1. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Topics HRM B: Leading teams

2. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Leadership is … …the process of influencing the activities of an organized group towards goal achievement. …the ability of an individual to motivate others to forego self-interest in the interest of a collective vision (House & Shamir, 1993) …the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization (Katz & Kahn, 1978)

3. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) Abilities and experience of followers Routine tasks Standardization of processes and tasks High level of technology use/automation

4. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Example for leadership subsitutes: Adaptive team coordination in cockpit crews (Grote et al., 2004)  Good teams used more leadership in phase 2 (low standardization) and less in phases 1 and 3 (high standardization)

5. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Basic leadership functions group internal functions –Task orientation/initiating structure Set goals, distribute tasks, check work results etc. –Employee orientation/consideration resolve conflicts, support/coach team members etc. group external functions –Boundary regulation Adjusting external demands in terms of group internal demands and possibilities

6. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Leadership activities (Yukl, 1989)

7. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Prerequisites of "good" leadership The "right" person ? –Traits of leaders compared to followers: intelligence, extraversion, adjustment, dominance, self- confidence but: overlapping distributions, cause or effect, situation dependence of differences The "right" behavior ? –Leadership styles: task-centred versus employee-centred autokratic vs. democratic (Lewin, Lippitt & White,1939) transactional vs. transformational (Bass, 1985) individual Leader-Member-Exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)

8. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Prerequisites of "good" leaderhsip (continued) The "right" situation ? –group (size, composition etc.) –task (complexity, structure etc.) –organization (division of labor, formalization etc.) The "right interaction" between person and situation ? –e.g. Fiedler (1967): differentiated social perception in combination with structured task, position power and good group climate The "right" instruments ? –e.g. management by objectives, performance appraisal

9. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Normative leadership models e.g. Blake & Mouton (1968): 9.9 leadership style (general requirement of high task and employee orientation) e.g. Hersey & Blanchard (1977): situation dependent variation of task and employee orientation  attempts to reduce the complexity of leadership demands –instructions for appropriate leadership behavior –tendency to "mechanize" leadership

10. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Example from leadership diagnosis questionnaire (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977)

11. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07

12. In the past the question was:"How do I lead a company?" Today it is:"How do we lead a company?" For the future it will be: "How does a company lead itself?" "Boundaryless, flattened, flexible, project-based and team-based organizations that employ temporary, externalized and remote workers, whose tasks are more intellectual amd less routine and cannot be controlled and coordinated by structure or direct supervision, need mechanisms of coordination through shared meaning systems and a shared sense of purpose" (Shamir, 1999)

13. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 "Benchmarking": Characteristics of HRM in successful companies (Pfeffer, 1998) 1. Employment security 2.Selective hiring 3.Self-managed teams and decentralization 4.High compensation contingent on organizational performance 5.Extensive training 6.Reduction of status differences 7.Sharing information

14. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Changes in the basic understanding of leadership Not technical instruction on the treatment of the object employee, but support for the dialogue with the subject employee (Neuberger, 1990) Leadership is influencing, not dominating people Dialogue under conditions of complex interactions between individual goals and interests Instead of clearly defined leadership tasks and rules more "meta-rules" derived from the acknowledgement of self- organizating properties of teams and organizations Besides technical competence and charima a "sense for systemic dynamics" is needed

15. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Examples for meta-rules (Probst, 1987) Learn to cope with ambiguities, indeterminancies, and uncertainties Keep and create opportunities Increase autonomy and integration Synchronize decisions and actions with "system time" Keep processes going – there are no final solutions

16. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Paradox of systemic leadership The recoginition of self-organizing properties of social systems is to enable its (external) controllabilitiy. i.e. gaining control by giving up control?

17. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Topics HRM B: Leading teams

18. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Road map for HRM B MotivationSatisfaction Performance Personnel selection Performance appraisal / Compensation Personnel development Task / Work process

19. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 "Benchmarking": Characteristics of HRM in successful companies (Pfeffer, 1998) 1.Employment security 2.Selective hiring 3.Self-managed teams and decentralization 4.High compensation contingent on organizational performance 5.Extensive training 6.Reduction of status differences 7.Sharing information

20. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Self-regulating teams Teams: several people who work together over a period of time to reach common goals and who share a sense of belonging together Self-regulation: individual and collective autonomy in order to coordinate work processes and to cope with process variances and uncertainties locally

21. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Advantages of teams developing ideas discovering and compensating individual errors furthering systems view supporting shared task orientation offering reciprocal support alleviating individual work load

22. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Disadvantages of teams friction conformity levelling of individual performance diffusion of responsibility devaluation of other groups

23. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Psychological group phenomena: Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) We have a need to assess own attitudes and abilities. If objetictive standards for these comparisons are missing, we compare ourselves with other people. We favor comparisons with people similar to ourselves.

24. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Psychological group phenomena: Bystander-effect (Latané & Darley, 1970) The more people are present the less likely individuals are to take initiatives (e.g. helping someone who very obviously is in need of help). Underlying processes: –Diffusion of responsibility –Reinterpretation of the situation (necessity for action is negated) –evaluation anxiety

25. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Psychological group phenomena: Conformity (Asch, 1956) As soon as three or more group members express an opinion that is different from the opinion of another single member, there is a strong tendency for that member to adapt his/her opinion. Pressure to conform can lead to a change in the publicly expressed opinion without necessarily changing the privately held conviction.

26. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Psychological group phenomena: Groupthink (Janis, 1972)

27. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Psychological group phenomena: Effects of different communication structures (Shaw, 1964)

28. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Phases of team development (Tuckman, 1965) Forming (Orientation phase): –All new – insecurity –Test behaviors –Search for acceptable behaviors Storming (Conflict phase): –Fight for roles/positions ("Hackordnung") –Power struggles Norming (Organisation phase): –Agreeing on team rules and cooperation forms –Developing a sense of belonging together Performing (Performance phase): –Constructive task distribution and flexible role behavior –Energy is focused on task completion and goal attainment

29. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Prerequisites for good team work Adequate common task –Complexity higher than individual competencies –Clear performance criteria –Collective decision competence Shared goal orientation –Positive goal coupling –Goal transparency and feedback Adequate group composition –Different perspectives on the task –Shared language Development of group rules –Adequate group size –Support for team development (form, storm, norm, perform) –Explicit handling of conflicts between individual and collective autonomy

30. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Team diagnosis: Characteristics of effective teams Goals are clear and accepted Individual and team goals melt together Responsibilities are clear and change depending on situational demands Leadership is seen as a shared responsibility Conflicts are dealt with Team learns and develops Contributions are recognized and valued Communication is open and engaged Group processes are reflected upon and discussed

31. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Team diagnosis: Critical team situations Different interests cannot be integrated Team is overloaded or underloaded Mistrust among team members Hierarchy impedes development of cohesion Little interaction and knowledge exchange Fear of mistakes and responsibility Non-complementary team composition Goals are lost sight of Problematic roles of some team members (wingers, freeloaders, talkers, silent people etc.)

32. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Instruments for team diagnosis: Example 1

33. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Instruments for team diagnosis - Example 2 Questionnaire on working in teams (F-A-T, Kauffeld, 2001) –Person orientation: Cohesion: trusting and open behaviors, social support, sense of belonging. Taking on responsibility: Sense of responsibility, taking initiatives, showing commitment. –Structure orientation: Task fulfillment: Distribution of tasks and work processes. Goal orientation: Clarity, attainability, importance and identification with team goals. Recommendations: In case of team problems analyze structural dimensions first.

34. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Team roles Leadership roles visionary, strategist, networker, coach, integrator, motivator, controller, planner, power promotor... Member roles expert, helper, unconventional thinker, advocatus diaboli, social promotor, scape goat...

35. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Chosen leadership approach determines role E.g.: Empowerment  Coach Employee orientation  Parent Task orientation  Controller Charismatic leadership  Visionary Change agent  Strategist

36. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Sources of power as basis for different leadership roles (French & Raven, 1959) Gratification power Influence based on positive reinforcement through rewards or prevention of harm Coercive power Influence through possibilities for punishment or taking away rewards Position power Influence based on the position in the organization Expert power Influence based on personal competence Charismatic power Influence based on the followers' identification with the leader due to personal attraction

37. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Changing leadership roles depending on stage in work processes Providing structure at the start of a process Deciding in critical phases Coach/motivator in on-going work processes Team member (= no leadership) in routine processes Moderator in decision processes Evaluator at the end of a process

38. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Work in distributed teams: Teams have changed...

39. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 Concerns of managers of distributed teams (Reichwald & Bastian, 1999) Change of culture Surveillance -> trust Direct instructions -> self-organization Coordination and correction of mistakes become more difficult Weaker relationship between employee and organization Loss of power and prestige

40. VL HRM B – G. Grote ETHZ, SS07 New demands on leadership in virtual teams (Springall et al., 2006) High complexity of situation also requires complex leaderhip behaviors Conflicting leaderhip concepts have to be integrated into a coherent leadership style