Leadership & Team Effectiveness

7/31/2019 Leadership & Team Effectiveness

1/29

PAPER ON

Transformational Leadership: Impact of Team Leader on TeamEffectiveness

PRESENTED BY

SAMAN AHMAD (02)

SHAILENDER KUMAR SINGH (08)PADMENDRA SINGH PATWAL (09)

ABHISHEK KOHLI (17)

PGDM (PT) 2009-12


2/29

Transformational Leadership: Impact of Team Leader on TeamEffectiveness

We investigated the relationship between the leadership style and the impact on theeffectiveness of team performance & clarity of Vision, Roles, Structure of team and

objectivity in the team. Total 10 teams of 5 member each were selected that were partof pharmaceutical & IT sales companies. Transformational leadership influenced teamperformance through the mediating effect of team potency. The effect oftransformational leadership on team potency was moderated by clarity of vision, clarityof goals, conflict management, and structure of the team.

Transformational leadership is a leadership approach that is defined as leadershipthat creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal ofdeveloping followers into leaders. A transformational leader focuses on "transforming"others to help each other, to look out for each other, to be encouraging and harmonious,

and to look out for the organization as a whole. With this leadership, the leaderenhances the motivation, morale and performance of his followers through a variety ofmechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to themission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followersthat inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, andunderstanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can alignfollowers with tasks that optimizes their performance.

James MacGregor Burns (1978)[1] first introduced the concepts of transformationalleadership in his descriptive research on political leaders, but this term is now used inorganizational psychology as well. According to Burns, transformational leadership is a

process in which "leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level ofmorale and motivation". Burns related to the difficulty in differentiation betweenmanagement and leadership and claimed that the differences are in characteristics andbehaviors. He established two concepts: "transformational leadership" and"transactional leadership". According to Burns, the transformational approach createssignificant change in the life of people and organizations. It redesigns perceptions andvalues, and changes expectations and aspirations of employees. Unlike in thetransactional approach, it is not based on a "give and take" relationship, but on theleader's personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation ofan energizing vision and challenging goals. Transformational leaders are idealized inthe sense that they are a moral exemplar of working towards the benefit of the team,organization and/or community.

The full range of leadership introduces four elements of transformational leadership:

1. Individualized Consideration the degree to which the leader attends to eachfollower's needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower and listens to thefollower's concerns and needs. The leader gives empathy and support, keepscommunication open and places challenges before the followers. This also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_MacGregor_Burnshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership#cite_note-0%23cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_MacGregor_Burnshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership#cite_note-0%23cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor


3/29

encompasses the need for respect and celebrates the individual contribution thateach follower can make to the team. The followers have a will and aspirations forself development and have intrinsic motivation for their tasks.

2. Intellectual Stimulation the degree to which the leader challengesassumptions, takes risks and solicits followers' ideas. Leaders with this style

stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers. They nurture and developpeople who think independently. For such a leader, learning is a value andunexpected situations are seen as opportunities to learn. The followers askquestions, think deeply about things and figure out better ways to execute theirtasks.

3. Inspirational Motivation the degree to which the leader articulates a visionthat is appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders with inspirational motivationchallenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about futuregoals, and provide meaning for the task at hand. Followers need to have a strongsense of purpose if they are to be motivated to act. Purpose and meaningprovide the energy that drives a group forward. The visionary aspects of

leadership are supported by communication skills that make the visionunderstandable, precise, powerful and engaging. The followers are willing toinvest more effort in their tasks, they are encouraged and optimistic about thefuture and believe in their abilities.

4. Idealized Influence Provides a role model for high ethical behavior, instillspride, gains respect and trust.

Leadership and team effectiveness

Team effectiveness refers to the system of getting people in a company or institution towork together effectively. The idea behind team effectiveness is that a group of people

working together can achieve much more than if the individuals of the team wereworking on their own. Team effectiveness is determined by a number of factors, suchas:

The right mix of skills. Team effectiveness depends in part on bringing togetherpeople who have different skills that somehow complement each other. This canmean different technical abilities or communication skills. In fact, teaming uppeople who share the exact same characteristics is often a recipe for disaster.Team effectiveness depends on people taking on different roles in a groupsetting. If there is no agreement on who does what in the group, it is unlikely thatthe team will prosper.

The right motivation. Team effectiveness is directly linked to the interest thatthe group has on the project. If the job is too easy or too difficult, or if the rewardsfor achieving the end result do not seem worth the effort, the team may end upworking half-heartedly in the project. The task should also have a clear outcome.Working towards a specific goal enhances team effectiveness significantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation


4/29

The ability to solve conflicts without compromising the quality of theproject. Team work has one major downfall. Sometimes groups end up makingdecisions they know are not in the best interest of the project, just so they cankeep the process moving. Conflict is innate to any work done in groups, andshould be taken as part of the challenge rather than as something to be avoided

by compromising. Team effectiveness should be increased, not compromised,through conflict.

One way to enhance team effectiveness is to agree beforehand on a code of conduct.As conflicts arise, it is important to know how to deal with them. What is allowed andwhat is not? How will the team deal with disagreements? Is open discussion favored orwill the group vote on major decisions? Knowing what to expect and having the plan willmake the process of working in group much easier.

Relationship between team effectiveness and leadershipIn this study we aim to explain the patterns of leadership roles for team effectiveness in

non economic organizations compared to economic organizations. For this purpose, westudied three successful organization types, i.e the amateur sports clubs (football,basketball), theater companies and, regional folk groups. Our basic hypothesis is thatthe relationship between the type of organization (specially teams) and the role ofleadership is not random. Therefore, we believe that an empirical approach isnecessary to test the assumptions about leadership and team effectiveness. Also theseempirical results are supposed to lead to professional managers in economicorganizations. First, we constructed thirteen key dimension variables for leadershipbehavior as follows: coaching, effective communication, encouraging teamwork,establishing high standards and getting results, effective delegation, rewardingperformance, developing and releasing employees, building consensus, supporting

reasonable risk- taking, forecast thinking, improving the organization, managingdiversity, and overall effectiveness . Second, we defined team standards andeffectiveness in twenty items. And finally, we tried to emphasize factors affectingleadership roles and team effectiveness. In this study, Natemeyer and Babko (1992)Management Practices Survey data are used. Data reliability are tested before theanalysis and results are discussed at the end of the study.

Review: Article 1This research study offers the first empirical test of the relationships among:1. Creativity2. Standardization3. Team effectivenessThe article examines both customer satisfaction and performance as outcomes becausethey are critically important, but very different, effectiveness criteria that exist for thisand many other organizations. It also says creativity and standardization have similareffects on both variables. Focuses strictly on the main effects for a moment, one sees


5/29

an interesting picture emerge. For customer satisfaction, it is sgnificant, positiveassociation for standardization, but none for creativity.Therefore, it the teams that adhere to established practices and follow documentedprocedures have higher levels of customer satisfaction. However, teams with morecreative environments have significantly higher levels of performance, with work

standardization not being a significant predictor.Conclusion:It can be concluded that customers prefer standardization as it removes ambiguity fromtheir service interactions. However, with a highly skilled and well-trained workforce, likethe service technician teams in this research, creative team environment rather thanwork standardization appears to benefit performance. Consequently, teams and,ultimately, organizations face an interesting dilemma in that they need to strike abalance between being creative and employing standardized work practices.

Article 2:RELATING MEMBER ABILITY AND PERSONALITY TO WORK TEAM PROCESSES

& TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Review:The article emphasizes that teams are important to Organizational Effectiveness, andthe number of Organizations using teams is increasing, but little is known about therelationship between Team composition variables and Team effectiveness in actualwork settings. The present study addresses the issue and also provides some insightinto the way ability and personality is related to team viability through an indicator ofteam processes (social cohesion).Conscientious teams and high cognitive-ability teamsperform better than teams that are less conscientious and lower in cognitive ability. Itcan also been seen that teams thatare more agreeable and more emotionally stable

are likely to have higher performance.Further, it can also be concluded that teams donot have any particularly disagreeable or introverted members were found to be higher

performing teams.Conclusion:The Study suggests that interpersonally oriented personality characteristics such asagreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability, can also be important predictors ofteam effectiveness. Agreeableness and emotional stability have not been found toconsistently relate to performance for individuals, the article also suggests on team-levelconstructs that predict team performance and team viability. Article also demonstratedthat part of the effect for some of these interpersonally oriented personality variables onteam viability comes through social cohesiveness. Composing teams with memberswho develop positive social interactions and thereby experience synergistic cohesionthus enhances work-team performance. The study highlights the importance ofchoosing appropriate methods of operational composition variables.Article 3:Vertical Vs Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of ChangeManagement Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional,Transformational, & Empowering Leader Behaviors


6/29

Review:Important outcome from the mentioned study is that shared leadership is found to be animportant predictor of team effectiveness. The results in the study state that a consciousstrategy of distributing leadership to team members is likely to enhance teameffectiveness. The article addresses the issue of Heroic Vs Shared Leadership

findings in the study show that shared leadership is a more useful as compared to teameffectiveness. It explains more (heroic) leadership. Vertical transformational leadershipis found to be positively related to manager and team self-ratings of team effectiveness,and shared transformational leadership is found to be positively related to all threeratings of team effectiveness. Further the study concludes that affect the effectivenessof empowered teams by identifying leadership, in its many forms, as important factor ofthe effectiveness of empowered teams.Conclusion:Teams are becoming an increasingly important component in organizations. There hasbeen an increasing need to better understand team leadership and team effectiveness.This research study examined a non-traditional social source of team leadership and

examined its relationship. The study has examined an alternate social source ofleadership, shared leadership, and found this alternate source of leadership to beimportant in explaining the effectiveness of teams. In this paper seven dimensions ofeffectiveness were measured with ratings from three sources:(a) Managerial ratings(b) Internal customer ratings(c) Team self-ratings

Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams

ARTICLE REVIEW - 4

The article follows the trend toward physically dispersed work groups that havenecessitated a fresh inquiry into the role and nature of team leadership in virtualsettings. To accomplish it thirteen culturally diverse global teams from locations inEurope, Mexico, and the United States, were taken and assigned each team a projectleader and task to complete.

Later the findings suggested that effective team leaders demonstrate the capability todeal with paradox and contradiction by performing multiple leadership rolessimultaneously (behavioural complexity). It was discovered that highly effective virtualteam leaders act in a mentoring role and exhibit a high degree of understanding(empathy) toward other team members. At the same time, effective leaders are alsoable to assert their authority without being perceived as overbearing or inflexible.

Thus effective leaders are found to be extremely effective at providing regular, detailed,and prompt communication with their peers and in articulating role relationships(responsibilities) among the virtual team members. It provides useful insights formanagers interested in developing global virtual teams, as well as for academicsinterested in pursuing virtual team research.


7/29

Virtual team leaders are rated as effective by their members, demonstrate as first andforemost a mentoring quality characterized by concern for the members, understanding,and empathy.

ARTICLE 5

The Importance Of Self- And Shared Leadership In Team Based Knowledge Work

A MESO-LEVEL MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DYNAMICS

ARTICLE REVIEWThe research addresses the increasing need for novel approaches to leadership thatdeal with the challenges that the organizations face as they flatten, diversify, andconfront increasingly the complex problems.For this they developed A Meso-Level Theoretical Model that outlined the relationshipbetween self- and shared leadership, focusing on the intermediary processes of trust,potency, and commitment that would lead to the development of shared leadership and

ultimately more of innovative knowledge creation.

Implication An important boundary implication that the model follows is that theyassumes team and organizational incentives as a place to encourage team building andto facilitate team over individual achievements.

Conceptualizing leadership in this way lead to numerous unanswered questionsregarding how team dynamics influence, and are influenced by, various forms ofleadership (including lateral, upward, and downward influence attempts).

As more work becomes knowledge work, work within organization is more to likely

become more flexible and varied. This in turn requires teamwork of a new kind, one thatis conducive to the expression of creativity and innovation. Decentralized forms ofleadership are more necessary as well as the shared forms of leadership.

ARTICLE 6RELATING MEMBER ABILITY AND PERSONALITY TO WORK-TEAM PROCESSESAND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

ARTICLE REVIEWThe study emphasises on examining the relationships among team composition (abilityand personality), team process (social cohesion), and team outcomes (team viabilityand team performance).

To optimise this for further results for finding out tem members characteristics fourscoring methods were used:

Mean

Variance

Minimum

Maximum


8/29

With respect to composition variables, teams higher in general mental ability (GMA),conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received highersupervisor ratings for team performance.

Teams higher in GMA, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisorratings for team viability. Results also show that extraversion and emotional stabilitywere associated with team viability through social cohesion. The major purpose of thisstudy is to assess how member characteristics (e.g., ability and personality) offunctioning work teams relate to differences in team effectiveness. This also included ananalysis to examine various methods for operationalzing member characteristics (mean,variance, minimum, and maximum). They also explored social cohesion as an indicatorof synergistic group processes through which some of the team compositioncharacteristics operate.

ConclusionMany higher-education institutions around the world are increasingly relying on theonline learning model to deliver education to students who otherwise cannot or wouldnot physically attend. This study examines the effect of different predictor variables ontwo variables of effectiveness of virtual learning teams: team performance and teamsatisfaction. Specifically, the diversified roles played by learning team leaders andleadership effectiveness, as well as team trust and propensity to trust, are examined.This study integrates the theories of both leadership and virtual teams in the context ofe-learning, and through a field study of an undergraduate MIS online course collectsdata to investigate the existence of significant paths among the variables.The results of this study show that, in a virtual learning environment, diversified

leadership roles contribute to leadership effectiveness; diversified leadership roles,leadership effectiveness, and propensity to trust all positively influence team trust, whichin turn contributes to two indicators of team effectivenessperformance andsatisfaction.

In addition, team trust is found to be a significant variable that mediates the effecttransmitted from leadership effectiveness to team performance, as well as fromleadership effectiveness to team satisfaction. Educators can gain insight from theproposed theoretical model and field study results. To improve effectiveness of onlinelearning teams, educators can consider assigning effective virtual team leaders andpromoting trust among team members.

Methodology:

Samples & Procedures:

The participants in the study represented 10 sales teams working in India inpharmaceutical sector and in IT sales. All the teams have achieved more than 100% ofthere repective budgets in the year 2009. By sampling teams both in pharmaceuticals


9/29

and It sector, we planned to increase our chances of obtaining substantial variation inthe team values that were the focus of this study.

Each team consisted of five members working together in an independent fashion tomake the sales in there desigmnated territory. Each team reported to a manager and

comprised a geographically isolated area, meaning that none of the teams included inthis study shared the office facilities.

Questioners were sent to the potential participants through individual emails. Each ofthe mail included an introductory letter from the authors, the mail explained that theparticipation in the study was strictly voluntary & the anonymity of respondents wasensured. All the respondents were male of different age group, and experience in thererespective industry ranges from 1 year to 25 years.

Measures

The questionnaire contains 47 questions at all on the different parameters. One set wason Vision, Values, another was on Objectivity, another was on Roles, Structure,Resources and the last set of questions was on the leadership. All questions wereanswered on 5 a point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree).We obtained indexes of Clarity of Vision, Clarity of Values, Clarity of Roles, Objectivity,Structure of team, Ideal leadership, Inspirational Leadership, Intellectual Leadership &Individualized Leadership. In predicting the leadership style we tested the Clarity ofVision, Values & Roles with chi-square testing.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Member * Clarity of Vision 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Member * Clarity of Value 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Member * Clarity of Roles 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Age * Clarity of Vision 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Age * Clarity of Value 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Age * Clarity of Roles 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Experience * Clarity of Vision 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Experience * Clarity of Value 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%

Experience * Clarity of Roles 50 70.4% 21 29.6% 71 100.0%


10/29

Member * Clarity of Vision

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 41.997a 36 .227

Likelihood Ratio 46.587 36 .111

Linear-by-Linear Association .002 1 .968

N of Valid Cases 50

50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.

Since the table value of chi-square of 36 df at .227 significance level is higher than41.997, it establishes that there was clarity of vision among all the teams.

Member * Clarity of Value

Clarity of Vision

Total1 2 3 4 5

Member Team A 0 2 1 1 1 5

Team B 0 2 1 2 0 5

Team C 2 1 0 2 0 5

Team D 0 0 1 3 1 5

Team E 0 0 0 5 0 5

Team F 0 0 1 2 2 5

Team G 0 2 0 2 1 5

Team H 0 1 1 1 2 5

Team I 0 3 0 0 2 5

Team J 1 2 1 1 0 5

Total 3 13 6 19 9 50


11/29

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Value

Total1 2 3 4 5


Team B 0 0 3 1 1 5

Team C 0 0 0 1 4 5

Team D 0 0 1 4 0 5

Team E 0 0 1 3 1 5

Team F 0 0 0 2 3 5

Team G 0 0 0 2 3 5

Team H 0 0 1 2 2 5

Team I 2 0 1 2 0 5

Team J 0 0 1 2 2 5Total 2 1 8 20 19 50

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association .745 1 .388

N of Valid Cases 50

a. 50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is .10.

Member * Clarity of Roles


12/29

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Roles

Total1 2 3 4 5


Team B 0 1 1 3 0 5

Team C 0 0 0 2 3 5

Team D 0 0 0 3 2 5

Team E 0 1 0 4 0 5

Team F 0 0 1 1 3 5

Team G 0 0 0 3 2 5

Team H 0 0 3 1 1 5

Team I 1 1 1 2 0 5

Team J 2 0 1 2 0 5Total 3 4 7 25 11 50

Chi-Square Tests




Linear-by-Linear Association 3.901 1 .048

N of Valid Cases 50

a. 50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.

Symmetric Measures

Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.

Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.282 .139 -2.038 .047c

Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.243 .142 -1.738 .089c

N of Valid Cases 50

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on normal approximation.

Age * Clarity of Vision


13/29

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Vision

Total1 2 3 4 5

Age 20 0 0 0 0 1 1

21 0 4 0 0 0 4

22 0 3 0 1 2 6

23 1 0 0 0 1 2

24 0 0 0 2 0 2

25 0 0 0 1 0 1

26 0 0 2 2 1 5

27 0 0 1 2 0 3

28 0 0 0 1 1 2

29 0 1 0 1 0 2

31 0 2 0 0 0 2

32 0 1 0 0 0 1

33 0 0 0 1 0 1

34 0 2 0 0 0 2

35 0 0 0 1 0 1

36 0 0 1 1 0 2

38 0 0 0 1 1 2

39 1 0 0 2 2 5

41 0 0 1 0 0 1

42 0 0 0 1 0 1

43 0 0 0 1 0 1

44 0 0 0 1 0 1

45 1 0 1 0 0 2

Total 3 13 6 19 9 50

Chi-Square Tests



Likelihood Ratio 91.292 88 .384Linear-by-Linear Association .105 1 .745

N of Valid Cases 50



14/29

Symmetric Measures


Interval by Interval Pearson's R .046 .153 .322 .749c

Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .061 .159 .421 .676c

N of Valid Cases 50a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.



Age * Clarity of Value

Clarity of Value

Total1 2 3 4 5

Age 20 0 0 0 1 0 1

21 1 0 2 1 0 4

22 1 1 0 2 2 6

23 0 0 0 0 2 2

24 0 0 1 1 0 2

25 0 0 0 1 0 1

26 0 0 1 2 2 5

27 0 0 0 3 0 3

28 0 0 1 0 1 2

29 0 0 0 1 1 2

31 0 0 2 0 0 2

32 0 0 0 0 1 1

33 0 0 0 0 1 1

34 0 0 0 1 1 2

35 0 0 0 1 0 1

36 0 0 0 0 2 2

38 0 0 0 0 2 2

39 0 0 0 2 3 5

41 0 0 1 0 0 1

42 0 0 0 1 0 1

43 0 0 0 1 0 1

44 0 0 0 1 0 1

45 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total 2 1 8 20 19 50


15/29

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)


Likelihood Ratio 68.025 88 .944Linear-by-Linear Association 5.132 1 .023

N of Valid Cases 50

a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is .02.

Symmetric Measures


Interval by Interval Pearson's R .324 .108 2.370 .022c

Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .303 .129 2.200 .033c

N of Valid Cases 50




Age * Clarity of Roles


16/29

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Roles

Total1 2 3 4 5

Age 20 0 0 0 1 0 1

21 1 1 1 1 0 4

22 1 1 1 3 0 6

23 0 0 0 1 1 2

24 0 0 1 1 0 2

25 0 1 0 0 0 1

26 0 0 2 3 0 5

27 1 0 0 2 0 3

28 0 0 0 1 1 2

29 0 0 0 2 0 2

31 0 1 1 0 0 2

32 0 0 0 1 0 1

33 0 0 0 1 0 1

34 0 0 0 1 1 2

35 0 0 0 1 0 1

36 0 0 0 2 0 2

38 0 0 0 0 2 2

39 0 0 0 1 4 5

41 0 0 0 0 1 1

42 0 0 0 1 0 1

43 0 0 1 0 0 1

44 0 0 0 1 0 1

45 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total 3 4 7 25 11 50

Chi-Square Tests





N of Valid Cases 50



17/29

Symmetric Measures







Experience * Clarity of Vision

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Vision

Total1 2 3 4 5

Experience 1 1 7 0 1 2 11

2 0 0 0 2 2 4

3 0 0 0 1 0 1

4 0 0 2 0 1 3

5 0 0 1 3 1 5

6 0 0 0 3 0 3

8 0 3 0 0 0 3

9 0 1 0 0 0 1

10 0 1 0 0 0 1

12 0 0 1 2 0 3

14 0 1 0 0 0 1

15 1 0 0 1 2 4

17 0 0 0 1 1 2

18 0 0 0 1 0 1

19 0 0 0 1 0 1

20 0 0 0 2 0 2

21 0 0 1 0 0 1

22 0 0 1 0 0 1

24 1 0 0 0 0 1

26 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 3 13 6 19 9 50


18/29

Chi-Square Tests




Linear-by-Linear Association .140 1 .708N of Valid Cases 50


Symmetric Measures


Interval by Interval Pearson's R .053 .148 .371 .713c

Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .090 .156 .627 .534c

N of Valid Cases 50




Experience * Clarity of Value


19/29

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Value

Total1 2 3 4 5


2 0 0 1 1 2 4

3 0 0 0 1 0 1

4 0 0 1 2 0 3

5 0 0 0 3 2 5

6 0 0 1 1 1 3

8 0 0 2 0 1 3

9 0 0 0 0 1 1

10 0 0 0 1 0 1

12 0 0 0 1 2 3

14 0 0 0 0 1 1

15 0 0 0 1 3 4

17 0 0 0 0 2 2

18 0 0 0 1 0 1

19 0 0 0 0 1 1

20 0 0 0 2 0 2

21 0 0 1 0 0 1

22 0 0 0 1 0 1

24 0 0 0 0 1 1

26 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 2 1 8 20 19 50

Chi-Square Tests





N of Valid Cases 50



20/29

Symmetric Measures







Experience * Clarity of Roles

Crosstab

Count

Clarity of Roles

Total1 2 3 4 5


2 0 0 1 2 1 4

3 0 0 0 1 0 1

4 0 0 2 1 0 3

5 1 1 0 2 1 5

6 0 0 0 3 0 3

8 0 1 1 1 0 3

9 0 0 0 1 0 1

10 0 0 0 1 0 1

12 0 0 0 3 0 3

14 0 0 0 0 1 1

15 0 0 0 1 3 4

17 0 0 0 0 2 2

18 0 0 0 1 0 1

19 0 0 0 0 1 1

20 0 0 1 1 0 2

21 0 0 0 0 1 1

22 0 0 0 0 1 1

24 0 0 0 1 0 1

26 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 3 4 7 25 11 50


21/29

Chi-Square Tests




Linear-by-Linear Association 10.681 1 .001N of Valid Cases 50


Symmetric Measures




N of Valid Cases 50




All the above statistical analysis establishes that there was a positive relationship between the age,experience with the clarity of Vision, Values, Roles among the tem members. Now we want to

correlate that these parameters were because of leadership style. It was leader who was responsible

in inculcating all these parameters in to the teams so that the teams can work effectively. So we

correlate the following


22/29

Correlations

Mean

Leadership

Mean Structure

Adequate

Resource &

Training

Mean Objectivity

Among TM

Mean Conflicts,

Cohesiveness &

Working

Accountability

Mean Clar

Vision & R

Among TMean Leadership Pearson Correlation 1 .788** .608** .580**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Structure Adequate

esource & Training

Pearson Correlation .788** 1 .443** .625**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Objectivity Among TM Pearson Correlation .608** .443** 1 .362**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .010

N 50 50 50 50Mean Conflicts,

ohesiveness & Working

ccountability

Pearson Correlation .580** .625** .362** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .010

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Clarity of Vision &

oles Among TM

Pearson Correlation .699** .654** .562** .594**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The value of corelations which are more than .60 signifies the high positive corelationsamong the variables & less than .60 signifies that there is moderate correlation amongthe selected variabls. As evedent from the above table the leader of the team isresponsible for the Structure of the team,Adequate Resources, Training, Objectiveityamong the team, cohesiveness, accountabilty & clarity among the team members. Nowwe tested each variable of leadership style with the other variables and found out thefollowing results.


23/29

Correlations

Mean Ideal

Leader

Adequate

Training

Provided

Adequate

Resources Structure Objectivity Accountab

Mean Ideal Leader Pearson Correlation 1 .656

**

.581

**

.634

**

.258Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .070

N 50 50 50 50 50

Adequate Training

Provided

Pearson Correlation .656** 1 .763** .549** .251

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .079

N 50 50 50 50 50

Adequate

Resources

Pearson Correlation .581** .763** 1 .498** .118

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .413

N 50 50 50 50 50

Structure Pearson Correlation .634

**

.549

**

.498

**

1 -.029Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .841

N 50 50 50 50 50

Objectivity Pearson Correlation .258 .251 .118 -.029 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .079 .413 .841

N 50 50 50 50 50

Accountability Pearson Correlation .357* .316* .308* .478** .192

Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .025 .029 .000 .182

N 50 50 50 50 50

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


24/29

Correlations

MeanInspirational

Leader

Mean Clarity ofVision & Roles

Among TM

Mean Structure

AdequateResource &

Training

Mean Objectivity

Among TM

Mean Confli

CohesiveneWorking

Accountab

Mean Inspirational Leader Pearson Correlation 1 .651** .790** .583** .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50


Roles Among TM

Pearson Correlation .651** 1 .654** .562** .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Structure AdequateResource & Training

Pearson Correlation .790

**

.654

**

1 .443

**

.Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Objectivity Among

TM

Pearson Correlation .583** .562** .443** 1 .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Conflicts,

Cohesiveness & Working

Accountability


Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .010

N 50 50 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed.


25/29

Correlations

Inspitational

Leader -

Simplify

procedures

Mean Clarity of

Vision & Roles

Among TM

Mean Structure

Adequate

Resource &

Training

Mean Objectivity

Among TM

Mean Confli

Cohesivene

Working

Accountabnspitational Leader -

Simplify procedures

Pearson Correlation 1 .465** .697** .445** .4

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .001

N 49 49 49 49


Roles Among TM

Pearson Correlation .465** 1 .654** .562** .

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000

N 49 50 50 50

Mean Structure Adequate

Resource & Training

Pearson Correlation .697** .654** 1 .443** .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001

N 49 50 50 50Mean Objectivity Among

TM

Pearson Correlation .445** .562** .443** 1 .

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .001

N 49 50 50 50

Mean Conflicts,

Cohesiveness & Working

Accountability


Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .010

N 49 50 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


26/29

Correlations

Mean Clarity of

Vision & Roles

Among TM

Mean Structure

Adequate

Resource &

Training

Mean Objectivity

Among TM

Mean Conflicts,

Cohesiveness &

Working

Accountability

Mean

Individualise

LeaderMean Clarity of Vision &

Roles Among TM

Pearson Correlation 1 .654** .562** .594** .5

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .0

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Structure

Adequate Resource &

Training

Pearson Correlation .654** 1 .443** .625** .6

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .0

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Objectivity

Among TM

Pearson Correlation .562** .443** 1 .362** .6

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .010 .0

N 50 50 50 50Mean Conflicts,

Cohesiveness &

Working Accountability

Pearson Correlation .594** .625** .362** 1 .5

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .010 .0

N 50 50 50 50

Mean Individualised

Leader


Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 50 50 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


27/29

Correlations

Mean

Ideal

Leader

Mean

Inspirati

onal

Leader

Mean

Intellectual

Leader

Mean

Individualiz

ed Leader

Adequate

Training

Provided

Adequate

Resources Structure Objectivity Accounta

ean Ideal

ader

Pearson Correlation 1 .701** .850** .793** .656** .581** .634** .258

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .070

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

ean

spirational

ader

Pearson Correlation .701** 1 .805** .736** .733** .650** .673** .366** .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .009

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

ean Intellectual

ader

Pearson Correlation .850** .805** 1 .846** .762** .662** .565** .281* .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .048

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

ean

dividualized

ader

Pearson Correlation .793** .736** .846** 1 .672** .554** .517** .428** .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

equate

aining

ovided

Pearson Correlation .656** .733** .762** .672** 1 .763** .549** .251

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .079

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

equate

sources

Pearson Correlation .581** .650** .662** .554** .763** 1 .498** .118

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .413

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

ructure Pearson Correlation .634** .673** .565** .517** .549** .498** 1 -.029 .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .841

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

bjectivity Pearson Correlation .258 .366** .281* .428** .251 .118 -.029 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .009 .048 .002 .079 .413 .841

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

countability Pearson Correlation .357* .411** .446** .418** .316* .308* .478** .192

Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .003 .001 .003 .025 .029 .000 .182

N 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


28/29


29/29

Model Summaryb

Model

R R Square

Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

dime

nsio

1 .693a .481 .447 .60773

a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean Objectivity Among TM, Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working

Accountability, Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM

b. Dependent Variable: Mean Ideal Leader

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 15.728 3 5.243 14.195 .000a

Residual 16.989 46 .369

Total 32.717 49

a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean Objectivity Among TM, Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working

Accountability, Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM

b. Dependent Variable: Mean Ideal Leader

Discussions:

This study explored how team leaders behaviour influence and motivate the team members to

perform there job better by inculcating the team value, clarify the roles, managing conflicts, put

adequate process with in the team, reorganize the team structure. The individualized leadership &

intellectual leadership styles were more of value than other leadership styles.

Documents

Leadership & Team Effectiveness