|
1.1背景信息
现代组织必须解决困难和更复杂的国际环境中,在这种非系统性解决问题的整个组织变得规则而不是不规则(悲哀的,1977;1978;Manz卡明斯,西姆斯,1984;&沃尔顿,1985)。因此,组织成员与任务需求逐渐复杂的侮辱,引人注目的使用非传统的解决问题的组织设计(Mohrman &卡明斯,1989;古德曼,Devadas“晓臣”,1988年,&)。
1.1 Background Information
Modern organization must solve difficult and more complicated international environments, in which unsystematic problem solving throughout the organization is becoming the rule rather than the irregularity (Trist, 1977; Cummings, 1978; Manz & Sims, 1984; Walton, 1985). As a result, organizational members are affront with progressively complex task requirements, compelling to use of non-traditional problem-solving organizational designs (Mohrman & Cummings, 1989; Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988). To deal with the demands of this environment, organizations are finding it necessary to remove from a traditional, individual work group frame to a multi-functional group structure, where members from different functional areas join together, and form into cross-functional teams to discover integrative solutions to complex, unstructured tasks (Starr, 1988).
当一个组织它的专制领导的辐射模型,利用自我管理工作团队可以进行相关的职能制定。然而,一些研究表明,员工在一个团队里工作比起在传统的工作状态将更加满意。这个要求对个人动机、责任和自治都有严格的标准，满意在团队环境中,更有可能提供积极的团队和组织绩效(Gulowsen,1972,,1992年引用Sinclair)。维持一个高水平的满意度会导致经理需要干预较少的每天的运作团队。反工作行为、工作指示错误和低生产率可以最小化潜在的通过增加职工满意度。
Yandrick (2001) suggests that when an organization radiates its authoritarian model of leadership and makes use of self-managed work teams, performance knock-down, and product-development cycles decrease. However, some research suggests that employees working in a team will be more satisfied than they would be in traditional working condition. Demanding for individual motivation, responsibility and autonomy (Hertzberg, 1959, MacGregor, 1960, both cited in Sinclair, 1992) and participating and democratic leadership (Likert, 1976, cited in Sinclair, 1992) are said to be satisfied in a team environment and more likely to proffer positively to team and organization performance (Gulowsen, 1972, cited in Sinclair, 1992). Sustaining a high level of satisfaction should result in the manager needing to interpose less in the day-by-day workings of the team. Anti-task behavior, work misdirection and low productivity can be minimized potentially by increased worker satisfaction.
1.2 Rationale
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, for instance, forces the interface of all design, marketing, operations and legal function department throughout each project to anticipate requirements and evaluate progress. Customized hotel products and services, such as meetings and banquet events, receive the full attention of local hotel cross-functional teams, involving all internal and external suppliers, verifying production and delivery capabilities before each event, critiquing samples, and assessing results.
A survey revealed that just seven percent of the workforce was organized into cross-functional teams. However, one and half of the organizations stated that they would be implementing self-managing teams during the next five years. Such a response suggests that this self-managing team concept is worth investigating.
1.3 Aims and Objectives
Aim
Analysis the shared leadership and transformation leadership in cross-functional team approaches to commitment, performance, knowledge and trust.
Objectives
How leadership style effects the cross-functional team performance in hotel organization.
How the transformation leadership integrate trust in cross-functional team in hotel organization.
How shared leadership resolve the conflict in hotel organization.
Chapter 2
Literature Review:
2.1 What is Self-Management Team?
According to Hackman (1986), self-management team involves individuals taking responsibility for officiating, monitoring, and managing their own mission and work processes. In terms of the cross-functional teams described above, this definition is identically with the processes performed by the individual team members they must execute, monitor, and manage their own performance and work processes refer to their discipline specialty. In addition, self-management team is a leaderless, they are fully autonomous, self-directed, self-managing) work group, this work groups have assigned team leaders whenas in other studies or organizations, the groups are veritable leaderless until an informal leader appears from the work group (Baird &Weinberg, 1981).
One of the latent advantages of self-management team is the reduced need for hierarchical command and control leadership. This is because self-managing teams have a large amount of autonomy and self-control over their immediate working environment (Cohen & Ledford, 1997). Because teams can manage most of their own activities, the need for leaders who are not members of the team is allay, the self-managing are rarely represented full decision-making authority.
2.1.1 Cross-functional Teamhttp://www.ukassignment.org/ygkczy/
The cross-functional team also called multidisciplinary team, a standardization cross-functional team is consisted of those individuals from departments within the organization whose competencies are potential in achieving an optimal evaluation. It is important to note that the role in the cross-functional team in using the expert of many different people associate as coupled with the task of prompting support for the work of the team. Furthermore, they are a group of people with largely defined by its autonomy, self-regulation, or self-management. A legible purpose is representing a variety of functions in the organization whose combined efforts are necessary for achieving the team’s purpose (Glenn Parker, 2003).
Song, Thieme, and Jinhong (1998) describe the disadvantages of cross-functional teams as follows: Cross-functional teams complicate the relationship between functional areas and increase organizational conflict. That statement was confirmed in many other studies. In addition, one obstacle is which often averts effective teamwork processes in cross-functional team, however, is the increased potential for conflict in groups. This conflict is not only between team members, but also from internal conflict within a team member as well because originate from the differences in goals among the detached functional areas of the members.
In addition, cross-functional teams do not have the benefit of character of appropinquity, quality of being homogeneous, and group distinctiveness (Zander, 1982). With participants coming from different functional areas, the group meetings often become multi-cultural experiences, with members having different perspectives, vocabularies and behaviors. Establishing a culture of respect, open communication and mutuality becomes a challenge in the cross-functional team that intact teams often do not face.
2.2 Leadership Style
2.2.1 Perspective of Shared Leadership
Leadership in teams is an extended dimension that avails more attention because it is potential effect on team function. Zaccaro (2001) protested that leadership processes influence team apperception, motivation, and emotional processes. Moreover, the leadership process affects the attitudes, faith, and behaviors of the team members (Ensley, Pearson, & Pearce, 2003). Thus, leadership processes and team processes are determinate interrelated.
The traditional frame of reference of a individual leader suggests that the leadership function is a specialized role that could not be shared without imperiling group effectiveness. This view represents the more hierarchical leadership in which the leader directs all activities (Ensley et al., 2003). In contrast, shared leadership represents teams whose members are delegated to share the works and responsibilities of leadership (Ensley et al., 2003; Katzenbach, 1997). Those who view leadership as a shared process debet the important decisions about what to do and how to do it are made process the utilize of an interactive process that involves many different kind of people who influence one another, not by a single leader or person (Yukl, 1998, p. 3).
The concept of shared or distributive leadership and no wonder, though it has been in some sort of ignored in comparison to individual leadership (Ensley et al.,2003;O’Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler, 2002). Some prior behavioral research that mentioned the possibility of the leadership function being shared among group members rather than performed by a single individual is present in the work of Gibb (1954).
Sometimes teams manage themselves relying on congregative or shared leadership processes. Some professors suggested that teams that share the leadership function will be more approving with their team, as Katzenbach (1997) found that teams that enlist in shared leadership are more effective than any other teams. #p#分页标题#e#
2.2.2 Shared Leadership Solve Internal Conflict
Conflict has two dominating measurements: working conflict and relationship conflict (Jehn, 1999). Relationship conflict is a social process and circumscription is tension generated by individual emotional and interpersonal tussles. Relationship conflict is functional disorder conflict because it restrains teams from accomplishing target. In addition, to enhancing efficacy in cross-functional team, an important leader task is deflating the team’s relationship conflict and fabricating team cohesion and harmonious (Gioia et al, 2002). Teams with more cohesion and less relationship conflict often perform well because the leader has personalized pledge to the team’s objectives (House & Shamir, 1993).
Ensley et al. (2003) noted that shared leadership empowered a kind of interaction and socialization that is comport in cohesion. It by and large, minimizing relationship conflict enhances group cohesion and a shared vision. Moreover, Ensley et al. subtext to the positive relationship of shared leadership and collective vision by suggesting the development of team vision is less likely to occur if inhibit by an individual leader than if impose by multiple team members. O’Toole et al. (2002) suggested that individuals involved in shared leadership systems are more willing to attach to the worthiness and be committed to their team and thus illustrate less relational conflict. It seems shared leadership allow for advance team cohesion, which means less relational conflict because that cohesion is allowed to emerge naturally rather than be imposed by a single leader (Gioia, et al 2002). Thus, shared leadership should be associated with less relational conflict.
2.2.3 Perspective of Transformation Leadership
Watkins and Marsick (1993) defined the transformation leadership as one that despoil, shares, and uses knowledge to change the way in which the organization to punch back to challenges. Bass (1999) suggests transformational leadership actually is an expanding of transactional leadership, and therefore, a leader can synchronously be both or neither. The underlying proposition upon from which a conclusion is drawn is that all leaders reward performance. Central to this theoretical framework of the organization are seven complementary action formulae:
Create constantly learning chances
Expedite interpersonal dialogue and quaere
Inciting collaboration and learning
Stimulate people toward a collective vision
Upbuild corporeity to capture and share learning
Integrate the organization to its environment
Provide strategic leadership for learning
The transformational leadership purposes to operate span over self-interest, which prompts visually, enthusiastic to perform their characters to reflect tache and adaptive learning (Argyris and Schoen, 1978) by combining existing with new knowledge and minds, as well as experimenting and encouraging others to do the same. Thus, transformational leadership is characterized by charisma, inspiration, intellective stimulation, and personal judgmatically (Hsu et al., 2002), and a transformational leader provides vision and sense of reward, which promotes the respect and trust to followers. These leaders enlighten by leading-by-example, and explaining how to achieve high standards to team members (Bass, 1999).
By definition, a transformational leader encourages creativity and inquisitiveness (Bass, 1998), recognizes the value of team members, and collectively interprets and integrates new knowledge with existing knowledge to facilitate team learning.
2.2.4 Transformation Leadership Resolve Distrust
The uppermost importance of interpersonal trust for To keep in existence individual, team and organizational effectiveness is aggrandizing being recognized (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Interpersonal trust promote an environment in which individuals feel disengaged to express their ideas, engage in problem solving and resolve differences of notion (Tschannen- Moran, 2001). Trust in teams and teamwork is affected by different levels of interpersonal trust, which is, in ordinal, bind to social and leadership relationships, organizational effectiveness, organizational atmosphere, performance and achievement (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Work relationships portrayed by trust may strengthen collaboration, reduce internal conflict, increase organizational commitment and lessen the tendency to deviate (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). When team members do not trust each other, however, they are unlikely to collaborate. Mutual trust within teams affects the level of confidence that team members show in interpersonal relations and work performed on the collective level.
According to the definition of Pillai et al. (1999), the transformational leaders engage in comportment that gain the trust of their followers and that in turn result in desirable outcomes. They suggested that transformational leaders might operate by establishing a social exchange relationship with followers. For instance, transformational leaders may build trust by demonstrating individualized concern and respect for followers.
3.1 Case Study
3.1.1 Autocratic leadership
The autocratic leadership style is both guiding and controlling, the leader is going to make all decisions without consulting top-management or middle-level or team members. In other words, the autocratic leadership means to prevent employee’s freedom from the expression of their opinion on management and participation in the decision-making procedures. The autocratic leadership is considered to result in a non-trust issue happened between leader and employees or headquarters and subordinates, what’s more, the creative minds will be off the company under autocratic leadership. Autocratic Leadership is focusing on high emphasis on performance and a low emphasis on people and assumes that people are lazy, irresponsible, and untrustworthy and that planning. Additionally, organizing, controlling, and decision-making should accomplish by the leader with minimal involvement. It relies on author power, manipulation and hard work to get the job done.
A case study from data were obtained through self-administered questionnaire from the employees working in three small hotel industries (N=140) employed in New York City. In this case, a supervisor exercises autocratic control to ensure conformity to work methods they prescribe. In contrast, the case indicates that autocratic leadership result in dissatisfaction among employees (Fulk and Wendler, 1982; Podsakoff et al (1984), and Scriesheim, House and Kerr (1976) and demonstrating positive motivational behavior becomes instrumental in motivating employee work performance (Greene, 1976, Sims and Sizlagyi, 1978, House and Mitchelle, 1974, Chowdhury, 1997).
Chapter 3
Methodology:
3.1 Sampling:
The hypotheses were tested through surveys and interviewing of random sampling management teams in a chain of medium size hotels. Each management team consisted of the General Manager, as the team leader, and individuals responsible for various functions including sales, food and beverage, and finance as team members. Teams ranged from three to five members with an average size of four. All teams had gender and ethnical diversity represented within their team. Thus, these management teams were responsible for leading all the activities in the hotel property, tackling local competition, and generating profits.
Throughout 8 weeks, the teams competed against one another in various activities, including the creation, design, and construction of products and services. The competitions items are including: creating website, designing a menu, developing their hotel slogan.
3.2 Data Collection:
The Surveys will give to the team members filled out surveys measuring relational conflict, coaching, informing, and showing concern, interacting with the team. Participants responded to the items using a 7-point appraisal scale, with 1 point is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree.
The interview questions refer to leadership within the team, including such facets as goal setting, defining objectives, and perceptions of leader behavior. Informants will ask to describe their interactions with their leaders and team members. The instrument will focus on two focal areas: team structure and learning, and leadership and motivation. In addition to specific questions regarding team learning, because some researchers consider team learning a process of interpretation and integration of knowledge to develop cohesion and collective performance, we use information about team objectives, outcomes, and dynamics to identify salient indicators of learning. Interview questions including: how the team reflects on feedback, how modifications to procedures arise and their subsequent implementation, and performance assessments.
3.3 Validity and Reliability
The research will be more valid as it base on the mixed approach, with research aggregation of individual ratings and interviews to compute the team level measures, there is increasing evidence that consensus ratings provide incremental validity over the aggregation method.
Reliability represents the extent to which the findings may be not directly translate into real-world teams, in general, real world are imitated in this study in that teams were faced with challenges, time constraints, and dealing with individuals with different perspective, selfhoods, and worth. Additionally, the interviews may lead to social desirability bias. In situations where participants are asked to portray themselves they may feel inclined to give answers are which depict them in the most positive scenario. Similarly, team members may feel pressured to respond in a socially positive manner.#p#分页标题#e#
3.4 Generalisability
The data collection methods used by researchers may significant effect the generalisability of the study. With surveys and interviews are largely expand the insight of the author to know the theoretical proposition and the leadership will directly influences, but limited generalisability across different participants
and situations.
3.5 Limitation
Furthermore, it has certain limitation interfere the study. These weaknesses include the greater possibility of selecting deviant samples, difficulty in detecting significant differences, most workplaces do not have the same level of professional, and some theory do not represent a sample, case studies offer suitable tools to confirm, means that biases may intrude.
Chapter 4:
Conclusions and Recommendation
The results in this study reveal shared leadership and transformation leadership will influences leader and team member but also what it might reveal about team function. Managers can adjust their leadership styles to achieve strategic and operational objectives of the organization.
When the team is leaderless, the sharing leadership makes the team environment more agglomerate, and so the team’s cohesiveness and ability to communicate become more sustainable than if a single individual were the leader. Even though a single leader, no matter how gifted, cannot be right all the time, so as a practical matter, combining the talents of several individuals likely increases a work team’s long-term success simply because greater resources are being devoted to the leadership function.
In addition, when a team emerge a leader, then applies transformational tactics to encourage staff to learn and explore by adjusting their encouragement towards empowerment and intellectual stimulation. By using transformational leadership approaches, the leader becomes ambidextrous. These leaders offer the necessary direction for goal achievement by the team, beside, show interest in the team, inspiring members, gaining trust and respect, and fostering a creative environment which is helpful in creating a collectivist and positive work environment and successful team.
I propose that a necessary direction for future research is focusing on the collection of quantitative data to support and substantiate the theory tested in this study and to provide a strong rationale for greater emphasis on appropriate training for leaders whose emotion intelligence, behavior and leading style impact on subordinates and on performance outcomes.
References:
Manz, C. and Sims, H. (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves”, Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 106-30.
Mohrman, S & Cummings, T (1989), Self-designing organizations: Learning how to create high performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Starr,M (1988). Global competitiveness: Getting the U.S. back on track. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Yandrick, R. M. (2001, June). A team effort. HR Magazine, pp. 136.
Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies. pp. 611-626.
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. pp. 85–136.
Stewart, G. & Manz, C. (1996). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A theoretical integration.
Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E “The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment”, Human Relations (47), 1994, pp13-43.
Baird, J.E & Weinberg, S.B (1981). Group Communication: The Essence of Synergy (2nd ed.).
Glenn, P. (2003). Cross Functional Teams: Working with Allies, Enemies and Other Strangers, 2003, pp345.
Zander, A (1982), Making Groups Effective, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, pp 451-483.
Ensley, M. D. Pearson, A. & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Research Management Review, 13, pp 329-346.
Katzenbach, J. R. (1997). The myth of top management team. Harvard Business Review, pp75, pp 83-93.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp.3
O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2002). When two (or more) heads are better than one: The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review, 44(4), pp 65-83.
Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 877-916). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jehn, K. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp 741-764.
Brown, M. E., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline corporation. Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp 397-419.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward an integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Argyris, C. and Schoen, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology (87:4), 2002, pp.611-628.
Tschannen, M. M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. & Williams, E.A. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25(6), 161–192.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
