LEADERSHIP DISPERSION AS A FUNCTION OF...

LEADERSHIP DISPERSION AS A FUNCTION OF P E R F O R M A N C E IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS TEAMS

K A R I N KLENKE Leadership Development Institute, Midlothian, Virginia

This research examined leadership processes in high performance information systems

(IS) teams. After discussing the differences between work groups, teams, high performance teams and the distinctiveness of IS teams, the contributions of IS professionals to team leadership were discussed. Leadership issues in high performance teams were

identified. The model of leadership dispersion in IS teams presented here treats leadership styles and outcomes in IS groups ranging from traditional work units to high perfor-

mance teams as a joint function of work unit type and stage of team making. Potential problems encountered by IS leaders in team-based organizations were discussed along

with new leadership roles for them.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

In recent years, we have seen a growing interest in teams at all levels in organizations ranging from project teams to top management teams. We have witnessed the emergence of reengineering teams, empowered cross-functional teams, and executive committees. Twenty years ago, Leavitt (1975) suggested that we would be better off if groups, rather than individuals, made up the building blocks of organizations. However, whereas ten years ago, teams existed only in a handful of companies like Proctor & Gamble, TRW, and Digital Equipment, many firms today are discovering that teams may be the productivity breakthrough of the 1990s. Research, too, has shown that in many situations groups and teams increase commitment, improve decision making, and encourage innovation. As a result, teams now occupy a prominent place in organizational design.

Many different types of organizations have benefited from the team approach. Complex manufacturing processes common to the auto, paper, chemical, and high tech industries

Direct all correspondence to: Karin Klenke, Ph.D. Leadership Development Institute, (LDI) International, 11101 Lady Allison Ln., Midlothian, VA 23173; Fax: (804) 287-6620; E-Mail: [email protected].

The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 8, Number 1, pages 149-169 Copyright© 1997 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1047-8310.

150 THE JOURNAL OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT RESEARCH VOL. 8/NO. 1/1997

have successfully implemented team operations. Federal Express, for example, reported that the company has used self-managed teams to raise productivity. Boeing has employed teams to reduce engineering costs while Microsoft and Apple have used them to enhance product design innovation and creativity. Likewise, complex service jobs in the insurance, banking, and telecommunication industries have benefited from teams. Some teams have developed by default when a single leader could not be selected; others have been ad hoc arrangements to steer troubled companies past problems and business failures (Bennett, 1992). In still other cases, the complexity of the work performed and the degree of interdependencies between work or organizational units prompted the design and implementation of the team approach. In fact, in many companies teamwork is becoming the cornerstone of commitment to continuous quality and productivity improvement.

The growth of teams and teamwork was partially spurred by the proliferation of new organizational designs - virtual, boundaryless, horizontal, shamrock, lattice, collateral, and network organizations, all of which share a flattening of the traditional hierarchy, that is, the vertically integrated bureaucracy. The prevalence of the old-design, pyramidal organization is declining as a result of the quality revolution, the information technology (IT) explosion, consumerism, and internationalism intersecting in the 1990s (Vroman, 1994). The emerging organizational forms encourage fluidity and collaboration among intra- and interorganizational units. They are, as Handy (1995) noted, often made up of ad hoc mini- organizations or projects collated for a particular time and purpose, which draw their participants from both inside and outside the parent organization. Slowinski, Oliva, and Lowenstein (1995) used the term "Medusa alliances" to describe the new complex interorganizational relationships. The authors traced them back to mythology since "in ancient Greek culture, this type of multiple independent relationships was represented by Medusa, a Gorgon whose head sported a coif of withering snakes" (p. 48). The authors quoted the alliance between Disney and Time Warner which eventually was dissolved as an example of a complex interorganizational system. Likewise, Paramount Communication Inc. used strategic partnerships with several other organizations to exploit as many stages of the entertainment value chain as possible (Yoder & Zachary, 1993). These interfirm networks are often designed as long-term organizational arrangements among for-profit organizations that are linked along the value chain. The relationships among network organizations are not only complex, but can be simultaneously cooperative and competitive. This cooperative-competitive dilemma is a major source of conflict in interorganizational systems.

New organizational forms are evolving in response to the challenges of rapid technological and social transformations, customer demands for responsiveness and product/service innovation along with increased global competition. These changes call for different organizational designs and teams have become increasingly popular as an alternative to traditional organizational architectures. In many ways, teams are the antithesis to the hierarchical design and form the foundation for heterachical organizational structures which are based on lateral, informal alliances and linkages rather than the vertical chain of command to ensure flexibility and responsiveness in global, competitive business markets.

Traditionally managers controlled individuals, not teams. Despite the widely held belief that effective organizations are best led by a single individual, many companies today are experimenting with teams at the top of the organization, a trend which suggests that individual presidents, chief executive officers (CEOs), chief operating officers (COOs), and chief information officer (CIOs) could become outmoded. The complexity of contemporary organizations, the inability of any one organizational leader to acquire all the necessary skills and knowledge to make good decisions, the rapid pace of technological change,

IS Team Performance: IS Leadership 151

and improvement efforts focused on process flow, all make the team the ideal vehicle to improve both the information and the "buy-in" needed for process improvements (Naha- vandi & Aranda, 1994: 67).

In organizations with leadership teams, three, four, or even more individuals run operations collectively. The CEO is giving way to Team Xerox and Team Taurus (Hout & Carter, 1995). For example, although Bill Gates is firmly ensconced in Microsoft, the firm forced out the president in favor of a new arrangement, a three- person "Office of the Pres- ident" which is shared by three long time executives. There are no plans to replace the triumvirate with a single president in the foreseeable future. An increasing body of evidence indicates that the executive team structure has important effects on organizational performance and adaptation (Keck & Tushman, 1993). According to Nadler and Ancona (1994), "the executive team has emerged as a viable alternative for organizing work at the top level of complex organization because of three sets of demands: external threats posed by the environment; internal demands posed by the requirements of running diverse but interdependent organizations; and unique demands created by executive succession" (p. 229).

Theoretically, this research builds on recent reconceptualizations of technology (e.g., DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992) which go beyond the simplistic dichotomy of IT as either an objective, external force (i.e., the hardware perspective or technological imperative school of thought) or a socially constructed product (i.e., the social construc- tionist or strategic choice view of technology). Instead of treating IT as an independent influence on organizational processes such as leadership or managerial control that exerts a unidirectional, vertical influence, this paper is based on the premise that successful implementation of ITs is the result of reciprocal interactions of social actors (i.e., IS leaders of high performance teams) and structural properties (i.e., the technological features of different IT platforms). This conceptualization of IT has the advantage of bridging the gap between technologies and social processes in organizations and allows us to treat ITs from this dual perspective.

The paper proceeds as follows: first, I examine the differences between traditional work groups, teams and high performance teams using levels of performance as the distinguish- ing criterion. After discussing the unique characteristics of IS teams, the contributions of IS professionals to team leadership are examined vis-a-vis a number of different leadership roles IS professionals assume in information-intensive organizations. The discussion of leadership issues in high performance teams is followed by the presentation of a model which maps different leader behaviors and/or leadership styles on a performance continuum to distinguish between groups, teams, and high performance teams. Finally, potential problems and concerns facing team-based organizations are discussed.

GROUPS, TEAMS, IS TEAMS AND HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAMS

Teamwork, according to Katzenbach and Smith (1993a, 1993b), represents a set of values that encourages listening, responding constructively to views expressed by others, providing support and recognizing the achievement of others. Such values, as the authors noted, help teams to perform effectively and often beyond expectations. In addition, these values promote individual performance as well as the performance of the team and the entire organization. They also promote productive controversy and creative conflict resolution. The essence of teamwork is synergy; that is, what is accomplished by the team is more


than could be accomplished by a collection of individuals. Thus teamwork provides a unique stimulus to enhance the motivation, initiative, and self- responsibility of employ- ees throughout the organization (Manz & Sims, 1993).

To understand how teams in general, and high performance teams in particular, deliver peak performance, we must distinguish between teams and other forms of working groups. The critical elements in this distinction are performance and mutual accountability. A working group's performance is a function of what its members accomplish individually. In working groups, the focus is on individual goals and accountabilities. In these collectivities, members do not take responsibility for results other than their own because group members work parallel to each other on discrete tasks. Work groups also do not develop performance increments requiring the combined work of two or more members. Teams, on the other hand, differ fundamentally from traditional work groups because they require both individual and mutual accountability because teams are interactive, collaborative units which are behaviorally integrated (Hambrick, 1995).

Kinslaw (1991) distinguished between work groups and teams on the basis of qualitative and functional differences. According to the author:

the functional difference becomes apparent because teams do things that work groups don't do. Members of teams not only cooperate in all aspects of their task performance, they share in what are traditionally thought of as management functions and responsibilities, such as joint planning, organizing the team, setting performance goals, developing their own strategies to manage change, and securing their own resources. The qualitative difference is apparent even when teams do what work groups do, they add value (p. 13).

A team's performance includes both individual contributions and what has been called a "collective work product" (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993a). A collective work product is what two or more team members must accomplish together; it reflects the joint, real contributions of two or more individuals. This concept is particularly relevant for teams of IS professionals in which the performance of team members is highly interdependent. Interdependency, coupled with commitment, is essential for building and maintaining the team. However, teams are controversial because ultimately they force managers to give up control and therefore raise questions about leadership responsibilities and functions in teams.

Uniqueness of IS Teams

IS teams are different from other teams in organizations for three major reasons: (1) they possess a unique set of knowledge, skills, and ability (KSA); (2) they are composed of knowledge workers; and (3) they are engaged in continuous learning. KSAs required of IS team members include not only technical skills, but also KSA requirements for teamwork which, in addition to technical competence, relies on interpersonal skills. A number of studies have shown that successful prediction of job performance has been much better with KSA-based systems (e.g., Hunter & Hanter, 1984; Reilly & Chao, 1982) than systems based on personality attributes. Furthermore, as Stevens and Champion (1994) noted, a focus on KSAs emphasizes attributes which management can influence through selection procedures and training programs, rather than traits or dispositional attributes which are assumed to be stable individual characteristics.


The work of individuals on IS team is intellectual teamwork or knowledge work at the team level of analysis. Moreover, it is complex, collaborative work that requires intensive and interactive communications, both face-to-face and computer-mediated. Curtis, Kras- ner and lscoe (1988) identified three types of knowledge domains necessary for successful teamwork. These three knowledge domains include (1) technical knowledge; (2) domain knowledge about the application area in which ITs are used; and (3) design knowledge which deals with the activities of IS development team members relevant to systems design. Kling (1987) earlier discussed the importance of organizational knowledge to refer to the social and economic processes in the organizational context in which ITs are developed and used. Since team members vary greatly in the extent to which they are experts in all four knowledge domains, matching individual talents to both project and external goals is critical. Successful teamwork, as McGrath (1990) noted, is multidimensional in the sense that it involves not only instrumental achievements but also individual satisfaction and maintenance of the team as a performing unit. Accomplishing integrated and synchro- nized teamwork is difficult, because IS teams are confronted with ambiguous goals, multiple perspectives, and information that is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Successful team performance, therefore, depends on matching KSAs of team members, ITs, and procedures to the demands of specific tasks and projects.

More so than other teams that are less dependent on information and communication technologies, in IS teams there are expectations held by the individual and the organization that team members are committed to and engage in continuous learning. As a result, IS professionals are likely to self select themselves into companies in which lifelong learning, training, and education are valued. The concepts of the learning organization (Senge, 1990a, 1990b) and organizational learning have been widely discussed in the contemporary organizational behavior literature. Like leadership and ITs, organizational learning is a socially constructed concept. Organizations and teams, through the actions of their leaders, construe their identity by transforming change, past choices, experiments, interventions, new technologies, and so on into rational, accountable knowledge (Nicolini & Meznar, 1995). Knowledge in the learning organization, according to Starbuck (1992), flows in through hiring, training, and the purchase of capital goods. Moreover, some knowledge is manufactured internally through research and culture building. IS leaders are instrumental in the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in the four domains discussed before, and hence, in shaping a learning culture in their organizations.

High performance teams go beyond the design of specific work groups and teams. The high performance team, as defined here, refers to a work system that emphasizes the delib- erate integration of social and technical systems at work, using both advanced technology- based tools such as expert systems and technology-based power tools as well as state-of- the art human system designs such as innovative organizational structures or autonomous work teams (Nadler, 1992). Like other teams, high performance IS teams are composed of a small number of IS professionals with the requisite skills who share a common purpose and accountability for performance beyond expectations. Moreover, what sets high performance teams apart from other teams is the degree of commitment that goes well beyond professionalism and teamwork (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993b). One of the best examples of high performance teams this author is familiar with are flight crews of the Israeli Air Force. These teams are characterized by a distinctive and unique set of personal and team attributes that contribute to this high performance system. Unlike earlier work teams like quality circles which did not give team members responsibilities and control, high perfor-


mance IS teams carry out many functions formerly allocated to management and executive leadership since they are often self-managing, self-directing, or self-leading.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF IS PROFESSIONALS TO TEAM LEADERSHIP

Leadership Skills and Roles of IS Professionals

IS leaders have played important roles in the transformation of businesses and, in turn, have themselves been changed by these transformation (Hayley, 1989). Because of the nature of the work IS professionals carry out, tasks are often allocated to specialized functional units which, under the direction of a project director or team leader are responsible for the overall accomplishment of task goals and the level of performance achieved by the team.

IS professionals are highly trained individuals who bring to teamwork and the team strong beliefs and assumptions about the nature of teamwork, technology, and leadership. The differences in perspectives on these critical work processes must be resolved and evolve into new ideas and approaches rather than being allowed to derail the team from carrying out the pursuit of innovative solutions. Like professionals in other fields, IS professionals are socialized by their disciplines to carry out technical, managerial and leadership responsibilities as members of a team. Many of them also retain their professional ethos through identification with, and commitment to, a set of values and standards which may be upheld by the employing organization and/or professional associations.

The specific skills IS professionals bring to group and teamwork may be classified into three categories: (1) technical: (2) interpersonal; and (3) conceptual. Technical expertise is a necessary but not sufficient requisite for IS professionals who aspire to leadership roles. Specialized knowledge such as expertise and experience with different technology platforms is a key contributor to leadership status. Thus, being an expert in some specialized area of knowledge is critical for effective leadership. Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) refer to the technical expertise as "aligning work" noting that teams continually face the issue of how to make best use of their expertise in terms of communication and information sharing. However, technical expertise alone does not transform a successful IS professional into an effective leader. As Klenke (1993) pointed out, IS professionals who fail to perform successfully in leadership roles tend to be specialists whose technical expertise has been their sole path to career success at lower levels of management. At higher levels of management, and even more so in leadership roles, exclusive reliance on technical skills becomes a handicap because it interferes with the development of interpersonal and conceptual competencies necessary for effective leadership.

In the second category of leadership competencies, interpersonal skills become increasingly important for IS professionals occupying middle and upper level management positions as well as those in leadership roles. As Kotter (1988) noted, providing leadership means influencing others to take responsibility for identifying, developing, retaining, and motivating talented professionals on the team. For IS professionals aspiring to leadership roles or seeking leadership positions, interpersonal or people skills play an important role because they are essential for dealing and interacting with a diverse array of constituencies ranging from end-users to chief information officers. For example, leadership tasks such as negotiating, networking, and creating a high performance culture depend to a large


extent on interpersonal skills to ensure that the leadership process protects and promotes the values and interests of the social order in which it is grounded (Hosking, 1988). Dumaine (1994) recommended that when assembling a team, management should avoid personality types with strong needs for individual creativity and power, as well as those who simply prefer to work alone. By excluding such individuals from the team, trusting relationships are built and resistance to change is minimized.

Finally, conceptual abilities are critical for effective IS leadership. Conceptual skills such as analytical thinking, concept formation and idea generation play a vital role in the design and application of ITs for competitive advantage. One important conceptual skills necessary for team leadership is decision-making since leadership is, among other things, a process of complex decision-making. Therefore, effective decision-making is central to leadership because ineffective decision-making processes based on limited information resources, group pressures or bureaucratic policies have adverse organizational consequences.

Decision-making tasks which require leadership include complex judgments based on multiple sources of information such as: (a) the integration or consensus among multiple view points; (b) negotiation; and (c) problem solving (Beise, Niederman, & Beranek, 1992). Effective leadership depends, in part, on the extent to which the leader's definition of a situation serves as a basis for decisions and subsequently defines the actions of the team. Leaders add value to their organizations by making sound decisions that others in the firm are not in a position to make. Decision support ITs enhance leadership opportunities for IS professionals by facilitating team competencies, removing barriers to interaction, improving team performance and building or reinforcing the social values of the team through successful task completion (Pinnsonault & Kraemer, 1987).

Based on the specific mix of skills IS professionals bring to the team, they assume a number of different leadership roles or may be appointed to a number of different leadership positions. The leadership roles proposed here are those that deploy ITs in the execu- tion of that role. For illustrative purposes, I have singled out two particular leadership roles: the role of an IS leader as a change agent and as strategist.

The IT revolution, as Pinnsonault and Kraemer (1987) noted, serves as a major catalyst for organizational change. More specifically, the authors assert that "information technology is the necessary instrument that permits organizational changes, but management action is needed to integrate and internalize IT into organization" (p. 282). In all organizations, but even more so in information-intensive companies, change is a inevitable aspect of organizational growth, survival and renewal. Therefore, serving as change agents is important in team leadership because effective leadership achieves a social order in which certain kinds of changes are desirable. Consequently IS leaders are needed to serve as change agents whose interpersonal and organizational skills are vital to the survival of the organization (Hosking & Horely, 1988).

Oberg (1972) discussed the change agent function of leaders. In this role, the leader brings about radical or incremental change by espousing values and beliefs that differ from the established order in the organizational culture. In other words, the IS leader constantly challenges the status quo in terms of both organizational and technological parameters. A consistent profile of the leader as an active innovator and interventionist was also offered by Conger and Kanungo (1987). The authors argued that leaders engage followers in innovative behaviors that run counter to the established norms of their organizations. By helping team members pursue novel and innovative technologies and strategies and engaging in exemplary behaviors, IS leaders produce creative outcomes. The change agent role of IS leaders is facilitated by ITs which span the entire spectrum of


information and communication technologies ranging from word-processing systems to neural networks. Creating an agenda for change, according to Kotter (1988) includes: (a) a vision of what can and should be; (2) a vision that takes into account the legitimate long- term, interests of the parties involved; (3) a strategy for achieving that vision; and (4) a strategy that takes into account the relevant organizational, environmental, and technological forces (p. 20).

The role of change agent is embedded in many positions IS professionals occupy in organizations and on teams since all ITs potentially are vehicles for change. IT innova- tions typically involve either new technologies or require designers and users to adopt new approaches to their work. Many IS teams are formed to engage in projects that have the potential for dramatic change and transformation in organizations. They create new technologies, patents, products, and services that have major effects on the organization and what it has to offer the marketplace (Waldman, 1994). As Markus and Robey (1988) observed, the implementation of new information systems often leads to significant upheavals in organizational structure and processes which are likely to meet with resistance. Moreover, successful implementation of mission- critical ITs requires adjustments of reward systems, changes in authority chain, responsibility patterns, and power shifts. As change agents, IS leaders must be interpersonally skilled and competent because they have to secure cooperation and must be adept in anticipating and overcoming resistance to change in organizational procedures and power structures. Finally, as Applegate and Elam (1992) noted, the head of the IS function is increasingly called upon to assume greater responsibility as a business integrator and catalyst for change while also ensuring cost- effective deployment of information and technology resources.

The second leadership role IS executives assume is that of a strategist. Research on the strategic use of ITs have appeared in the scholarly as well as in the business press (i.e., Cash & Konsynski, 1985; Beath & Ives, 1986; Ives & Learmonth, 1984; Lucas & Turner, 1982). Overall this research indicates that businesses with a high volume of transactions within, and increasingly more between, organizations in their value added chain usually lead in the development of competitive uses of IT (Johnston & Carrico, 1987, p. 39). IS leaders who serve as the team's strategists are responsible for long-range planning, policies, and technological innovation since many of the key skills in information management are strategic, not operational or managerial (Picot, 1989). In this capacity, IS leaders are senior executives engaged in strategic planning and environmental scanning in efforts to optimize the competitive advantage of their firms. Environmental scanning is based upon the simple dictum that understanding the external business environment and the direction of some key trends is a prerequisite for shaping the future rather than reacting to it (Schoderbek, Schoderbek, & Kefalas, 1990). As the authors stated, it is a systematic way of looking at the world outside the organization as a set of emerging issues, issues on which there typically is no definite agreement.

Strategic leadership, then, focuses on the hopes for the future rather than on the problems of the past. As strategists, IS leaders are boundary spanners who involve entire organizations in the process of creating the future, diffusing responsibility and authority through the organization (Richard & Engels, 1986). Activities of strategic leaders tend to be less structured, more ad hoc and wider ranging. ITs allow senior leaders to paint a picture of the organization's future by providing on-line, real time retrieval information including key problem narratives, summary charts that signal the state of the organization's performance against critical success factors in the industry, top level financial and key performance indicators (Schoderbeck, Schoderbeck, & Kefalas, 1990).


LEADERSHIP SKILLS

~ . Concee~ual Skills Analytical Skills Logical Tldnking Idea Generation Concept Formation

temersonal Skills uman RelaUon SIdBll ommunication Skills

ilding Skias /

e/Tech-ical Skills /

Leadership Roles ~v ~

-Decision Ma ker .=<~b~P~'/~<~_ • Motivator , ,~ .~e~ ~ . -Change Agent • Strategist

Information Technologies

GDSS EIS EMS SIS

Figure 1 The Leadership-Technology Cube

Strategic information systems are usually implemented at the corporate level. Among the technologies challenging the conceptual skills of strategists on IS teams are group decision support systems (DSS), executive information systems (EIS), and strategic information systems (SIS). In organizations in which the walls between the traditional IS department and functional business units have been dismantled and interorganizational networks and external alliances have become more common, IS leaders need to rethink the nature, purpose, structure, and management of the IS function when planning strategically (Tapscott & Carston, 1993).

158 THE JOURNAL OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT RESEARCH VOL. 8/NO. l/1997

IS leaders as change agents and strategists are but two examples of a number of possible leadership roles IS professionals occupy. Whereas previously it was acceptable for the IS leader to be a technical expert and competent manager, in today's fluid organizations a new and expanded set of responsibilities demands that the executive responsible for IT throughout the corporation also possesses strong leadership skills, power, and business experience (Applegate & Elam, 1992).

The relationships between the leadership skills IS professionals bring to the team, leadership roles they are likely to assume on a particular team, and the corresponding ITs supporting the work of IS professionals result in various leadership and performance outcomes. These interdependencies between leadership skills, roles, and outcomes were presented as conceptual model by Klenke (1993) in the form of the "leadership-technology cube." According to this model, depicted in Figure 1, an IS leader working primarily on tasks requiring conceptual skills, for example, may occupy the leadership role of a strategist relying on ITs such as executive information systems or strategic information systems. Leadership outcomes desired or achieved by this leader may include any one of the examples listed in the right hand column of Figure 1. That is, as a strategic leader, the IS executive may structure the leadership situation for his or her top management team as shared leadership, empower his or her team members, create a self-managing team or deploy ITs that function as leadership substitutes.

LEADERSHIP ISSUES IN HIGH PERFORMANCE IS TEAMS

If teamwork becomes the organizational design of choice in the information age, then a reworking of our thinking about leadership is in order because leadership in high performance teams can rarely be viewed as the province of a single individual. Tapscott and Carston (1993) said, "the old-style, brilliant-visionary, take-charge, rally-the-troops Alfred Sloan or Tom Watson style of leadership is not adequate to transform today's organizations" (p. 287). For Senge (1990a), the old days when a leader could learn for the organization are gone. The author states: "In an increasingly dynamic, interdependent and unpredictable world, it is simply no longer possible for anyone to 'figure it all out at the top.' The old model, 'the top thinks and the locals act,' must now give way to integrated thinking and acting at all levels" (p. 358). This is not to say that emerging models of group and team leadership do not include the man or woman of vision and charisma; rather, current approaches to leadership in non-hierarchical organizations make leadership the responsibility of many able people, not a single omnipotent one.

The increasing use of multifunctional, high performance teams, creates several leadership challenges. What, if any, leadership direction should be provided to such teams by senior management? What are the specific behavioral roles of IS leaders of such teams in relation to team members? What are the specific leadership tasks of IS professionals? To what extent should IS team leaders engage in participative or directive, transactional or transformational forms of leadership? To what extent do ITs and teamwork replace the formal, hierarchical leader? Substitute theory (e.g., Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Howell & Dorf- man, 1986), for example, has suggested that the need for formal leadership decreases when members of a work unit are highly experienced, trained, professionally-oriented, and working on intrinsically satisfying tasks. Most multi- and cross-functional teams


staffed with IS professionals fit these criteria. Therefore, it is often not easy to spot one or even a handful of individuals with formal authority positions on IS teams.

Even in high performance teams, the demand for leadership does not disappear. Hackman (1986) asserted that leadership is both a more important and demanding undertaking in such teams than it is in traditional work units (p. 119). Similarly, Manz and Sims (1993) stressed that no successful team is without leadership. In addition to task-based leadership such as project definition, scheduling, and resource management, leadership is needed in regard to specific aspects of team development and group dynamics such as role differentiation and team cohesion (Barry, 1991). Ray and Bronstein (1995) concluded that leadership is the key to making teams thrive since they can elect their own leadership, or leadership can be rotated among team members. Thus, high performance teams are not leaderless.

Members of high performance teams and their team leaders exercise control over the work flow through value consensus. As Gardiner (1988) noted, commitment, not authority, produces the best results for leaders of high performance teams. Collegial structures are becoming an organizational reality in high performance teams and leadership by example, rather than by control, becomes the organizational model of choice (Gardiner, 1988: 140). A leader who can create and sustain the high performance team must be entrepreneurial, accountable, customer, process, results oriented and willing to pass on the leadership role to another team member if the situation requires a transfer of leadership. In addition, the leader needs to be biased toward action, empowering team members, communicative, and technologically, interpersonally, and conceptually sophisticated (Jessup, 1990).

Leadership Dispersion in High Performance Teams

As noted earlier, the key characteristics of high performance teams include synergy, commitment and mutual accountability, factors that significantly contribute to peak performance. As other groups and teams, high performance teams go through a sequence of developmental stages during which commitment and mutual accountability are shaped before the team achieves peak performance.

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991) proposed a three-phase model which outlines the development of multifunctional, high performance teams as a series of reciprocal commitments. The team finding phase involves the initial testing process through which team members evaluate each other's skills, abilities, motivation, and leadership potential. During the team designing phase, various team interdependencies and alternatives to team problem solving approaches are established. According to Graen and Uhl-Bien, team designing depends on the mutual investment of valued resources by all parties. Moreover, the rules governing team relationships must be compatible to result in a high level of mutual trust and team commitment. Finally, in the team transformation phase, team members learn to collaborate as a cohesive unit by placing team interest above self interests. The relationship between members of the team is transformed from a simple exchange driven by self interest outcomes to one of commitment to an integrated team. Commitment to a unified mission and vision is the mechanism through which this transformation is achieved. During the third phase of team development high performance becomes the standard for evaluating team effectiveness.

More so than other teams, high performance teams are cross-functional, cross-disciplin- ary, multifunctional, high involvement, self-designing or self-managing. These teams are groups of interdependent individuals that can self-regulate their behavior on whole tasks


(Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988). They are in a better position than a series of functional groups to solve complex business problems since most of these problems tran- scend specific disciplines or functions. Whatever their name, such teams refer to collectivities drawn from different functional, technical, or professional backgrounds which exercise self-regulation and self- control over their work environment.

When a team performs at its peak, it is characterized by the following features: (1) unified commitment; (2), a clear, elevating goal, i.e., high performance teams have both a clear understanding of the goal to be achieved and a belief that the goal embodies a worth- while or important result; (3) a results-driven structure which facilitates coordination, collaboration, and the achievement of specific performance objectives; (4) competent team members; (5) a collaborative climate that promotes trust, collaboration, and efficient communication; (6) standards of excellence; and (7) external support and recognition (Larson & Lafasto, 1989). Taken together, these characteristics keep the team focused on teamwork and team effectiveness.

Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) suggested that the performance of a team is a function of the type of work unit, that is, whether the work unit is a group, potential team, real team, or high performance team. The authors suggested that by choosing the team path instead of the working group, team members commit to take the risks of conflict, joint work products, and collective action necessary to build a common purpose, set of goals, and mutual accountability. Performance, not team building, can save a potential team and/or transform it into a high performance team. Thus working units ranging from conventional groups to high performance teams show a wide range of potential performance outcomes.

The team development model proposed by Katzenbach & Smith (1993) essentially implies that peak performance is a function of the type of collective unit (i.e., a group moving successfully from a working group, to a potential team, to a real team, and ultimately to a high performance team) in which team members operate at any given time. However, since this model provides no prescriptions for the developmental dynamics characteristic of each stage, the model presented here has incorporated Graen & Uhl- Bien's (1991) three-stage team making model to predict leadership patterns in high performance teams. Potentially all groups have opportunities for team finding, the stage in which group members evaluate each others' skills, abilities, motivation and leadership potential. A variety of individual differences, group processes, organizational, and leadership issues determine whether or not a work group selects to move on to the team designing phase in order to build mutual trust, commitment and investment of valued resources. During this stage, mature leadership relationships are initiated when reciprocal investments are made between leaders and high potential team members. As Graen (1989) noted, through the process of reciprocal investments, leaders and selected members are able to successfully accomplish difficult and complex tasks.

Finally, during the team transformation phase of the Graen & Uhl-Bien model, collaboration is achieved and self interests are replaced by team interests that promote the emergence of an integrated team. As noted earlier, it is during this phase that high performance becomes the standard for evaluating team effectiveness. Thus, the Graen and Uhl-Bien model goes beyond labeling work units as groups, potential, real, and high performance teams by identifying developmental dynamics which are incorporated into the team development process. Throughout this development process, team building exercises which build trust and commitment can be employed to facilitate the transition from a group to a real team.

The model presented in Figure 2 builds on the concepts developed in previous research. It proposes that team leadership is not only a function of the type of work unit (Katzenbach

Hig

h

IS W

ork

ing

Gro

up

Tra

nsf

orm

atio

n

Dem

ocr

atic

L

ead

ersh

ip

Tas

k-O

rien

ted

/ R

elat

ion

ship

-Ori

ente

d

Lea

der

ship

IS

Tea

m E

ffec

ttve

nes

s

Fig

ure

2

Rel

atio

nsh

ip

Bet

wee

n I

S T

eam

Per

form

ance

Lev

el a

nd L

ead

ersh

ip S

tyle

s

162 THE JOURNAL OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT RESEARCH VOL. 8/NO. l/1997

& Smith, 1993b) but also of the stage of team-making (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). In other words, leadership in high performance IS teams is determined by individual and collective team performance which, in turn, is a function of the work unit's developmental stage.

Figure 2 proposes that differential performance levels are found in work groups, teams, and high performance teams which shape leadership functions and processes. The model depicted in Figure 2 suggests that leadership takes on a number of different forms ranging from two dimensional, traditional leadership styles to rotating or shared and dispersed leadership. In fluid organizational structures, leadership is shared or dispersed leadership with clearly defined leadership roles and responsibilities at different levels of team development and team performance. Here leadership becomes the responsibility of several individuals. The model depicted in Figure 2 does not, however, imply that high performance teams are always the answer to successful leadership, team and organizational effectiveness.

More specifically, the model indicates that in traditional work units, two dimensional leadership styles prevail. Unlike teams, as noted earlier, working groups rely on the sum of individual bests for their performance. They pursue no collective work products requiring joint efforts. Traditional work groups rely on hierarchical, formal leadership in which the leader's position is clearly defined. In these units, the leader exercises a variety of leadership styles including task- or relationship-oriented, democratic or autocratic, transactional or transformational leadership as depicted in Figure 2.

The first of these two leadership styles, task- or relationship-oriented and autocratic and democratic, are the outcomes of extensive research programs conducted at the University of Michigan and Iowa. In addition, the distinction between a task or people (or relationship) leadership orientation also underlies Fiedler's (1967, 1971) contingency model of leadership which dominated leadership theory during the 1970s and 1980s. Transactional and transformational leadership are more recent theoretical perspectives. These two- dimensional leadership styles predominate in work groups because allocation of tasks and coordination among group members are structured according principles of classical management theory.

Bass (1985), building on the theoretical basis of leadership developed by Burns (1978), whose seminal work has been hailed as a paradigm shift, proposed the two kinds of leadership called transactional and transformational. Rather than treating transactional and transformation leadership as opposite ends of the same continuum (Burns' position), Bass (1985) argued that most leaders exercise both types of leadership but in differing amounts (p. 27). More specifically, Bass suggested that transactional leadership provides the basis for leader effectiveness and performance at expected levels of performance while transformational leadership augments transactional leadership to produce extraordinary performance or performance beyond expectations. In IS teams, transactional leadership is likely to be limited by a technical perspective which sees technological change as needing primarily technical problem solving skills, with little attention to interpersonal skills and organizational consequences. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, requires pathfinding, people and conceptual skills to overcome barriers to change and facilitate fuller benefits from the investment in ITs (Beatty & Lee, 1992: 265).

If the working group evolves and becomes a team, different dynamics drive the team and leadership processes in the team. Leadership in real IS teams, in addition to the leadership styles found in conventional in work groups, is often governed by the presence of leadership substitutes. Leadership substitutes include a number of individual (i.e., ability, experience, professional orientation), task (i.e., routine versus non-routine tasks) and organizational (i.e., formalization of procedures and job descriptions) characteristics. Accord-


ing to the substitute model of leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), these characteristics delimit or negate the influence of the formal leader and replace this loss of influence with influences of their own. In addition, in IS teams, ITs introduce other potential substitutes derived from the structural features of technologies which further negate formal leadership. In other words, the presence of these variables weakens the relationship between leader behaviors and leadership outcomes such a team performance or team satisfaction. For example, research on computer-mediated performance appraisals which are becoming increasingly more common in industries such as airlines and insurance support the notion of ITs as substitutes for formal leadership. Performance evaluation software packages in these industries are designed to automatically count production and error rates, time spent on task performance as well as providing feedback on task performance (Klenke, 1991). Thus, individual, task, technological, and organizational characteristics have the potential to "substitute for" or neutralize the effects of hierarchical leadership. Leadership substitute theory does not deny the importance of all leader behaviors but places them in a broader organizational and technological context.

In high performance teams, Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) found that leaders, who themselves almost evangelically pursue performance, are critical for team effectiveness. IS leaders, therefore, have to express and model a constant focus on performance through reciprocal investments of time, technological and economic resources, and empowerment of team members. They must acknowledge that leadership is not simply a leader's down- ward influence but that it involves upward influence as well, from team member to team leader. Moreover, symbolically leaders create myths, rituals, ceremonies, and other symbols which capture the attention of team members to frame the high performance experience (Bolman & Deal, 1991). In essence, IS team leaders behaviorally, conceptually, and symbolically function as facilitators of effective team performance. They do not depend on legitimate authority based on position power. Leaders of such teams are not authoritarians, managers of people, or supervisors who provide direction and exercise control. Instead they function as coordinators, facilitators, coaches, and communicators. Team members rotate in and out of leadership roles emphasizing that the team as a system is ultimately accountable for its efforts and performance.

Although high performance teams are often designed to be largely autonomous, leaders of such teams should not be viewed as lacking authority for their activities. Instead, as Waldman (1994) pointed out:

they use their authority to balance control and meeting time tables with the need to stimulate creativity and spontaneity. The best way to accomplish this is to move team members to higher levels of self- control so that competent team members are empowered to control their own responsibilities, to lead their own components of the project in coordination with other team members whose coordination efforts are assisted by the leader (p. 97).

Unlike leadership substitute theory which predicts that formal leadership is redundant or unnecessary given certain situational contingencies, if leadership is dispersed over a performance continuum, each team member takes responsibility for the development of his or her leadership abilities, facilitates the leadership of other team members and culti- vates leadership processes, functions, and roles that maximize performance at each stage of the team's history. Thus, leadership responsibilities do not disappear when peak perfor-


mance emerges. Instead they are transferred over time and dispersed among members of the team. The shared performance values embraced by each member of the team coupled with the commitment to exploit ITs to their fullest technological and human potential provide the common language to align the team's leadership with its members.

As in all working units, the potential for problems, team and leadership failures also exist in high performance teams. Hambrick (1995), after interviewing CEOs of top management teams, identified several problems that represent critical issues regarding team effectiveness. These problems included inadequate capabilities of individual team leaders, interpersonal rivalries, groupthink, and fragmentation. The author suggested that fragmentation or the lack of behavioral integration is the result of a set of gradual, subtle forces which pull a team apart. These "centrifugal forces" which pull a high performance team apart evolve in response to an organization's competitive strategy or temporal dynamics such as the length of tenure of leaders in high performance teams.

Topping, Hartman, and Galle (1995) identified other problem areas including the diffi- culty of shifting from individually-based reward systems to team based reward systems such as profit sharing or skill-based pay. While team-based performance .evaluation systems may not totally replace individually-based systems, a team's performance needs to be assessed at different levels including the job performed by individual team members and the team's performance as it relates to the entire organization.

Another concern involves designing what Larson and LaFasto (1989) called a "results- driven team structure." Team structures are needed to ensure that roles within and between teams are established based on existing task interdependencies. This is particularly the case in virtual teams which are geographically dispersed. Other difficulties teams are facing is the need for a "champion" to lead the team in its development, and contingencies factors affecting team structure and performance (i.e., the team may be the wrong structure for the type of task at hand). As Topping et al. (1995) noted, the early, almost messi- anic zeal, among advocates of teams has given way to a more critical analysis of teams recognizing that the team approach does not always equates with high performance. And finally, high performance teams require a significant amount of unlearning. To simply designate teams and not change the old mind set would be a formula for disaster (Ray & Bronstein, 1995). For Senge (1990b), in a non-hierarchical organization leaders are designers, stewards, and coaches. Senge goes on to say:

their roles differ dramatically from that of the charismatic decision making. These roles require new skills: the ability to build shared vision, to bring to the surface the challenge prevailing mental models, and to foster more systematic patterns of thinking. In short, they are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand their capac- ities to understand complexity and clarify vision and improve shared mental models - that is, they are responsible for learning (p. 442).

DISCUSSION

ITs play a critical role in enabling organizations to transform themselves from traditional bureaucracies to new forms which are more congruent with contemporary demands for structure. ITs are also transforming leadership as a central organizational process by


promoting non-hierarchical, distributed, and shared leadership. Likewise, information

technologies themselves are transformed by new forms of leadership that are consistent with flat organizational structures. The development and deployment of new technologies can be construed as a leadership challenge in the sense that they require both new technological platforms and new organizational architectures. Advanced ITs which include electronic messaging systems, executive support systems, group decision support, expert systems, and other technologies enable and facilitate multiparty participation in organizational activities including the exercise of leadership through sophisticated information management. Developers and users of these systems hold high hopes for their potential to change traditional organizational designs and decision-making for more adaptive patterns

of team performance and organizational effectiveness. In this article, I presented a number of proposition regarding the reciprocal nature of

leadership and technological processes in organizations. The major propositions may be

summarized as follows:

1 ) IS teams are unique and different from both traditional work groups and other organizational teams because of the nature Of their work (e.g., intellectual teamwork) which depends not only on individual and collective performance and mutual accountability, but is also governed by reciprocal interactions between organizational and technological process.

2) Leadership in high performance IS teams is determined by individual and team performance, which, in turn, is a function of the team's developmental stage.

3) Leadership in high performance teams is dispersed through the team as a function of the task, level of performance, and developmental stage.

4) Given the nature of the task, level of performance, and stage of the team's development, IS leaders exercise the full range of leadership styles ranging from autocratic to transformational leadership.

Although research on teams including computer-mediated teams has proliferated in recent years, much of this work is either conceptual or based on laboratory studies (e.g., Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George, 1991). Some empirical studies have been conducted on the quality of teams in systems development (e.g., Constantine, 1990; White & Leifer, 1986). This research concluded that teams are heavily influenced by the characteristics of individual team members such as age, gender, systems development experience, and personality attributes. These individual characteristics, in turn, influenced a number of team behaviors such as individual levels of leadership, motivation, and conflict resolution. However, what is missing in this body of research are studies that go beyond the individual level of analysis to include outcome variables at the team level such as team process variables and team effectiveness. Furthermore, not only is research needed that takes into account multiple levels of analysis, but also necessary are field studies which examine the impact of ITs on leadership over time.

Finally, we need research that systematically links team and leadership variables to systems variables such as systems development processes and systems quality to gain an understanding of the impact of team and leadership behaviors on the achievement of high performance teams and high quality systems. A major contribution of such multidisci- plinary research would be the integration of two divergent streams of research -organizational research on team development and team building and management information systems research on systems development, usage, quality and effectiveness.


CONCLUSIONS

Performance in multifunctional IS teams is the result of a complex interplay between advanced ITs and multifaceted social processes. Orlikowski (1992) stated that the development and deployment of ITs is a social phenomenon in which the organizational consequences of technologies are products of both material and social dimensions. In fact, many believe that the effects of ITs are less a function of the technical features of these systems than how they are used by people. Assessing leadership dispersion in high performance IS teams requires a conceptual model that identifies important performance dimensions as well as theoretically relevant features of ITs and leadership. Such a model is currently being developed which combines two theoretical frameworks, contingency theories of leadership and adaptive structuration theory (AST).

The essence of contingency theory of leadership is the emphasis on the importance of the fit between task/technology and leadership style. Structuration theory, on the other hand, developed by Giddens (1979, 1984), interconnects institutional analysis of structural properties of organizational characteristics with a strategic analysis of social actions in organizations. AST, according to DeSanctis and Poole (1994), is a framework for studying variations in organizational change that occur as advanced technologies are used. Structu- ration models, including AST, are appealing because they emphasize the interaction between technology and the social processes involved in technology use, illuminating how multiple outcomes can result from implementation of the same technology (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). They also provide a theoretical basis for exploring the reciprocal transformations at the interface of IT and leadership. In other words, ITs, particularly in the context of high performance teams, transform existing conceptualizations of leadership and leadership functions and create new roles for IS professionals as leaders.

Finally, a caveat of a practical nature is in order. Despite impressive results produced by some high performance teams, such teams are not the answer to all dysfunctional work groups nor are they easily integrated into an organization's existing structure. The development of unified commitment, trust, and mutual accountability takes time. Likewise, creative conflict resolution, and dispersed leadership, especially in teams composed of diverse IS professionals, do not always guarantee high performance.

REFERENCES

Applegate, L., Elam, J. (1992, December). New information systems leaders: A changing role in a changing world. MIS Quarterly, 469- 490.

Barry, X. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 3147.

Bass, B. (1985). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Beath, C., & Ives, B. (1986). Competitive informaiton systems in support of pricing. MIS Quarterly,

10(1), 31-37. Beatty, L., & Lee, G. (1992). Leadership among middle managers: An exploration in the context of

technological change. Human Relations, 45(9), 957-989. Beise, C., Niederman, F., & Beranek, X (1992). Facilitating technology supported group work: A

new category of information systems personnel. Proceedings of the communications of the ACM S1GCPR Conference, 250-258.


Bennett, A. (1992, February 5). Firms run by executive teams can reap rewards, incur risks. Wall

Street Journal, B8. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1991). Refraining organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Cash, J., & Konsynski, B. (1985). IS draws competitive boundaries. Harvard Business Review,

63(2), 134-142. Conger, J., & Canungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership. Academy

of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Constantine, L. (1990). Teamwork paradigms and the structured open team. Proceedings of the Soft-

ware Development, 90, 16-27. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large

systems. Communications of the ACM, 31, 1268-1287. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, S.M. (1994). Capturing the complexity of advanced technology use: Adap-

tive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2) 121-147. Dumaine, B. (1994, September 5). The trouble with teams. Fortune, 4 86-92. Fielder, F. (1967). A theory ofleaderhship effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fielder, F. (1971). Leadership. New York: General Learning Press. Gardiner, J. (1988). Building leadership teams. In M. Green (Ed.), Leaders for a new era. New

York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Goodman, P., Devadas, S., & Hughson, T. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing effective-

ness of self-managing teams. In J. Campbell, R. Campbell & Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graen G., (1989). Unwritten rules for your career: 15 secrets for fast-track success. New York: John Wiley.

Graen,G., Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). Self-management and team-making in cross functional work-teams: Discovering keys to becoming an integrated team. Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 25-40.

Hackman, R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. Pollack & R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hambrick, D. (1995). Fragmentation and the other problems CEOs have with their top management teams. California Management Review, 37(3) 110-127.

Handy, C. (1995, May-June). Trust and the virtual organizaiton. Harvard Business Review, 40-50. Hayley, K. (1989). CIO challenges in the changing MIS environment. Journal of Information

Systems Management, 6(3), 8-13. Hosking, M. (1988). Organizaing, leaderhsip and social process. Journal of Management Studies,

25(2), 147-160. Hosking, M., & Horley, I. (1988). The skills of leadership. In J. Hunt, R. Baliga, P. Dachler, & C.

Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. Hout, T., & Carter, J. (1995, Nov-Dec). Getting it done: New roles for senior executives. Harvard

Business Review, 133-145. Howell, J., & Dorfman, P. (1986). Leadership and leadership substitutes among professional and

nonprofessional workers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(1), 29-46. Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.

Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98. Ives, B., & Learmoth, G. (1984). The information system as a competitive weapon. Communications

of the ACM, 27(12), 1193-1201. Jessup, H. (1990, November). New roles in team leadership. Training and Development Journal,

79-83.


Johnston, R., & Carrico, S. (1987). Developing capabilities to use information strategically. MIS Quarterly, 12(1), 37-49.

Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993a). The wisdom of teams. New York: Harper Business. Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993b, Mar-Apr). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review,

111-110. Keck, S., & Tushman, M. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team

structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1314-1344. Kerr, S., & Jermier, (1978). Substitute for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organiza-

tional Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403. Kinslaw, D. (1991). Developing superior teams. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. Klenke, K. (1991). New human resource infrastructures: Computer-mediated performance apprais-

als. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference, 80-93. Klenke, K. (1993). Changing roles if IS professionals: From technical managers to strategic leaders.

Proceedings of the A CM SIGCPR Conference, 214-225. Kling, R. (1987), Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations. In R. Boland

& R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical issues in information systems research. New York: John Wiley

Kotter, J. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press. Larson, C., & LaFasto, F. (1989). Team Work. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lucas, H., & Turner, J. (1982, Winter). A corporate strategy for control of information processing.

Sloan Management Review, 77-79. Leavitt, H. (1975). Suppose we took groups seriously. In Man and work in society. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold. Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1993). Business without bosses. New York: John Wiley. Markus, L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal struc-

ture in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598. McGrath, J. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Edigo (Eds.), Intellectual

teamwork: The social and technological bases of cooperative work. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Nadler, D. (1992). Organizational architecture: A metaphor for change. In D. Nadler, M. Gerstein,

R. Shaw & Associates (Eds.), Organizational architecture. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Nadler, D., & Acona, E. (1994). Teamwork at the top: Creating executive teams that work. In D.

Nadler, M. Gerstein, R. Shaw & Associates (Eds.), Organizational architecture. San Fran- cisco: Jossey Bass.

Nahavandi, A., & Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the re-engineered organization. Acad- emy of Management Executive, 8(4), 58-68.

Nicolini, D., & Meznar, M. (1995). The social construction of organizaitonal learning: Conceptual and practical issues in the field. Human Relations, 48(7), 727-769.

Nunamaker, J., Dennis, A., Valacich, J., Vogel, G., & George, J. (1991). Electronic meeting support systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40~1.

Oberg, W. (1972). Charisma, commitment, and contemporary organization theory. Business Topics, 20, 18-32.

Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organi- • zations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.

Picot, A. (1989). Information management: The science of problem solving. International Journal of Management, 9(4), 398-427.

Pinnsonault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1987). The impact of technological support in groups: An assess- ment of empirical research. Decision Support Systems, 5, 197-216.

Ray, D., & Bronstein, H. (1995). Teaming up. New York: McGraw-Hill. Reilly, R., & Chao, T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative selection procedures.

Personal Psychology, 35, 1-65. Richard, D., & Engels, S. (1986). After the vision: Suggestions to corporate visionaries and vision

champions. In J. Adams (Ed.), Tranforming leadership. Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.


Senge, P. (1990a). Thefifth discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. (1990b). The new leaders at work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management

Review, 440---463. Schoderbek, P., Schoderbek, C., & Kefalas, A. (1990). Management systems: Conceptual consider-

ation. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Slovinski, G., Oliva, E., & Lowenstein, L. (1995, July-Aug). Medusa alliances: Managing complex

interorganizational relationships. Business Horizons, 48-52. Starbuck, W.E. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies,

26(9), 713-740. Stevens, M., & Champion, M. (1994). The knowledge skills and ability requirements for teamwork:

Implications for human reosurce management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503-530. Tapscott, D., & Carston, A. (1993). Paradigm shift: The promise of new technology. New York:

McGraw-Hill. Topping, S., Hartman, S., & Galle, W. (1995). Work group performance: A lesson from history.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, August 6-9.

Vroman, W. (1994). Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance workscape. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), 83-86.

Waldman, D. (1994). Transformational leadership in multifunctional teams. In B. Bass & Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

White, K., & Leifer, R. (1986). Information systems development success: Perspectives from project team participants. MIS Quarterly, 4(3), 28-49.

Yoder, S., & Zachary, G. (1993, July 14). Digital media business takes form of a battle of complex alliances. Wall Street Journal, A1, A6.

LEADERSHIP DISPERSION AS A FUNCTION OF...

Documents

Transcript of LEADERSHIP DISPERSION AS A FUNCTION OF...