How to Write a Thesis Paper
Team Leadership and Performance
Abstract
Amassing confirmation proposes that the founding/management team can build
rather an optimistic part to the achievement of firm. On the other hand little
is recognized regarding the build up fundamentals to the connection amid team
and performance? Sketching on the diversity of texts, five different examples
are projected to clarify the connection between the two and furthermore, this
report also draws the complications confronted in team performance and team
leadership, and also shall confront the theory put forward "the leader can turn
a group into the team so often idealized by theorists and executives alike," by
Hambrick.
How to Write a
Thesis Paper
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
Introduction
Figures of studies have established that flourishing schemes are over and over
again recognized by groupings of persons to a certain extent than by a lone
individual (Kamm et al., 1990,7-117). In the meantime, more than a few studies
on pinnacle management teams have established the connection stuck between
administration team and organizational show particularly in high-velocity
conditions (Murray, 1989; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Finkelstein and
Hambrick, 1990; Michel and Hambrick, 1992; Hambrick and D’Aveni, 1992). Above
and beyond the show, the top administration teams are associated to managerial
modernism (Bantel and Jackson, 1989), approach (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990;
Michel and Hambrick, 1992) and planned alteration (Grimm and Smith, 1991;
Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). In spite of the build up confirmation concerning the
relation amid organization team and show, comparatively a small number of pains
have been completed to examine the build up which is principal to the connection
(Smith et al., 1994, 412-438).
Resource effect example
The first example suggests that there is a straight consequence of the
resources, information and ability of the team on managerial show. This example
is footed on the quarrel that essential resources, information and ability are
desirable in order to be capable to function productively and as a team in the
market. The purpose of the grouping is observed as the single of imprison
jointly the essential resources wanted for achievement.
The team’s previous industry knowledge
Knowledge on industry is necessary for the achievement of venture. People with
knowledge in the industry fetch the information of how the industry functions.
In a lot of cases knowledge in the meticulous industry has been the essential
situation for the commencement of novel project. However, the industry knowledge
turns out to be excessively imperative, when the company arrives at the
dimension the industry broad rivalry cannot be prevented. We foresee an
optimistic straight association amid team’s previous industry knowledge and
show.
The team’s previous vocation knowledge and complementarily of ability
Timmons (1994, 43-52) states, “entrepreneurs have typically developed a solid
base and a wide breadth of management skills and know-how over a number of years
of working in different areas (e.g., sales, marketing, manufacturing, and
finance). What is important is having a management team whose skills are
complementary, not the possession by an individual of a single, absolute set of
skills or a profile.” However, Stuart and Abetti (1986) considered, “the
experience level high if the founders were familiar with technology and markets,
if they have previously run their own companies, or if they had earlier general
management experience.” Furthermore, “Cooper and Bruno (1977) found that team
members’ prior experience in marketing and technology is particularly
important.” Moreover, Roure and Keeley (1989) found that “team completeness was
a major predictor of the internal rate of return among new ventures.” Vesper
(1980) stated “not only experience, but also a variety of experience in
different functional areas was an indicator of better performance on new
ventures. Deriving from above we predict a positive relationship between team’s
work tenure and performance. In addition we suggest team with both technology
and marketing experience are positively related to performance.”
How to Write a
Thesis Paper
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
Team size
“The number of members in the team is associated with the growth of start-ups”.
(Cooper and Bruno, 1977; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Doutriaux 1992).
“More team members mean that there are more people available to do the enormous
job of starting a new firm and that there is more opportunity for specialization
in decision-making.”
Kazanjian (1988, 257-279) has sketched the great figure of evils that young
firms face.
“If the team is large, one executive can handle manufacturing issues while
another grapples with marketing, a third raises funds, and so forth.”
In dissimilarity, small teams might stagger over some or all of these troubles.
In more structural provisions, team size is probable to have an effect on the
level of disagreement (Bales and Borgatta, 1966) and heterogeneity (Bantel and
Jackson, 1989) inside the team. On equilibrium, on the other hand, one envisages
an encouraging straight association amid team mass and show. Preceding joint
work experience. Preceding joint work experience is moreover connected to
booming venture formation (Roure and Keeley, 1990; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven,
1990). Past joint working experience amid members of a beginning team guides to
further fast pace in conclusion building (Eisenhardt and Schoohonven, 1990
504-529), with superior faith, skill (Stinchcombe, 1965, 142-193), cohesiveness
(Goodstein and O’Reilly, 1988) and communication (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989).
The team’s speed in decision-making is chiefly significant in quickly altering,
unbalanced environments (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990), usually
individuality of elevated technology industries. Consequently we anticipate a
constructive association amid team’s previous joint work experience and
performance.
Team tenure
Katz (1982, 80-104) found a nonlinear association amid group tenure and show in
the study and expansion teams he studied. He clarified that groups go all the
way through dissimilar phases: socialization, innovation, and stability. He
anticipated young teams to execute inadequately for the reason that of meager
socialization, but he furthermore quarreled that teams that have used up a long
time mutually turn out to be dedicated to the status quo, knowledge
discriminating awareness, and more and more dependence on the group’s individual
knowledge. He completed that long-tenured groups would ultimately turn out to be
less adaptive and pioneering. On equilibrium, nevertheless, we anticipate an
optimistic unswerving association amid team tenure and show.
Structural effect example
The second example is footed on the supposition that there are compositional or
demographic effects resulted from the precise demographic allocation, which are
more than the amount of the effects of the individual-level variants. This
means, that not resources themselves, but their arrangements clarify the
connection amid the team and organizational show.
Dissimilarity in practical settings and dissimilarity in practical knowledge
Heterogeneity in pinnacle sides stands for a differentiation in belief
structures, leading to a superior hunt for information (Dutton and Duncan,
1987), and a superior diversity of tactical subjects concentrated to. Higher
novelty and originality is connected with heterogeneity (Katz, 1982; Wanous and
Youtz, 1986), at the same time as team homogeneity will guide to status quo,
satisfaction, and high commitment to previous events (Janis, 1972). Prearranged
the extremely altering environment of elevated technology industries, the
paybacks of heterogeneity are mainly significant. It lets a more complete aim of
a wide section of the market, and gives an incentive for novelty as ideas come
from a better assortment of experience. Heterogeneity in useful settings is
moreover chiefly significant in multifaceted surroundings, where the firm is
tackled with contradictory stresses from manifold constituencies (Lawrence and
Lorsch, 1967; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). The difficulty of high technology
industries leans to be superior as the positions, states, and ranks of an
extensive diversity of possible stakeholders turn out to be healthier resulted.
For instance, discussing such subjects, as patents, licensing, and spirited
sections, serious in the earlier stages of high technology industries, will be
very much assisted by variety in pinnacle team backgrounds. By difference, team
homogeneity will help firm performance in simpler surroundings as the team
communicates more effortlessly and rapidly (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989; Keck,
1997). Subsequent to the above sense, we forecast an optimistic straight
association amid difference of practical backgrounds/variation in practical
knowledge and presentation.
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
Variation in team tenure
Higher levels of distinction in tenure are associated with lower levels of 1)
communication with the external and information distribution (Zenger and
Lawrence, 1989), 2) obligation to grouping goals and norms (Homans, 1950;
Murray, 1989), 3) socialization (Katz, 1980, 1982), 4) explanation of precedent
proceedings (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989) and 5) team presentation (Zenger and
Lawrence, 1989). Zenger and Lawrence (1989) established, on the other hand, that
as R & D teams matured, they abridged communication with external groups and
filtered compulsory information that would have led to more victorious team
show. Keck (1997, 143-156) established support for her theory that team with
more difference in team tenure and shorter team tenure lead to improved monetary
show in confused industrial circumstances and incomplete sustainability for
opposite consequences in steady industrial circumstances. Confident by the
Keck’s answer we forecast an optimistic straight association amid disparity in
team tenure and show and unenthusiastic straight association amid signify team
tenure and show in the firm operating elevated speed industries.
Group process example
The third example proposes that the top management team’s procedure will
straightforwardly have an effect on show. This procedure example forecasts that
both demography (group resource and structural examples) and procedure will be
straightforwardly and separately connected to managerial presentation, with
procedure accounting for difference in presentation that demography leaves
unexplained. The rationale for the process example is derived from social
psychology research. This literature has identified social integration and
communication as two key predictors of group performance (Cartwright and Zander,
1968; Shaw, 1981; McGrath, 1984). They have been included in the underlying
theory in previous studies of top management teams to explain relationships
between specific measures of team demography and organizational performance,
though they were not measured (e.g., Murray, 1989; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven,
1990; Keck, 1991; Michel and Hambrick, 1992).
Three aspects of management team’s process will be included to the example:
social integration within the team, communication frequency and communication
informality.
Social integration. Social integration is a multifaceted phenomenon that
reflects “the attraction to the group, satisfaction with other members of the
group, and social integration among the group members” (O’Reilly, Caldwell, and
Barnett, 1989: 22). Katz and Kahn (1978: 423) noted “The great advantage of the
cohesive group is that its members can find in group responsibility and group
achievement satisfaction for their individual needs for self-expression and
self-determination, as well as affiliation.” Seashore (1977: 10) has linked
social integration and cohesion to such ideas as “group pride,” “team sprit,”
and “team work,” Members of socially integrated groups experience higher morale
and satisfaction and, most importantly, exhibit greater efficiency in the
coordination of tasks (Shaw, 1981; McGrath, 1984; O’Reilly et al., 1989). The
principal argument is that the constant change and flux in the high-paced
environment confronting the firms in this sample require flexibility and rapid
response by the top management teams. Furthermore, this kind of high-speed
decision-making is fostered through high levels of social integration and
communication. In this high-velocity environment, we expect positive direct
relationship between team social integration and performance.
Communication has been described as the heart of group behavior (Shaw, 1981) and
the essence of social systems (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Group communication is
multidimensional, and it can vary in frequency (Daft and Lengel, 1984; Ancona
and Caldwell, 1992) and informality (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Communication
frequency concerns the amount of interaction among team members, whether
communication occurs in face-to-face meetings, by telephone, by written notes,
or via electronic mail (Katz and Kahn, 1978; Shaw, 1981; Daft and Lengel, 1984.
Unexpectedly, however, Smith et al., (1994, 412-438) and Ancona and Caldwell
(1992, 99-128) found a negative relationship between communication frequency and
performance. Their explanation was that communication frequency indicates
conflict and disagreement in the group, resulting in a flurry of meetings and
written memos that detract from task-oriented activities. Thus top management
teams may be communicating frequently to reduce conflict. Conversely, infrequent
communication may indicate that the team functions well, with little need for
information exchange and clarification. Drawing from the findings of Smith et
al. (1994, 412-438) and Ancona and Caldwell (1992,99-128) we predict that
communication frequency will be negatively related to organizational
performance.
Group task leadership example
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
The fourth example proposes that no either resource themselves, their structure
(heterogeneity or variation) or their processes are important, but how
effectively those resources are organized toward the achievement of the
particular task. This example concerns the leadership function of the group. Two
aspects of management team’s task leadership will be analyzed as they relate to
the firm performance and growth: the team members’ perceptions about the clarity
of various issues concerning task behavior and team members’ perceptions about
the degree of shared understanding within the management team.
Perceived clarity of task issues. In order the team members to be effective;
there should be clarity on goals, values and norms about how to go about doing
the work within the team (Gladstein, 1984, 499-517). Goal and role clarity and
specific norms about work are similar to the organization-structure-variable
structuring the activities. The degree of structuring of activities influences
both intragroup processes and boundary behaviors (Gladstein, 1984, 499-517).
Deriving from this we predict a positive direct relationship between perceived
clarity of goals, tasks, values and norms, and performance.
Shared understanding on team’s goals
The key issues of team processes are common understanding about mission, goals
and the structure of the team. The failure to clearly communicate goals and
aspirations between the founders of a firm can be a problem both during the
start up and growth phases of the business (Timmons, 1984, 43-52). Conflicts may
be avoided if team members understand each other’s views of the venture’s
mission (Matthes, 1992; Mills, 1967; Pavia and Berry, 1991, 24-27). Morman and
Cohen (1994) found that the members’ perceptions of each other’s contributions
to the team and established shared understanding of what they are trying to
accomplish affect team performance in product development teams. Hackman (1990,
1-35) asserts that team members’ understanding of the team’s business is
critical to their success. Watson et al. (1995, 393-411) state that partners
must keep on the same “wavelength” about business cycles and strategies to be
successful. Besides of shared understanding on goals to increase team success,
partners should share their assumptions about the venture team structure (Bird,
1989; Rooney, 1987; Shapero, 1975). Hitt (1994) asserts that shared values are
important to venture projects. As a conclusion from above we predict a positive
relationship between shared understanding on team’s goals, values and norms, and
performance.
The example of personal integration into the task
The fifth example puts forward that in addition to the direct resource,
structure, procedure and chore management effects, there is an extra direct
result on performance caused by the team members’ individual integration into
the job procedure. The eventual worth of high-quality results depends to a huge
amount upon the readiness of managers to assist in putting into practice those
choices (Guth and MacMillan, 1986, 313-327; Woolridge and Floyd, 1990, 231-241).
But limited evidence that exists suggests that processes deemed to lead to the
highest-quality decisions may adversely influence team members’ affective
responses to the process (Amason, 1993). Strategic decision-making teams whose
members have fully aired their views in reaching decisions are at times left
uncommitted to the decisions and disinclined to work together in a cooperative
manner in the future (Schweiger, Sandberg and Ragan, 1986, 51-71). A more
complete view of effective decision processes should therefore consider not only
the quality of decisions but also the impact of such processes on team members’
affective responses, such as commitment to the decision, attachment to a team,
and trust in its leader (Korsgaard et al., 1995, 60-84).
Two features relating to the team members’ individual integration into the chore
will be examined as they tell to presentation: the commitment to the chore and
the amount of individual integration into the job.
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
Commitment to the task
Obligation to carrying out a judgment is imperative for the reason that the
members of a executive team know how to delay or damage the completion of plans
(Guth and MacMillan, 1986, 313-327); yet small holdups can prove critical in
extremely spirited and lively surroundings (Eisenhardt, 1989, 543-576).
Korsgaard et al. (1995, 60-84) describe commitment as the amount to which team
members recognize the planned choice attained and aimed to assist in carrying it
out. Individuals’ pledge to a planned result makes sure that the joint and
consonant choices essential for harmonized, supportive attempt will be made (Deutch,
1957, 19-231), while lack of commitment places a chief restraint on the variety
of alternatives the team’s leader can reflect on (Guth and MacMillan, 1986,
313-327). The degree to which team members have the same opinion with and assist
with a conclusion can very much influence the leader’s capability to put into
practice it (Hitt and Tyler, 1991, 327-351). To conclude, for the reason that
planned choices are often interwoven and incorporated with one another, lack of
commitment to a conclusion in general has consequences far away from its impact
on the achievement of that conclusion alone (Bourgeois, 1984,586-596; Eisenhardt,
1989,543-576). One can forecast an optimistic association amid pledge to the
chore and show.
Conclusion
The effect of the performance of the team definitely depends on the top team
leadership, but at the same time it is a very complicated process and requires a
lot of priorities to be accomplished as mentioned above.
References
Amabile, T.M. (1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amason, A. C. (1993) Decision Quality, Consensus, and Conflict: Examining a
Paradox in the Relationship of Top Management Teams and Organizational
Performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
Ancona, D. (1989) “Top Management Teams: Preparing for the Revolution.” In
Social Psychology in Business Organizations, ed. J. Carroll, 99-128, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Eflbaum Associates.
Ancona, D. & David, F. Caldwell (1992) “Bridging the Boundary: External Process
and Performance in Organizational Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
pp. 527-548.
Bales, Robert. F., & Edgar, F. Borgatta (1966) “Size of Group as a Factor in the
Interaction Profile.” In Studies in Social Interaction. A. Paul Hare, Edgar, F.
Borgatta, & Robert F. Bales, 495-512, New York: Knopf.
Bantel, K. A., & S. E. Jackson (1989) “Top Management and Innovations in
Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?” Strategic
Management Journal, 10, pp. 107-124.
Bantel, K. A. (1993) “Top Team Environment, and Performance Effects on Strategic
Planning Formality.” Group and Organization Studies, 18, 436-458.
Bird, B. J. (1989) Entrepreneurial Behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and
Co.
Bourgeois, L. J., III (1984) “Strategic Management and Determination.” Academy
of Management Review, 9, pp. 586-596.
Cartwright, Dorwin, & Alvin, Zander (1968) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory.
3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Cooper, A. C., & A. V. Bruno (1977) “Success Among High-technology Firms.”
Business Horizons, April, pp. 16-20.
Daft, Richard, L., & Robert, H. Lengel (1984) “Information Richness: A New
Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design.” In Research in
Organizational Behavior, ed. Barry M. Staw & L, L. Cummings, 6, 191-233,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
How to Write a
Thesis Paper
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
