Managing From The Boundary: The Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams

Managing from the Boundary: The Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams
Author(s): Vanessa Urch Druskat and Jane V. Wheeler

Source: The Academy of Management Journal , Aug., 2003, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Aug., 2003),
pp. 435-457
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040637
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040637?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
c Academy of Management Journal
2003, Vol. 46, No. 4, 435-457.
MANAGING FROM THE BOUNDARY: THE EFFECTIVE

LEADERSHIP OF SELF-MANAGING WORK TEAMS
VANESSA URCH DRUSKAT

Case Western Reserve University
JANE V. WHEELER
Bowling Green State University
We used in-depth critical incident interviews with the external leaders of self-manag-
ing work teams and their team members, and interviews and surveys provided by
managers, to understand how effective leader behaviors and strategies unfold over
time. Content analyses of the data produced a process model showing that effective
external leaders move back and forth across boundaries to build relationships, scout
necessary information, persuade their teams and outside constituents to support one
another, and empower their teams to achieve success.
I think the longer you are a [traditional] supervisor, What is known is that leading a team that man-
the harder it is to let go; to let your constituents [that ages itself requires a unique approach to leadership
is, team members] make the decisions. The hardest
(Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989; Manz &
part is that you're held accountable. For 20 years, I Sims, 1987). Research has also shown that the lack
always made the decisions and I felt I made the right
decisions. But to now turn it over to an hourly of legitimate control over team actions and deci-
person and say, "You go ahead and make this decisions, and the large number of teams for which an
sion." I was so afraid they would make the wrong external leader is responsible, makes the role more
decision that I wouldn't let them sometimes. They complex and demanding than that of traditional
went to higher management and said, "He won't let team leadership (Beyerlein, Johnson, & Beyerlein,
me do ...." 1996; Hackman, 1986). Moreover, the uniqueness
George, external leader of five and complexity of the external leader role enhance
self-managing work teams its ambiguity, especially if an external leader has
held a leadership position in a traditional work
At first pass, it appears paradoxical that a self- environment (Klein, 1984; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, &
managing work team would require a leader. How-
Clegg, 1986; Walton, 1982). The role ambiguity ev-
ever, those studying these teams agree that the ac-
ident in the quote at the start of this article under-
tions of the leader to whom a team reports, known scores the need to determine what external leaders
as the external team leader, can make or break the
can do to support team success. It also typifies
team's success (Cohen, Chang, & Ledford, 1997;
we've heard lately from external leaders and sc
Hackman, 1986; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). But, to
ars: Research that develops a comprehensive p
date, little theory or research has focused on iden-
ture of this unique and complex role is sorely
tifying what external leaders should do to best sup-
needed (Beyerlein et al., 1996; Cohen et al., 1997;
port the success of self-managing work teams and
their members. Nygren & Levine, 1996).
The study that follows was designed to develop a
comprehensive model of the external leader role.
We were particularly interested in investigating the
Earlier versions of this article received the 1999 Walter persistent proposal that "boundary-spanning" ac-
F. Ulmer, Jr., Applied Research Award from the Center tivities are fundamental for success in the role (see
for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, Cohen et al., 1997; Cordery & Wall, 1985; Cum-
and appeared in the 2001 Annual Academy of Manage- mings, 1978; Hackman, 1986). This proposal is
ment Conference Proceedings. We are grateful for the
rooted in the idea that an external leader is posi-
helpful comments provided by Richard E. Boyatzis, Hil-
tioned at the team-organization boundary, enabling
ary Bradbury, Kim S. Cameron, Poppy Lauretta McLeod,
Mitchell Neubert, William S. Schulze, Steven B. Wolff, him or her to develop a strategic link between the
and our three superb anonymous reviewers. Thanks also team and the organization that can supply the team
to Walt Ulmer and the Center for Creative Leadership for with resources and support. Yet, to our knowledge,
their encouragement and support. the role of boundary-spanning activities in the self-
435

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
436 Academy of Management Journal August
managing work team context

talking over team members,and their
while external leaders r
team effectiveness have never been examined. more often engage in a hands-off consultative form
Our objectives were to increase understanding of of
influence in which they ask questions, provide
the role of external leader and to contribute to information, and give advice (Courtright et al.,
theory on the external leader behaviors that sup-
1989). In the bottom-up self-managing work team
port self-managing work team success. Using environment, influence appears to come less from
Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan's (1994) argument that power in the role, and more from a leader's ability
leadership research should focus on what effective, to persuade members to talk, listen, and accept
rather than typical, leaders do, we aimed at devel- advice.
oping a model of the actions and strategies that In their widely cited study, Manz and Sims
distinguish the performance of the best-performing (1987) also found external leaders influence through
external leaders-that is, the leaders who develop hands-off consultation, and they identified six
truly self-managing teams with high performance. "encouraging" behaviors that were the most com-
Specifically, we .compare how highly effective ex- mon behaviors used by external leaders: encourag-
ternal leaders manage the role with how average ing self-reinforcement, encouraging self-criticism,
external leaders manage the role, paying particular encouraging self-goal setting, encouraging self-
attention to the role of boundary spanning. observation/evaluation, encouraging self-expec-
To identify unanswered questions about the ex- tation, and encouraging rehearsal. All were linked
ternal leadership role, we start by reviewing theory to leader effectiveness.
and research that lend insight into how external Ancona and Caldwell (1992) found that for tra-
leadership is similar to or different from traditional ditional team leaders, influence must extend out-
leadership. We then present a study designed to side of the team they lead. In their study, produc
address these questions and determine how effec- development team performance was linked to
tive external leaders manage the role to achieve leader and team external boundary activities, espe-
self-managing work team success. cially "ambassadorial activities" involving actively
persuading outsiders to support the team, protect-
LITERATURE REVIEW ing the team from outside pressure, and lobbying
for resources. Experts on self-managing teams have
External leaders of self-managing work longteams
argued that external leaders should take on the
face a very different situation than do traditional role of persuading others in their organizations to
team leaders. Both are responsible for the perfor-
support their self-managing work teams (Cum-
mance of their teams. Yet traditional leaders are mings, 1978; Hackman, 1986). Since no research
expected to lead by monitoring and managinghas examined this assumption, our first guiding
those
teams, while external leaders are expected toresearch lead question was:
by delegating the monitoring and managing back to
their teams. In a comprehensive taxonomy of leader Research Question 1. What do highly effective
behavior, Yukl (1989) proposed that leadershipexternal in- leaders do to influence those inside
and outside their teams, and how do these
volves these elements: influencing people, building
relationships, giving and seeking information, forms and of influence facilitate team self-manag
making decisions. We now use these categories to ment and team effectiveness?
examine what is known about external leadership
and how it differs from traditional leadership. How and with Whom Do Leaders Build
Relationships?
How Do Leaders Influence a Team and Others in
According to Yukl (1989), building relation
an Organization?
involves managing conflict, team building,
According to Yukl (1989), influencing involves
porting, and networking. Building relations
with subordinates has been considered fundamen-
recognizing, rewarding, and motivating employees.
tal to effective leadership by modern leaders
Research comparing the influence styles of tradi-
tional team leaders with those of the external lead- theorists since the 1950s, when the Personnel Re-
ers of self-managing work teams shows that for search Board at Ohio State University presented the
traditional leaders, the flow of influence is more results of a decade-long program of research on
top-down and that for external leaders, it is more leadership behavior that examined subordinate
bottom-up (Courtright et al., 1989). That is, tradi- perceptions of leaders. This research showed that
tional leaders significantly more often engage in "consideration," or relationship building (for in-
"one-down" moves such as issuing commands and stance, helping employees and looking out for their

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
2003 Druskat and Wheeler 437
welfare), was
known to bemost
stronger in self-managingofte
work teams
satisfactionthanand
in traditional teams (Cohen, Ledford, & Sprei-
sometim
fectiveness tzer, 1996; Polly & VanFleishm
(see Dyne, 1994). Therefore, the
1957). A few decades
benefit of having a leader, rather than team mem-la
(1982) bers, scout and
argued that disseminate information
the may be b
tional leaders
particularly useful
depends
in self-managing work teams.
motivation Moreover,
ofthe employee position an external leader occupies
rienced and motivated
at the interface of multiple teams and their organi-
gated zation seems ideal for enabling the scouting and r
responsibility
have little dissemination of information.
need for Since ease
theof access c
tionship has been linked to the effectiveness of scout
building.
The relevance behavior (Tushmanof& Scanlan, 1981),
relatiwe asked:
tive external leadersh
Research Question 3. Do highly effective exter-
Steckler and Fondas (1
nal leaders scout and disseminate information
relationships with team
nal leaders to build influence and team member among teams and their broader organization,
and if so, how does this facilitate team self-
commitment. Since they cannot rely on formal
management and team effectiveness?
power over team actions and decisions, external
leaders may need to rely on relating to or under-
standing the perspectives of team members to Who Makes Decisions?
gain
influence.
Leadership is synonymous with decision r
Research also suggests that traditional leaders
sibility. In traditional environments, makin
who build relationships with members of the larger
sions includes behaviors like problem solving,
organization are likely to obtain resources that im-
planning, and delegating (Yukl, 1989). A question
prove their employees' performance (Tushman & traditional team leaders must answer is whether to
Scanlan, 1981). A focus on building external rela-
empower team members to make their own deci
tionships has also been said to be important for
sions and, if so, how much decision authority to
external leaders because self-managing work teams
tend to have limited control over their environ- delegate. Argyris (1998) argued that leaders lov
empowerment in theory, but mostly engage in com-
ments and limited opportunity to develop relation-
mand and control behaviors because it is what th
ships with organization members who holdknow
re-best.
sources (Cummings, 1978). We were led to the
By definition, self-managing work teams are em-
following research question:
powered to make their own decisions. Yet research
suggests that there is inconsistency within organi-
Research Question 2. Do highly effective exter-
nal leaders place an emphasis on building re- zations in how much authority is actually dele-
lationships inside and/or outside their teams,gated to self-managing work teams (Klein, 1984;
Manz & Sims, 1984; Wall et al., 1986). Recent re-
and if so, how do these relationships facilitate
team self-management and team effectiveness? search reveals that empowerment is linked to
higher levels of self-managing work team produc-
tivity, customer and job satisfaction, and organiza-
Who Seeks and Clarifies Information? tional and team commitment (Burpitt & Bigoness,
1997; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). It also shows that,
Teams in traditional environments that do not
by itself, autonomy over decisions is not linked to
continually receive and share information with
these positive outcomes. Instead, positive out-
sources in their larger organizations run the risk of
comes are linked to what Kirkman and Rosen
becoming overbounded, or too insular in their ac-
(1999) referred to as "team empowerment,"
tions and decisions to succeed within the organi-
includes autonomy, team efficacy, and a
zations (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Tushman &
sense that its decisions have meaning and i
Katz, 1980). However, when team members scout
This formulation suggests that the externa
for information in their organizations, they score
role involves much more than delegation
lower on measures of internal team dynamics (in-
involves setting the team up for success in d
cluding effective internal team processes, and co-
making. Since it is unclear how this is best
hesiveness) (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). we asked:
Because team self-management requires a large
amount of team member interaction, the link be- Research Question 4. What strategies do highly
tween internal team dynamics and performance is effective external leaders use to empower their

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
size gave ensure

teams, and how do they us a large pool of external leaders
team of
decisi
and actions that support team
self-managing effectivenes
work teams in one location, which
allowed us to study leader behavior while control-
ling for organizational culture and context.
What Is the Process of Effective Leadership
We used the comparative multiple case study
Leadership is a method (see Eisenhardt,
dynamic process 1989; Yin, 1994)
that because it doe
reside solely within a given person or fit our objectives and has been shown useful
a forgive
ation; rather, situations create an interplay of identifying effective leader behavior (see Boyatzis,
needs, and effective leaders work to continually 1982; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Komaki, 1986). Fol-
identify and meet them (Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & lowing Yin (1994) and Eisenhardt (1989), we car-
Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Pierce & Newstrom, 2000). ried out this method in three stages: (1) selecting
Taxonomies of leader behavior like Yukl's provide two theoretically relevant samples of cases for com-
parison (in this study, a sample of external leaders
information about what leaders do. Yet there exists
little theory or research providing information with superior performance and a sample of external
about how these behaviors combine to create the leaders with average performance), (2) collecting
dynamic process of leadership that meets situa- data for each case, and (3) analyzing data to deter-
mine
tional needs. In this study, our goal was to develop differences between the two samples. Follow-
ing
a model of effective external leadership that reveals Coffey and Atkinson's (1996) suggestion for
the process through which leader behaviors com- analyzing qualitative data, we conducted the data
bine to facilitate team self-management and team analyses in two phases. First, we content-analyzed
effectiveness. The benefits of such a model lie in
the data to generate a list of behaviors that differ-
entiated the two samples. To eliminate the possi-
the questions it can answer about effective external
leadership and in the new questions it can surface. of researcher bias, we also used expert coders
bility
Hence: who were blind to the study's purpose to code the
data and determine the interrater agreement and
Research Question 5. How do the behaviors reliability of the behaviors we identified. In phase
and strategies of effective external leaders 2, we interpreted and reconstructed the data to
combine to facilitate team self-management identify relationships among the behaviors and
and team effectiveness? build theory about the process through which
leader behaviors combine to facilitate team self-
METHODS management and team effectiveness. Figure
sents a graphic illustration of the data gath
We conducted an inductive theory-building and data analysis stages.
study that focused primarily on external leaders'
perspectives but that also used the perspectives of
the leaders' constituents (team members and man- Case Sample Selection
agers) to gain understanding of the interplay of As noted above, to meet our objective of identi-
situational needs that influence leader behavior.
fying the behaviors and strategies that characterize
We chose to build theory because theoretical per- and distinguish the performance of the best-
spectives on external leadership are "relatively rare performing external leaders, we chose cases falling
and underdeveloped" (Cohen et al., 1997: 276). Us- into two samples: those with average and those
ing inductive methods allowed us to obtain and with superior performance. We chose to compare
integrate rich descriptive information and to superior un- performers to average rather than to poor
cover unanticipated clues. performers because our objective was to identify
the behaviors and strategies distinguishing supe-
rior performance-that is, the behaviors and strat-
Setting and Overview of the Research Design
egies consistently displayed by superior performers
The research site was a Fortune 500 durable con- and not often displayed by average performers.
sumer goods manufacturing plant in the midwest- Comparing poor performers to superior ones would
ern United States with 3,500 employees. It had have produced a model of behaviors and strategies
transitioned to self-managing work teams five years supporting performance levels ranging anywhere
prior to data collection. Sixty-six external leaders, from below-average to superior.
referred to as team advisors, led 300 teams. Advi- We wanted the superior performers to be consid-
sors were responsible for five to eight teams, with ered outstanding leaders according to both objec-
the variation depending on the tasks performed by tive criteria and the assessments of the managers
the teams. We selected this organization because its and team members with whom they worked. Thus,

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
FIGURE 1
A Graphic Illustration of the Data Gathering and Data Analysis Stages
Case Selection
Final case selection criteria
* Objective team performance

* Team member nominations
* Manager nominations
Data
* 19 external leader interviews

* 38 team member interviews
* 10 manager interviews
* 6 focus groups
* 21 manager surveys
* Field notes
Data Analysis
Phase 1: Content Analysis of Leader Transcripts
1. Content Analyzed 2. Themes Tested 3. Data Further 4. Validity Assessed

Two researchers each Four more transcripts Reduced The reliability and
independently were iteratively Themes were con- discriminant validity of
microanalyzed six analyzed to test, add, densed, and 11 the 11 behaviors were
transcripts to generate and reduce themes. behaviors that separated tested and confirmed by
a list of behavioral the leaders with
two expert coders blind
patterns and themes. superior performance to leader performance
from those with average levels.
performance were
extracted.
Phase 2: Data Integration and Model Development
1. Outlines Created 2. Behaviors 3. Process Analyzed 4. Model Tested and

An outline was created Categorized The data were Developed
for each behavior. It The 11 behaviors were microanalyzed for Iterative discussions,
included data from the inductively categorized action, interaction, and data reviews, and ideas
leaders, team members, into four functional sequence and for tested on the critical
and managers and notes clusters. understanding of how incidents identified
that informed us about
these varied in response by the external leaders
the context, intent, and
to changing context and led to the final process
consequences conditions. model.
surrounding the leaders'
use of behavior.
we used three criteria to select our final sample tion goals met for the year (which had just ended).
from the pool of 66 external leaders in the plant (7 A graduate assistant retrieved these percentages di-
of whom were women): (1) objective team perfor- rectly from external leader performance appraisal
mance, (2) team member nominations for outstand- forms.
ing leaders, and (3) manager nominations for out- Following McClelland (1976), to obtain team
standing leaders. Objective team performance was member and manager perspectives, we used a nom-
based on the percentage of specific team produc- ination process in which we asked team members

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
and managers to identify bers were consulted the most

in our six focus "out
groups; a
leaders in the plant. Team member nominations managers and directors were surveyed. Speci
were obtained through the use of focus groups. are detailed below.
Sixty-six team members (one led by each external We conducted three-hour interviews with each
leader) were randomly selected by a member of the of the 19 external leaders in our final sample
organization's human resources department to par- the critical incident interview technique (CIIT
ticipate in one of six 2-hour focus groups about the Flanagan, 1954). Although it has not proven to b
external leader role; 52 individuals (79 percent of great use in attitude research (House & Wigdor,
those invited) attended a focus group. At the end of 1967), the CIIT has been shown to be a useful,
each group discussion, we explained that we reliable, and valid method for obtaining descrip-
would be interviewing team leaders and wanted to tions of work behavior (Motowidlo et al., 1992;
interview those the focus group members thought Ronan & Latham, 1974).
were the very best in the plant. We passed out a The CIIT format involves asking interviewees to
ballot listing the names of all 66 external leaders alternate between describing incidents on the job in
and asked the team members to check off those they which they felt effective and incidents in which
knew well enough to assess and to then circle the they felt ineffective (McClelland & Dailey, 1972).
names of those they felt were outstanding leaders. The role of the CIIT interviewer, for which we have
Nominations were received from all 52 team mem- both taken formal training, is to obtain detailed
bers who attended the focus groups. Manager nom- descriptions of events while remaining as unobtru-
inations were obtained through ballots, mailedsive di- as possible in order to avoid leading interview-
ees. Toward that end, interviewer questions are
rectly to all plant managers and directors, containing
the same instructions outlined above. Nominations limited to the following: "What led up to the
were received from all 21 managers and directors. event?" "Who did and said what to whom?" "What
So that we could remain blind to the perfor- happened next?" "What were you thinking or
mance status of each leader in the final sample,ing
a at that moment?" and "What was the outcom
graduate assistant compiled the selection criteria,
Because the interviewer probes for thought p
and a colleague experienced with comparative casecesses that occurred while interviewees were en-
study methods selected the final sample. This sam-
gaging in specific behaviors, the CIIT uncove
ple included ten superior performers, defined as formation that may not be directly observa
individuals who were in the top 15 percent on allDespite the retrospective nature of the accou
criteria, and nine average performers, individuals
events that are thus obtained, the validity an
who had average objective performance scores and ability levels of these descriptions are strong
no nominations (see Sandberg [2000] for a discus-towidlo et al., 1992; Ronan & Latham, 1974), be-
sion of how small samples have been consistently cause events are limited to those occurring within
found adequate for understanding work role ap-approximately the past year; further, a very high
proaches in inductive qualitative research). level of detail is sought, and the interviewee selects
Leaders in the final sample were each responsi-the events. Events discussed in this study included
ble for five to eight teams. The two subsamples specific team meetings, times when production
were demographically comparable in age (superior goals were met or not met under adverse condi-
leaders, mean = 45.4, s.d. = 6.8; average leaders,
tions, production and equipment changes, and
mean = 42.1, s.d. = 7.7; t17 = 0.98, n.s.); years other
at events of these types.
the company (superior leaders, mean = 24.0, s.d. =To gain understanding of the interplay of situa-
5.2; average leaders, mean = 22.7, s.d. = 8.0; t,17 tional needs and concerns that influence when and
0.42, n.s.); years as leader of their current teams why leaders use specific behaviors, we observ
(superior leaders, mean = 2.3, s.d. = 1.5; average the teams' production processes, read newslet
and brochures, and collected data from the team
leaders, mean = 2.4, s.d. = 1.4; t17 = 0.20, n.s.); and
years in a leadership role (superior leaders, meanmembers
= and managers. We spoke with team mem-
14.6, s.d. = 6.1; average leaders, mean = 8.7, s.d. bers
= through two venues: We audiotaped the six
6.7; t17 =- 2.01, n.s.). One superior performer and focus groups described earlier, in which 52 team
one average performer were women. members discussed what they wanted and didn't
want from their external leaders. We also con-
Data Collection ducted one-hour individual audiotaped inte

with 2 team members from each of the 19 leaders'
Data were collected from multiple sources: 67 including: (1) a current assistant to the
teams,
individuals were interviewed (19 external leaders,
leader (the assistantship was a rotating position
38 team members, and 10 managers); 52 team mem-that involved getting supplies and compiling re-

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
ports) and (2)

new behaviors.any
We met again to discuss
team the follow-
at the interview
ing: adding behaviors we nowtime.
thought should be
CIIT format in which interviewees described events kept on the list, dropping behaviors we now
involving the team and the leader. thought were more idiosyncratic than common, the
To obtain manager views, we interviewed the ten accuracy of the labels for the themes, and condens-
managers to whom the 19 leaders reported. We ing similar themes. For example, at this point we
asked them what mattered most for success in the chose to combine a theme we had labeled "giving
external leader role. We also sent open-ended sur- feedback" with another we labeled "coaching" and
veys to all 21 managers and directors in the plant,kept the coaching label. We also continued to dis-
asking them to tell us the behaviors and strategiescuss our emerging list of the behaviors seen more
required of advisors if they were to become out-often in the transcripts of the superior performers
standing performers. Seventeen were returned, athan in those of the average ones.
number that constituted an 81 percent response We then used these results to code and examine
rate. two more transcripts. After making a few mor
changes, we agreed that we had reached a point
saturation, a point at which no new behaviors we
Phase 1 Data Analysis: Content Analysis of
emerging from the data. A table identifying th
Leader Transcripts
behaviors and giving definitions and examples f
Content analyzed. The leader interviews wereeach was then created and subsequently reduc
transcribed verbatim (for superior leaders, theby again combining similar behaviors. The final l
mean number of pages was 61.4, and for the average was turned into a codebook of 11 behaviors that
leaders, it was 60.8). We then content-analyzed thehad been described as used consistently by sup
transcripts with the objective of creating a list ofrior performers and were not as often describe
behaviors described as consistently used by supe- used by the average performers. Table 1 prese
rior performers and not described as consistently the 11 behaviors, their definitions, and sam
used by average performers (Boyatzis, 1998; Coffeyquotes showing how these behaviors were
& Atkinson, 1996). Thus, at this point we had a listcussed as exhibited by superior performers
showing which leaders in our sample were supe- how they were mentioned or not mentione
rior performers and which were average perform-team leaders, team members, and managers.
ers. With that information in hand, we began our Discriminant validity and interrater reliabil
content analysis by each selecting a random sampleassessed. Two expert coders, who were blind
of six transcripts (three superior performers andour hypotheses and to previous codings, coded
three average; see Figure 1). Working indepen-leader transcripts to determine coding reliabi
dently, we microanalyzed each transcript through a and to obtain frequency counts of how often
detailed line-by-line exploration with the goal ofleader discussed displaying each behavior. The
becoming intimately familiar with each leader's de-terview was the unit of analysis. Intercoder r
scribed actions and modes of operation (see Eisen-abilities were calculated for each code as the p
hardt, 1989; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We took thor-cent agreement between coders for all transcr
ough running notes on each leader and compiled a (mean = .92, median = .94, range = .78 to 1.0
summary for each that listed specific behavioral After reliabilities had been calculated, the coders
themes and supporting quotes. Because we werediscussed and reached agreement on each coding
interested in boundary-spanning activities, we sep-discrepancy.
arated behaviors enacted inside a team from those We checked discriminant validity using Mann-
enacted outside a team. We then used our summa- Whitney U comparisons to examine differences in
ries to compare and to contrast leaders and tothe frequencies with which the superior and the
average performers were coded as exhibiting each
search for and produce lists of similarities, differ-
ences, and patterns (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Next,behavior. Table 2 presents frequencies and compar-
we met to compare our detailed notes and summa- ison statistics for the subsamples. All the behav-
ries and to separate themes appearing on both our iors, except diagnosing member behavior, were
lists from those appearing on one list only. We also
coded more frequently for the superior performers.
created an initial list of the themes described more
often by superior performers.
Phase 2 Data Analysis: Data Integration and
Themes tested and data further reduced. We
Model Development
then independently examined two more random
transcripts (one superior and one average) to search Outlines created. At this point, we reviewed,
for the behaviors already on our lists and to look for integrated, and interpreted our data from all

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
TABLE1
mentiog'fcvsupr times.'acrklfo" peol'smind,artf[cy]. Butha'sewyIfl.So,dm rightofeba."
"So,Iguesmypritan'.
jobs.Italked[mngr],h informathwsgcebud hisopnwa.Ietbckdl[r theamwndoir]."

amterofginwhpl.IdcAbusy, ourinsacedptm.whvfylgq doctr'sexu.iwanbgplm,"DI[h]?Njkf wasbigtoher."numFfy-pc importan-eyukd?Is,'hvl notabusig[hefmlyv].'Id,Arp asIknow,yu'retbigdmc youpasmchIn.'"
you'rethnswagvki."pfmcd,I talkoyu,ndhevprbmsIgi'w backwithemrgy,vnou'sdlf." becausI'vgot[wh]lin."
"Whenyouart[pdcifl],wkg "So,Italkedhrbui.Ynw'smvycgf
DefintosadExmplLrBhvwcFuTkI,GSy
FunctioadBehvrsOgLATmMb
understaigofpwlhyjb.Im,c" organiztscludefhkw."y,'p conersaditfmbp"I'vgwhlu[,? constiuegrp,ham]dfIkv'[ engir,admtcfo."vsbw]Huy theamknowrsif,yud?'[I]Wlv"Ab reliab,ndfocusthm'ygpw."k inters.aohymdkugp,bcAfvw actionshvldembrfywupk." indvualescor.[pfbwy]Athmkg"O specialtm'rghokwndbuf"Avxe contasmeihrgzbudlfypkv."SIAw[otecnsihma informatheslg[HRpv],dkwz."y curentkowldgsaifh'.Iv"Am isue.[prodctn]lhawyfbv"
DemonstradwhlpicAf,[]vgy"ub Demonstradwhlkciy.Evug'"pf,Wb Demonstradwhlgicuy.pf,"H'b
Demonstradwhlkfbgiz.Hy"u
Relating"Idofpck.umywThsr[vAb Socialndptwreshguy[.,m]v" Buildngteamrs(h)"[Tb]'Yoyp23Kf:H,wIAv
CaringboutemsThpdfvxycwAEl"z
ScoutingOeamwdrhplys"[Av]k Sekingformats,pdculh.Tw gnertaiofs"

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
tryohelpbunvdi.Nwasg helpm."
theirys[flnga]m knocedthisw,y'aug. Youcldseitnhrbyag."

"Ihavepoltwkrundims.
guy.He'sabiotfhr,wn evrybodthink'sagu. Onceyoukwhim,salbg-r .hewantsvrybodik'gmc mand'Itlbeywor.Hs thawyl." andskwhtiofprblem'vg.Wy"]u youdwn?What'seprblmTficv gotad?'[Theywuls]Wnri:"Mmbp gun'.Ad[as]theyrlimbckfopv this.I'mjongdwWeapruc,"[v] engirchas.lbdotfk'yuwm Igot."heyd aminute.Ifyosdhlvr12gcw secondyuwrigath.Cmlk'I,f thepolad.'"nmkyifrcHs apersonlchk.Iwtyigbdv"u atenio."swrufmydvHk
"They'v[istam]workdnflg.
periodftm,anhywvcbl work.sInegithauldb grouptyandes.Ilhc informathwed.pszg tocniuerdsaympv."
understaigofmbhvpwy,'c.LAl" througanlyzivebwcd."YsI behavior,wsfuly-knt.cd intosmalpecdwhrkgvy,z.]I'u"bEf teamosyiclru.WhndwI'vfgbp,"j[ shapetblifndvorxugm.'[H],Ocw"U constiue(hamgrd)I,'Wlwvy?Hp.[]" sothaeywilprvdnc,uk?'[H]WImx orsuptfhendiam.ckbl'I,NwgHyW encouragmtshpblifd[I]zwAv"E behaviorftmsywlndIk.,"[]'gcuj makechoistnrfv[ludg]-wp'."x orsuptganizl.hvemqbf,yAwc
Demonstradwhlipygc',bu." Demonstradwhlbkpiyu.Icf,'[v" Demonstradwhlupi'Wyg,bq.EvfYAc" Demonstradwhlupicg.qy[]"b

Diagnosmebrhv"[Id],yutkcwApl'Tz Investigaproblmyc"Yu'hf.,kwTdE Persuading"Atf,h[]wv'Iocl-mpyYE Obtaingexrlsupodhj.'[I],cyz"wq Influecigtham"dor.ps,Avx[z]E

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
TABLE1
tolehamkiswndcu,'vgf-r isue"[Thtam]wndokr,I decison,butIwamkrhylp therigdcson.yulavf years."

Contiued
advncehr,youtil scholing.Hewajutrfvd .hestardfmily'ogbck someti,buy'vgdha.Ik; knowhardits.SIep 'youghtbedin.war youknwca.'Adtmelgsrh thapersonwimydv."

departmnig.Ah[w]"Wbu' don'twame.[Isih],fyu havingqultyprobems,[ meknow].'Iuldtyagrb els,butIdon'frchm." atembrhdgponil."Hws thekindofvual'rym bethrogwkdn.Ufualy,
wergonabmuchplsditfy."[-]'W, dithemslv.I'anpcg"Arbow],W Andtheypuoaski.wvrfmbc atmospher,buiwlyn'kdvg cleanigup,Iswtmbrhov.Wj otherands."w wantomei'slrghyu knowtheprblmsayuvig.If'
"Ihaveontm.,ydgjbu Asuperioladchng
FunctioadBehvrsOgLATmMb
decison-makguthry,pbl.Iwf'Av strenghamdcoibuf.Wl,Iw[]"Avp itsmebrhougnca,.'dkIwl[p-]"f fedback,nthvlopmwgsui'"Ary. andskil.comeupwthgrb"

toheam.grsy[inup]dwv,b'Ik"T:M mindeabouthwyr'k.[Is]gTv"pFlxc mebrchostayuign,pkdI'Owl"fv role,mtingdscuafh.b'k217wvy
Demonstradwhlgivc,kf.TuIBy"O Demonstradwhlifxbpug.BIck"
Demonstradwhlkpig[]v,"Ishmyadortne.
Coaching"Wel,tfrsupmIwAbvdk
Empowering"Thyca,dstu[q].'kvIMf Delgatinuhoryvmcdwsp.[T]kb,'" Flexibtyrgadnmcso"Thwpuk,fAv

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics and Comparisons between the Superior and Average Leader
Overall Superior Average
Function Leadership Behavior Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Ub
Relating Social and political awareness 4.16 3.34 6.20 3.12 1.89 1.76 9.50"**
Caring for team members 4.00 3.21 5.40 3.53 2.44 2.01 21.50"
Building team trust 2.95 2.30 4.00 2.49 1.78 1.39 19.50*
Scouting Seeking information from managers 1.21 1.40 2.00 1.49 0.33 0.50 15.00"*
Seeking information from peers 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.08 0.44 0.53 18.50"*
Seeking information from specialists 2.68 2.31 3.60 2.17 1.67 2.12 16.00**
Diagnosing member behavior 16.95 6.24 18.10 5.69 15.67 6.91 33.00
Investigating problems systematically 5.21 3.78 6.80 3.58 3.44 3.32 20.00*
Persuading Obtaining external support 2.47 3.34 3.10 2.85 1.78 3.87 22.00*
Influencing the team 2.74 2.45 3.90 2.77 1.44 1.13 18.00"
Empowering Delegating authority 2.42 3.66 3.70 4.57 1.00 1.50 20.00*
Flexibility regarding team decisions 1.11 1.56 1.90 1.79 0.22 0.44 18.50**
Coaching 2.42 2.09 3.50 1.84 1.22 1.72 14.00**
a For the overall sample, n = 19. For the superior perform

b These are Mann-Whitney nonparametric comparisons.
* p < .05
** p < .01
Two-tailed tests.
have not obtained. Leaders in the subsample of

sources (leaders, team members, managers, and re-
superior performers consistently described initiat-
search and field notes) to identify the function each
behavior served and to uncover the process throughing these scouting behaviors because they provided
which the behaviors combined to facilitate team information that was valuable in future interactions
self-management and effectiveness. The first stage inside and outside of the teams.
in data interpretation involved repeatedly reading Behaviors categorized. After several discussi
through all of our data and creating an outline for about the intent and consequence of each behav
each of the 11 behaviors that included (1) team we inductively categorized them into four fu
leader narratives that had been coded for the be- tional clusters: relating, scouting, persuading,
havior, (2) team member narratives that showed empowering. Each function, except empoweri
leader use of the behavior or recommended its use, included behaviors focused on teams and behav-
(3) managers' narratives that showed leader use of iors focused on members of the organization.
the behavior or recommended its use, and (4) for categories in Yukl's (1989) taxonomy fit well
each of these narratives, our interpretation of the these functions, but we chose labels that more ac-
context surrounding the statement and the conse- curately described the intent or purpose behind the
quences of the behavior. To develop these interpre- actions of the best-performing external leaders. For
tations, we answered questions that Strauss and example, we used "relating" rather than "relation-
Corbin (1998: 69, 77) suggested as useful for under- ship building" because these leaders were not only
standing context: With whom is an interaction or focused on developing kinship, but also on under-
exchange occurring or being recommended and standing and connecting with the interests, needs,
why? Who begins or is expected to begin this inter- and perspectives that influenced the behavior of
action or exchange? What are the consequences of team and organization members. We should note
engaging in this behavior, and are these the same or that Yukl's ideas were not imposed on our data;
different for other leaders and other situations? they had informed our thinking, but they earned
What can the narratives tell us about the purpose or their way into our interpretation.
function served by this behavior? Process analyzed. We then returned to our out-
For example, the information in our outlines re- lines, which were now organized by function. In
vealed that the consequence of diagnosing team this stage we focused on identifying the process
member behavior and of systematically collectingthrough which the functions were combined, pay-
data within the team was the acquisition of infor- ing particular attention to when and why behaviors
mation that these busy leaders would otherwise were focused on teams or on members of the larger

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
organization. Following incidents described

Straussin the leader and team member
and Corb
163-169), we examined the outlines looking for interviews. Our iterative tests and discussions
sequences of interactions and actions and sought to eventually led to our final process model o
understand how they varied in response to chang- tive external leader behavior, which shows when
ing conditions. We asked ourselves questions and why the external leaders with superior perfor-
Strauss and Corbin recommended for uncovering mance engaged in specific behaviors. This model,
process, including: What conditions have contrib- described below, consistently fit the mode of oper-
uted to the context in which the leader behavior ation used by these leaders. Average performers
emerges as useful? What conditions or activities discussed using the behaviors less often and used
connect one sequence of events to another? How do
the process incompletely.
the consequences of one set of behaviors and inter-
actions play into subsequent behaviors and inter-
actions? For example, team members' narratives RESULTS
revealed that they were more willing to share their
The Process of Effective External Leadershi
needs, problems, and ideas with leaders they
trusted to have their best interests in mind. The
Boundary-Spanning Model
consistency with which we saw this link in team Overview. A central theme in our data was that
member and leader transcripts led us to include in
superior performers used their location at the t
our model a connection between leader behaviors organization interface, or boundary-spanning
focused on building trust and leader ability totion, scoutto their advantage. As the arrows in Fig
information from a team. Also, both the leader and show, they moved back and forth between t
manager narratives revealed that managers were teams and the organization engaging in four
more likely to support team initiatives if external gories of behavior, each with its own purpose
leaders shared supporting information from several relating with team and organization member
sources. Our data consistently showed that leaders building political awareness, (2) scouting info
held such information if they had searched or tion and staying abreast of activities inside
scouted for it from their team members and other outside their teams, (3) persuading their tea
members of the organization. This link was theattend to organization needs and persuading
basis of the connection between scouting and ob- ganization members to attend to team needs
taining external support shown in our model. (4) empowering their teams. Leader behaviors
Model developed. As our theory emerged, we these categories facilitated self-managing wo
continually tested and retested it on the critical team effectiveness. We considered these teams' ef-
FIGURE 2
An Inductive Boundary-Spanning Model of Effective External Team Leader Beh
Relating Scouting Persuading Empowering
Organization-Focused Behavior
Seeking
Social and Political A Information from E Obtaining
Awareness External
Managers, Peers,
Specialists Support
i
D Hr
Organization-Team Boundary C v Team
Effectiveness
F J
Team-Focused Behavior
I Delegating
Authority
Building Team Diagnosing
Trust Member Behavior Influencing Flexibility
B G
Team regarding Team
Caring for Team Investigating Decisions
Members Problems
Coaching
Systematically

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
fectiveness to be a manifestation of effective exter- age leader opened his interview with complaints
nal leadership (see Hogan et al., 1994). about other areas in the plant. Later, when discuss-
Below, we organize our findings by these four ing an incident in which he could not get what he
categories or functions of leader behavior. Within needed from engineering, this leader said, "When
the description of each function are two subsec- the engineers come down here you tell them what's
tions: (1) organization-focused behavior and (2) wrong [and] they don't seem to understand what
team-focused behavior. In each subsection we also you're saying to them ... there's a lot of young
discuss the process through which these behaviorsengineers." He failed to recognize the value of
are linked to other behaviors in the model. Table 1 building relationships with engineers, or of build-
presents quotes from the superior performers thating an awareness of their perspective.
illustrate the behaviors within each function, Data from the managers of the external leaders
quotes from average performers (when available) to supported the link between social and political
illustrate how their behavior differed, and quotes awareness and access to people and places where
from team members and managers that illustrate leaders could scout information about organiza-
their perspectives on the leader behaviors. tional priorities and agendas. Managers preferred
interacting and working with leaders who under-
stood their needs and concerns. Hence, arrow A is
Relating
double-sided: understanding a manager's concerns
Relating involved developing political and social provided more access to the manager and an in-
awareness and relationships. The leaders' boundary- creased opportunity to build social and political
spanning position meant that they were not automat- awareness. Fourteen of the 17 managers surveyed
ically connected either with management or with said that to be successful in the external leader role,
their teams. In fact, the placement of their offices an individual had to understand the needs of his or
separated them from both. Our data reveal that the her manager and of the organization.
key purpose of the behaviors in this function was the Team-focused behavior. At the team level, relat
access created to those who could provide informa- ing consisted of two behaviors: building team tru
tion to enable a leader to intervene where and when and caring for team members. Leaders demon-
necessary. strated building trust by showing their teams they
Organization-focused behavior. At the organi- were fair, reliable, and focused on their teams' best
zational level, relating consisted of a set of behav- interests. Without trust, team members felt vulner-
iors we labeled "social and political awareness." able and subject to the whims of their leaders
The code was applied when a leader demonstrated (Dirks, 2000; see Table 1 for quotes).
an understanding of the organizational system that Leaders demonstrated caring for team members
included a focus on the needs, concerns, and deci- when they discussed engaging in care-giving ac-
sion-making criteria of groups like management tions that showed respect and concern for individ-
and engineering. The external leaders with supe- ual team members. There was no shortage of oppor-
rior performance consistently discussed behaving tunities to exhibit care for members. Leaders
in ways that recognized the importance of social discussed many events that involved helping
and political awareness in the larger organization bers with matters such as early paycheck d
(see Table 1 for quotes). Average performers or personal time off from work. Each lead
focused less on understanding the political system. typically responsible for 45 team membe
Several complained of their poor relationships with teams), many of whom couldn't afford to take
groups and individuals in the larger organization. day or an unpaid absence. Complicated pe
Arrow A in Figure 2 shows that those leaders issues were a constant challenge. Average pe
who demonstrated social and political awareness ers were more likely to view personal prob
developed access to people and places that allowed obstacles. Superior performers recognized c
them to scout and obtain information that ulti- ing as an opportunity to build relationships
mately helped team performance. For example, partoneof their role. Kahn (1998) argued th
best-performing leader said, "I don't think I've caring behaviors strengthen the bon
simple
alienated anybody [in the larger organization]... tween individuals. Team member interviews
showed
you can get moved to the top of the list for things in that above all else, team members wanted
a hurry if you're not pissing people off." leaders Since they knew had their best interests in mind.
average leaders placed less emphasis on under- As arrow B in Figure 2 shows, building team trust
standing the political system and members of and
thecaring for members created a relational foun-
larger organization, they were less able to obtain dation that permitted leaders, despite their infre-
information or resources for their teams. One aver- quent presence, to ask questions and to access can-

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
did information from team members on their ideas, Scouting

needs, problems, and the like. Leaders had limited
Scouting involved searching for information in-
time with any one team. Scouting for information
side the organization and a team to identify and
enabled a leader to develop timely and accurate
clarify organizational and team needs. Our data
diagnoses of problems and to intervene appropri-
reveal that this information was essential for per-
ately to help the team.
suading teams to make decisions that supported
One superior performer discussed how he built
trust and obtained information at the same time. He
the organization and for persuading members of the
organization to make decisions that supported the
said, "I do what I call 'a miracle mile.' I go aroundteams.
and talk to each individual on the line every day
Organization-focused behavior. The superior
... a personal touch .... I walk up, 'Hi, how're you performers discussed accessing information in the
doing today? Everything okay?' Once in a while,
organization by approaching their contacts. Infor-
they'll say, 'Yeah, we're having a problem with mal interactions are known to be an effective way
this,' and it gives me the opportunity to dive right of acquiring current and timely information (March
in there." This example shows how relating enables
& Simon, 1958). They were so common among the
access to insider information. It also shows the
superior performers that we broke the behavior into
reverse: seeking inside information allowed a three subcategories: seeking information from man-
leader to demonstrate trustworthiness and build
agers, seeking information from peers, and seeking
trust (see double-sided arrow B, in Figure 2, con-
information from specialists.
necting relating and scouting). As shown by arrows C, D, and E in Figure 2,
In contrast, one average performer who failed to
scouted information provided insightful perspec-
build team trust was caught unawares when "im- tives and was a powerful tool for influencing the
peached" by her team. At first, the team askedactions
her and decisions of one's teams and members
to stop coming to meetings, making her less ableof to
the larger organization. One superior perf
scout information or to build trust. Eventually,discussed
the how he used scouted information to in-
team asked management to replace her. Another fluence the choices made by one of his new
advisor explained, "They did not like [her] . . He
. did
obtained statistics from his friends in account-
not trust [her]." Moreover, her surprise at being
ing for use in persuading this struggling tea
removed from the team revealed her lack of infor-
think of ways to improve its productivity. He
mation or awareness about the team's concerns.
"[I] showed numbers of what happens [to profi
While the superior performers developed good the line is down for any amount of time, the wa
relationships inside and outside their teams, we equates out per hour, or per minute. They see
found that the average performers frequently devel- to be in awe of the numbers." Three months after
oped one or the other, but not both. For example, this team was empowered to make changes
the events described by one average performer crease its productivity, it was meeting its pr
showed he had a good relationship with his team tion goals.
members. He said, "I have a very good rapport with As shown in Figure 2, our data reveal that leaders
my people. They're very open to me ... they know who demonstrated social and political awareness
I will listen." However, his interview also revealed in the organization were better able to scout and
that his manager did not back his decisions and retrieve useful information from organization mem-
that other advisors complained about him to man- bers. The data also reveal that superior performers
agement. Other average performers focused primar- often described this information as an impetus or
ily on building external relationships and ignored indication of the need to collect additional infor-
their teams. For example, the "impeached" leader mation from team members. Information from sev-
discussed above described a very good relationship eral sources was of strategic use for influencing
with her manager. In fact, after her impeachment he teams to act in ways that supported the organiz
merely assigned her to a different team. tion, and/or for organization members to act in
Team member interviews supported the link be- ways that supported a team (arrows C, D, and E i
tween the relating function and team's willingness Figure 2). Information was an important resourc
to share information and to work with a leader. The for external leaders.
team members in all six focus groups also spoke Data from managers supported the link betwe
about preferring to work with leaders (1) who cared scouting information and obtaining external su
about them as people, (2) whom they trusted to be port. Managers said they wanted to work with
honest, and (3) who followed through when asked leaders who came to them with well-supported
for help. recommendations, were proactive about solving

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
problems, a different approach

and needed otherwise it's not gonnal go
managers with reques
away... I think [the team] is just looking for peop
backed up by
to scouted
listen to them.'" The manager stepped in an
those asked engineering to conduct a time and moti
requirements.
Team-focused behavior
study that revealed the team needed the extra pe
we found son. This outcome boosted
that the team members'
leadconfi-
sition meant that
dence in their task expertise. they
outside any The average performers
one team were more likelyan to
ing critical tempt problem solving
team with less data or input f
events.
scout for information inside their own teams. The a team. This meant they were less informed of tea
best-performing leaders scouted team informationneeds, concerns, and perspectives and had less
through two primary activities (see the quotes information for persuading management and th
Table 1): diagnosing member behavior and investi-teams to support one another. As arrow B indica
gating problems systematically. The superior per-it also resulted in lost opportunities to build r
formers continually diagnosed member behavior in tionships with team members.
order to obtain information about team and mem- Team member comments supported the link
ber needs, problems, strengths, and weaknesses. tween scouting information and influencing tea
They did this primarily by studying and interpret- All six of the team focus groups expressed a pr
ing team member verbal and nonverbal behavior. erence for leaders who asked them questions a
The second activity, investigating problems sys- listened to their ideas. Team members also dis-
cussed the importance of having leaders wh
tematically, involved systematically collecting data
and analyzing it to trace the cause of a problem. Forvided them with information from the broader
the superior performers, problem solving usually organization that they were unable to access t
began inside a team with thorough problem identi- selves. In a comment about engineers making t
fication and data collection (for instance, askingselves inaccessible to team members, one team
questions and diagnosing behavior) to understandmember stated, "Engineers don't have time for m
team member perspectives on a problem, its causes,drivel."
and its solution (see Table 1 for leader quotes).
As shown by arrows C, F, and G in Figure 2,
Persuading
scouting data inside a team enabled the leader to
assist it by (1) collecting additional information Persuading occurred when leaders worked to in-
about the issue in the larger organization (arrow C), fluence members of the organization to support
(2) seeking external resources or support to helptheir teams and to influence team members to set
solve the problem (arrow F), and/or (3) intervening priorities that supported organizational goals. Suc
to influence the team's response to the problem cessful persuasion allowed a leader to empower h
(arrow G). or her teams and to generate the resources nece
One leader with superior performance discussedsary for team success.
how he investigated a problem systematically by Organization-focused behavior. At the organ
scouting for information inside and outside his zational level, persuading consisted of behavio
team and by ultimately using the information to we labeled "obtaining external support." The cod
persuade his manager to support his team. Thewas applied when a leader discussed working t
engineering department had decided that this team convince external constituents (such as manager
needed one less member on its production line.and engineers) of the importance of team concer
The team adamantly disagreed. The leader went and/or working to support the team. It sometim
directly to his team members to collect informationinvolved keeping someone (such as a manager
about their perspective. He then visited engineer- engineer) from trying to reject a team's decisio
ing to ask about their perspective. He said, "I lis- The behavior is similar to the ambassadorial behav-
tened to what the [team] had to say ... in their ior found to be critical to the success of product
opinion [the engineers] weren't listening . . . I de-development teams (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) and
cided to start making some contacts and calling. to the issue-selling behavior found critical when
When I talked to the lead engineer, I could under- working with top management (Dutton & Ashfor
stand why the team felt the way they did because 1993; see Table 1 for quotes).
he was the type of engineer that doesn't like to be As arrow H in Figure 2 shows, obtaining extern
challenged. So, I contacted [my manager] and told support provided the resources and "buy-in" tha
him exactly where we were with the situation and allowed a leader to empower a team and to increas
what I felt about it. I said, 'I think we need to take its decision-making authority with more conf

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
dence. Management approval and external re- to approach a scheduling employee rather than a
sources enabled a team to control and implement manager with power to make the change. This ex-
its ideas with a higher probability of success and ample emphasizes the links in our model between
boosted the team's sense of independence and re- social and political awareness, obtaining informa-
sponsibility-cornerstones of self-managing work tion, and persuading external constituents. Lack of
team effectiveness (Cohen, 1994). For example, one social and political awareness ultimately hurt a
best-performing leader discussed how one of his leader's ability to empower his or her teams.
teams had researched options for fixing a produc- Team-focused behavior. At the team level, lead-
tion problem and had developed a solution. The ers engaged in a similar behavior we labeled "in-
leader described a meeting he and another advisor fluencing the team." This behavior sometimes in-
(who would be affected by the solution) held with volved what Manz and Sims (1987) labeled
his manager to seek support for the team's decision. "encouraging" a team to make effective choice
Management support would enable the leader to Table 1 for quotes).
empower the team to initiate its solution. He knew As arrow I in Figure 2 shows, influencing a
it was going to be tough to persuade his manager to to understand the implications of their deci
accept the team's seemingly expensive solution. He and actions enabled a leader to fully empower
said, "We sat down and discussed it ... talked to team. As discussed, we found the use of data and
information to be a leader's most powerful tool for
[the manager] about the different scenarios [the
encouraging or influencing their teams. Common
team] had come up with and presented the [chosen]
influence tactics included these: sharing informa-
scenario. And right away, the manager interrupted
us and said, 'Well, cost-wise [a different scenario] tion about how team decisions and actions affected
would be better . . .' We interjected and said yes the organization's goals, sharing information abou
initially, but when you look at the quality aspect of how team decisions and actions affected members'
it, productivity aspect of it, scheduling and man- payouts from the company's gain-sharing progr
power ...." In the end, they changed the manager's and creating elaborate charts, graphs, and/or
opinion and obtained his support for the team's ports to capture the attention of team members.
decision. This success enabled the leader to em- example, one leader with superior performa
power his team to initiate its solution (see arrow said the
Hfollowing about his successful attempt
in Figure 2, showing the link between external influence one of his teams to change its mind abo
support and delegation). shutting their production line off for breaks:
Average leaders discussed seeking external showed
sup-them the numbers ... and I talked about
port less frequently and indicated less success incentives. [I said] 'If somebody is cutting the
when they did seek it; these negative factors had a off just to eat a sandwich . . . it is costing ev
negative influence on their ability and willingness body.' We've got this performance share kind
to empower their teams. For example, one average thing ... when you start hitting somebody in
performer described his unsuccessful attempt to pocket, then they start thinking. [I said] 'When
persuade a scheduling employee to stop scheduling make a good [product] this is money that com
one of his teams to run small batches of specialty back to us. Either you want it or you don't.'"
products. These products required the team to per- The team was then delegated responsibility
form time-consuming machine changes that left it increasing its production enough to meet its
no time for working on other important team duction goals. The team took ownership of this ta
projects. No change was made. Thus, despite their and before long it was meeting these goals. T
complaints, his team members continued to be rig- team decided to stop shutting off the line for br
idly tied to the production line, and he was unable and made other changes as well, including dec
to empower them with responsibilities beyond the ing to work an extra five minutes at the end of e
line. The team's performance remained poor. This shift. The leader said, "My manager asked me
leader's attempt to obtain external support differed asked them to do it. I never asked..,. and they d
in two clear ways from the attempts made by his [work the extra five minutes] right now still."
peers with superior performance. First, he did not Members of all six focus groups discussed
collect data to back up his request. As noted, our importance of having a leader who shared in
findings reveal that data and information increased and circulated information. Although team m
the probability of obtaining external support. His bers did not realize that the successful passin
request would have been strengthened if he had information was linked to a leader's choice to del-
brought data comparing the number of product egate decisions to a team, they fully understoo
changes made by his team to those made by other that the information improved their ability to mak
teams. Second, lack of political awareness led him effective decisions.

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
Empowering
demonstrating flexibility around team decisions,
the second behavior within the empowering func
Empowering involved
tion: "Somebody would call me over and go 'Thi
thority and supporting
probably needs to be over here ... or what do you
and Offermann (1990) d
think about moving this over there?' [I would say]
ing power (participatio
'If you think it will work over here, by all means do
(empowerment). Our d
it."' By the end, the team's excitement and sense o
managing work teams
ownership was at an all-time high and the team wa
until the external leade
back to meeting its production goals in a record-
egating and supporting
breaking two days.
empowerment led to te
Average leaders discussed delegating authority
petence as self-managin
less often and regularly spoke of making decisions
ownershipand solving over tasks
team problems covertly. Evidence re-
stronger team performa
vealed that they were not reluctant to delegate be
Team-focused cause the teams behavior
they led were poorer performers
leader behavior, Many superior performers empow
discussed events involv
three team-focused ing their transfers to poor teams beha
to improve thei
flexibility regarding
performance. Our model shows how superior teper-
Our interviews suppor
formers set up delegation for success so that team
that delegating took ownership of their is high
work and performed well
cause they are held res
This is not to say that superior performers dele-
and outcomes. The leaders we studied were re-
gated all decisions. They also stepped in and made
quired to share power and delegate authority. decisions
How- without team input, but this was not as
ever, they had discretion over the amount and type
common an event as it was among the average
of authority delegated. performers. One superior performer said, "The
As shown through arrow J in Figure 2, ourteam data concept is a very good idea, but [not] when
revealed that delegating authority was linked youtoneed to get something done right away. I woul
team effectiveness. For example, one superiorsay per-
that for about 90 percent of the decisions
former described an event in which his team was involve the teams."
having its assembly line expanded, an activity thatAlthough delegation was fundamental to te
was notorious for creating persistent problems and
ownership, only 43 percent of the managers
slowing down production. The event began when surveyed mentioned the importance of delegat
the leader's contacts in engineering told him about
authority to teams, while 77 percent listed the
the expansion, shared with him drawings of their for positive results in the forms of increased qual
new design, and asked for his input. Instead of and productivity. Also, few team members
giving his input, he brought the drawings to the cussed their desire for decision responsibility,
next team meeting, where he shared the informa- though three of the six focus groups discussed
tion he had received from the engineer, stirred teamlink between freedom to do their job the way t
interest in getting involved, and began influencing wished and team performance. These findings
some of their ideas about the expansion. Once he lustrate what we found to be a clear paradox in
recognized that team members understood the sit- external leader role. Despite the discomfort m
uation and issues, he delegated to them the deci- leaders faced with delegating decisions for wh
sion authority for the project. they were held responsible, they had to be t
In recouinting a later meeting between the lead champions of team self-management. The super
engineer and the team, the leader said, "The only and average performers consistently spoke of f
thing that stood out was watching the team haveing a stuck in the middle between team memb
lot of input. . . . I never said one word ... just sat
who "want to be told what to do every day"
there and listened to them talk . . . I was there for those who "go right to the director" if they feel t
support ... The [team] took the drawing, drew in are not empowered enough. Also, managers we
workstations . . . and then gave it to the engineer."asking the leaders to delegate authority and in
When the expansion was implemented, as usual,same breath telling them to "make" their te
problems surfaced. Again, the team was delegatedcomply.
full responsibility for identifying and solving these Even more difficult than delegating was the sec-
problems and for making recommendations to theond behavior in this function: flexibility regarding
engineers. The following quote also shows the team decisions. Sometimes teams would create so-
leader supporting the team's empowerment bylutions that leaders told us were "outlandish" or

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
could make them "look bad." But, as the example [he had been taking] too many smoke breaks. I
discussed above illustrates, if these teams asked for thought he handled it really well because [the team
their external leaders' opinion, the superior per- member] came back and he was not angry. He wrote
formers, who were trying to cultivate the sense of us a note and said, 'If there is anything you want me
ownership required for team self-management and to do and I'm not doing it, please tell me, please
successful performance, replied with comments write it down. I didn't know.'" Team performance
such as: "It's not what I think, it's what you think." improved.
Only 2 of the 17 managers we surveyed mentioned
flexibility around team decisions as important to
leader performance, yet team members in three of DISCUSSION
the six focus groups raised the importance of being Contributions

"open minded about team decisions" and of "be-
lieving in" team ideas. Our key objective in this study was to answe
The final behavior, coaching, involved strength- long-standing questions about the leadership o
ening team member contributions, a team's confi- self-managing work teams by developing a comp
dence, and its ability to manage itself by working hensive model of the actions and strategies tha
one-on-one with employees, giving feedback to the distinguish the performance of effective exter
team, and modeling behaviors such as effective leaders. The model we present can benefit the
meeting facilitation. Theory and research have em- growing number of organizations utilizing self-
phasized coaching as a primary part of the external managing work teams (Lawler, 1986, 1998; Tan-
leader role and as useful for helping a team to face inecz, 1997). It can also shed light on the role of
both novel and routine situations (Hackman, 1986; leadership in the 21st century as leaders become
Wageman, 1997, 2001). increasingly "external" to the day-to-day activities
We found that because external leaders were not of empowered and distributed workforces.
present for most day-to-day team activities, coach- Our data reveal how behaviors within four lead-
ing was an important part of the empowerment ership functions and their internally and exter
function and its link to team effectiveness. It pro- focused dimensions support one another ove
vided the dual purposes of increasing the compe- and how a leader's movement between a team and
tence and performance of team members and of an aorganization affects self-managing work
team as a whole, and of building leader and team effectiveness. It shows that effective external lead-
confidence in team actions. As discussed, data also ers build relationships and seek to understand
revealed that a leader's ability to coach effectively perspectives both of team members and of thos
was improved by the groundwork laid through other positions in an organization. Good relati
building caring, trusting relationships, scouting in- ships and political awareness enable leaders to
formation to determine individual and team needs, cess key information in both contexts and to u
informing and influencing team actions, and ob- to define team and organizational needs. These
taining external resources. pabilities allow the leader to focus on the most
One team member talked about how his team's relevant needs, to use the information to persuade
external leader, a superior performer, improved teams
histo think and behave in ways that facilitate
team's sense of confidence and its performance organization
by effectiveness, and to persuade others
providing feedback to a teammate. The teammate in their organization to think and behave in ways
was hearing- and speech-impaired, and thethat teamincrease team effectiveness. This influence en-
had been having problems with his performance. ables a leader to fully empower his or her team
They had complained to their previous advisor which
but leads the team to take increased ownershi
had been told to "work with him." When the new of outcomes.
(best-performing) advisor was transferred to their In contrast to the prevailing view that externa
team, team members again shared their complaints. leaders should take a hands-off approach and focu
The interviewee recalled how the leader handled on asking questions (Courtright et al., 1989) and o
the situation: "He did his homework. . . . He came encouraging appropriate strategies (Manz & Sims
in on a Saturday and talked to us about what we 1987), our study found that effective external lead-
thought and how we felt. He said it was an HR ership involves a wider range of hands-on and
factor and it was a handicap factor and a safety hands-off strategies and behaviors. Our results
factor. [Within a week], he came back and had a make three contributions to current knowledge.
meeting with the guy, sat him down, and gave him First, they emphasize the importance of boundary-
a choice to either keep the job or go on to another spanning activity to success in the external leader
job ... he told him his work has been lacking and role. Theorists have proposed boundary spanning

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
to be central to the role (see Cohen et al., 1997; ful as a coaching technique that can build skills an
Cordery & Wall, 1985; Cummings, 1978; Hackman, confidence.
1986), yet its relevance has never been studied. We We were able to put these behaviors into conte
found it to be so fundamental that each leadership because we used an in-depth qualitative methodo
function, except empowerment, had dimensions ogy focusing on leader perspectives and added t
focused internally toward teams and externally to- perspectives of the leaders' key constituents, th
ward their encompassing organization. team members and their managers. Past research
Our data suggest that for an external leader, span- external team leadership has focused primarily
ning boundaries and shifting attention and alle- the perspectives of team members (Cohen et
giance back and forth from a team to an organiza- 1997), despite their incomplete view of the lead
tion requires conscious strategic maneuvering. role. Our methodology allowed us to ask extern
External leaders who exhibited average perfor- leaders what they were thinking and feeling as the
mance tended to use strategic maneuvers less and engaged in specific actions and to ask manage
to focus their energy in one area or the other, but and team members what they were thinking an
not both. Team members' and managers' poor un- feeling as team leaders carried out specific action
derstanding of the leadership tasks required on the This method allowed us an intimate view of behav-
other side of the boundary contributed to the am- iors, thoughts, strategies, and constituent reactions.
biguity around boundary spanning. A team's mem- Our third contribution is our further clarification
bers wanted their leader's loyalty to be with the of how the self-managing context influences the
team, while managers, having little appreciation for behavior of effective leaders. Our literature review
the intricacies of team empowerment, felt the lead- raised five unanswered questions about how th
ers should simply make things happen. The cen- context for external leaders differs from that of tra-
trality of boundary spanning in this environment, ditional leaders and how this affects leader behav-
coupled with the lack of understanding of its cen- ior. Our first research question asks what extern
trality, has likely contributed to the role ambiguity leaders do to influence those inside and outside of
often experienced by external leaders. Indeed, their teams and how their modes of influence facil-
boundary spanning is known to contribute to role itate team self-management and effectiveness. Our
ambiguity (that is, lack of clarity about expecta- findings support previous research (Courtright et
tions), and role conflict (conflicting job demands) al., 1989) suggesting that, unlike traditional leaders
(Lysonski, Nilakant, & Wilemon, 1989; Miles, who are in a position to legitimately command
1976). actions, external leaders must engage in a less di-
Our second contribution is in our infusion of rect form of influence. The best-performing leaders
dynamism into theory on the external leader we studied relied on referent and expert power to
role.
influence their teams and members of the larger
By initiating a shift from a static to a dynamic
conceptualization of the role, our results support
organization. (Referent power is a form of personal
power held by a leader whose followers wish to
and add to current knowledge. They place previous
findings into the larger context and process ofidentify
the with, imitate, and remain loyal to the lead-
er; see French and Raven [1959].) They acquired
full role by revealing when and why specific strat-
egies and behaviors improve team effectiveness.these forms of power by building political aware-
ness and relationships with a wide variety of
For example, Courtright and colleagues (1989)
groups and individuals. The information they ob-
found that external leaders were more likely than
traditional leaders to ask questions rather thantained
is- through these relationships established their
expert power and enabled them to persuade their
sue orders. Our results take those findings further
constituents to accept their ideas. Referent and ex-
by suggesting that questions can serve one of four
pert power have been found to be the most likely
leadership functions-relating, scouting, persuad-
ing, and empowering-aimed at improving team forms of power to engage follower commitment,
rather than compliance (Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
success. Questions aimed at building relationships
Since commitment is critical for successful team
might differ from those aimed at scouting informa-
tion about team needs. Our results also show that self-management (Cummings, 1978), it makes sen
the encouraging behaviors identified in Manz andthat influence through referent and expert pow
Sims's study (1987) are only one step of the lead-facilitates team self-management and effectivene
ership process. We suggest that encouragement be- Our second question asks whether effectiv
comes more meaningful when leaders develop car-external leaders focus on building relationshi
ing, trusting relationships with their teams and inside and/or outside of their teams and how rela-
have scouted information to determine what typetionships affect team self-management and effec
of actions to encourage. Encouragement is also use-tiveness. Research examining supervision from

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
follower's perspective has found the quality of sional construct that involves both autonomy in
leader-follower relationships to be central to effec- relation to meaningful issues and a team's confi-
tive leadership (Fleishman, 1953; Stogdill & Coons, dence in its ability to succeed. Our results also
1957). We found that self-managing work team support their findings showing that team leader
members viewed their relationships with their behavior is a predictor of the level of team empow
leaders as critical to their willingness to cooperate. erment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).
It was so important to the process of effective ex- Our model outlines successful leadership func-
ternal leadership that it became the foundation of tions and shows how and why they lead to success,
our model. Team members universally noticed but it does not necessarily define one best way to
the explicit and implicit messages of care and lead self-managing teams. The successful leaders
respect sent by their leaders. As our data reveal, we studied carried out each function in highly di-
strong leader-member relationships provided lead- verse ways. For example, our interview with one
ers with the access and information that increased
superior performer revealed his loose and easy
their ability to improve team self- managementstyle and and sharp sense of humor. His interview and
effectiveness. those with his team members revealed that his hu-
Relationships developed in the larger organiza- mor helped him build relationships and to inf
tion were also fundamental for the boundary-span- ence and coach in nonthreatening ways. Anoth
ning role that was so central to team leader success.
superior performer obtained the same results u
Leaders were responsible for several teams con- a well-organized and serious style. In his case,
ducting different tasks. This complexity required was his conscientiousness that helped him bui
leaders to have access to a variety of external re-trust and relationships and achieve influence i
sources and information. Good organizational rela- side and outside his teams. Our model reveals the
tionships facilitated that access. Research shows
process through which the actions and inte
that information obtained through boundary span-
of leaders, whatever their style, were aligned,
ning is a powerful resource for influencing organi-
purposeful, and focused on enabling the delegation
zation-level decisions (Pettigrew, 1972) and for im-
of decision authority and the making of effective
proving team decisions and team effectiveness
(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Tushman & Katz, 1980).
decisions. The leaders with superior performance
understood how the outcomes of one set of inter-
It also reveals that when team members take on
actions influenced the outcomes of future actions
boundary-spanning functions, it can divertand teams'
interactions.
focus away from their task (Ancona & Caldwell,
As mentioned above, the inductive external lead-
1992), making it an inefficient and ineffective
method of communicating externally (Katz & Tush- ership model we present also suggests the leader-
man, 1979). Our results suggest that when a team's ship behaviors and strategies that may become
external leader takes over the boundary-spanning more useful as 21st-century organizations become
role, team success is enabled. increasingly networked and global. In such situa-
Our third question asks whether external leaders tions, organizational members meet face-to-face in-
scouted and disseminated information among frequently and are primarily connected through
teams and the broader organization and how this telephone lines and the Internet. Our boundary-
might facilitate team self-management and effec- spanning model of effective external leadership
tiveness. As discussed above, leaders' ability to provides a theory that may be relevant for the in-
influence actions and decisions inside and outside creasing number of leaders at all levels of organi-
teams relied heavily on their ability to scout and zations who are finding themselves to be external
share information. Information was a powerful re- leaders. Additional research in this area is clearly
source that effective external leaders accumulated necessary.
and used to their advantage.
Our fourth and fifth questions ask about the be-
haviors and strategies that enable a leader to em-Limitations and Future Research Directions
power his or her teams and how these strategies
combine to facilitate team self-management and ef- We designed this study to be theory buildi
fectiveness. We integrated data from several Thus, our results must be interpreted and ge
sources to produce a process model revealing howized with caution until they are replicated at
effective leader behaviors and strategies lay the other site, in another industry and task envi
groundwork for successful team empowerment. ment, and, as discussed above, at other leade
Our findings support Kirkman and Rosen's (1997)levels. Our research focused on identifying th
proposal that team empowerment is a multidimen-haviors and strategies that distinguished effe

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
external role of leadership in the of

leaders 21st centuryse as lead
limitation become
of increasingly
our "external"
designto the day-to-d
understand activities
theof their workforces.
behavi
average performers tha
formance. The perform
REFERENCES
(and poor) performan
than their Ancona,
inability
D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the or
strategies used boundary: External activity and performance in or-
consiste
leaders. Future research should include work con- ganizational teams. Administrative Science Quar-
ducted with the aim of understanding self-defeat- terly, 37: 634-665.
Argyris,
ing leader behaviors, or trip wires, that hurt leader C. 1998. Empowerment: The emperor's new
and team performance. clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3): 98-105.
A benefit of our model is that it raises a new set Beyerlein, M. M., Johnson, D. A., & Beyerlein, S. T. 1996.
of research questions about external team leader-Introduction. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, &
ship. Future research might focus on determiningS. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdiscipli-
how organizational context alters the specific nary studies of work teams, vol. 3: ix-xv. Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
leader behaviors we present. For example, what
happens to external leaders who are not empow- Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The competent manager. New
York: Wiley.
ered by their own managers? If they don't experi-
ence empowerment themselves, where does the Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative informa-
model break down? Are unempowered external tion: Thematic analysis and code development.
leaders less able to seek out external information, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
or do they fail to persuade their managers to sup- Burpitt, W. J., & Bigoness, W. J. 1997. Leadership and
port their teams, or do they simply model them- innovation among teams: The impact of empower-
ment. Small Group Research, 28: 414-423.
selves after their managers and make decisions
without empowering their teams? Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of quali-
Other questions that need deeper research atten- tative data: Complementary research strategies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
tion include the relationship between team mem-
ber behavior and leader behavior and the relation- Cohen, S. G. 1994. Designing effective self-managing
ship between the behavior of other organization work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson
members and leader behavior. Our research reveals
(Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of
work teams, vol. 1: 67-102. Greenwich, CT: JAI
that effective external leadership requires teamPress.
members and other members of an organization to
Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. 1997. A
be willing to listen to and follow these leaders. Ourhierarchical construct of self-management leader
research and that of others (Manz & Sims, 1984) ship and its relationship to quality of work life an
also suggests that in self-managing work team en- perceived work group effectiveness. Personnel Psy
vironments, constituent groups often hold very dif- chology, 50: 275-308.
ferent views of what external leadership should Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1996.
entail. Researchers should take a deeper look at A predictive model of self-managing work team ef
how specific team member and organizational fectiveness. Human Relations, 49: 643-676.
member attitudes and behaviors influence and alter
Cordery, J. L., & Wall, T. D. 1985. Work design and
the behaviors in our model. supervisory practice: A model. Human Relations,
Despite their pivotal influence on self-managing 38: 425-441.
work team effectiveness, external leaders appearCourtright,
to J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Roge
be a forgotten group. Scholars have provided littleInteraction patterns in organic and mech
theory to clarify their role (Cohen et al., 1997), and tems. Academy of Management Journa
802.
organizations have paid more attention to building
teams than to supporting external team leaders Cummings, T. G. 1978. Self-regulating work group
(Walton, 1982). The comprehensive model we havesocio-technical synthesis. Academy of Manage-
presented here makes the external leader role lessment Review, 3: 625-634.
elusive and takes existing theory and research one
Dirks, K. T. 2000. Trust in leadership and team perfor
step closer to answering both scholarly and practi-mance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal o
cal questions about how to best lead teams that Applied Psychology, 85: 1004-1012.
manage themselves. It also lends insight into the
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to t

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
management. Academy of Management Review, operant analysis and comparison of managers at

18: 397-428. work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 270-279.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-
study research. Academy of Management Review, Bowers, J. A. 1996. Team leadership and develop-
14: 532-550.
ment: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training
Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. leaders and teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. John-
Psychological Bulletin, 51: 327-358. son, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdis-
ciplinary studies of work teams, vol. 3: 253-291.
Fleishman, E. A. 1953. The description of supervisory Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37: 1-6.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High involvement management. San
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. 1959. The bases of
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in so-
cial power: 118-149. Ann Arbor: University of Lawler, E. E. 1998. Strategies for high performance
Michigan Press. organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. 1986. The psychology of self-management Lysonski, S., Nilakant, V., & Wilemon, D. 1989. Role
in organizations. In M. S. Pallack & R. O. Perloff stress among project managers. Journal of Manage-
(Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, rial Psychology, 4: 25-31.
and employment: 89-136. Washington, DC: Ameri- Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1984. Searching for the
can Psychological Association. "unleader": Organizational member views on lead-
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. 1982. Management of or- ing self-managed groups. Human Relations, 37:
ganizational behavior: Utilizing human resources 409-424.
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leadin
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. 1994. What we know lead themselves: The external leadershi
about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. managing work teams. Administrative Science
American Psychologist, 49: 493-504. Quarterly, 32: 106-128.
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. 1990. Power and March, J., & Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. New York:
leadership in organizations: Relationships in transi- Wiley.
tion. American Psychologist, 45: 179-189.
McClelland, D. C. 1976. A guide to job competence
House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. 1967. Herzberg's dual-factor assessment. Boston: McBer.
theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of
McClelland, D. C., & Dailey, C. 1972. Improving
the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology,
20: 369-389. selection for the Foreign Service. Boston: M
Miles, R. H. 1976. Role requirements as sources
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. 1990. Champions of tech-
nological innovation. Administrative Science ganizational
Quar- stress. Journal of Applied Psyc
61: 172-179.
terly, 35: 317-341.
Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G. W., Dunnette, M. D
Kahn, W. A. 1998. Relational systems at work. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.) Research in N., Werner, S., Burnett, J. R., & Vaughan, M
organi-
zational behavior, vol. 20: 39-76. Greenwich, CT: Studies of the structured behavioral intervi
JAI Press. nal of Applied Psychology. 77: 571-587.
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. 1979. Communication patterns, Nygren, R., & Levine, E. L. 1996. Leadership
project performance and task characteristics: An em- teams: Factors influencing team outcomes
pirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerle
Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work
mance, 23: 139-162. teams, vol. 3: 105-126. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1972. Information control as a power
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1997. A model of work team
empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore resource. Sociology, 6: 187-204.
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and Pierce,
de- J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. 2000. Leaders and the
velopment, vol. 10: 131-167. Greenwich, CT: JAIleadership process (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Press.
Polley, D., & Van Dyne, L. 1994. The limits and liabilities
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-manage- of self-managing work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein &
ment: Antecedents and consequences of team em- D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary
powerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: studies of work teams, vol. 1: 1-38. Greenwich, CT:
58-74.
JAI Press.
Klein, J. A. 1984. Why supervisors resist employee in-& Latham, G. P. 1974. The reliability and
Ronan, W. W.,
volvement. Harvard Business Review, 62(5): 87-95.
validity of the critical incident technique: A closer
Komaki, J. L. 1986. Toward effective supervision:
look. Studies
An in Personnel Psychology, 6: 53-64.

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00
Sandberg, J. visions,
2000. pessimistic hypotheses,
Under and reality. In R.
work: An Zager & M. P. Rosow (Eds.), The innovative organi-
interpretive a
agement Journal, 43:
zation: Productivity programs in action: 260-287. 9-
Steckler, N., Elmsford,
& NY: Pergamon Press.
Fondas, N
Yin, R. K. 1994. A
effectiveness: Case studydiagnos
research: Design and meth-
ods (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
namics, 23(3): 20-35.
Yukl, G. A. 1989. Managerial leadership: A review of

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. 1957. Leader behavior: Its
description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio theory and research. Journal of Management Devel-
State University, Bureau of Business Research. opment, 15: 251-289.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of influence
research: Techniques and procedures for developing tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss.
grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 525-535.
Taninecz, G. 1997. Best practices and performances. In-
dustry Week, 246(22): 28-43.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communica-
tion and project performance: An investigation into Vanessa Urch Druskat (vanessa.druskat@unh.edu) is
the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 265: now an associate professor of organizational behavior
1071-1085.
the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, Uni-
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. 1981. Boundary
versity span-
of New Hampshire. She received her Ph.D. in
ning individuals: Their role in information transfer
social and organizational psychology from Boston Uni-
and their antecedents. Academy of Management
versity. Her research focuses on factors that influence the
Journal, 24: 289-305. effectiveness of empowered or self-managing work
teams,
Wageman, R. 1997. Critical success factors for including team dynamics, informal and formal
creating
superb self-managing teams. Organizationalteam Dy-
leadership, and emotionally competent team
norms.
namics, 26(1): 49-60.
Wageman, R. 2001. How leaders foster self-managing Jane V. Wheeler is an assistant profess
team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on and the director of the Institute of Orga
coaching. Organization Science, 12: 559-577. tiveness at Bowling Green State Univer
her Ph.D. in organizational behavior f
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W.
Reserve University. Her research inte
1986. Outcomes of autonomous work groups: A
learning, teaching effectiveness, and l
long-term field experiment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 29: 280-304.
Walton, R. E. 1982. The Topeka work system: Optimistic

212.219.61.210 on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 07:07:49 +00:00

Managing From The Boundary: The Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing From The Boundary: The Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing from the Boundary: The Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams

Author(s): Vanessa Urch Druskat and Jane V. Wheeler

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040637

This content downloaded from