Search results

Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley (2003) have proposed that emotional intelligence is a critical component in effective team leadership and team outcomes. John Antonakis (2003) questioned whether the first claim in this article, that emotional intelligence is critical for effective team leadership, is justified. He presents six questions that illuminate his reservations. In response, the present authors attempt to answer his reservations by clarifying and explicating the reasoning behind this claim.

Emotional intelligence reflects the ability to read and understand others in social contexts, to detect the nuances of emotional reactions, and to utilize such knowledge to influence others through emotional regulation and control. As such, it represents a critically important competency for effective leadership and team performance in organizations today. In this paper, we develop a conceptual model that brings together theory and research on emotional intelligence, leadership, and team process and outcomes. Additionally, we formulate testable propositions, propose directions for future research, and discuss implications for practice.

The operations strategy literature has identified four primary dimensions on which a firm competes with another. These are: price, quality, flexibility, and delivery dependability. Of these, quality is perhaps the most critical dimension in terms of the impact on the degree of competitiveness imparted to a firm by a competitiveness dimension. In this paper, we propose a quantitative measure – quality competitiveness index (QCI) – to determine the degree to which a firm’s quality practices and policies are instrumental in improving its competitiveness. The QCI can be effectively employed for benchmarking among competing firms. More importantly, however, the process leading to the determination of QCI is itself an educative one – the weaknesses and strengths of a company with respect to its quality practices and policies come right to the fore and the company can usefully employ this information to improve competitiveness for quality.

A growing number of organizations are adopting self‐directed work teams (SDWTs), but many firms experience trouble with the transition – the time needed for SDWT development. The addition of a SDWT represents a change in the organization and requires that managers adjust their use of influence behaviors. In this article I examine the impact that managerial influence behaviors have on SDWT development.

Redesign activity is taking place within organizations faced with rapidly changing business environments. In this article, the current state of organization redesign, the role of information systems, and the effect of redesign activities on job satisfaction and motivation are reviewed. The current state and projected trends are then related to a field study conducted at the Zeeland, Michigan, machine processing plant (ZMP) of Herman Miller. Interviews with both hourly and managerial personnel were conducted. The results of the interviews suggest that effective redesign efforts focus on the human or intangible aspects, as well as structural changes.

Social influence processes in organizations involve the demonstration of particular behavioral tactics and strategies by individuals to influence behavioral outcomes controlled by others in ways that maximize influencer positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes. Such processes necessarily draw from research in topic areas labeled impression management, self-presentation, interpersonal influence, and organizational politics. However, few efforts have been made to integrate this work for purposes of assessing our current knowledge base, and identifying gaps and thus areas in need of further investigation. The present paper provides a critical analysis and review of theory and research on social influence processes in the workplace, with particular emphasis on human resources systems, organized according to the What, the Where, the Who, and the How of influence. In the process, we identify neglected areas, including theory-building challenges, as well as key issues in need of empirical investigation.

With extant research on the relationship between trust and effectiveness being inconclusive, the present study attempts to create a foundational investigation that examines the role of multiple mediators in the team trust – team effectiveness relationship. The authors identified the two emergent states of cohesion and satisfaction as intervening variables in the team trust – team effectiveness relationship, and tested this multi-mediation proposed model, within an interdependence theory perspective.

MBA students at a large university in the southwestern USA were administered two waves of paper-based surveys, which were assigned to project groups. Individuals had been assigned to groups with the intent of maximizing diversity of age, gender, functional background, industry experience, and undergraduate major for each team (this is a goal of the MBA program, not the researchers). The first wave was administered one week after the groups had been formed and after all group members had met in their groups at least once. The second wave of surveys was administered at the end of the semester after the groups had been working together for three months and had completed their final projects.

The results of the multiple mediation analysis found support for the hypotheses that cohesion and satisfaction serve as dual mediators of the trust – team effectiveness relationship.

This study examined how trust operates through other variables to affect team performance. Two important variables that have been shown to be affected by trust are cohesion and satisfaction. Utilizing interdependence theory, the relationship of team trust and team performance was investigated through the intervening variables of cohesion and satisfaction, as both have been shown to possess properties that potentially represent different aspects of the interdependent relationship between team members. Therefore, this study examines how trust impacts team performance though the dual mediators of cohesion and satisfaction, in efforts to develop a more informed and theoretically grounded understanding of team performance and effectiveness processes.

The questions posed for the national reporters for this International Seminar demonstrate the wide range of issues that can be included as part of an analysis of corporate social responsibility. Even limiting the discussion of corporate social responsibility to employment issues covers a broad scope, represented by the three general questions posed for this Seminar: (1) hiring policy; (2) personnel management policy; and social protection policy. Before entering this discussion of the three questions, though, it may be useful to step back to an even broader question of the meaning of the term, “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). The term, itself, carries an underlying assumption of the legitimacy of a particular economic system and its central actors; that is, corporations are central, legitimate, and functional actors in social relations within a capitalist economic structure. The concept of CSR does not question the existence of corporations and their role in maintaining a system of private ownership and control over capital. The fundamental goal of capitalism and corporations to maximize market control and profits remains intact. Policies favoring CSR, rather, seek to shape the conduct of corporations to increase socially responsible corporate practices, but do not challenge the legitimacy of corporate power. Such social responsibility may range from curbing human rights violations by corporations, such as violence against union organizers, to influencing corporations to provide decent wages to employees, to pressuring corporations to carry out business with out harming the environment. The recent attention to CSR may be understood as an expression of concern over the reduced effectiveness of individual nations to maintain the integrity of social welfare policy within current conditions of global power exercised by transnational corporations (TNC).

The purpose of this paper is to implement the concept of the “political iceberg” and to investigate its hidden or submerged part comprised of motives and latent triggers lying behind leaders’ political behavior, and which remains almost unexplored. Specifically, drawing on the abundant literature at the intersection of leadership and organizational politics, the authors examine – what drives leaders to engage in political behavior?

Public sector organizations are characterized by a high level of organizational politics and are therefore suitable for this research. A semi-structured interview formed the main data-gathering instrument. The authors conducted interviews with 14 leaders across public sector organizations. The findings are based on a qualitative analysis of the interviews.

Two key themes were analyzed: leaders’ motives to engage in political behavior to achieve corporate interests; leaders’ motives to engage in political behave or for personal interests. On the one hand, motives for political behavior are directed toward the general good, such as accomplishing organizational goals, attaining resources and managing change. On the other hand, motives to engage in political behavior may focus inter alia on such, personal interests as one’s career in the organization, gaining an advantage or other self-interests.

To date, research has focused primarily on the visible tip of the political iceberg. This study is part of a new stream of qualitative studies of political behavior. To gain a complete picture of organizational life, this study focuses on the hidden side of the political iceberg and has revealed the motives for political behavior.