You are on page 1of 11

Page 1 of 11

Back to previous page

document 1 of 1

Cyclical Group Development and Interaction-based Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Teams: An Integrated Model
Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 54-64. Retrieved from

Abstract (summary)
Cyclical models of group development may be integrated with an interactive model of leadership emergence in autonomous teams. This paper contextualizes the interaction of leader traits and situational factors in the cycling of an autonomous team within and between the storming, norming and performing phases of group development. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Full text
Headnote Cyclical models of group development may be integrated with an interactive model of leadership emergence in autonomous teams. This paper contextualizes the interaction of leader traits and situational factors in the cycling of an autonomous team within and between the storming, norming and performing phases of group development. The attention to groups and teams, in both the academic literature and the practical realm, has grown steadily in recent years. In practice, one needs only to scan the classified advertisements in any newspaper to notice the emphasis on team-oriented skills in the workplace. In the literature, from McGrath's (1964) first systematic study of teams to Gladstein's (1984) first model of effectiveness in self managed work teams (SMWT), organizational research all but prophesied this real world emphasis. Surely, the reorganizations and elimination of management layers that have characterized recent practice have not been intended to cause anarchy, nor have they purported to reduce the level of leadership in these organizations. Organizations that cut formal supervision and management layers are not attempting to reduce the number or quality of their leaders. Rather, companies that are so (re)structured make themselves increasingly reliant upon teams to produce leadership and to be the entities from which organizational leadership emerges (Seers, 2001). We may infer that these organizations, while they are purposefully attempting to reduce the expense of leadership (i.e., bureaucracy), are, perhaps inadvertently, preserving and unfettering the essence of leadership. To the extent that transactional leadership is supplanted by transformational leadership, the ability to study, and even predict, the patterns and phenomena of such leadership emergence has meaningful implications for scholars and executives. Thus, understanding the interaction between team processes and organizational leadership emergence is imperative for researchers and practitioners alike. This paper examines the interaction between team processes and leadership emergence by drawing upon an update of the familiar Tuckman (1965) model and offering it as the interactive context for the dynamic leadership emergence process. In doing so, it offers the following contributions: (1) extension of the theory that team processes serve as substitutes for hierarchical structure, (2) a better understanding of both the interaction of the phases of group development and the interactions of group constituents, particularly as leadership emerges, (3) the examination of leadership emergence as contextualized in a natural and dynamic frame (4) extension of Osborn, Hunt and Jauch's (2002) work, addressing the embeddedness of leadership within its context. Group Context Cohen and Bailey (1997) offer a definition of the team that represents a group of individuals, who are perceived and perceive themselves as an intact social entity, working together toward a common goal or goals, and who manage relationships and exchanges across organizational boundaries. In this paper, I use the terms group and team interchangeably, based upon the assumption that a team is a specific, goal-oriented kind of group. I also refer to followers and members synonymously, based upon the assumption that a follower is a specific kind of group, or team, member.


Page 2 of 11

Even though many, if not most, instructors still present Tuckman's five-stage model of group development, Tuckman himself revisited the original five-component (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning) model and altered it in favor of a model that emphasizes only the storming, norming, and performing phases (Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Further, Bales and Cohen (1979) suggest that the team development process is not necessarily linear as researchers such as Tuckman iterated, but that it is cyclical. They, along with Arrow and McGrath (1995), imply that a modification based upon elements of Tuckman's hypothesis is useful. This cyclical modification of Tuckman's hypothesis involves what Tuckman identified as the two "realms" of group behavior, task-activity behavior and interpersonal behavior (Bales & Cohen 1979) (Arrow & McGrath 1995) (Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Also of note is Tuckman's revisitation of the original fivecomponent (forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning) model in favor of the realm-based model that emphasizes only the storming, norming, and performing phases (Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Integrating an interactive model of leadership emergence with the "realms" of this cyclical model will result in a better understanding of both the interaction of the phases of group development and the interactions of group constituents, particularly as leadership emerges in the context of both newly formed and pre-existing autonomous teams. Further, integrating a cyclical model of autonomous group development with an interactional model of leadership emergence appropriately embeds the leadership emergence process in a natural and dynamic frame. Figure one (below) offers a depiction of this integrated model. In this paper, I suggest that it is the storming phase of group development in which members signal their expectations for leadership, leader behaviors emerge, and a potential leader is allowed influence by followers. The storming phase cycles and recycles through actions of potential leaders, reactions of followers to those actions, reactions of potential leaders to follower reactions, and so on, finally reaching an equilibrium and completing itself. The norming phase sees a pattern of established leader behaviors, referred to as emergent leadership, and the performing phase is a task-oriented one in which relationship oriented leader behaviors are superseded by task oriented leader behaviors. When team composition, the task or another situational factor changes significantly, member expectations for leadership are altered in a return to the storming phase, wherein new expectational signals are sent and the process repeats, or recycles, itself. This integrated model brings together two processes, one of which is embedded in the other. It is a recognition that the cyclical group development process serves as the context for the interaction-based leadership emergence process. P1: The interactive process of leadership emergence is embedded in a cyclical group development process. Networked Context Cohen and Bailey state that the factors of a team are threefold: structure, process, and psychosocial factors. DeSanctis and Poole (1997) echo the work of Cohen and Bailey. They also argue for three separate dimensions of teams: structure, process, and a more specific psychosocial factor, social identity. Relatedly, and of great importance here, they propose the advent of a new organizational structure, the networked form of organization. This networked form is conceptually somewhere between traditional hierarchical forms, and market structures. It is characterized by fluidity, flexibility, learning, and exchanges across various organizational boundaries. This work regarding such a "post-bureaucratic" organization is quite germane to the study of teams, as DeSanctis and Poole state that the autonomous team is the fundamental substructure of the networked form of organization. We may appropriately conceptualize the process element of a team as actually comprising its structure in the case of the autonomous team or SMWT. As such, the autonomous team actually substitutes for hierarchy (Lawler, 1988) and, by extension, team processes substitute for hierarchical structure. The pattern of interaction (Katz & Kahn, 1978) becomes the structure. Thus, the patterns of teams provide the structural context in which leaders emerge. The omission of overt contextualization in leadership emergence research has been, in part, supplanted by an implied context of hierarchical structure. Scholars have examined strategic management and leadership issues from the assumption of an in-place hierarchy, leaders who are in management/leadership positions that would exist regardless of who is in those positions. In recent years, however, we have turned our attention toward other organizational forms, beginning with market-driven forms and progressing to the network form of organization (Powell 1990). The implication here is that since leaders, in increasing examples, are not formal, they must be viewed as "informal" and "designated" through network team processes rather than through hierarchical edicts. These process designations are more fluid and reflect "true" leadership as elicited by followers, as opposed to figurehead leadership enacted formally.


Page 3 of 11

This integration also is consistent with, and extends, the concept of shared leadership (Pearce, 2004). Leadership in autonomous teams can be, and often is, shared; in fact, that is largely the point of recycling through the group development/leadership emergence process, where different leaders emerge at different times based upon situations, tasks, and/or group composition. In an autonomous team, not only might single leaders emerge at different points in time, based upon situational or task concerns, but more than one leader may be emergent at any given point in time. For example, one leader may be task-oriented, while another may be focused on interpersonal matters at the same time, such that the two share leadership functions. This paper takes the view that leadership, especially in autonomous teams, can be shared concurrently, rather than always in a "taking turns" mode. The first order of business in invoking a meaningful integrated framework in this paper is the imperative exploration of the organizational context of leadership emergence, as solicited by House and Aditya (1997). These scholars state that most leadership theories center on dyadic leader-follower relationships, to the detriment of our collective understanding, in a vacuum. "The fact is that the organizational and environmental context in which leadership is enacted has been almost completely ignored" (House & Aditya, 1997: 23). Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (2002) state that the work on leadership theory is incomplete without context, because leadership and its emergence are dependent upon context and are, indeed, embedded in their contextual frame. This paper addresses the context of leadership emergence explicitly. The network form of organization serves as an appropriate organizational context for an integration of interactional leadership emergence and cyclical autonomous group development models because (a) it is increasingly dominant in practice, as it has consistently trended away from corporate hierarchy and divisional structures toward flatter and less bureaucratic structures (DeSanctis & Poole, 1997: 157), and (b) its fundamental substructure is the team, a specific kind of group (Piore 1994). The streamlined management structure that is inherent in a networked organization increases the importance and vitality of autonomous teams, particularly with regard to leadership emergence. Essentially, teams substitute for hierarchy in the networked organization (Lawler 1988) (DeSanctis 1997). In this sense, it is important and germane to examine leadership from the assumption that it is more and more frequently not "in place," but that it is slated to emerge in the networked, autonomous team level context, and that the processes of the teams give their leadership acceptance and legitimacy. The legitimate station of leadership, which in other organizational forms would be granted by formal hierarchy, is bestowed by the team itself in the networked organization. Leadership Emergence in the Dynamic Frame The process in which leaders are identified and accepted is a process of role identification. Katz and Kahn define human organizations as open systems of roles, emphasizing "two cardinal facts: the contrived nature of human organizations, and the unique properties of a structure consisting of acts or events rather than unchanging physical components" (Katz & Kahn 1978: 187). What is stable is not the physical structure of a group, as in the number of members, offices, titles, and tasks; rather, group organizational structure is derived from a pattern of interaction among group members. The idea that acts, behaviors, and events provide the structure of groups, and by substitution the organizational hierarchy, suggests the dynamic nature of the group form. "A work group is a system: a complex pattern of dynamic relations among a set of people (members) using a set of technologies to accomplish a set of purposes-incommon" (Arrow & McGrath, 1995: 376). The structure of the group is found in this pattern of relations, itself a dynamic occurrence. This dynamism is also suggested by DeSanctis and Poole (1997). This paper takes the view that leadership emergence is essential to, and occurs as part of, the development of a particular form of group, the autonomous team. As groups and teams and their structures are themselves dynamic, particularly when they are viewed as the substructures of networked organizations, it follows that the processes through which they develop must also be dynamic, and not simply linear. We see this kinetic process most clearly as it provides the context for an interactional model of leadership emergence. This work is consistent with, and extends, traditional leadership models (Yukl, 2001) (Chemers, 1997) by appropriately contextualizing them. Relatedly, and equally as vigorous, interactional models of leadership emergence combine trait and situational models, as they suggest that it is the interaction between traits and situations that determines leader and follower roles in a group (Forsyth 1999). Stated differently, these models indicate that an individual with certain leadership traits will emerge as leader as the situation demands. Typically, we have examined leadership emergence from the leader perspective, that is, in a causal, traittheory model that has the leader's personal traits or characteristics, when displayed in leader behaviors, causing members/followers to react to accept their leadership (or not). Situational theories have also heightened our understanding of leadership emergence by calling attention to situational and contextual variables that moderate leadership effectiveness. Such examination of the leader perspective and the characteristics of the group environment, however, have been somewhat neglectful of a particular and understudied component in the leadership emergence process, the follower perspective. It is this


Page 4 of 11

follower perspective to which several researchers have called for closer attention. "Over the past 50 years, examination of the leader-follower phenomenon almost exclusively from the leader's perspective has left a void in leadership research that can be diminished only with greater attention to theory and research developed from the follower's perspective" (Barbuto 2000: 366). In accord with these sentiments, Yukl (1999) iterates that leader characteristics have received great attention, but that essential characteristics of followers have not been extensively discussed. An effective interactional model, then, must take into account the follower perspective with regard to leadership emergence. My integration of a cyclical model of autonomous group development and an interactional model of leadership emergence pays particular attention to the follower perspective by specifying the significant contribution of member expectations for leadership. Storming The storming phase in Tuckman's model is characterized by conflict as members vie for position within the group. In a real sense, this conflict is a role-sending and role-taking process, in which members attempt to influence each other, based upon their expectations for the roles of the group (Katz & Kahn, 1978). The interaction between these sometimes conflicting role expectations results in an aggregated, behaviorally negotiated group expectation that may or may not differ from that of each member, but is relatively common to all (Seers 1989). The roles and role expectations with which this paper is concerned are those of leaders and followers, such that this storming phase provides the setting for the interaction between member expectations for leadership, leader traits, and leader behaviors. Specifically, the storming phase is the frame for members' signals of their expectations, leaders' actions and reactions in relation to members' expectations and members' continuous revisions to their expectations, actions, and reactions in "a process of learning the expectations of others, accepting them, and fulfilling them" (Katz & Kahn 1978: 188). In the storming phase, accepting the role behavior expectations of others is an acceptance of their influence. In deciding whether to accept, attempt to modify, or reject others' expectations, each member is influential in the designation of roles, including those of the leaders. Although most leadership literature has studied leadership emergence from the leader (trait) perspective, this paper takes the perspective of the follower as not only proactive, but also enactive, in the sense that, by signaling his or her expectations for leadership to the group, and accepting or rejecting the influence of others' signaled expectations, the followers enact (Weick 1979) the group's leadership in the form of leader-role behaviors. P2: In the storming phase of the integrated model, members enact their own leadership through accepting, attempting to modify, or rejecting the influence of other members' signaled leader-role expectations. Member expectations determine leader behaviors. This concept of leader behaviors as enacted by followers is an iterative and complementary understanding in relation to Mischel's (1973) assertion that leader traits are constructions of perceivers and, thus, are actually enacted by followers (Lord & Maher 1991) (House & Aditya 1997). From both perspectives, one can give place to Weick's (1979) stipulation that we "enact" our realities, and infer that each of these constructions of perceivers, both behavioral and trait oriented, may, indeed, be the seeds that cause members/followers to enact their own leadership and leader roles. Leader Traits and Follower Expectations in the Storming Phase Much work has been done in examining trait theory's impact on leadership emergence. In examinations of the aforementioned "characteristics of the person," personality traits, including the "big five" (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, stability, and intelligence), have played a large role, as have expertise, group participation level, and emotional intelligence (EQ) (House & Aditya, 1997) (Forsyth, 1999) (Kellett et al, 2002). Through this important work on leader traits, researchers from a variety of disciplines have focused much of our attention regarding leadership emergence on leaders themselves. Because so much work has been accomplished regarding trait-theory, often to the aforementioned neglect of follower contributions, I am intentionally abbreviating this paper's discussion of that topic, in favor of allotting more space and attention to the follower expectation aspect of interactional leadership emergence. I assert that leader traits may come into play in the interactive model of leadership emergence in the following way: member expectations for leaders, based upon situational factors, will be responded to by potential leaders based upon their own traits and abilities. This assertion follows House and Mitchell (1974), as it suggests that situational factors actually serve as cues, both to the leaders and followers, for determining what leader behaviors will be most appropriate and accepted, given followers' constructions of what constitutes leadership. Within this group development process, the emergence of leader behaviors is a manifestation of the expectations of followers; thus, followers are both proactive and reactive in this process.


Page 5 of 11

An ancillary question, of course, is "where do these constructions/perceptions originate?" The implicit leadership theorizing by Lord, Foti, and De Vader (1984) suggests that these perceptions of leadership exist in categorized prototypes and that these prototypes arise and gain meaning from the interactions and experiences of the perceivers. Applying implicit leadership theory to this paper's integrated model leads to the expectation that the prototypes can be identified as those of leader and follower. The individuals who demonstrate behaviors that are most consistent with the members' leader prototypes, as based in members' past interactions and experiences, are favored as leaders (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984) (Lord & Maher, 1991) (Forsyth 1999). Thus, we can infer that a member's perceptions of, and expectations for, leadership/leader behaviors stem from their historical interpersonal interactions. Additionally, the work of Shaw (1990), Gerstner & Day (1994), and Den Hartog et al (1999) suggests that member expectations are based in cognitive prototypes that are culturally determined. Osborn et al's (2002) assertion that context determines leadership is consistent with this view, and particularly with Den Hartog et al's (1999) discussion of leadership expectations as varying with the kinds of leadership positions involved. The implications for leadership emergence in an autonomous team, therefore, include the possibility that member expectations for leadership are products of both their historical interpersonal interactions and members' cultural conditioning, ranging from culturally based parenting practices to preferences for decisive versus consultative styles. Accordingly, a culturally diverse autonomous team may be expected to spend more time in the storming phase than a more homogeneous group would (Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen, 1993), making the storming phase all the more critical in the leadership emergence process, as histories, cultures, and situations shape the new, collective expectations. Members, who have seen leadership emerge in the past, and who bring their own set of culturally based expectations to the group, draw upon leader behaviors demonstrated in past emergence processes and cultural conditioning to shape their perceptions of current leader behaviors. In the storming phase of the integrated model, the extent to which leaders emerge successfully is a factor of not just their traits, but also of the applicability of those traits to the members' situationally and culturally based expectations. P3: In the storming phase of the integrated model, the relationship between member expectations and leader behaviors is moderated by the situation and members' cultural conditioning. P4: In the storming phase of the integrated model, the relationship between member expectations and leader behaviors is moderated by leader traits. Leader Behaviors in the Storming Phase The interaction between member expectations and leader traits results in leader behaviors. Because of this interactive process, the behaviors in this phase are more interpersonal than task oriented and the process is focused on interpersonal interactions, rather than on actual performance of the task at hand. This idea is reminiscent of Snyder's (1974), work on self-monitoring, including selfawareness and the awareness of the needs of others, and is indicative of a leader's ability to "read" members. The "reading" of member expectations, actions, and reactions, in fact, may be based in the emotional intelligence of the leader(s). Wolff, Pescosolido, and Druskat (2002) found empirical support for the assertion that a component of emotional intelligence, empathy, is foundational for cognitions that support leader emergence; moreover, they found that supporting and developing others, also elements of emotional intelligence, are indirectly related to informal leader choice in selfmanaging teams, as it is mediated by group task coordination. They suggest that the behaviors of empathy and supporting and developing others affect leadership emergence because such leaders build team belonging, support, and optimism, freeing member cognitions for task performance. Accordingly, I suggest that individuals who are best able to "read" the needs and preferences of the team may be better able to respond to them in either task-specific or interpersonal ways. For example, a potential leader who can tell that his or her team wants expert leadership may play to his or her strengths as regard the task(s) at hand, as in an information systems team leader who is well-versed in a particular application. Conversely, a potential leader who becomes aware that his or her team wants to be inspired may behave in ways that engender a general "feeling" of trust. Thus, this interpersonal process of interpretation and fulfillment becomes the means to the task-end, used by both task- and person-oriented leaders to assert their own leadership. The outcome of the process surrounding signaled member expectations and leader willingness and ability to meet those expectations is a set of leader behaviors in keeping with leader perceptions of acceptability. The storming phase of the integrated model incorporates a cycle that repeats itself until a level of equilibrium is achieved, in which the perceptions of the leader(s) may change based upon member reactions to the leader(s) behaviors. P5: The relationship between member expectations and leader behaviors in the storming phase is moderated by leader perceptions of member expectations.


Page 6 of 11

At this point, toward the end of the storming phase, leader behaviors become stabilized, based upon the leaders' experientially derived perceptions of member expectations and acceptance. Thus, when leader behaviors become consistent and repetitive, the storming phase ends and the norming phase begins. The exception to this continuum would occur when a team becomes "stuck" in the storming phase and eventually either disbands or proceeds to attempt to perform group tasks in dysfunctional, and perhaps even adversarial, ways. Norming As set forth by Berger and Zelditch (1998), and with origins in Hollander (1971), normative legitimation is a process through which firms are accepted because of their conformity with cultural norms and values. Firms are seen as legitimate when they demonstrate that they are "behaving in a reasoned and trustworthy manner" (Hunt & Aldrich 1998: 287). At the level of an autonomous team, normative legitimacy is consistent with the norming phase of group development. In teams, the emergent leaders enhance their normative legitimacy. They do so by appearing to behave in a manner consistent with the stabilized expectations for team leadership, the outcome of the storming phase. In other words, they exhibit role behaviors that are appropriate to the emergent group norms (Berger & Zelditch 1998: 98). "The driving force of the normative regulation of power is the validity of the norms where by validity we mean a collective consensus that observably governs, and is binding on, the behavior of members of a group" (Zelditch & Walker, 2000:156). I assert that the norms in autonomous teams include member expectations for leader behaviors. These expectations, originally individual and based upon unique sets of past experiences and cultural conditioning, are aggregated to create the collective consensus to which Zelditch and Walker refer. Further, this collective team expectation for leader behaviors represents the level of interaction at which potential leaders respond with appropriate behaviors. In the norming phase of the integrated model, as individual expectations are signaled to the group, a collective consensus regarding expectations for leader behaviors emerges. It is this team-level expectation to which potential leaders react with actual leader behaviors. P6: In the norming phase of the integrated model, the team consensus mediates the relationship between individual member's expectations and leader behaviors. Normalized Leader Behaviors in the Norming Phase In the norming phase, the emergent leader establishes a pattern of behaviors consistent with the group's normalized leader-role expectations (Katz & Kahn 1978: 189). Behavioral consistency characterizes the phase that is subsequent, and stands in welcome contrast, to the trial-and-error behavioral negotiation of the storming phase. This response to team-level expectations does not contradict LMX theory (Graen & Scandura, 1987); rather, it is my perception that LMX processes would take place during the actual performance of the team's task-functions, after the leaders are established in their roles by the storming and norming phases. Prior to that establishment, I anticipate a generalized, team member exchange (TMX) (Seers, 1989) (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995) process at work in the context of an autonomous team in the norming phase. The leaders, just emerged, have been designated informally by the group process because of their behavioral responses to the group's aggregated, generalized expectations. The leaders' selection of in-groups and outgroups would signal their own role acceptance and fulfillment of the new group norms, and would reflect the transition from the norming to the performing phase. Further, I anticipate that the norming phase is characterized by leader behaviors that are more interpersonal in orientation and that the legitimation of the nowconsistent leader behavior patterns gives the emerged leader a certain amount of latitude in migrating to more task oriented behaviors, as typically demonstrated in the performing phase. Performing In Tuckman's model, the performing phase occurs after roles have been established and normalized, such that the task or tasks for which the group is responsible are now the focus of the group. In the model this paper sets forth, the emerged leader, already legitimized, now behaves in accordance with the team's normalized expectations to direct the team's task performance. P7: In the performing phase of the integrated model, the legitimized leader exhibits task oriented behaviors that are consistent with the team's normalized leader-role expectations. Task Oriented Behaviors in the Performing Phase As organizations continue to change and evolve, autonomous teams are becoming more prevalent as the viable and productive entities within firms (Taggar, Hackett, & Saha 1999). The characteristic tasks of such teams include team maintenance


Page 7 of 11

functions, work allocation, and problem solving (Cannon-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan, 1992). The maintenance functions include such activities as conflict resolution and team and individual performance feedback, and can be categorized as interpersonal behaviors (Cannon-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan 1992) (Tuckman & Jensen 1977). The other functions, work allocation and problem solving, may be considered task oriented behaviors exhibited by the leader in the performing phase. Thus, in the performing phase, the leader exhibits behaviors related to the actual performance of the task at hand, rather than the interpersonal behaviors that are predominant in other phases. According to Bales & Cohen (1979), however, a situational need to return to interpersonal behaviors triggers a return to and a recycling through a phase in which interpersonal behaviors are key. Recycling in the Integrated Model "Performance expectations are stabilized anticipations of future task performances and are based on evaluations of past behavior" (Berger & Zelditch 1998: 98). From their experiences in the performing phase, members in existing (whether longstanding or newly formed) autonomous teams are able to modify their expectations for leadership. These changes in expectations can result from positive and negative experiences with leaders and/or team tasks performance. For example, the practice of establishing in-groups and out-groups may affect the quality of the relationships between leaders and followers to such an extent as to change members' expectations. Further, changes in expectations can occur because of changes in team composition and/or alterations of the task itself. It follows that any experience or situation that is significant enough to change members' leadership expectations sends the process back to the storming phase where members' expectations can once again be stabilized. The proponents of a cyclical model utilize the concept of system equilibrium in their work. Gersick's (1991) work is supportive of this concept, particularly as it involves "punctuated equilibrium," where systems do not always develop in forward directions. Where Tuckman's phases are helpful constructs in our understanding of group development, the work of Gersick, Bales and Cohen, and Arrow and McGrath would suggest that progression through these phases is dynamic and cyclical, rather than linear and sequential. Further, we can infer from Gersick's punctuated equilibrium construct that different teams develop differently and that they progress bidirectionally through group development phases. P8: In the recycling process of the integrated model, the dynamic nature of organizations is exemplified by teams' recycling from the performing stage to the storming stage, as warranted when situational and experiential variables change member expectations. The situational and leader trait (group composition) interaction is at work in driving the cyclical nature of the revised group development model. This dynamic, cyclical approach characterized by periods of punctuated equilibrium is supported elsewhere. "In the microsociety of the group, equality is the exception and inequality is the rule" (Forsyth 1999: 132). In groups, the status differentiation occurs over time and is a product of changing role behaviors. "If a group undergoes a substantial change in membership composition after a long period of continuity, this will likely result in major disruptions of its equilibrium system, with reverberations throughout its role and status systems, hence changes in all of the system functions" (Arrow & McGrath 1995: 398). I anticipate that this reverberation and change is indicative of the interaction-based leadership emergence process as different groups cycle through the storming, norming, and performing phases at different rates based upon continuous definition and redefinition of their needs for leadership. Conclusion "Each behavioral element in the pattern [of the acts of human beings] is to a large extent caused and secured by the others" (Katz & Kahn, 1978: 187). In groups, including autonomous teams, this reciprocal pattern, appropriately viewed as a leader and follower role development process, exists within the interactional model of leadership emergence as it is embedded in a cyclical model of group development. Acknowledging this embeddedness effectively contextualizes the leadership emergence phenomenon and provides a solid theoretical impetus for empirical research. Further study based upon specific and measurable components of this integrated model may offer insight to the concept of shared leadership, in that the cyclical and dynamic nature of the integrated model allows for different rates and outcomes in the leadership emergence process. The dynamics inherent in the integrated model of interaction-based leadership emergence as embedded in a cyclical group development process make it both provocative and challenging for researchers to continue to explore. The promise in its exploration lies in its potential to assist in our understanding of a process that is itself dynamic. The challenge, however, lies in the superimposition of the complexities of the component models. Furthering the interactional model literature regarding leadership emergence, therefore, requires a closer examination of its components, the characteristics of the person (leader) and


Page 8 of 11

the characteristics of the group environment, not the least of which is the impact of member expectations on the entire integrated process. References References Arrow, H. & McGrath, J.E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 373-411. Bales, R.F. & Cohen, S.P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Barbuto, J. E., Jr. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for understanding follower compliance. Leadership Quarterly, 11(3): 365-387. Berger, M. & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1998). Introduction to Part II: Status processes. Status, Power, and Legitimacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D.C. (1992). Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In R.W. Swezey & E. Salas, (Eds.), Teams: Their Training and Performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chemers, M.M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, DE. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290. Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Ranges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. & Dorfman, P.W. (1999). "Culture specific and crossculturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?" The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 219-256. DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M.S. (1997). Transitions in teamwork in new organizational forms. Advances in Group Processes, 14: 157-176. Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group Dynamics. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth. Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 10-36. Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V. (1994). Crosscultural comparison of leadership prototypes. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(2): 121-134. Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499517. Graen, G.B. & Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.L. Cummings and B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 9: 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. House, R.J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 323352. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). The Management of Organizational Behaviour 3e. Upper Saddle River N. J.: Prentice Hall. Hollander, E.P. (1971). Style, structure, and setting in organizational leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16:1-9. House, R.J. & Aditya, R.N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3): 409-474. House, RJ. & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 81 -97. Hunt, C.S. & Aldrich, H.E. (1998). The second ecology: Creation and evolution of organizational communities. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 267-301.


Page 9 of 11

Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley. Kellett, J.B., Humphrey, R.H., & Sleeth, R.G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5): 523-544. Lawler, E.E., III (1988). Substitutes for hierarchy. Organizational Dynamics, 17(1): 4-15. Lord, R.G., Foti, R., & DeVader, C.L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 343-378. Lord, R.G. & Maher, KJ. (1991). Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman. McGrath, J.E. (1964). Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social teaming reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80: 252-283. Osborn, R.N., Hunt, J.G., & Jauch, LR. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 797837. Pearce, C.L. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 47-59. Piore, M.J. (1994). Corporate reform in American manufacturing and the challenge to economic theory. In TJ. Alien and M.S. Scott Morton, (Eds.), Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s. New York: Oxford University Press. Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295-336. Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 43(1): 118135. Seers, A., Petty, M.M., Cashman, J. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management. Group and Organization Management, 20(1): 18-38. Seers, A. (2001). Organizing Systems. Virginia Commonwealth University. Shaw, J.B. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 626-646. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4):526-537. Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52: 899-926. Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2(4): 419-427. Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6):384-399. Watson, W.E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3):590-603. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Wofford, J.C. & Liska, L.Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 857-876.


Page 10 of 11

Wolff, S.B., Pescosolido, A.T., & Druskat, V.U. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in selfmanaging teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5): 505-522. Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 285-305. Zelditch, M. & Walker, H.A. (2000). The normative regulation of power. Advances in Group Processes, 17: 155-178. AuthorAffiliation Joy H. Karriker, Ph.D. East Carolina University Copyright Baker College 2005

Indexing (details)
Subject Leadership; Models; Teams; Organizational behavior; Social interaction Title Author Publication title Volume Issue Pages Number of pages Publication year Publication date Year Publisher Place of publication Country of publication Publication subject ISSN Source type Language of publication Document type Document feature ProQuest document ID Document URL Copyright Last updated Database Cyclical Group Development and Interaction-based Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Teams: An Integrated Model Karriker, Joy H Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 11 4 54-64 11 2005 2005 2005 Baker College Flint United States Business And Economics--Management 15480518 Scholarly Journals English Feature References;Charts 203142008 Copyright Baker College 2005 2010-06-07 ProQuest Central



Page 11 of 11

Citation style: APA6 Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 54-64. Retrieved from

Copyright 2013 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions