Coordinated action in multiteam systems.

Davison, Robert B.; Hollenbeck, John R.; Barnes, Christopher M.; Sleesman, Dustin J.; Ilgen, Daniel R.

doi:10.1037/a0026682

Cited by 176 publications

(243 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

240

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early insights into the circumstances under which leaders should delegate decision making responsibility to a group versus retaining it was provided by Vroom, Yetton and Jago's leadership participation model (Vroom & Jago, 1988;Vroom & Yetton, 1973), and some integrative work using that model has continued (Vroom & Jago, 2007). In the last decade, research on shared leadership, delegation, empowerment, and participative decision groups has grown dramatically -a trend that parallels the increased use of teams in organizational contexts (Davison, Hollenbeck, Barnes, Sleesman, & Ilgen, 2012;Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). Compared to traditional hierarchical forms of leadership, these leadership structures allow different members of a team to assume leadership and/or responsibility as tasks and contexts vary (Morgeson, 2005).…”

Section: Shared / Participative / Delegation / Empowerment Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

Meuser

Gardner

Dinh

et al. 2016

Journal of Management

132

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the status of leadership theory integration by reviewing 14 years of published research (2000 through 2013) in 10 top journals (864 articles). The authors of these articles examined 49 leadership approaches/theories, and in 293 articles, 3 or more of these leadership approaches were included in their investigations. Focusing on these articles that reflected relatively extensive integration, we applied an inductive approach and used graphic network analysis as a guide for drawing conclusions about the status of leadership theory integration. All 293 articles included in the analysis identified 1 focal theory that was integrated with 2 or more supporting leadership theories. The 6 leadership approaches most often appearing as the focal theory were transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, strategic leadership, leadership and diversity, participative/shared leadership, and the trait approach to leadership. On the basis of inductive reflections on our analysis, we make two key observations. First, the 49 focal leadership theories qualify as middle-range theories that are ripe for integration. Second, drawing from social network theory, we introduce the term “ theoretical neighborhood” to describe the focal theoretical networks. Our graphical inductive analyses reveal potential connections among neighboring middle-range leadership theories that merit investigation and, hence, identify promising future directions for achieving greater theoretical integration. We provide an online supplement with 10 additional leadership theory graphs and analyses: leadership in teams and decision groups, ethical leadership, leader and follower cognitions, leadership emergence, leadership development, emotions and leadership, implicit leadership, leader-member exchange, authentic leadership, and identity and identification process theories of leadership.

show abstract

Section: Shared / Participative / Delegation / Empowerment Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

Meuser

Gardner

Dinh

et al. 2016

Journal of Management

132

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These "multiteam systems" bring together "a complex variety of skills, knowledge, and functions" in adaptive structures that are especially suited to managing highly complex environments (Zaccaro, Marks, & DeChurch, 2012: 12). They comprise a greater number of members and are structurally more complex than standalone teams (with distinct component teams as an additional layer), but they are smaller, more agile, and less bureaucratic than traditional multi-unit organizations (e.g., corporate divisions) (Davison, Hollenbeck, Barnes, Sleesman, & Ilgen, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing coordination in multiteam systems: integrating micro and macro perspectives

Vries¹,

Hollenbeck²,

Davison³

et al. 2016

IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many of those kinds of teams can also be viewed as teams of teams, which is a different research area (cf. Davison et al, 2012;DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2010;Marks et al, 2005). Since the teams in the studies presented in this thesis consist of teams with between 2 and 4 members this limits the generalisability to small teams.…”

Section: Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Shared Strategic Understanding

Berggren¹

2016

Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover illustration © Eric Palmquist/Bildupphovsrätt 2016 Tous pour un, un pour tous Les trois mousquetaires (1844) by Alexandre DumasPå ärans och hjältarnas språk:En för alla, och alla för en. AbstractThis thesis describes the development of an instrument for assessing shared understanding in teams. The purpose was to develop an instrument that would be usable, understandable, objective, flexible and self-explanatory. Teams working in naturalistic settings are expected to have a shared understanding of common goals and how to achieve these. The problem investigated in this thesis is that current techniques and instruments for assessing shared understanding in teams generally suffer from one or more of the following drawbacks, namely that they are expensive, difficult to use, time-consuming, requiring expertise, and are often based on subjective perceptions. Departing from existing theory in team cognition techniques and theories, the research questions posed in this thesis are: 1) How can shared understanding be measured without the disadvantages of existing methods? 2) How can shared understanding be assessed without the bias of self-ratings and/or assessments by experts/observers? 3) Can team performance be better understood by the outcomes of an instrument that measures shared understanding?These research questions are answered through six studies that are presented in this thesis. Over the six studies an instrument was iterated and subsequently developed, called the shared priorities instrument. When using this instrument, team members are instructed to generate items and rank these in order of importance. By comparing these rank orders from different participants, a team measure of shared understanding can be calculated. The advantages of this instrument compared to earlier measures are that it is less expensive, easier to use, less time-consuming, does not require subject matter expertise, and that the instrument is distanced from subjective perceptions.Furthermore, the final study provides results where outcomes from the shared priorities instrument correlate with performance, supporting earlier research connecting shared understanding in teams with team performance. A structural equation model, a result of the final study, shows that the instrument is both valid and reliable.

show abstract

Coordinated action in multiteam systems.

Cited by 176 publications

References 59 publications

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory

Managing coordination in multiteam systems: integrating micro and macro perspectives

Assessing Shared Strategic Understanding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About