Post on 14-Jul-2015
The Leadership Game
The effect of vertical versus shared
leadership on team success
Rico van Leeuwen
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 2
Objectives
Give insight in the theory of vertical and
shared leadership
Create a clear understanding of the
research method
Give insights in results and inform the
meaning of these results
Answer your questions
Point you towards additional information
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 3
Gallup research shows that worldwide:
• 13% of employees are actively engaged in their jobs
• 63% are not engaged
• 24% are actively disengaged
Gallup estimate 2013:
• Cost the U.S. economy up $450-550 billion per year in lost productivity
Todays topic is about…
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 4
• Apparently..
• …the direct relationship with one’s manager is the
strongest of all drivers!
• Other important drivers are:
– Teamwork
effective teamwork occurs when a group is well developed.
– Autonomy
– Efficacy
– … (for a full overview, see Bakker, 2009; 2011)
…leadership...
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 5
• Thus..
– what would happen if there was no leader?
– What would the effect be?
• Two types of leadership:
• Shared leadership – (because of organizational flattening, research says that this might be a suitable
solution to traditional models of leadership)
• Vertical leadership – (traditional model)
…leadership…
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 6
…leadership
V
F
F
F
S S
S S
Vertical leader is someone who is
appointed or selected as the leader
for a group or organization.
Shared leadership is leadership
that emanates from the members of
the team.
Vertical Leadership Shared Leadership
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 7
…and its effects.
What are the effects of vertical versus shared leadership on team success,
consisting of team performance, group development and engagement?
V.S.
Performance
Group Development
Engagement
Vertical Leadership
Shared Leadership
Team success
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 8
• Expected shared leadership teams to have higher
levels of…
– Engagement
– Group development
– Performance
• …compared to vertical leadership teams.
Expectations
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 9
– autonomy is positively related to engagement (Bakker 2009; 2011)
– Teamwork is positively related to engagement (Bakker 2009; 2011)
– Transformational and empowering leadership are positively related to engagement. Due to rotation of leadership, higher possibility of these styles.
– In shared leadership teams there are no hierarchical levels and no person to be seen as different from the group (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011).
– Shared leadership is a better predictor of manager, customer and team self-ratings of effectiveness compared to vertical leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Ensley Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006)
– Teams that actively engaged in shared leadership perform better compared to those who do not (Kazenbach & Smith, 1993).
Reasons
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 10
Questions about the Theory?
Method section
Results &
Discussion
Questions
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 11
• 20 teams
• Team consisted of 4 people
• Meeting room
• Teams..– Played a serious game TeamUp.
– Had to solve 5 puzzles.
Method
12Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved.
– One person wore a Tie and
– was responsible for results and direction of the team
• “You are all scouts, and you all search for solutions on how the puzzles can be solved. However, you (random someone) are responsible for the results the team delivers. This means that you, the scouts, search for solutions and that you (points to leader) are responsible for the direction the team is moving in. You are also responsible for achieving the goal.”
– All had button with “scout”
– Shared responsiblities
• “From you I expect perfect collaboration. Basically, withinthe game you are all scouts, andif you think you have found the right way, or know how to solvethe puzzle, share your expertise with your team members andhelp the team to achieve its goal. This means that you have a shared responsibility to achievethe goal, and that you are allresponsible for what happens.”
Two leadership styles
Vertical Leadership Shared Leadership
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 13
Measurement
Measurement
Questionnaire
Video Analysis
Conversation
Analysis
Time & Errors in
game
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 14
• 80 participants
• 70% were men
• Average age 29.85 years (SD = 6.04)
• Dutch (91.3%)
• University (73.8%) / University of Applied Sciences (25.00%)
• Level: Analyst (27.5%), Consultant (43.8%), Manager (11.3%)
*In the analysis social styles, personality and team composition were
not taken into account due to low amount of participants.
Also research would have been too complex and extensive.
Participants*
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 15
Questions about the
Method?
Results &
Discussion
Theory
Questions
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 16
Scientific Results
• Manipulation had failed– Source of influence
• No difference between vertical and shared leadership teams
– Strength of influence (overall team level by summing up
• No difference between vertical and shared leadership teams
Then search for unofficial vertical leaders in teams.
• 4 unofficial vertical leadership teams
• 4 official shared leadership teams
– no significant difference between these two groups on
team performance, group development and engagement.
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 17
• Shared leadership teams…
– Made 20.92% less errors
– Time was 10.96% better
• Compared to vertical leadership teams. However this
is not a significant difference.
Scientific Results
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 18
• Video analysis
– It was expected that • the assigned leader would show more leader typical behavior that the followers
• Leader typical behaviors were more distributed in shared leadership teams
• Leader typical behaviors are structuring the conversation, informing, visioning,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Weenink, 2012)
Scientific Results
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 19
Scientific Results
Showing
Disinterest
Defendingonesownpositi
on
Providing
negative
feedback
Directing /
Correcting
Directing /
Delegating
Verifying
Structuringthe
Conversati
on
Informing
Visioning
Disagreeing
Agreeing
I.C.Asking for
Idea's
I.C.Cooperatin
g
I.Con.Positi
veRewarding
I.ConEncouraging
I.ConBeingFriend
ly
I.ConShowi
ngperso
nalintere
st
ActiveListen
ing
Member1 0 1 0 3 4 22 0 60 2 1 1 7 6 0 0 3 0 0
Member2 0 0 2 11 24 34 0 61 5 3 1 12 4 4 0 0 0 1
Member3 0 1 3 11 32 23 2 52 14 9 5 5 6 4 3 0 1 0
Member4 0 2 2 1 12 17 1 43 3 3 2 2 5 1 2 0 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fre
qu
en
cy
Figure 7. Leadership Behaviors in Shared Leadership Team 3
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 20
Scientific Results
Showing
disinterest
Defendingonesownpositi
on
Providing
negative
feedback
Directing /
Correcting
Directing /
Delegating
Verifying
Structuringthe
converstation
Informing
Visioning
Disagreein
g
Agreeing
Asking for
Idea's
Cooperatin
g
Positive
Rewarding
Encouragi
ng
BeingFriendly
Showing
personal
interest
Active
Listening
Leader 0 3 1 5 8 23 2 76 9 2 7 18 5 2 4 4 2 8
Follower1 12 1 7 7 0 31 0 77 10 8 5 6 8 4 1 4 0 7
Follower2 0 0 1 2 3 21 0 79 12 8 4 3 4 0 1 6 2 10
Follower3 0 0 4 9 14 19 2 70 4 10 3 4 7 1 3 4 2 15
0102030405060708090
Fre
qu
en
cy
Leadership Behaviors in Vertical Team 2
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 21
Scientific Results
Showing
disinterest
Defendingonesownpositi
on
Providing
negative
feedback
Directing /
Correcting
Directing /
Delegating
Verifying
Structuringthe
converstation
Informing
Visioning
Disagreein
g
Agreeing
Asking for
Idea's
Cooperatin
g
Positive
Rewarding
Encouragi
ng
BeingFriendly
Showing
personal
interest
Active
Listening
Leader 0 3 1 5 8 23 2 76 9 2 7 18 5 2 4 4 2 8
Follower1 12 1 7 7 0 31 0 77 10 8 5 6 8 4 1 4 0 7
Follower2 0 0 1 2 3 21 0 79 12 8 4 3 4 0 1 6 2 10
Follower3 0 0 4 9 14 19 2 70 4 10 3 4 7 1 3 4 2 15
0102030405060708090
Fre
qu
en
cy
Leadership Behaviors in Vertical Team 2
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 22
• Leader showed even LESS leader typical behavior
compared to the team members.
Scientific Results
Why?
• Conversation analysis (3 teams), results
show that:• Vertical leader was seen as out-group
member in the team and thus behaved as an
external source of influence.
• Teams listened when they needed information.
• ‘scouts’ behaved as an autonomously
regulated team.
• Shared leadership teams are suggested to,
indeed, rotate leadership more.
F
F
F
L
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 23
1. Shared leadership might be a better alternative in interdependent, complex and creative settings.
– Assigning a leader here might be ineffective.
Thus this means that.. (1)
Leader is seen as ‘different’ from the
group, an out-group member. This
leads to exerting ‘power over’ (telling
others what you want them to do),
instead of ‘power through’ letting them
do what they want to do and use this
as a motor for action. Power over leads
to private rejection and followers do the
opposite of what the leader want them
to do (Haslam, Reicher, Platow, 2011; Reynolds & Platow,
2003, Turner, 2005).
Why?
Research confirms these
results and suggest that
this is mainly true for
knowledge work (Pearce, 2004;
Carson et al, 2007 a.o.)
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 24
2. TeamUp might stimulate shared leadership
• Almost all teams were approx. shared.
• Manipulation had ‘failed’.
TeamUp can possibly be used to develop shared
leadership. Or at least, create awareness.
Thus this means that.. (2)
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 25
• What are the effects of vertical versus shared leadership
on team success, consisting of team performance, group
development and engagement?
– Shared leadership > performance
– Vertical leadership (on long term) is suggested to have negative effect in
interdependent, complex and creative settings
• Leader is seen as different
– ‘Power over’ effect instead of ‘power through’.
• hierarchy, possiblity of lower psychological safety and thus group development (Haslam, et al. 2011)
• However!
• Small sample, only high educated people, knowledge work, not representative for all settings.
Further research is needed to further validate this data.
To conclude..
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 26
Final note
• So..if you are ever in a situation where there is a..
– ..rather unclear assignment, you’re mutually dependent
on others, and you have to be creative, let expertise do
the saying and thus share leadership.
– ..new group, have bad teamwork, or have a very
controlling / ineffective leader use TeamUp.
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 27
Method
Questions about the
Results & Discussion
Theory
Questions
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 28
More information?
Engagement
• Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 50-72). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
• Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. (link)
Shared leadership
• Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217-231. (link)
• Pearce, C. L. (2007). The Future of Leadership Development: The Importance of Identity, Multi-Level Approaches, Self-Leadership, Physical Fitness, Shared Leadership, Networking, Creativity, Emotions, Spirituality and On-Boarding Processes. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 355-359 (link).
• Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.
• Van Leeuwen, J. C. (2014). Building a peak performance organization. (link)
Group development
• Rijnbergen, T. (2007). Samenwerking in teams: de impact van verticaal en gedeeld taak- en relatiegericht leiderschap en groepsontwikkeling op team prestatie. Unpublished master theses, University of Utrecht (link)
Gaming & Leadership
• Siewiorek, A. (2012). Playing to Learn: Business Simulation Games as Leadership Learning Environments. Dissertation. (link)
Self-Managing Work Teams
• Weenink, L.A.M. (2012). Behaviors in highly effective continous imporovement teams: Two types of video-analysis of three prototypical worksituations. Unpublished master theses, Twente School of Management, Enschede. (link)
Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 29
Wrap-up
Gave insight in the theory of vertical and
shared leadership
Created a clear understanding of the
research method
Gave insights in results and inform the
meaning of these results
Answered your questions
Pointed you towards additional
information
Rico van LeeuwenT : 00 31 (0)6 290 44 279
E : Ricovleeuwen@gmail.com