

tured organizational environments make interactions

within groups less frequent, less spontaneous, and

more formal (Carzo 1963). However, Maltz and Kohli

(1996) indicate that with greater formality, informa-

tion becomes more reliable, more accountable, and

more relevant, improving the quality of communica-

tion. Therefore, initiation of process structure by

the team leader is expected to be positively related

to the quality and formality and negatively related to

the frequency of internal communication in NPD

teams.

The Effect of Team Leader Position on

Internal

Team Dynamics

The team leader’s position within the organization

indicates the level of power and influence he or she

enjoys (Sarin and McDermott, 2003). The team lea-

der’s position may serve as a legitimizing force for the

team’s activities (Gilmore, 1982). A higher level of

perceived power may also enhance the trust team

members have in their leader (Maltz and Kohli,

1996). Thus, a team leader with greater position

power is likely to be viewed as someone who can get

things accomplished on behalf of the team. Given the

time constraints placed on them, these leaders create a

learning environment within the team by delegating

authority and decision making to team members

(Sarin and McDermott, 2003). This is not only likely

to result in increased interactions between team mem-

bers but may also encourage the team to operate in a

more collaborative manner.

The stature and political clout of team leaders in

high positions suppresses distracting activities and

helps focus the team on the job at hand (Sarin and

McDermott, 2003). However, a high position in the

organization limits the availability of these team lead-

ers for informal interactions. As such the communi-

cation within the team is expected to take a more

formal tone when team leaders hold more senior-level

positions. Much of the interactions are likely to occur

in a planned rather than spontaneous manner. Thus

the team leader’s position is expected to be positively

related not only to collaboration but also to the fre-

quency and formality of the communication within

the NPD team.

Control Variables

Extant literature suggests that in addition to the char-

acteristics of the team leader, the internal dynamics of

the NPD team are likely to be effected by the char-

acteristics of the team itself. Clearly, the management

styles that work well for small teams are not as likely

to succeed for larger ones. Similarly, the functional

makeup (diversity) and size of the team are well

known to influence the internal dynamics of NPD

teams. Therefore following earlier research on NPD

teams (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Sarin and

McDermott, 2003), size and functional diversity of the

team are controlled for in this study. Similarly project

characteristics such as length, complexity, and risk

have been identified as having a significant impact on

the internal dynamics and performance of the NPD

teams (e.g., Sarin and Mahajan, 2001; Sarin and

McDermott, 2003) and are therefore added as con-

trol variables as well.

Methodology

Study Context, Sample Selection, and Data
Collection

This study was conducted as part of a larger examin-

ation of NPD teams. Given their extensive use of

cross-functional teams in new product development

activities, the high-tech industries were chosen as a

context for this study (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992a,

1992b; Sarin and Mahajan, 2001; Sarin and McDer-

mott, 2003). Data were collected in two phases. In

194 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Phase I, in-depth qualitative field interviews were con-

ducted with team members and managers of nine

Fortune 1000 companies. These data were used to

better understand the issues involved and to help de-

velop measures for constructs where scales were not

available in the literature. In Phase II, a survey in-

strument was used to collect data collected from

13 divisions of six Fortune 1000 firms to test the

model proposed in Figure 1. The revenues of the par-

ticipating divisions ranged from $100 million to more

than $1 billion. Four of these six organizations were

drawn from Phase I organizations. The remaining five

organizations were unable to participate due to either

the sensitivity of new product information or lack of

time. Therefore, two new organizations were recruited

to participate in Phase II of the study.

Through personal contacts and referrals, a key li-

aison was identified in each organization and was

asked to identify both successful and unsuccessful

NPD projects for possible inclusion in the study. To

be included in the study, projects were required to

meet three criteria. First, to control for noise due to

interorganizational factors, only intraorganizational

NPD projects were considered. Second, only NPD

projects with products bound for the open market

were considered. Third, projects introduced only

within the previous 12 months or at an advanced stage

of development were considered. In the final sample,

survey data were collected from 246 members of

64 cross-functional new product development teams.

The average duration of the sampled NPD projects

was 24 months. Size of the project teams ranged from

3 to 22, with the average team consisting of a little

more than 7 members. Responses were obtained from

individuals representing various functional back-

grounds and hierarchical levels.

Measures

Wherever possible, existing scales were used to mea-

sure the constructs outlined in the study. In cases

where no existing scales were available, measures were

adapted from the literature or the closest applicable

scales. The operational definitions and scale items

used to measure the constructs in this study are pre-

sented in the Appendix. Unless otherwise stated, all

constructs were measured using multi-item five-point

Likert scales (1 5 strongly disagree, 5 5 strongly

agree). The conflict resolution strategies were mea-

sured using a five-point Likert-type scale, where re-

spondents indicated the extent to which one or more

members of their team carried out listed activities

(1 5 very infrequently, 5 5 very frequently).

Functional

diversity of the team was measured using an entropy

index developed by Ancona and Caldwell (1992b).

Standard procedures were used to refine the scales

and to assess their psychometric properties (Nunnally,

1978). First, exploratory factor analyses were used to

establish the unidimensionality of each scale. Second,

the internal consistency of each scale was assessed

using Cronbach’s alpha. Last, confirmatory factor

analyses were used to establish the convergent and

discriminant validity of the scales using procedures

outlined in the literature (Venkatraman, 1989).

The reliability coefficients for the scales are also pre-

sented in the Appendix. All scales (except two) dem-

onstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The

reliability coefficients for initiation of goal structure

(.66) and smoothing (.62) were below the .70 threshold

recommended by Nunnally (1978). However, consis-

tent with past studies (e.g., Sarin and Mahajan, 2001;

Sarin and McDermott, 2003) coefficients in this range

were considered close enough to be acceptable.

Model Description and Analysis

Traditionally research on NPD teams has analyzed

either the data at the individual level or aggregated

responses from the team members to obtain a team-

level response. While analyzing nested data at the in-

dividual level ignores the interdependence between

observations, averaging individual responses loses

valuable variation at the lower level (Kreft and de

Leeuw, 1990). For nested data, such as NPD teams,

analyses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)

provide a more accurate perspective (Kreft and de

Leeuw, 1998; Sarin and McDermott, 2003).

The HLM methodology is particularly well suited

to analyzing nested data in which microlevel obser-

vations (e.g., individuals) are present within macro-

level observations (e.g., group/team) (Kreft and de

Leeuw, 1998; Hoffman, Griffin, and Gavin, 2000).

HLM allows one to investigate both lower-level and

higher-level variance in the outcome variable while

maintaining the appropriate level of analysis for the

independent variables (Hoffman et al., 2000, p. 471;

Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). In the two-level HLM

analysis used in this study, the lower level of analysis

(individual team member) is referred to as Level 1

(L1), and the higher level of analysis (team) is referred

to as Level 2 (L2).

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

195

To test the model in Figure 1, each dimension of

internal team dynamic (e.g., confronting, collabora-

tion, communication quality) was regressed on to the

five team leader characteristics while controlling for

team characteristics (i.e., size and functional diversity)

and project characteristics (i.e., complexity, risk, and

length). The level of analysis of each independent

variable was determined by decomposing the total

variance of the construct into its within- and between-

group components using intraclass coefficients (ICC).

ICC is described as the ratio of between-group vari-

ance in construct to its total variance and has impli-

cations for the level at which a particular construct

may be analyzed (Hoffman et al., 2000).

Though there are few hard and fast standards to

determine an acceptable level of aggregation (Klein

et al., 2000, p. 518), aggregation to the higher level is

justified if a significant amount of the variance in the

constructs lies between groups (Klein and Kozlowski,

2000). Using this rule of thumb, independent variables

with 90% or more of their variance within groups

(i.e., ICCo.10) were estimated at the individual level
(L1), whereas those with at least 10% of the total vari-

ance between groups (i.e., ICC � .10) were estimated
at the group level (L2). Table 1 shows the intraclass

coefficient and level of analysis for the independent

and control variables used in this study. Based on the

ICCs, all independent and control variables were ag-

gregated to the group level, with the exception of the

initiation of goal and process structure variables.

Results

Results (unstandardized coefficients) of the HLM

analysis presented in Table 2 show strong support

for the conceptual model proposed in Figure 1. Over-

all, it was found that after controlling for team and

project characteristics, the team leader’s characteris-

tics explain a significant amount of variance in the

internal dynamics of the team, especially in the con-

fronting (.39), collaboration (.65), communication

quality (.42), and formality (.52) outcome variables.

Of the characteristics examined in this study, part-

icipative behavior and initiation of goal structure by

the team leader appear to have the most influence on

the internal dynamics of NPD teams. In particular

and as expected, team leader participation has a

strong positive relationship with functional conflict

resolution behaviors such as confronting (g 5 .38,
p � .001) and smoothing (g 5 .30, p � .001) and a
strong negative relationship with dysfunctional con-

flict resolution behaviors like forcing (g 5 � .34,
p � .001) and withdrawal (g 5 � .33, p � .01). NPD
teams with participative leaders also displayed greater

collaboration (g 5 .31, p � .001), communication fre-
quency (g 5 .16, p � .01), and quality (g 5 .22,
p � .001). Also consistent with expectations, part-
icipative behavior was seen to lead to less formal

communication within the team (g 5 � .06, p � .05).
In contrast to past research (e.g., Antonioni, 1996;

McDonough, 2000; Norrgren and Schaller, 1999) the

present study’s results indicate that, after controlling

for team and project characteristics, the influence ex-

erted by team leader consideration on the internal

team dynamics was surprisingly weak. Consideration

was positively related to functional conflict resolution

behaviors like confronting (g 5 .11, p � .05) and com-
promising (g 5 .15, p � .001) but little else. Further,
members of teams led by considerate team leaders

were likely to communicate with one another less fre-

quently (g 5 � .01, p � .01).
Similar weak effects were seen for the initiation of

process structure by the team leader. Although previ-

ous research differed on the expected directionality of

the influence of process structure (e.g., Antonioni,

1996; McDonough, 2000; Parker, 1994; Peterson,

1997; Porter and Lilly, 1996; Wilemon and Thamh-

ain, 1983), they nonetheless predicted a significant

effect on team dynamics. However, as in the case of

consideration, it was found that after accounting for

team and project characteristics, the influence exerted

by the initiation of process structure by the team

leader was surprisingly sparse. Process structure was

positively related to compromising (g 5 .11, p � .05)
and communication formality (g 5 .03, p � .05); it did
not have a significant effect on any other aspect of the

internal dynamics of NPD teams.

Table 1. Intraclass Coefficients (ICC) and Level of Anal-
ysis of the Independent and Control Variables

Variable ICC Level of Analysis

Participation .107 L2
Consideration .

203

L2
Goal Structure .074 L1
Process Structure .004 L1
Leader Position .211 L2
Team Size .187 L2
Functional Diversity .643 L2
Project Length .257 L2
Project Complexity .277 L2
Project Risk .300 L2

196 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

T
a
b
le
2
.
E
ff
e
c
t
o
f

T
e
a
m

L
e
a
d
e
r
C
h
a
ra
c
te
ri
st
ic
s
o
n
th
e
In
te
rn
a
l
D
y
n
a
m
ic
s
o
f
N
P
D

T
e
a
m
s:
R
e
su
lt
s
o
f
H
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
a
l
L
in
e
a
r
M
o
d
e
li
n
g
A
n
a
ly
si
sa

In
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
V
a
ri
a
b
le
s

(d
f)

D
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
V
a
ri
a
b
le
s

F
u
n
c
ti
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
fl
ic
t

R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n

D
y
sf
u
n
c
ti
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
fl
ic
t

R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n

In
te
rn
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n
B
e
h
a
v
io
r

C
O
N
F
R
O
N
T

C
O
M
P
R
O
M
IS
IN

G
S
M
O
O
T
H
IN

G
C
O
L
L
A
B
O
R
A
T
IO

N
F
O
R
C
IN

G
W
IT

H
D
R
A
W
A
L

Q
U
A
L
IT

Y

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

F
O
R
M
A
L
IT

Y

In
te
rc
e
p
t

(6
3
)

.5
9
�

1
.3
0
�
�

.9
6
�
�

1
.2
5
�
�
�

5

.0
7

�
�
�

4
.9
8
�
�
�

1
.4
2
�
�
�

1

.1
1
�

�
�

.8
1
�
�
�

P
A
R
T
IC

IP
A
T
IO

N
(6
3
)

.3
8
�
�
�

.0
9

.3
0
�
�
�

.3
1
�
�
�

�
.3
4
�
�
�

�
.3
3
�
�

.2
2
�
�
�

.1
6
�

�

�

.0
6

�

C
O
N
S
ID

E
R
A
T
IO

N
(6
3
)
.1
1
�

.1
5
�

.0
7

.0
5

z

�
.0
6

�
.1
1

.0
7
z

�

.0
1

�
�

.0
0
2

G
O
A
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E

(2
3
5
)

.1
5
�
�

.0
5
.1
6
�

.1
8
�

�
�

�
.2
3
�
�

�
.2
8
�
�

.1
9

�

�
�

.0
6

�

.0
3

�

P
R
O
C
E
S
S

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
(2
3
5
)

.0
4

.1
1
�
.0
7
.0
1

�
.0
0
2

.0
7

0
.0
1

.0
1
.0
3
�

L
E
A
D
E
R

P
O
S
IT

IO
N

(6
3
)

.0
8

.0
3

.1
0

.0
7
�

�
.1
1

�
.0
4

.0
3

.0
2

.0
5
�
�

C
o
n
tr
o
l
V
a
ri
a
b
le
s

T
e
a
m

S
iz
e

(
6
3
)

�
.0
0
2

.0
1
�

.0
1
�

.0
0
4

�

.0
0
4

�

.0
0
1

0
.0
0
4

0
.0
2
�

.0
1
�
�

F
u
n
c
ti
o
n
a
l
D
iv
e
rs
it
y
(
6
3
)

�
.0
1

�
.0
5

�
.0
8

�
.0
2

�
.0
0
1
.1
8
�

�
.0
7

.1
9
�
.0
3

P
ro
je
c
t
L
e
n
g
th

(
6
3
)
.0
0
1

.0
1
�
�
�

�
.0
1
�
�
�

�

.0
0
2
z

.0
0
4
z

.0
1
�
.0
0
2
z

�
.0
0
6
�
�
�

�
.0
0
0
3

P
ro
je
c
t
C
o
m
p
le
x
it
y
(
6
3
)

.1
8
�
�
�

�
.0
6

.1
2
�
�

.0
9
�
�

�

.1
6
�
�

�
.1
4
�

.0
3

.1
4
�
�

.0
1

P
ro
je
c
t
R
is
k
(
6
3
)

�
.1
0
�

.1
6
�
�
�
.1
0
�
.0
1
.1
5
�
�
.0
7
z

.0
8
�
�

�
.0
3

�
.0
4
�
�

D
E
V
IA

N
C
E

E
X
P
L
A
IN

E
D

0
.3
9

0
.1
4

0
.2
9

0
.6
5

0
.1
7

.1
9

0
.4
2

0
.1
0

0
.5
2

a
U
n
st
a
n
d
a
rd
iz
e
d
c
o
e
ffi
c
ie
n
ts
.
L
e
v
el

1
,
n

5
2
4
6
.
L
e
v
el

2
,
n

5
6
4
.

�

�

�
p
�

.0
0
1
;

�
�
p
�

.0
1
;

�
p
�

.0
5
;

z
p
�

.1
0
.

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205
197

Initiation of goal structure by the team leader, on

the other hand, exhibits a significant effect on multiple

dimensions of internal team dynamics. Goal structur-

ing was positively related to functional conflict reso-

lution behaviors such as confronting (g 5 .15, p � .01)
and smoothing (g 5 .16, p � .05) and was negatively
related to dysfunctional conflict resolution behaviors

like forcing (g 5 � .23, p � .01) and withdrawal
(g 5 � .28, p � .01). Initiation of goal structure was
positively related to communication quality (g 5 .19,
p � .001) and collaboration (g 5 .18, p � .001) within
the team and was negatively related to communica-

tion formality (g 5 � .03, p � .05).
As in the case of consideration and process struc-

ture, team leader position also exhibited a surprisingly

weak influence on the internal dynamics of NPD

teams. Team leader position had a positive effect on

collaboration (g 5 .07, p � .05) and communication
formality (g 5 .05, p � .05) but did not affect any
other dimension of team dynamics in a significant

manner. Finally, results presented in Table 2 demon-

strate the importance of controlling for the team and

project characteristics, when examining team dynam-

ics. In particular, project characteristics like risk, com-

plexity, and length had statistically significant effects

on multiple dimensions of internal team dynamics.

The implications of these results are discussed next.

Discussion and Implications

Although the critical influence of team leader and

team dynamics on the performance of NPD teams is

well established, the literature lacks a comprehensive

examination of how the team leader affects internal

team dynamics. Drawing on the path-goal theory, the

objective of this study was to offer an empirical ex-

amination of the effect of five managerially control-

lable team leader characteristics on the internal

dynamics of cross-functional NPD teams. The results

offer strong support for the basic premise of this

stud—in the sense that the team leader stands out as

first among equals.

These findings indicate that participation and goal

structuring exert the most significant and ubiquitous

influence on the internal dynamics of cross-functional

NPD teams. Rather than the interpersonal character-

istics like friendliness, the most influential team leader

characteristics revolved around the tasks of NPD

teams. Most influential team leaders actively involved

the members of their teams in decision making and

helped set goals and expectations for the team. How-

ever, attempts by the team leaders to structure the

activities and behaviors of the team members do not

show a significant effect on the team’s dynamics. This

suggests that team leaders have to walk a tightrope in

terms of providing structure. Team leaders need to

motivate the members by providing superordinate

goals and helping set high expectations. But then

team leaders need to trust the team member to per-

form their job and to leave them alone to figure out

the best way to achieve these overarching goals. Any

attempts to micromanage the process by prescribing

behaviors and activities were ineffective in influencing

the dynamics of the team.

The overall pattern of results underscores four im-

portant issues and contributions of this study. First,

internal dynamics of NPD teams are multifaceted,

and the different dimensions are impacted differen-

tially by the characteristics of the team leaders. There

are inherent trade-offs involved between the underly-

ing dimensions of internal dynamics that may warrant

a more nuanced approach than previously employed

in the study of internal dynamics of NPD teams. In-

stead of examining one or two dimensions in isola-

tion, this study employs a more comprehensive

approach to internal dynamics by examining a wide

array of underlying dimensions that acknowledge

their differential effects and the trade-offs involved

therein.

For example, these findings suggest that team

leader characteristics account for a significant amount

of variance in collaboration, communication formal-

ity, communication quality, and confronting within

teams. Other team dynamics such as communication

frequency, compromising, forcing, and withdrawal

are not as strongly influenced by the team leader.

Second, the results demonstrate that the character-

istics of the project and the team have a significant

and pervasive influence on the internal dynamics of

NPD teams. Therefore, it is critical to control for

these characteristics (especially team size and project

characteristics like risk, complexity, and length) to

avoid spurious effects. Accounting for variance due to

team and project characteristics ensures that the

effects being observed are attributable solely to the

phenomena under investigation, such as team leader

characteristics in the context of this study.

Third, the results indicate that after controlling for

project and team characteristics, the effect of leader

characteristics on the dynamics of the team are differ-

ent from those reported in earlier studies. Some leader

198 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

characteristics (i.e., consideration, initiation of pro-

cess structure, and team leader position) that were re-

ported to be influential in past research appear to be

less so in the present study. On the other hand, team

leader characteristics like participation and initiation

of goal structure seem to have much more pro-

nounced effects on internal team dynamics.

Specifically, these results indicate that participative

behavior by the team leader encourages functional

conflict resolution strategies like confronting and

smoothing and discourages dysfunctional conflict res-

olution behaviors like forcing of solutions or with-

drawal from conflict. Participative team leaders foster

an environment where members of the NPD team

collaborate more and communicate with each other

more frequently and less informally. Moreover, a

participative management style improves the quality

of communication within the team. When a team

leader consults with members of his or her team, so-

licits their input, and involves them in the decision-

making process, it creates a level of trust within the

team that causes team members to respond by taking

ownership and responsibility for the project out-

comes. As a result, team members engage in behav-

iors that are most likely to benefit the team and its

mission.

Consideration by team leaders was found to have a

weaker than expected effect, significantly impacting

only three dimensions of internal dynamics examined.

Consideration was positively related to functional

conflict resolution strategies like confronting and

compromising but had a surprisingly negative effect

on the frequency of communication within the team.

When a team leader demonstrates concern for the

feelings and well-being of his or her team members,

members may respond with equal consideration to the

team leader and, more importantly, to one another.

As a result, they may be more likely to attempt to

solve problems through compromise and negotiation

so as to account for the feelings and concerns of each

team member.

Several explanations are possible for the surprising

negative relationship between consideration and com-

munication frequency. It is possible that considerate

behavior by the team leader may be mistaken for

complacency and may fail to convey a sense of ur-

gency regarding the task at hand. The team leader’s

informal, friendly demeanor may either be taken ad-

vantage of or may be subtly misinterpreted by the

team to mean that relaxing on clearly articulating task

oriented communication is acceptable. Especially if

these team leaders are seen as too nice to censure un-

responsive behavior by the team members, they risk

being taken for granted. Alternatively, a decrease in

communication frequency could be indicative of a

lack of residual conflict within the team, resulting

from the harmony created by such leaders.

Equally surprising is the weak influence exerted by

initiation of process structure on team dynamics.

With the exception of compromising conflict resolu-

tion approaches and communication formality, pro-

cess structure was found to have almost no influence

on any other dimension of conflict resolution and

communication behaviors (or team collaboration).

This is probably because when team leaders structure

processes by which specific outcomes are to be

achieved, they can insist on compromises and can

specify communication formats and channels. Beyond

that, however, the use of process structuring appears

to have no effect on team outcomes.

Goal structuring, on the other hand, was the sec-

ond most influential team leader characteristic exam-

ined in this study. Initiation of goal structure by the

team leader had almost identical effect to that of par-

ticipation on conflict resolution behaviors and collab-

oration. Goal structuring improves confronting,

smoothing, and collaborative behaviors within the

team, while discouraging dysfunctional conflict reso-

lution behavior. The results indicate that goal struc-

turing by the team leader increases the quality of the

communication within the team and at the same time

makes it more informal. These results suggest that by

identifying a specific outcome for the team to achieve,

team leaders unify the members behind a common

goal and increase the likelihood that team members

will try their best to collaborate with each other to

achieve the desired end result rather than forcing so-

lutions on one another. Focusing the team’s attention

on end results also helps develop an open style of

conflict resolution in the team rather than one of

avoidance, as there is a need to see the desired out-

come achieved. This goal focus also promotes an in-

crease in the quality of communication among team

members, as they attempt to gather the best informa-

tion available to reach their end result.

After controlling for team and project characteris-

tics, the effects of team leader position on internal

team dynamics were weaker than suggested by prior

research. The team leader’s position has a significant

and positive relationship with only two outcomes:

collaboration and communication formality. These

results suggest that, by virtue of their stature and

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205
199

management skill, such leaders may be able to bring

the team members to collaborate to a greater degree.

Given their relative position in the organization, how-

ever, more layers of management are likely to exist

between the leader and the members of the team,

thereby increasing the number of steps in the channel

of communication. This sets the tone to formalize

communication processes and interactions within the

team.

Finally, the present study employs HLM to analyze

the data and test the proposed model. HLM offers a

significant improvement over past research by taking

into account variances both at the individual as well

as group level in the constructs to test a multilevel

model of the proposed framework.

Though the present study examines the effect of

team leader characteristics on internal team dynamics,

research (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992a) points

to an equally significant role played by external inter-

action of NPD teams. Future extensions of this re-

search might examine how the team leader affects the

external dynamics of NPD teams, how team leader

characteristics affect specific dimensions of NPD per-

formance, and how the contextual effect of team and

project characteristics affect the leader—performance

relationship. There is clearly a fruitful path of explo-

ration ahead to help NPD team leaders understand

the impact of their management styles on team dy-

namics and subsequent outcomes.

References

Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and
Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a
Paradox for Top Management Teams. Academy of Management
Journal 39(1):123–148.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992a). Bridging the Boundary:
External Activity and Performance on Organizational Teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly 37:634–665 (December).

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992b). Demography and Design:
Predictors of New Product Team Performance. Organization Sci-
ence 3(3):321–341.

Antonioni, D. (1996). How to Lead and Facilitate Teams. Industrial
Management 38(6):22–24.

Aram, J.D., Morgan, C., and Esbeck, E. (1971). Relation of Colla-
borative Interpersonal Relationships to Individual Satisfaction and
Organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly
16(3):289–296.

Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D.L. (1989). Leadership Differences in New
Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement 6:259–267.

Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D.L. (1992). Successful New Product De-
velopment Team Leaders. Industrial Marketing Management
21(1):61–68.

Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1996). Development of Leader-Member
Exchange: A Longitudinal Test. Academy of Management Journal
39(6):1538–1567.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston:
Gulf Publishing Company.

Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1993). What Makes a Team Work? In:
Self-Managed Teams: Creating the High Performance Workplace,
Special Report of the American Marketing Association.

Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., and
Halpin, S. (2006). What Type of Leader Behaviors Are Functional
in Teams? A Meta Analysis. Leadership Quarterly 17:288–307.

Carzo, R.J. (1963). Some Effects of Organizational Structure on Group
Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(4):393–424.
(March).

Cleland, D.I. (1999). Project Management, Strategic Design and Im-
plementation, (3d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product
Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science 3(2):179–202.

Donnellon, A. (1993). Cross Functional Teams in Product Develop-
ment: Accommodating the Structure to the Process. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 10:377–392.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in
Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44:350–383.

Evans, M. (1970). The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on Path-Goal
Relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
5:277–298.

Floyd, R. (1992). The Art of War and the Art of Management. Indus-
trial Management 34(5):25–26.

Gilmore, T.N. (1982). Leadership and Boundary Management. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 18(3):343–356.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group
Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29:499–517.

Griffin, R.W. (1979). Task Design Determinants of Effective Leader
Behavior. Academy of Management Review 4(2):215–224.

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA Research on New Product Development
Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 14(4):429–458.

Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1992). Patterns of

Communication

among Marketing, Engineering, and Manufacturing—A Compar-
ison between Two New Product Teams. Management Science
38:360–373.

Henke, J.W., Krachenberg, A.R., and Lyons, T.F. (1993). Cross-Func-
tional Teams: Good Concept, Poor Implementation. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 10:216–229.

Hershock, R.J., Cowman, C.D., and Peters, D. (1994). From Experi-
ence: Action Teams that Work. Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement 11:95–104.

Hoffman, D.A., Griffin, M.A., and Gavin, M.B. (2000). The Applica-
tion of Hierarchical Linear Modeling to Organizational
Research. In: Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organi-
zations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, ed. K.J.
Klein, and S.W.J. Kozlowski. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,
467–511.

House, R.J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly 16(3):321–332.

Howat, G. and London, M. (1980). Attribution of Conflict Manage-
ment Strategies in Superior-Subordinate Dyads. Journal of Applied
Psychology 65(2):172–175.

Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (2000). Strategies of Effective
New Product Team Leaders. California Management Review
42(2):34–51.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams.
Harvard Business Review 71(2):111–120 (March–April).

Kezsbom, D.S. (2000). Creating Teamwork in Virtual Teams. Cost
Engineering 42(10):33–36.

200 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Kidd, J.S. and Christy, R.T. (1961). Supervisory Procedures and
Work-Team Productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 45(6):
388–392.

Klein, K.J., and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel Theory,
Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions,
and New Directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Klein, K.J., Bliese, P., Kozlowski, S., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M.,
Griffin, M., et al. (2000). Multilevel Analytical Techniques: Com-
monalities, Differences and Continuing Questions. In: Multilevel
Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Ex-
tensions, and New Directions, ed. K.J. Klein, and S.W.J. Kozlowski.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 512–553.

Kolb, D.A. and Rubin, I.M. (1990). Organizational Psychology. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publications.

Kreft, I. and de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing Multilevel Modeling.
London: Sage Publications.

Maltz, E. (2000). Is All Communication Created Equal? An Investi-
gation into the Effects of Communication Mode on Perceived In-
formation Quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management
17(2):110–127.

Maltz, E. and Kohli, A.K. (1996). Market Intelligence Dissemination
across Functional Boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research
33:47–61 (February).

McDonough III, E.F. (1993). Faster New Product Development: In-
vestigating the Effects of Technology and Characteristics of the
Project Leader and Team. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 10:241–250.

McDonough III, E.F. (2000). Investigation of Factors Contributing to
the Success of Cross-Functional Teams. Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management 17:221–235.

McDonough III, E.F. and Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding Up New
Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source
of Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9:44–52.

McDonough III, E.F. and Griffin, A. (1997). Matching the Right Or-
ganizational Practices to a Firm’s Innovation Strategy: Findings
from the PDMA’s Best Practices Research. PDMA Research Con-
ference Presentation, October.

Muczyk, J.P. and Reimann, B.C. (1987). The Case for Directive Lead-
ership. Academy of Management Review 12:637–647.

Norrgren, F. and Schaller, J. (1999). Leadership Style: Its Impact on
Cross-Functional Product Development. Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management 16:377–384.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nurick, A.J. and Thamhain, H.J. (2006). Developing Multinational
Project Teams. In: Global Project Management Handbook: Plan-
ning, Organizing and Controlling International Projects, (2d ed.), ed.
D.L. Cleland and R. Gareis. New York: McGraw Hill, 5.2–5.17.

Parker, G.M. (1994). Cross-Functional Teams: Working With Allies,
Enemies, and Other Strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub-
lishers.

Peterson, R.S. (1997). A Directive Leadership Style in Group Decision
Making Can Be Both a Virtue and Vice: Evidence from Elite and

Experimental Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
72:1107–1121.

Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., and Prescott, J.E. (1993). Antecedents and
Consequences of Project Team Cross-Functional Cooperation.
Management Science 39(10):1281–1297.

Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996). The Effects of Conflict, Trust, and
Task Commitment on Project Team Performance. International
Journal of Conflict Management 7(4):361–376.

Robbins, H. and Finley, M. (1995). Why Teams Don’t Work: What
Went Wrong and How to Make it Right. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s/
Pacesetter Books.

Sarin, S. and Mahajan, V. (2001). The Effect of Reward Structures on
the Performance of Cross-Functional Product Development
Teams. Journal of Marketing 65(2):35–53.

Sarin, S. and McDermott, C. (2003). The Effect of Team Leadership
on the Learning and Performance of Cross-Functional Product
Development Teams. Decision Sciences 34(4):707–739.

Sethi, R. (2000). Superordinate Identity in Cross-Functional Product
Development Teams: Its Effect on New Product Performance and
Its Antecedents. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
28:330–344 (Summer).

Song, X.M., Xie, J., and Dyer, B. (2000). Antecedents and Conse-
quences of Marketing Managers’ Conflict-Handling Behaviors.
Journal of Marketing 64(1):50–66.

Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995). Leadership for Self-Managing
Work Teams: A Typology and Integrative Model. Human Relations
48(7):747–770.

Teas, R.K. (1981). An Empirical Test of Models of Salesperson’s Job
Expectancy and Instrumentality Perceptions. Journal of Marketing
Research 18:209–226 (May).

Teas, R.K. (1983). Supervisory Behavior, Role Stress, and the Job
Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople. Journal of Marketing
Research 20:84–91 (February).

Thomas, K.W. (1977). Toward Multi-dimensional Values in Teaching:
The Example of Conflict Behaviors. Academy of Management
Review 2(3):484–490.

Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (1995). Product Design and Develop-
ment. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Van de Ven, A. and Ferry, D.L. (1980). Measuring and Assessing
Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises:
The Construct, Dimensionality and Measurement. Management
Science 35(8):942–961.

Wilemon, D. and Thamhain, H. (1983). Team Building in

Project

Management. Project Management Quarterly June, 73–80.

Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and Opportunities in New
Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue.
Journal of Marketing Research 34:1–12 (February).

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations, (3d ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

201

Appendix. Construct Definitions and Measures

Construct Definition Items Adapted From

Participation

(4 items,
a 5 .81)

The degree to which the team leader is
perceived to be friendly, approachable,
and democratic in his/her interactions
with the team members.

� Team members can exert influence
regarding how the team should function.
� Team members can influence decisions of
the team leader regarding things concerning
the team.
� Our team leader frequently asks the team
members for their opinion when a problem
comes up that involves the project.
� Our team leader frequently makes decisions
concerning the team, without consulting the
team members. [R]

Sarin and McDermott
(2003), Teas (1981,
1983)

Consideration

(5 items, a 5 .83)
The degree to which the team leader is
friendly and approachable, and
demonstrates interest in the well being
of the team members.

� Our team leader is friendly and
approachable.
� Our team leader gives advance notice of
changes.
� Our team leader makes my job pleasant.
� Our team leader does little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of this team.
� Our team leader treats all members of the
team as his/her equal.

Sarin and McDermott
(2003), Teas (1981,
1983)

Initiation of

Goal Structure

(3 items,
a 5 .66)

The degree to which the team leader lets
the team members know their outcome
objectives and expectations.

� Our team leader lets the team know what is
expected of them.
� Our team leader makes his/her attitudes
clear to the team members.
� Our team leader makes sure that his/her
part in the team is understood by the team
members.

Sarin and McDermott
(2003), Teas (1981,
1983)
Smoothing

(3 items,
a 5 .62)

The frequency with which conflicts are
resolved by building on the areas of
agreement.

� Common areas of agreement are
emphasized.
� Real issues in the disagreement may not be
addressed. [R]
� Areas of agreement between the conflicting
parties are emphasized.

Blake and Mouton
(1964), Howat and
London (1980)

Initiation of
Process
Structure

(5 items,
a 5 .72)

The degree to which the team leader
organizes and directs the activities of
the team members.

� Our team leader encourages the use of
uniform procedures.
� Our team leader decides what shall be done
and how it will be done.
� Our team leader schedules the work to be
done.
� Our team leader maintains definite
standards of performance.
� Our team leader asks the team members to
follow standard rules and regulations.

Sarin and McDermott
(2003), Teas (1981,
1983)
Team Leader
Position

(6 items,
a 5 .76)

A measure of the formal as well as the
informal power and influence enjoyed
by the team leader within the
organization.

� Our team leader is well respected in the
organization for his/her management skills.
� Our team leader is well respected in the
organization for his/her technical skills.
� Our team leader is widely ‘networked’ in the
organization.
� Our team leader occupies a high position in
the organization.
� Our team leader enjoys authority in our
organization.
� Our team leader has significant decision-
making responsibility in our organization.

Sarin and McDermott
(2003), Teas (1981,
1983)
Confronting

(6 items,
a 5 .87)

The frequency with which conflicts are
resolved by openly discussing the
disagreement and trying to resolve the
problem.

� Problems are openly discussed/confronted.
� A rational approach is adopted to resolve
the disagreements.
� Conflicts are resolved by focusing on the
issues.

Blake and Mouton
(1964), Howat and
London (1980)

202 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Appendix. (Contd.)

Construct Definition Items Adapted From

� Different alternative approaches of solving
the problem are evaluated.
� The best alternative is selected as the
solution in resolving the disagreement.
� The problem is confronted until the conflict
is resolved.

Compromising

(3 items,
a 5 .72)

The frequency with which conflicts are
resolved by mutual bargaining amongst
the disagreeing parties.

� There is bargaining between conflicting
parties.
� There is a search for solutions which will
bring some degree of satisfaction to the
conflicting parties.
� Conflicting parties give in a little to get a
little.

Blake and Mouton
(1964), Howat and
London (1980)
Forcing

(5 items,
a 5 .88)

The frequency with which conflicts are
resolved by the forceful imposition of a
solution by an individual (or subgroup)
over another individual (or subgroup).

� Acceptance of one viewpoint is forced at the
expense of others.
� Resolution of the conflict is characterized
by competitiveness.
� Solution(s) are forced, to the deterioration
of the team climate.
� Resolution of the conflict is characterized
by win/lose behavior.
� Solutions are forced, to the resentment of
some team members.

Blake and Mouton
(1964), Howat and
London (1980)
Collaboration

(11 items,
a 5 .88)

The degree to which the members of the
team work together to accomplish
specific tasks.

� When dealing with a task-related problem,
our team seems to be most concerned with
finding the best solution.
� Interpersonal relationships within the team
are such that members know that other
members will provide support/
encouragement.
� When an approach to solving a problem
fails, our team focuses on learning from the
failure.
� The nature of interpersonal relationships in
this team is such that others will often act to
your disadvantage. [R]
� When team members work jointly on
problems, they tend to build on each other’s
ideas.
� After a disagreement in the team, everyone
gets on with their respective jobs.
� Team members regularly share project/
team-related information with each other.
� In carrying out their assignments, team
members act as consultants to each other.
� When someone on the team makes an error,
others try and help him/her.
� In dealing with each other, team members
openly discuss what they think/feel.
� In interactions with team members, it is
acceptable to ask questions about anything
one doesn’t understand.

Pinto, Pinto, and
Prescott (1993), Aram,
Morgan, and Esbeck
(1971)

Withdrawal

(4 items,
a 5 .83)

The frequency with which conflicts are
resolved by using an avoidance
approach, i.e., by not dealing with the
conflict altogether.

� Members refrain from arguing about an
issue causing a conflict.
� There is avoidance of a conflicting issue.
� The team does not deal with the
disagreement.
� There is a tendency to avoid rocking the
boat.

Blake and Mouton
(1964), Howat and
London (1980)
TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205
203

Appendix. (Contd.)
Construct Definition Items Adapted From
Internal
Communication

Frequency and

Formality

(13 items
composite
scale,a 5 NA)

Frequency is the number of
communication events between the
respondent(s) and other members of
their team over an average three-month
period.
Formality is the ratio of formal to
informal communication events.
Formal communication events are
denoted by an [F] and informal by an
[IF].

Respondents were asked to indicate how
frequently they communicate using the
following the mechanisms over an average
three month period (1 5 Once or less, . . .,
5 5 More than once per day):
� Written Communication
Memos [F]; Reports [F]; Fax Machine [F]
� Oral Communication
Formal Group Meetings [F]
Scheduled One-to-One Meetings (Face-to-
Face) [F]
Impromptu Face-to-Face Meetings (e.g., in
the hall) [IF]
Scheduled One-to-One Phone
Conversations [F]
Impromptu One-to-One Phone
Conversations [IF]
Voice Mail [F]
Teleconferencing [F]
� Electronic Communication
E-mail consisting of text only [F]
E-mail consisting of text w/graphics and/or
spreadsheets [F]
Electronic Group Conferencing [F]

Van de Ven and Ferry
(1980), Maltz and
Kohli (1996)

Team Size

(1 item; a 5 NA)

The number of members who form the
core/primary part of the product
development team.

� Please indicate the number of members who
form the core/primary part of your product
development team: ______

Ancona and Caldwell
(1992b)

Project Length

(1 item; a 5 NA)
A measure of the duration of the project
(in months)

� Please indicate the number of months that
elapsed (or will have elapsed) between the
time that this product was first formally
approved, and the time that it was (or will
be) finally introduced/launched in the
market: ________

Sarin and Mahajan
(2001)

Internal
Communication
Quality

(10 items,
a 5 .90)

Quality is a measure of the
communication within the team along
the dimensions such as: accuracy,
clarity, detail congruence, relevance,
ease and timeliness.

� Information exchanged was reliable.
� Information exchanged was easy to
comprehend.
� Information exchanged was detailed
enough to be useful.
� Communication exchanged included topics
which were of relevance to both the sender
as well as receiver of the communication.
� Communication exchanged made it difficult
to get ideas across.
� Information exchanged was current.
� The communication/information
exchanged was accurate
� The information exchanged was
‘actionable’.
� It was difficult to get in touch with members
of the team.
� Communication exchanged included topics
which were of interest to both the sender as
well as receiver of the communication.

Maltz (2000), Van de
Ven and Ferry (1980)

204 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Appendix. (Contd.)
Construct Definition Items Adapted From
Functional

Diversity

(1 item; a 5 NA)

The degree of functional heterogeneity
in the team.

Please indicate how many members of your
product team belong to the following
functional areas:
� Marketing: _______
� Manufacturing: _______
� Engineering: _______

Ancona and Caldwell
(1992b)

An entropy based index was used to calculate
functional diversity (H):

H¼s �
X

Pi � ðln PiÞ
Where,
P 5 fractional share of team members assigned
to marketing, manufacturing, and engineering.
S 5 the number of functional areas that can
potentially be represented.

Project Risk

(4 item; a 5 .88)
The magnitude of failure associated
with the project.

� Our organization has a lot riding on this
project.
� Poor market performance by this product
will have serious consequences for our
business.
� Our organization has made a significant
investment in the development of this
product.
� The outcome of this project has high
strategic value for our organization.

Sarin and Mahajan
(2001)
Project

Complexity

(5 item; a 5 .86)

The degree to which the development
process was complicated and difficult.

� The product developed by our team was
technically complex to develop.
� Our team had to use non-routine
technology to develop the product.
� The development process associated with
the product was relatively simple. [R]
� Development of this product required
pioneering innovation.
� The product developed by our team is/was
complex.

Sarin and Mahajan
(2001)
TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG
2009;26:188–205
205

Small Group Research
41(5) 621 –651

© The Author(s) 201

0

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: dsderue@umich.edu

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

624 Small Group Research 41(5)

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

626 Small Group Research 41(5)

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.

628 Small Group Research 41(5)

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

630 Small Group Research 41(5)

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

632 Small Group Research 41(5)

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

634 Small Group Research 41(5)

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.

636 Small Group Research 41(5)

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.

638 Small Group Research 41(5)

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.

640 Small Group Research 41(5)

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

642 Small Group Research 41(5)

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

644 Small Group Research 41(5)

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)

646 Small Group Research 41(5)

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 Psychology, 63, 1-40.

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
Psychology, 75, 107-116.

648 Small Group Research 41(5)

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 Psychology, 87, 819-832.

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 Psychology, 89, 852-863.

650 Small Group Research 41(5)

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.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226-238.

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.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295-305.

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.