Nine Empirical Guidelines For Top Leadership Teams In Nonprofit Organizations

Organizations, nonprofit and for-profit alike, are increasingly relying on teams to achieve their various goals (Salas, Stagl and Burke, 2004). An increasing reliance on leadership teams is similarly evident in research and practice (Hambrick, 2007; Morgeson, DeRue and Karam, 2010). And while team and top management team (TMT) research has blossomed in the past 30 years (Carpenter, Geletkanycz and Sanders, 2004; Hambrick, 2007), research on leadership teams in nonprofit organizations (NPOs) is sorely needed (Courtney, Marnoch and Williamson, 2006). It has been argued that the complexity of NPOs in comparison to for-profits (a function of the existence of multiple stakeholders, missions, donors, classes of workers and the saliency of the dual governance system) necessitates even more effective approaches to leadership (Anheier, 2005; Finkelstein, 1992; Jager and Beyes, 2010), and by extension, a more nuanced understanding of the construction and functioning of top leadership teams. NPOs are an increasingly important part of modern society (Anheier, 2005; Ferris, 1998), yet the majority of research focus is placed on for-profit organizations. Concepts and theories from the for-profit world are applicable to NPOs to a certain extent, though research tends to overlook the complexities of the nonprofit world when applying these constructs (Jager and Beyes, 2010). TMTs and corporate boards represent the core leadership teams in NPOs; to understand and facilitate effective leadership in NPOs, it is imperative that we understand the conditions, characteristics and processes that contribute to leadership effectiveness in these teams. Process-based models of teams have guided research and practice in other settings (e.g., Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson and Jundt, 2005; Rosen et al., 2008; Salas, Bowers and Cannon- Bowers, 1995). To this end, we review relevant literature on top leadership teams (i.e., corporate boards and TMTs) in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations, in order to address qualitatively two key questions

Measuring Team Cohesion: Observations From The Science

Objective: The aim of this study was to review literature relevant to cohesion measurement, explore developing measurement approaches, and provide theoretical and practical recommendations for optimizing cohesion measurement. Background: Cohesion is essential for team effectiveness and performance, leading researchers to focus attention on understanding how to enhance it. However, cohesion is inconsistently defined and measured, making it difficult to compare findings across studies and limiting the ability to advance science and practice. Method: We reviewed empirical research through which we uncovered specific information about cohesions conceptualization, measurement, and relationships with performance, culminating in a set of current trends from which we provide suggestions and possible solutions to guide future efforts and help the field converge toward greater consistency. Results: Cohesion demonstrates more significant relationships with performance when conceptualized using social and task (but not other) dimensions and when analyses are performed at the team level. Cohesion is inherently temporal, yet researchers rarely measure cohesion at multiple points during the life of a team. Finally, cohesion matters in large, dynamic collectives, complicating measurement. However, innovative and unobtrusive methodologies are being used, which we highlight. Conclusion: Practitioners and researchers are encouraged to define cohesion with task and social subdimensions and to measure with behavioral and attitudinal operationalizations. Individual and team-oriented items are recommended, though teamlevel analyses are most effective. Innovative/unobtrusive methods should be further researched to enable cohesion measurement longitudinally and in large, dynamic collectives. Application: By applying our findings and conclusions, researchers and practitioners will be more likely to find consistent, reliable, and significant cohesion-to-performance relationships

A Conceptual Review Of Emergent State Measurement: Current Problems, Future Solutions

Team research increasingly incorporates emergent states as an integral mediator between team inputs and outcomes. In conjunction with this, we have witnessed a proliferation and fragmentation of measurement techniques associated with emergent states. This inconsistency in measurement presents a problem for scientists and practitioners alike. For the scientist, it becomes difficult to better understand the nature and effects of various emergent states on team processes and outcomes. For the practitioner, it complicates the process of measurement development, selection, and implementation. To address these issues, we review the literature on emergent states focusing on various measurement strategies, to better unpack best practices. In so doing, we highlight existing research that suggests innovative solutions to the conceptual, methodological, and logistical problems that consistently plague emergent state research. Our aim is to enhance emergent state theory by applying psychometric principles to the measurement techniques associated with them

The Power Of Coaching: A Meta-Analytic Investigation

Coaching is defined as a one-to-one relationship in which the coach and coachee work together to identify and achieve organisationally, professionally, and personally beneficial developmental goals. However, it is often unclear what the relative effects of coaching are on specific coaching outcomes. We adopt meta-analytic techniques to investigate the predictive power of coaching on coach–coachee relationship outcomes, and coachee goal-attainment outcomes. Our findings suggest that coaching has stronger effects on eliciting relationship outcomes with the coachee than goal-attainment outcomes. Moreover, of the goal-attainment outcomes, coaching has the strongest effect on behavioural changes as opposed to attitudinal changes. Sample type, study design, background of the coach, and number of coaching sessions all emerged as significant moderators. Implications of these findings are discussed

Coaching In The Wild: Identifying Factors That Lead To Success

Although executive coaching has been shown to be effective, few research initiatives have attempted to understand the importance of the emergent relationship between a coach and coachee. This article explores the factors that influence coaching outcomes from both the coach and coachee\u27s perspective and presents the results of the mediating effect that working alliance and information sharing have on coachee goal attainment and coachee insight outcomes. The authors explored these factors in both an academic coachee sample as well as an executive field sample. Results showed that coachee motivation was significantly positively related with coachee goal attainment and coachee insight in an academic sample but not in a field sample. Moreover, working alliance and information sharing partially mediated the relationship between a coach\u27s psychological mindedness and coachee insight in an academic, but not field, sample. Another notable result was that the difficulty of the coaching goal did not impact how successful the coaching engagement was in terms of goal attainment. Implications of these findings for both research and practice are discussed

Measuring Team Cohesion

Objective: The aim of this study was to review literature relevant to cohesion measurement, explore developing measurement approaches, and provide theoretical and practical recommendations for optimizing cohesion measurement. Background: Cohesion is essential for team effectiveness and performance, leading researchers to focus attention on understanding how to enhance it. However, cohesion is inconsistently defined and measured, making it difficult to compare findings across studies and limiting the ability to advance science and practice. Method: We reviewed empirical research through which we uncovered specific information about cohesions conceptualization, measurement, and relationships with performance, culminating in a set of current trends from which we provide suggestions and possible solutions to guide future efforts and help the field converge toward greater consistency. Results: Cohesion demonstrates more significant relationships with performance when conceptualized using social and task (but not other) dimensions and when analyses are performed at the team level. Cohesion is inherently temporal, yet researchers rarely measure cohesion at multiple points during the life of a team. Finally, cohesion matters in large, dynamic collectives, complicating measurement. However, innovative and unobtrusive methodologies are being used, which we highlight. Conclusion: Practitioners and researchers are encouraged to define cohesion with task and social subdimensions and to measure with behavioral and attitudinal operationalizations. Individual and team-oriented items are recommended, though teamlevel analyses are most effective. Innovative/unobtrusive methods should be further researched to enable cohesion measurement longitudinally and in large, dynamic collectives. Application: By applying our findings and conclusions, researchers and practitioners will be more likely to find consistent, reliable, and significant cohesion-to-performance relationships