اثر سبک رهبری، ناشناس ماندن، و پاداش ها در فرآیندهای خلاقیت-مرتبط و نتایج در زمینه سیستم نشست الکترونیکی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|27002||2003||26 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 14, Issues 4–5, August–October 2003, Pages 499–524
Thirty-nine student groups participated in a laboratory experiment conducted to study the effects of leadership style (transactional vs. transformational), anonymity (identified vs. anonymous interaction), and rewards (individual vs. group) on creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes in two decision-making tasks supported by an electronic meeting system (EMS). Evidence for social loafing was observed, i.e., anonymity led to lower participation and cooperation in the group rewards condition relative to the individual rewards condition. Further analysis revealed that social loafing was confined to the transactional leadership condition. Corresponding to the social loafing effect, anonymity led to lower group efficacy and satisfaction with the task and higher originality of solutions in the group rewards condition relative to the individual rewards condition. Transactional leadership was associated with greater group efficacy and solution originality than transformational leadership. Anonymity moderated the effects of leadership on group efficacy and satisfaction with the task; transactional leadership was associated with higher group efficacy and satisfaction with the task in the identified condition only.
Organizational leaders are under pressure to find ways to increase creativity in their organizations due to increasing globalization, competition, and pace of technological change. Leaders have at their disposal various means to influence creativity in their organizations (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Leaders could influence their followers' creativity by altering their leadership style Jung & Avolio, 1999, Kahai et al., 1997, Sosik et al., 1997, Sosik et al., 1998 and Sosik et al., 1998. However, in spite of the potential for a leader's behavior to influence creativity in organizations, studies examining the effects of a leader's behavior on followers' creativity have not been very common (Mumford et al., 2002). A leader may also employ collaborative group technology such as electronic meeting systems (EMS) to increase their followers' creativity (Nunamaker, Briggs, Mittleman, Vogel, & Balthazard, 1997). EMS provide features such as anonymity and parallel communication to overcome communication barriers such as evaluation apprehension and domination by a few that typically affect the generation of creative ideas in unsupported groups. They may also provide features that help the generation of creative ideas by providing support for structuring the group process. These features include agenda setting and suggest a “normative” process to the group. Several studies that examined the effects of leadership behaviors on followers' creative processes and outcomes have been conducted with EMS-supported groups (e.g., Kahai et al., 1997, Sosik et al., 1997, Sosik et al., 1998 and Sosik et al., 1998). These preliminary studies suggest that leadership styles, such as transformational, transactional, participative, and directive, may interact with EMS features, such as anonymity, to influence creativity-relevant processes and outcomes. To influence a group's creativity-relevant processes and outcomes, a leader may also provide rewards to group members depending on their contributions (Mumford et al., 2002). Group members may be rewarded for their individual contributions, their group's contribution, or for both an individual and group's contributions (Wageman, 1995). The distribution of rewards may play an important role in determining a group's creativity-relevant processes and outcomes through its interaction with other factors defining the group, its task, or its operating conditions (Slavin, 1991). These factors include the ability of group members to identify each other's contributions—a condition determined by the configuration of the EMS that the group may be employing. For instance, group members may be more likely to loaf when their contributions are anonymous and the whole group's contribution is evaluated instead of individual contributions. Social loafing represents a process loss, which may reduce a group's level of creativity (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). The three factors identified above as being under a leader's control, i.e., leadership style, use of an EMS, and rewards, may interact with each other to influence creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes (Nunamaker et al., 1997). For example, transformational leaders are likely to be more effective than transactional leaders at inspiring followers to identify with a mission while rallying them to work together to achieve higher performance (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Thus, relative to transactional leaders, transformational leaders may activate intrinsic motivation mechanisms in group members to encourage their creativity (Amabile, 1996). Transformational leaders may also discourage social loafing that might occur when group members provide input anonymously and the whole group's contribution is evaluated instead of individual contributions (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). Despite suggestions by past research (e.g., Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995 and Nunamaker et al., 1997), prior research has not examined how a group leader's style, when combined with EMS features and rewards, might influence a group's processes and outcomes in EMS contexts. Nor has there been prior research to evaluate whether the types of rewards (i.e., individual vs. group) interact with anonymity produced by an EMS to influence social loafing in EMS-supported groups. The present study begins to address these issues. Specifically, this study examines the effects of leadership style (transactional vs. transformational), anonymity provided by an EMS (identified vs. anonymous interaction), and rewards (individual vs. group) on creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes. Fig. 1 shows the general model for this study. The focus of this study is to examine how leadership style interacts with anonymity, how rewards interact with anonymity, and how leadership affects the interaction of rewards and anonymity. We chose transactional and transformational leadership styles for this study because, as described later, they differ in terms of how they interact with anonymity and rewards to motivate creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes.The creativity-relevant group processes examined in this study are frequency of cooperation and amount of participation. Cooperation, defined as behaviors that help a group advance its thinking, includes (a) seeking help from others by asking questions, (b) helping others by clarifying the problem or a range of solutions, and (c) assessment of peer input Hamblin et al., 1971, Slavin, 1987, Slavin, 1990, Slavin, 1991, Slavin, 1996 and Webb, 1985. Such behaviors are considered as creativity relevant because they can influence cognitive pathways followed by group members in pursuit of creative solutions Ruscio et al., 1998 and Taggar, 2002. Cooperation is related to elaboration, which refers to clarification or addition of details to a problem or solution and is used to measure creativity (e.g., Sosik et al., 1998 and Torrance, 1965). Amount of participation represents the level of effort that group's members make to execute its task. Participation is related to fluency, a measure of creativity that refers to the total number of ideas generated Sosik et al., 1998 and Torrance, 1965. Participation is also related to cooperation because the presentation of ideas by a member makes those ideas available to other group members to comment on, consider, and embellish, thereby potentially improving group creativity and performance Nijhof & Kommers, 1985, Slavin, 1978 and Taggar, 2002. Conversely, lack of participation may indicate competition (Pepitone, 1985). Competing group members may hesitate to participate because they perceive their contributions may be embellished and presented by other members as their own. Hereafter, frequency of cooperation and amount of participation are simply referred to as cooperation and participation. This study examined the following outcome variables associated with group creativity: (a) originality of solutions, (b) group efficacy, (c) satisfaction with the task, and (d) satisfaction with the leader. While originality of solutions is an indicator of creativity, the other variables are also related to creativity as determinants of future creative activity by the group. Lower levels of group efficacy and satisfaction with the task or the leader are likely to be associated with lower motivation of group members to work together as a group in the future, especially for creative tasks that tend to be unstructured and ambiguous (Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George, 1991). Additionally, group efficacy predicts future levels of creativity in groups (Sosik et al., 1997) and satisfaction with the task and the leader can build a positive collective socioemotional psychological state or mood that fosters high levels of future creativity (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2000).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The findings from this study highlight the sociotechnical nature of effects on creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes in an EMS setting. Effects in an EMS setting are not determined entirely by technical features of an EMS, such as anonymity, but by the interaction of technical features with social factors, such as leadership and rewards (Avolio et al., 2000). It is interesting to note that using EMS to study leadership effects represents one of the purest examinations of leadership effects. Specifically, in this study, leadership was manipulated only with transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. In addition, through this “pure” manipulation of leadership, without any confounding caused by other facets of a leader, such as demographics, impression management, and nonverbal cues, we found that social loafing arising out of the combination of anonymity and group rewards existed under transactional leadership but not under transformational leadership. It is also interesting to note that the leadership manipulation in this study was a relatively “weak” manipulation, because the leaders were not members of their groups and were merely there to facilitate the group process. Additionally, they had no credibility established from prior interactions. We expect more profound effects of leadership on creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes when the leader is a member of the group, has credibility established from prior interactions, and facilitates both the process and the content of group interaction. 6.1. Implication This study offers several practical implications for enhancing creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes of EMS-supported groups performing decision-making tasks of short duration. First, to increase solution originality and group efficacy, a group leader should, at least initially, display transactional behaviors. This suggestion parallels that from the virtual team literature, which recommends transactional behaviors of setting clear expectations early on during a team's process, thereby setting the course for effective performance (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998). It should be noted that our suggestion of employing transactional leadership to increase creativity in EMS-supported groups differs from that following from Jung's (2001) work of face-to-face groups. Jung's work suggests that leaders display transformational leadership to increase creativity. Second, when leaders are interested in managing social loafing during an EMS-supported exchange of creative ideas among group members, they should pay close attention to how leadership style, anonymity, and rewards interact to affect that creative exchange. For instance, when anonymity is employed, a change from a system of individual rewards to a system of group rewards may lead to social loafing under a transactional leader. Tendency to loaf may be overcome by having a group leader display transformational behaviors. Third, when leaders are interested in enhancing the performance of their groups' future creative activities in EMS settings, they should consider aligning their leadership style with anonymity. If communication is identified, then to enhance group efficacy and satisfaction with the task, both of which are likely to determine future creativity as discussed earlier, a group's leader should display transactional behaviors. For anonymous communication, results suggest that either type of leadership style may be appropriate for enhancing group efficacy and satisfaction with the task. 6.2. Limitations and future research Several limitations of the current study suggest avenues to be explored in future research. First, the study was conducted using ad hoc student groups. Future research should attempt to replicate and extend the findings of the current study using intact organizational groups with a history of prior interaction and expectations of future interactions. Second, group members interacted with each other for a relatively short period of time. Future longitudinal research should examine whether the current study's results are reproduced over longer periods of time because of the potential of group processes to change over time (Walther, 1995). Third, generalization of the current study's findings is limited to tasks involving ethical dilemmas, which might create subtle nuances in how group members interact with each other to generate solutions. Future research should examine the effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on group processes and outcomes using other tasks in McGrath's (1984) task circumplex. Fourth, transformational leadership in the current study did not include “idealized” influence or charisma, which is considered to be a major component of transformational leadership. Future research should extend the current study by including this component of transformational leadership. Fifth, leaders in the current study exhibited behaviors that were predominantly transactional or transformational. The combination of these styles is often optimal for performance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Future research should examine effects of leaders who combine both leadership styles. Another limitation of this study is that its assessment of creativity in groups was limited to originality of solutions proposed by the groups. Studies of creativity also tend to employ quality of solutions as a measure of creativity. Future research should examine whether the study's results about creativity generalize when quality of solutions is used as a measure of creativity. Despite these limitations, we believe that this study elucidates how social (leadership style and reward structure) and technical (anonymity) factors interact to influence creativity-relevant group processes and outcomes in computer-mediated contexts. Due to increasing interest in leadership training and group rewards in promoting creativity and innovation Cascio, 1995 and Taggar, 2002 and use of electronic communication media in organizations around the world, continued research seems timely and warranted.