Functional leadership in interteam contexts: Understanding ‘what’ in the context of why? where? when? and who?

Abstract

Research on team leadership has primarily focused on leadership processes targeted within teams, in support of team objectives. Yet, teams are open systems that interact with other teams to achieve proximal as well as distal goals. This review clarifies that defining 'what' constitutes functionally effective leadership in interteam contexts requires greater precision with regard to where (within teams, across teams) and why (team goals, system goals) leadership processes are enacted, as well as greater consideration of when and among whom leadership processes arise.We begin by synthesizing findings from empirical studies published over the past 30 years that shed light on questions of what, where, why, when, and who related to interteam leadership and end by providing three overarching recommendations for how research should proceed in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of leadership in interteam contexts.

The Relationship between Eco-Innovation and Smart Working as Support for Sustainable Management

“…They know exactly what the target is and why it is important to achieve it. They fight passive-aggressive behavior [40][41][42]. An inflexible manager cannot lead a company to become innovative or to face the current and future market challenges.…”

“…Thus, they are responsible for communicating as deeply as possible with employees, explaining the scientific elements within the meaning of all employees, so that they know what to expect and take on service tasks to perform it above average quality standard in the field [38,39]. Employees' tasks are clearly explained by innovative leaders [40]. The responsibility of the team leader is to make all team members understand their overall objective and look at issues holistically.…”

Add fuel to the fire: investigating the relationship between leader group prototypicality and intergroup conflict

“…leader group prototypicality in this study) would lead to intergroup conflict. Although scholars have emphasised the possibility that strong ingroup leadership can lead to intergroup bias (Carter et al, 2020;Homan et al, 2020;Kershaw et al, 2020;Pittinsky and Pittinsky, 2009), scant empirical studies have examined its mechanisms and contextual factors in detail. This is likely to result in a limited understanding of its effects and an excessive emphasis on strong ingroup leadership as an important premise of effective leadership.…”

“…However, scholars have noted that strong ingroup leadership could increase the likelihood of intergroup conflict (Carter et al, 2020;Hogg, 2015;Pittinsky and Pittinsky, 2009). For instance, as an important reference in the group, if a prototypical group leader intentionally sets barriers to impede the work progress of other groups as a means of achieving favourable intergroup comparisons, group members may blindly follow these behaviours that are likely to engender intergroup conflict.…”

“…Firstly, it addresses the question of whether leader group prototypicality leads to intergroup conflict. Previous studies have noted the potential effects of ingroup leadership on intergroup tensions (Carter et al, 2020;Hogg, 2015;Pittinsky and Pittinsky, 2009); however, whether these effects exist and the mechanisms and conditional boundaries of these effects are far from clear. By examining the relationship between leader group prototypicality and intergroup conflict, as well as its mechanism and conditional boundary based on social identity theory, this study can provide valuable theoretical and empirical insights related to ingroup leadership and intergroup relations.…”