interpersonal. Included as task-management roles were such activities as: (1) initiating-
-suggesting new ideas or goals, (2) information seeking--asking relevant questions, and
(3) orienting--keeping the group on-track.
Among the interpersonal roles identified as important were: (1) encouraging--giving
positive feedback to others, (2) harmonizing--mediating or negotiating conflicts between
group members, and (3) gatekeeping--facilitating participation by all group members.
Bales (1950; a, b) also conceptualized group interaction as consisting of two basic
categories of behavioral roles--task and social-emotional. Task roles encompassed
those behaviors directly related to accomplishing the mission or purpose of group (for
example: giving suggestions and direction; repeating, clarifying; providing analysis
and evaluation).
Social-emotional roles included behaviors that focused on the interpersonal relationships
among group members, including: giving help and rewarding; showing understanding and
acceptance; releasing tension through jokes and laughter. Additionally, Bales recognized
the potential for dysfunctional roles in small group interaction and identified several
possibilities. Among them were: antagonism and personal attacks; passive rejection or
refusal to participate; creates tension.
Building upon these early studies of small group interaction, three prominent teams of
university researchers independently developed two-factor models to describe essential
leader behaviors. These included: Ohio State (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) with initiating
structure and consideration; the University of Michigan (Likert, 1961) with job-centered
and employee-centered; The University of Texas (Blake & Mouton, 1964) with concern
for production and concern for people.
Subsequent research on leadership behavior in general and team leadership behavior in
particular has relied heavily on this common two-factor model (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig,
2008). Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin and Hein (1991) identified a total
of 65 “different” classification systems in the literature on leader behavior, all of which
essentially reflected the same two basic categories of task-focused and people-focused.
Similarly, Yukl, Gordon, and Taber (2002), in reviewing 50 years of research, concluded
that the two fundamental categories of leader behavior (task-oriented and people-oriented)
had been extensively examined and shown to be related to leadership effectiveness.
Burke, et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on important leader
behaviors within teams. They found that: (1) the two-factor model (task-oriented
and people-oriented) had been extensively and effectively utilized as an approach to
understanding and describing leadership within teams and (2) the performance of both
task-oriented roles and people-oriented roles was significantly related to team success.
Integrating the research described above on small group interaction and the two-factor
model of team leadership behavior, a comprehensive set of ten task-related roles, six
social-related roles, and five dysfunctional roles was developed. These roles and brief
definitions are provide in Figure 1.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010
The assessment of team leadership behavioral roles can take many farms. One of the
most popular and effective involves the use of the leaderless group discussion. This
evaluation methodology will be described in the next section.
Leaderless Group Discussion
The leaderless group-discussion (LGD) exercise involves posing a problem to a small
group of 5-6 individuals seated around a table and asking them to verbally consider
the problem and develop a solution, within 30-60 minutes. No formal team leader is
designated; hence the “leaderless” group discussion. The behavior of LGD participants
is observed/taped and evaluated on a variety of dimensions.
According to Ansbacher (1951), the LGD was first used by J.B. Rieffert with the German
military as a personnel evaluation tool from 1920 to 1931. Bass (1954) and his colleagues
subsequently popularized applications of the LGD in the United States and conducted
extensive research with it.
Social Roles
_____ 1. Harmonizer
_____ 2. Gatekeeper
_____ 3. Consensus Taker
_____ 4. Encourager
_____ 5. Compromiser
_____ 6. Standard Setter
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010
1. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
2. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
3. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
4. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
5. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
1. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
2. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
3. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
4. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
5. _________________________ _____________________
10 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010
2. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
3. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
4. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
5. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 11
Meetings are structured in the following manner. The individual is first asked to share
his/her self perceived strengths and supporting observations. Next, the participant coach
shares the same information from his/her evaluation, followed by the trainer/facilitator.
Similarities in ratings are noted, while differences are discussed and resolved. The same
format is followed when addressing areas for improvement. The final topic of the meeting
involves a presentation by the individual of his/her plan for improvement. Comments
and suggestions are then shared by the participant coach and trainer/facilitator.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the individual is able to calculate four scores: (1) a task
roles composite score, consisting of the sum of scores for the 10 task-related items on
the evaluation tool, (2) a social roles composite score--the sum of the six social-related
items, (3) a dysfunctional roles composite score--the sum of the five dysfunctional role
items, and (4) an overall team leadership score--the sum of the task and social composite
scores, minus the dysfunctional composite score. Copies of the written evaluations from
the participant coach and trainer/facilitator are provided to each individual.
One interesting point about the self-assessments should be made. Many participants,
after viewing their DVD, notice for the first time that their speech is plagued by the
frequent use of verbal fillers or tics, such as “ah”, “um”, and “like”. As a result of this
self-revelation, many participants are able to consciously attend to their speech and
reduce/eliminate the use of such distractions.
6. Initial Coaching Meeting After conducting the self meeting described in step 5 above,
the two participants involved “switch roles” and repeat the process. This gives each
individual an opportunity to be assessed, as well as function as an assessor/coach.
7. Training/Education After the initial round of assessment activities has been
completed, participants are provided with training/education on several topics essential
to understanding team leadership and teamwork, along with experiential exercises to
illustrate key points. The topics addressed include: (1) the stages of team development,
(2) the roles of team leaders in the developmental process, (3) obstacles to effective
teamwork, (4) team norms and sanctions, (5) team decision making, (6) team building,
and (7) conflict resolution.
8. Second LGD At the conclusion of the training/education component, a second LGD
is conducted, following the format described above for the First LGD. Participants are
encouraged to focus on their areas for improvement, as identified in the initial taping.
9. Final Self-Assessment Participants are asked to complete their final self-assessment,
based upon their performance in the second LGD, using the same tool and format
described in step 3 above. They are also instructed to critique their progress in addressing
areas for improvement.
10. Final Coaching Assessment Participants review and evaluate the LGD performance
of their partner in the second taping, following the process described in step 4 above.
Specific comments are solicited about their partner’s progress in making targeted
improvements.
12 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010
11. Final Self Meeting The format and objectives of the final self meeting are identical to
the initial session, with one addition. The individual concludes the meeting by initiating
a discussion of his/her progress in achieving improvement objectives. The participant
coach then summarizes his/her progress evaluation, followed by the trainer/facilitator.
Using the consensus ratings for task, social, and dysfunctional roles, the individual can
calculate composite scores and compare them with similar scores from the first LGD.
This provides for a quantitative index of improvement (or potentially a decrease in team
leadership effectiveness, although this has not been observed).
12. Final Coaching Meeting After the final self meeting, the two individual participants
switch roles and repeat the process described above in step 11.
Applications
The protocol described in this paper has been utilized in a variety of settings. Four specific
applications will be reviewed below, three in business and one in academia.
Business Applications
The first two business applications were very similar in a number of respects: (1)
the companies involved were both industrial firms in the Fortune 500, one metals
manufacturer and one oil producer, (2) recent changes in senior management had led
to an increased focus on accountability and observable results in all training programs,
and (3) there was a strong need for team leadership training for inter-departmental
project leaders in the metals firm and safety review project leaders in the oil producer.
It should be noted that both organizations expected team leadership training to result in
observable improvements in leader performance. The improvements should be evident
to individual participants and their respective managers after the training, and confirmed
by comparison of pre-, post-measures of team leadership behaviors.
The assessment and development protocol using the LGD, as described above, was ideally
suited for use with both of these organizations. Each application involved groups of 18-
20 participants in a week-long program. LGD taping occurred on the morning of day
one (followed by assessment and coaching sessions) and the afternoon of day four. Days
two and three consisted of experiential learning modules addressing the team leadership
topics identified in step 7 of the protocol methodology above. Day five was devoted to
assessing performance in the second LGD and conducting final coaching sessions.
Three trainer/facilitators shared the workload during the five day sessions. This allowed
for individualized coaching/consultation for each participant.
Proprietary concerns in both organizations precluded publication of program evaluation
results. Internal assessment did confirm the following: (1) statistically significant
improvement in mean overall LGD scores from day one to day four, (2) participant
confirmation of self-assessed improvement in team leadership behaviors, (3) participant
satisfaction with the training program, and (4) documentation by participant supervisors of
observed improvements in team performance three months after the training program.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 13
The second important factor influencing the decision to utilize the protocol was the
emphasis placed by AACSB (the premier accrediting body for collegiate business schools)
on rigorous, behaviorally–based/competency–based evaluation of learning outcomes at
its member institutions. Given the central role of the team leadership/teamwork course
in the business school, it was imperative to employ a sound evaluation methodology to
monitor student progress. The complete LGD protocol described in this paper is used in
the senior–level team leadership/teamwork course to specifically address the needs of
both employers and the AACSB. Approximately 25-30 students enroll in the course each
semester. A 4-year study is currently underway to collect and analyze team leadership
ratings for the first and second LGD’s from students, their student coaches, and the
instructor. At the conclusion of the fourth year, with a sufficiently large sample, the
formal evaluation will be written-up and submitted for publication. Informal observations
by the instructor and standard course evaluation data provide preliminary evidence that
the LGD protocol is facilitating improvement in team leadership capabilities and has
been well received by students.
Future Research
Empirical and publishable research is needed on the LGD protocol presented in this paper
to rigorously evaluate its effectiveness as a training/education methodology to assess and
develop team leadership behavioral skills. Companies that use the LGD protocol should
agree to allow for the publication/sharing of their evaluation results.
Comprehensive evaluation criteria in business settings should include (1) statistical
comparisons of participant leadership role behaviors in the first and second LDG’s
(2) pre-, post-measures of team leader effectiveness by teammates and superiors for
individuals trained using the LGD protocol, as well as matched control subjects who
were not trained, (3) pre-, post-measures of overall team effectiveness for trained vs.
untrained team leaders, and (4) participant self-ratings of team leadership effectiveness
and satisfaction with the protocol.
As mentioned above, rigorous evaluation research is presently being conducted on the
impact of the LGD protocol on business majors. Once completed, it will provide answers
to questions about the effectiveness of the protocol in educating students about essential
team leader behaviors, as called for by both employers and the AACSB.
References
Bales, R. F. (1950) (a). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction.
American Sociological Review, 15, 257-263.
Bales, R. F. (1950) (b). Interaction Process Analysis: Method for the Study of Small
Groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bass, B. M. (1954). The Leaderless Group Discussion. Psychological Bulletin, 51,
465-492.
Benne, K. D. & Sheats, P. (1948) Functional Roles of Group Members. Journal of Social
Issues, 4, 41-49.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 15
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964) The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishers.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What
Type of Leadership Behaviors are Functional in Teams? A Meta-Analysis. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 288-307.
Casio, W. F. (2006) Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Work Life,
Profits, 7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Fleishman, E.A., Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein,
M. B. (1991) Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior: A Synthesis
and Functional Interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 245-287.
Hobson, C.J. & Kesic, D (2002) A Behavioral Framework for Skills Assessment and
Development in Teamwork Training. International Journal of Management, 19 (2),
147-154.
Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. & Craig, S. B. (2008) Leadership and the Fate of Organizations.
American Psychologist, 63 (2), 96-110.
Likert, R. (1961) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill
Stogdill, R. M. & Coons, A. E. (1957) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Thompson, L. L. (2008) Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Thornton, G. C. III & Rupp, D.E. (2003) Simulations and Assessment Centers. In J.
Thomas (Ed.) Industrial and Organizational Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Thornton, G. C. III & Rupp, D.E. (2006) Assessment Centers and Human Resource
Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yuki, G., Gordon, A. & Taber, T. (2002) A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership
Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.
Copyright of International Journal of Management is the property of International Journal of Management and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.