Measuring leadership in self-managed teams using the competing values framework

This study demonstrates how the application of the CompetingValues Framework (CVF) to self-managed teams (SMTs) assistengineering educators to understand how to measure leadershipwithin this context and facilitate an increased awareness of thestudents in a team, which will consequently increase effective-ness. Specifically, we analyzed data from the ManagerialBehavior Instrument, completed by 81 engineering students whoparticipated in self-managed teams for one semester. The instru-ment measured the use of the four leadership profiles of theCompeting Values Framework which then allowed theresearcher to determine the presence of high or low behavioralcomplexity. Behavioral complexity determines the team’s abilityto utilize multiple leadership roles and subsequent effectiveness.The findings indicate that behavioral complexity does have a sig-nificant effect on performance but does not have a significanteffect on the attitudes of team members. Overall, teams withhigh behavioral complexity earned a higher grade on their finalteam project than teams with low behavioral complexity. Thisstudy is significant for engineering education because it providesa theory and framework for understanding leadership in teams.By exploring the relationship between leadership in SMTs andeffectiveness, educators and industry can better understand thetype of leadership roles necessary for achieving a highly effectiveteam. As a result, instructors can design their teamwork curriculaand teamwork training based on the leadership strengths andskills of students which will then prepare students for industryupon graduation.Keywords: leadership, teams, team effectiveness

[1]  Linda C. Schmidt,et al.  Student Focus Group Results on Student Team Performance Issues , 2000 .

[2]  Philip Lewis,et al.  Assessing Teaming Skills Acquisition on Undergraduate Project Teams , 1998 .

[3]  G. Hofstede.  Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations , 2001 .

[4]  David Barry,et al.  Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership , 1991 .

[5]  Stephanie G. Adams,et al.  Building Successful Student Teams in the Engineering Classroom , 2004 .

[6]  Jonathan Cox,et al.  Toward a Model of Shared Leadership and Distributed Influence in the Innovation Process: How Shared Leadership Can Enhance New Product Development Team Dynamics and Effectiveness , 2003 .

[7]  T.J. Moore,et al.  Assessment of Team Effectiveness During Complex Mathematical Modeling Tasks , 2006, Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference.

[8]  Katherine A. Lawrence,et al.  Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire ☆ , 2009 .

[9]  Craig L. Pearce,et al.  Book Review: Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership , 2005 .

[10]  P. K. Imbrie,et al.  Assessing Team Effectiveness , 2005 .

[11]  Robert E. Quinn,et al.  Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework , 1996 .

[12]  R. Quinn,et al.  Roles Executives Play: CEOs, Behavioral Complexity, and Firm Performance , 1993 .

[13]  K. Cameron,et al.  Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework , 1999 .

[14]  Michael Morley,et al.  360 degree feedback: its role in employee development , 1997 .

[15]  B. Shamir,et al.  Shared Leadership in the Management of Group Boundaries: A Study of Expulsions from Officers' Training Courses , 2003 .

[16]  Simon Hurley,et al.  Application of team‐based 360° feedback systems , 1998 .