Leadership Presentation ACN

The Leadership Game

The effect of vertical versus shared

leadership on team success

Rico van Leeuwen

Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved. 2

Objectives

Give insight in the theory of vertical and

shared leadership

Create a clear understanding of the

research method

Give insights in results and inform the

meaning of these results

Answer your questions

Point you towards additional information


Gallup research shows that worldwide:

• 13% of employees are actively engaged in their jobs

• 63% are not engaged

• 24% are actively disengaged

Gallup estimate 2013:

• Cost the U.S. economy up $450-550 billion per year in lost productivity

Todays topic is about…


• Apparently..

• …the direct relationship with one’s manager is the

strongest of all drivers!

• Other important drivers are:

– Teamwork

effective teamwork occurs when a group is well developed.

– Autonomy

– Efficacy

– … (for a full overview, see Bakker, 2009; 2011)

…leadership...


• Thus..

– what would happen if there was no leader?

– What would the effect be?

• Two types of leadership:

• Shared leadership – (because of organizational flattening, research says that this might be a suitable

solution to traditional models of leadership)

• Vertical leadership – (traditional model)

…leadership…


…leadership

V

F

F

F

S S

S S

Vertical leader is someone who is

appointed or selected as the leader

for a group or organization.

Shared leadership is leadership

that emanates from the members of

the team.

Vertical Leadership Shared Leadership


…and its effects.

What are the effects of vertical versus shared leadership on team success,

consisting of team performance, group development and engagement?

V.S.

Performance

Group Development

Engagement

Vertical Leadership

Shared Leadership

Team success


• Expected shared leadership teams to have higher

levels of…

– Engagement

– Group development

– Performance

• …compared to vertical leadership teams.

Expectations


– autonomy is positively related to engagement (Bakker 2009; 2011)

– Teamwork is positively related to engagement (Bakker 2009; 2011)

– Transformational and empowering leadership are positively related to engagement. Due to rotation of leadership, higher possibility of these styles.

– In shared leadership teams there are no hierarchical levels and no person to be seen as different from the group (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011).

– Shared leadership is a better predictor of manager, customer and team self-ratings of effectiveness compared to vertical leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Ensley Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006)

– Teams that actively engaged in shared leadership perform better compared to those who do not (Kazenbach & Smith, 1993).

Reasons


Questions about the Theory?

Method section

Results &

Discussion

Questions


• 20 teams

• Team consisted of 4 people

• Meeting room

• Teams..– Played a serious game TeamUp.

– Had to solve 5 puzzles.

Method

http://signaturegames.nl/gamelab/game/teamup/

12Copyright © 2013 Accenture All rights reserved.

– One person wore a Tie and

– was responsible for results and direction of the team

• “You are all scouts, and you all search for solutions on how the puzzles can be solved. However, you (random someone) are responsible for the results the team delivers. This means that you, the scouts, search for solutions and that you (points to leader) are responsible for the direction the team is moving in. You are also responsible for achieving the goal.”

– All had button with “scout”

– Shared responsiblities

• “From you I expect perfect collaboration. Basically, withinthe game you are all scouts, andif you think you have found the right way, or know how to solvethe puzzle, share your expertise with your team members andhelp the team to achieve its goal. This means that you have a shared responsibility to achievethe goal, and that you are allresponsible for what happens.”

Two leadership styles

Vertical Leadership Shared Leadership


Measurement

Measurement

Questionnaire

Video Analysis

Conversation

Analysis

Time & Errors in

game


• 80 participants

• 70% were men

• Average age 29.85 years (SD = 6.04)

• Dutch (91.3%)

• University (73.8%) / University of Applied Sciences (25.00%)

• Level: Analyst (27.5%), Consultant (43.8%), Manager (11.3%)

*In the analysis social styles, personality and team composition were

not taken into account due to low amount of participants.

Also research would have been too complex and extensive.

Participants*


Questions about the

Method?

Results &

Discussion

Theory

Questions


Scientific Results

• Manipulation had failed– Source of influence

• No difference between vertical and shared leadership teams

– Strength of influence (overall team level by summing up

• No difference between vertical and shared leadership teams

Then search for unofficial vertical leaders in teams.

• 4 unofficial vertical leadership teams

• 4 official shared leadership teams

– no significant difference between these two groups on

team performance, group development and engagement.


• Shared leadership teams…

– Made 20.92% less errors

– Time was 10.96% better

• Compared to vertical leadership teams. However this

is not a significant difference.

Scientific Results


• Video analysis

– It was expected that • the assigned leader would show more leader typical behavior that the followers

• Leader typical behaviors were more distributed in shared leadership teams

• Leader typical behaviors are structuring the conversation, informing, visioning,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Weenink, 2012)

Scientific Results


Scientific Results

Showing

Disinterest

Defendingonesownpositi

on

Providing

negative

feedback

Directing /

Correcting

Directing /

Delegating

Verifying

Structuringthe

Conversati

on

Informing

Visioning

Disagreeing

Agreeing

I.C.Asking for

Idea's

I.C.Cooperatin

g

I.Con.Positi

veRewarding

I.ConEncouraging

I.ConBeingFriend

ly

I.ConShowi

ngperso

nalintere

st

ActiveListen

ing

Member1 0 1 0 3 4 22 0 60 2 1 1 7 6 0 0 3 0 0

Member2 0 0 2 11 24 34 0 61 5 3 1 12 4 4 0 0 0 1

Member3 0 1 3 11 32 23 2 52 14 9 5 5 6 4 3 0 1 0

Member4 0 2 2 1 12 17 1 43 3 3 2 2 5 1 2 0 0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fre

qu

en

cy

Figure 7. Leadership Behaviors in Shared Leadership Team 3


Scientific Results

Showing

disinterest


on

Providing

negative

feedback

Directing /

Correcting

Directing /

Delegating

Verifying

Structuringthe

converstation

Informing

Visioning

Disagreein

g

Agreeing

Asking for

Idea's

Cooperatin

g

Positive

Rewarding

Encouragi

ng

BeingFriendly

Showing

personal

interest

Active

Listening

Leader 0 3 1 5 8 23 2 76 9 2 7 18 5 2 4 4 2 8

Follower1 12 1 7 7 0 31 0 77 10 8 5 6 8 4 1 4 0 7

Follower2 0 0 1 2 3 21 0 79 12 8 4 3 4 0 1 6 2 10

Follower3 0 0 4 9 14 19 2 70 4 10 3 4 7 1 3 4 2 15

0102030405060708090

Fre

qu

en

cy

Leadership Behaviors in Vertical Team 2


• Leader showed even LESS leader typical behavior

compared to the team members.

Scientific Results

Why?

• Conversation analysis (3 teams), results

show that:• Vertical leader was seen as out-group

member in the team and thus behaved as an

external source of influence.

• Teams listened when they needed information.

• ‘scouts’ behaved as an autonomously

regulated team.

• Shared leadership teams are suggested to,

indeed, rotate leadership more.

F

F

F

L


1. Shared leadership might be a better alternative in interdependent, complex and creative settings.

– Assigning a leader here might be ineffective.

Thus this means that.. (1)

Leader is seen as ‘different’ from the

group, an out-group member. This

leads to exerting ‘power over’ (telling

others what you want them to do),

instead of ‘power through’ letting them

do what they want to do and use this

as a motor for action. Power over leads

to private rejection and followers do the

opposite of what the leader want them

to do (Haslam, Reicher, Platow, 2011; Reynolds & Platow,

2003, Turner, 2005).

Why?

Research confirms these

results and suggest that

this is mainly true for

knowledge work (Pearce, 2004;

Carson et al, 2007 a.o.)


2. TeamUp might stimulate shared leadership

• Almost all teams were approx. shared.

• Manipulation had ‘failed’.

TeamUp can possibly be used to develop shared

leadership. Or at least, create awareness.

Thus this means that.. (2)


• What are the effects of vertical versus shared leadership

on team success, consisting of team performance, group

development and engagement?

– Shared leadership > performance

– Vertical leadership (on long term) is suggested to have negative effect in

interdependent, complex and creative settings

• Leader is seen as different

– ‘Power over’ effect instead of ‘power through’.

• hierarchy, possiblity of lower psychological safety and thus group development (Haslam, et al. 2011)

• However!

• Small sample, only high educated people, knowledge work, not representative for all settings.

Further research is needed to further validate this data.

To conclude..


Final note

• So..if you are ever in a situation where there is a..

– ..rather unclear assignment, you’re mutually dependent

on others, and you have to be creative, let expertise do

the saying and thus share leadership.

– ..new group, have bad teamwork, or have a very

controlling / ineffective leader use TeamUp.


Method

Questions about the

Results & Discussion

Theory

Questions


More information?

Engagement

• Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 50-72). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

• Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. (link)

Shared leadership

• Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217-231. (link)

• Pearce, C. L. (2007). The Future of Leadership Development: The Importance of Identity, Multi-Level Approaches, Self-Leadership, Physical Fitness, Shared Leadership, Networking, Creativity, Emotions, Spirituality and On-Boarding Processes. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 355-359 (link).

• Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.

• Van Leeuwen, J. C. (2014). Building a peak performance organization. (link)

Group development

• Rijnbergen, T. (2007). Samenwerking in teams: de impact van verticaal en gedeeld taak- en relatiegericht leiderschap en groepsontwikkeling op team prestatie. Unpublished master theses, University of Utrecht (link)

Gaming & Leadership

• Siewiorek, A. (2012). Playing to Learn: Business Simulation Games as Leadership Learning Environments. Dissertation. (link)

Self-Managing Work Teams

• Weenink, L.A.M. (2012). Behaviors in highly effective continous imporovement teams: Two types of video-analysis of three prototypical worksituations. Unpublished master theses, Twente School of Management, Enschede. (link)

http://pop-lab.com/beheer/userupload/files/41.pdf

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=managementfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl%3Dnl%26q%3Densley%2Bpearce%2Bimportance%26btnG%3D%26lr%3D#search=%22ensley%20pearce%20importance%22

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=managementfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl%3Dnl%26q%3Dpearce%2B2004%26btnG%3D%26lr%3D#search=%22pearce%202004%22

http://lnkd.in/dhKv6qp

http://www.menseninbedrijf.nl/media/11003/thesis-thijsrijnbergen-november2007-universiteitutrecht.pdf

https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/76840/Annales B 347 Siewiorek DISS.pdf?sequence=1

http://essay.utwente.nl/62884/1/Thesis_-_Laura_A._M._Weenink.pdf


Wrap-up

Gave insight in the theory of vertical and

shared leadership

Created a clear understanding of the

research method

Gave insights in results and inform the

meaning of these results

Answered your questions

Pointed you towards additional

information

Rico van LeeuwenT : 00 31 (0)6 290 44 279

E : [email protected]

Leadership Presentation ACN

Documents

Transcript of Leadership Presentation ACN