Read the following article by Heller, J., Notgrass, D., & Conner, C. (2017) and critique the research in terms of the design chosen to answer the research question: overall design; the population, sample, and sampling plan; data collection instrument (including validity and reliability discussions for instrumentation); data analysis; threats to internal/external validity (credibility/transferability) and ethical concerns.
Research article title: Heller, J., Notgrass, D., & Conner, C. (2017). Moderators to the relationship between leaders' inspirational behaviors and followers' extra effort. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 14(1), 36-55.
The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Knowledge Sharing and Performance 35 International Journal of Management and Human Resources, Volume 4, Number 1, Winter 2016 THE MODERATING EFFECT OF SATISFACTION WITH THE LEADER ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEAM DYNAMICS AND FOLLOWER’S EXTRA EFFORT David Notgrass Jacob Heller Tarleton State University Charlene Conner University of North Texas at Dallas ABSTRACT This study, using data from small, fast-forming, short-duration team contexts, examined the moderating effect of the level of group members’ satisfaction with their group leader on the relationship between group cohesion and extra effort, as well as on the relationship between satisfaction with the group and extra effort. The results revealed that team members’ level of satisfaction with their team leader moderated the level of group cohesion (independent variable) and the level of extra effort (dependent variable) relationship as well as the employee level of satisfaction with the group (dependent variable) and the level of extra effort (dependent variable) relationship. In addition, the two variables group cohesion and satisfaction with the group gave good prediction of employee extra effort in both high and low levels of satisfaction with group leader conditions. Keywords: Leadership, group cohesion, group satisfaction, extra effort INTRODUCTION The study of small groups has been a popular topic of researchers for decades. A central pursuit of these studies has been to identify the attributes of small groups that lead to small group performance and success (Beal et al., 2003). This is perhaps due to the important role that small groups play in modern business (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Small group cohesion in the work place has been a topic of particular interest. In addition to the almost innumerable studies that investigated cohesion in small groups, a number of ‘state of the topic’ articles and meta-analyses were also completed (Beal et al., 2003; Drescher, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 2012; Evans & Dion, 2012; Greer, 2012). A common research goal of many of these studies was to investigate the relationship between group cohesion and performance (Evans & Dion, 2012). Phillips, Douthitt, and Hyland (2001) wrote that while work teams are commonly used to increase productivity and effectiveness in the workplace, they commonly do not achieve the goals or expected results for which they were created. The small group literature suggests that group performance may be related to affective factors such as long-term commitment, cohesion, and satisfaction (Phillips, Douthitt, & Hyland, 2001). Further, considerable evidence exists to suggest that these affective factors play a salient role in group success. Group cohesion has consistently been a predictor of group performance. A meta-analysis completed by Evans and Dion (2012) demonstrated that cohesive groups performed eighteen percentile points above non-cohesive groups. Satisfaction in small groups is another affective factor that seems to influence success in small work groups. While there is relatively little in the current literature that investigates 36 International Journal of Management and Human Resources, Volume 4, Number 1, Winter 2016 satisfaction with leader specifically, Morgeson, DeRue, and Karam (2010) noted that the role of leaders and leadership as related to group success is a relatively new and popular research focus. While they do not discuss satisfaction with leader from the group member perspective, they conceptualized team leadership as “the process of team need satisfaction in the service of enhancing team effectiveness” and argued that “team leadership is fundamentally oriented around the satisfaction of critical team needs” (p. 8). The literature suggests that leader behavior is associated with satisfaction. Team members reported greater satisfaction with the leader when the leader demonstrated supportive action, facilitated positive working relationships, solved conflict, worked to build team cohesion, empowered group members and demonstrated consideration. (Phillips, Douthitt, & Hyland, 2001; Pirola-Merlo, Hartel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002). This study investigates group cohesion and satisfaction with group as predictors of extra effort in small, fast-forming, short-duration work groups. Further, satisfaction with leader was tested as a moderator of group cohesion and extra effort and satisfaction with group and extra effort. As these relations have not been investigated in the current literature the results of this study will yield new information for this critical topic. LITERATURE REVIEW Team Dynamics Teams are often understood to be comprised of two or more individuals who interact toward a common goal, with each performing an assigned function or role maintained within a limited time-frame (Salas et al., 1992). Team dynamics has been described as a field of inquiry dedicated to advancing knowledge about the nature of teams, their laws of development, and their interrelations with individuals and other groups. The size of the team and the overall duration of the team life-span are two significant characteristics of the team and may be used to distinguish the team dynamics (Cartwright, 1968). This study reflects small, fast-forming, short- duration teams’ team dynamics at the individual membership level. Examples of team dynamics at the member level include team members’ perception of group cohesion, their level of individual satisfaction with the group and satisfaction with the group leader. While each of these variables can be measured independently, their relations to each other and to other measures that describe their effect on the individuals’ actions (for example, levels of extra effort) can also be observed. Satisfaction with Group Cohen and Bailey (1997) stressed the importance that practitioners and academics alike place on effective teams for organizational success in the “modern” economy (p. 239). Phillips, Douthitt, and Hyland (2001) argued that, despite this fact, teams sometimes fail to accomplish expected goals and objectives. They further argued that, as this is the case, team effectiveness models must group satisfaction and other affective factors as crucial team outcomes. Nearly a decade ago, Peeters, et al. (2006) argued that understanding the drivers and impact of individual satisfaction in work groups is increasingly important as the use of small work groups and teams to accomplish business goals and objectives is becoming progressively more dominant in organizations. While the salience of the study of work groups is clear, understanding the antecedents of work group effectiveness and satisfaction within work groups remains murky (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). This murkiness sparked a renewal of interest in studying 37 International Journal of Management and Human Resources, Volume 4, Number 1, Winter 2016 the precursors of work group effectiveness and work group satisfaction in the 1990s that remains popular today. Historically, the struggle to understand predictors of satisfaction in work groups was related to the lack of consensus in defining, explaining or measuring group satisfaction in the literature (Keyton, 1991). He recommended measuring this construct with both global and situational items in naturally occurring groups without imposing hypothetical interactions. Peeters, Rutte, van Tuijl, and Reymen (2006) investigated and measured satisfaction with work group by examining Big Five Personality traits of the group members. Though consensus on defining, explaining, and measuring group satisfaction has not been reached, Keyton (1991) provided a list of factors correlated with group satisfaction in task groups. These characteristics are status consensus or establishing of an agreed hierarchy within the group, perceived progress towards the group goal, and fairness in participation. Notwithstanding this difficulty, a number of correlations exist between satisfaction with group and group cohesion (Martens & Peterson, 1971; Picazo, Gamero, Zornoza, & Piero, 2015), group effectiveness (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), group effort (Gastil, Burkhalter, & Black, 2007), final performance rating (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002), and team decision making (de la Torre-Ruiz, Ferron-Vilchez, & Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2014). Notably absent from the current literature are studies that explore group satisfaction as a predictor of work group outcomes, including extra effort from individual group members. This study examined this direct relation as well as the same relation as moderated by satisfaction with the leader in small, fast- forming, short-duration work groups. Satisfaction with Leader Most current definitions of leadership include the concept that leadership is a process whereby leaders influence followers’ thoughts and/or behavior (Northouse, 2013; Yukl, 2002). At the practitioner level, we can look at specific leadership behaviors and their correlations with team dynamics including group cohesion and group conflict. Leadership behaviors can be measured using questionnaires that both measure specific behaviors and group them into scales reflecting transactional, transformational, and leadership avoidance concepts (Yukl, 2002). Both transactional and transformational leadership can be considered as using exchanges (transactions) between the leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Material exchanges are exemplified as exchanging one thing for another, such as the material compensation exchanged for fulfillment of the requirements. Social exchanges are more directed toward the development and growth of the follower, may be more inspirational in nature, and are exemplified by aligning the goals of the follower, leader, and the organization (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Leaders using a transactional style, based on material exchange relationships, help to clarify expectations for follower’s effort and achievement (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). For example, team leaders that define/update the work agenda, work assignments, performance metrics, and task timeline are exhibiting transactional leadership behaviors. Transformational leadership, representing more of a form of social exchange relationships, challenges followers to assess higher level values and behaviors (Burns, 1978). Team leaders that speak to the significance of the team roles and objectives and the link between then and the values of the leader, and spend time ensuring the professional development of the team members are exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors. Bass (1998) suggested that transactional 38 International Journal of Management and Human Resources, Volume 4, Number 1, Winter 2016 leadership creates trust, dependability, and perceptions of consistency, which in turn form the basis of transformational leadership. Leadership avoidant leaders are inactive leaders that avoid making decisions and become involved only after problems become chronic. Leader performance of the aforementioned behaviors helps to create satisfaction among