Transformational Leadership and Inter-Team Collaboration

Abstract

We develop and test a model of the effects of transformational leadership beyond the boundaries of a team to the level of collaboration with other teams. We also test team size as a boundary condition in this relationship. In a study using a crisscross design to control common method bias, using a sample of 388 teams from a leading, global electronics company, the results from structural equation modeling (SEM) reveal that teams with transformational leaders are more likely to have higher internal teamwork quality (TWQ) and receive high inter-team collaboration ratings from other teams. Results further support the expectation that the association between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration is mediated by TWQ and moderated by team size. The importance of transformational leadership for team-level research, as well as its hidden benefits beyond internal team boundaries, is discussed.

Keywords

transformational leadership teamwork quality inter-team collaboration team size

Since the pioneering work of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), collaboration between work units has been recognized as a significant predictor of organizational effectiveness in operational contexts requiring interdependence between teams, departments, and functional areas (Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Gupta, Raj, & Wilemon, 1986; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Souder, 1981). Within firms structured around team-based organization, inter-team collaboration has been recognized as a critical performance driver; teams have to function interdependently with other organizational teams (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2010; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005; Yan & Louis, 1999). Inter-team collaboration is defined as the degree of a team’s collaboration with other teams in a company, where teams are interdependent with regard to operational functioning and the pursuit of superordinate organizational goals (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004; Kahn, 1996).

Although the utility of inter-team collaboration has long been recognized, the field has been relatively silent regarding the impact of leadership for achieving inter-team collaborative effectiveness. More recently, however, empirical research has revealed potential benefits of team-level transformational leadership for achieving team performance (Purvanova & Bono, 2009; Schaubroech, Lam, & Cha, 2007), team innovation (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008), research and development (R&D) project performance (Keller, 2006), team proactive performance (Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2010), and team collaboration (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2003). This growing body of research led to the question of the role played by transformational leadership for achieving inter-team collaboration. We propose here that transformational leadership may catalyze inter-team collaboration because transformational leaders actively engage in external coordination activity (Howell & Shea, 2006), influence team members to transcend their own interests, and contribute to the creation of a collaboration culture (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998). Our principal objective in this research is to examine team-level associations between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration.

The association we examine also led to a second question: What mechanism explains the relationship between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration? Transformational leaders may influence the degree of inter-team collaboration directly. However, we suspect that given the impact transformational leadership has on group-level processes (DeGroot, Eden, & Cross, 2000; Wang & Howell, 2010), there is a strong likelihood that transformational leadership enhances internal team processes that manifest in inter-team collaboration. We offer that one such internal team process is teamwork quality (TWQ), broadly reflecting the quality of members’ intra-team interactions (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004). We argue that TWQ plays a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration.

Furthermore, we also propose team size as a boundary condition of this relationship. Relatively little research has focused on the contingent effects of team size, despite the fact that team size is a recognized driver of team processes (Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996). Thus, we propose that inter-team collaboration is indirectly affected by transformational leadership via the mediating role of TWQ while team size plays a moderating role throughout the team effectiveness process (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Graphical depiction of the hypothesized relationships.

Background and Theoretical Development

Inter-team collaboration is defined as the degree of a team’s intra-organizational collaboration with other teams (Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004; Kahn, 1996). Within team-based organizations, it is critical that teams align their efforts with other teams with which they are task or goal interdependent to achieve organization-critical outcomes. Without coordinated inter-team efforts, it is possible for teams to be successful and yet for the organization to fail (DeChurch & Marks, 2006). The current study focuses on the collaboration between teams as an intra-organizational team-level phenomenon.

Theoretically, inter-team collaboration is based on a collaborative philosophy. Ongoing inter-team relationships are stressed and strategic alignment is emphasized through a shared cooperative vision (Kahn, 1996). Inter-team collaboration can be enhanced by inter-team boundary-spanning activities such as coordinating (Ancona & Caldwell, 1998; Yan & Louis, 1999), and can translate into higher organizational performance under conditions of high inter-team task and goal interdependence (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2010).

Little conceptual or empirical research speaks directly to the association between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration. However, in team-based organizations, transformational team leadership can facilitate inter-team collaboration. There are several mechanisms contributing to the association between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration.

First, the most critical consequence of transformational leadership is helping followers to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose (Bass, 1985; Howell & Higgins, 1990), which in interdependent team contexts depends on collaboration between teams. Second, another consequence of transformational leadership is the development of a collaboration philosophy through seeking collective goals, increasing mutual understanding, emphasizing a common vision, and promoting esprit de corps (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998). Thus, transformational leadership is likely to help members appreciate the importance of—and respond to the implied imperatives of—team-based organization in cooperative (rather than competitive) ways. Third, transformational leadership also may contribute to the development of collaborative relationships with other teams through active engagement in external coordinating activities. External coordinating activities refer to team’s collaboration, coordination, negotiation, and the provision of feedback critical to the management of team interdependence (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2010). These activities promote greater harmony in work with other teams in the organization (Somech & Khalaili, 2014). Because transformational leadership encompasses external boundary activities such as task coordination and communication between teams (Howell & Shea, 2006), transformational leadership should contribute to the establishment of collaborative relationships with other interdependent teams, leading to the following prediction:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively associated with inter-team collaboration

Transformational Leadership and TWQ

Hoegl et al. (2004) argued that TWQ is a general indicator of “a team’s ability for task-related interaction and networking” (p. 43). TWQ captures the quality of interactions within teams, encompassing six facets of the collaborative process—communication, coordination, balance of member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Briefly, communication is the degree that team members frequently, informally, directly, and openly communicate with one another. Coordination is the extent that individual efforts are well structured and synchronized. Balance of team member contribution reflects whether members apply their expertise to team tasks to their full potential. Mutual support is the degree to which team members support and help each other in carrying out team tasks. Effort refers to whether team members exert high levels of effort toward the accomplishment of team tasks. Finally, cohesion is defined as the motivation members have to maintain the team’s composition, capturing an underlying esprit de corps. The six facets of TWQ capture both task-related and social interactions, reflective of the quality of a team’s collaborative work, rather than the content of its exchanges (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).

We expect that the quality of internal teamwork (TWQ) is enhanced by transformational leadership. Transformational team leaders, by developing and articulating a clear vision, can provide members with positive expectation and an exciting image of an organization’s future (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leadership increases team cohesion because the leader’s vision is likely to be shared among team members (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spanger, 2004).

Transformational team leadership also builds a sense of empowerment among members through attentiveness, listening, coaching, and supporting behaviors (Spreitzer, 1995). Empowered members are likely to coordinate their efforts with a greater sense of purpose, autonomy, and responsibility. Empowered team members also are more likely to balance their contributions and provide one another with mutual support. Transformational leaders intellectually stimulate members by acting as teachers who prod and question, inducing followers to communicate openly and exert effort to produce innovative solutions (Keller, 2006).

These anticipated consequences of transformation are buoyed by empirical evidence that transformational leadership is positively associated with outcomes such as cohesiveness and communication (Pillai & Williams, 2004; Stashevsky & Koslowsky, 2006). For example, Yang, Huang, and Wu (2011) reported that transformational project managers improve team communication, member collaboration, and team cohesiveness. Thus, we expect transformational leadership contributes to TWQ.

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership is positively associated with TWQ.

TWQ and Inter-Team Collaboration

We propose that TWQ itself is predictive of collaboration with other teams as a consequence of a carryover effect (Hackman, 1987; Keenan & Carnevale, 1989; Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998), which is the transfer of learning associated with intra-team effectiveness and coordination to inter-team effectiveness (Keenan & Carnevale, 1989). Research suggests that cross-functional R&D team with high TWQ engage in more inter-team collaboration (Hoegl et al., 2004). Although cross-functional teams may experience communication barriers arising from functional difference among team members (Griffin & Hauser, 1996), teams that overcome these difficulties through high-quality intra-team processes are also likely to carry the learning experience of working with others from different backgrounds to their inter-team collaborations as well (Hoegl et al., 2004).

Extending this line of research, we theorize that the carryover effect may extend beyond cross-functional teams in particular to team contexts in general. TWQ is assumed to be a general indicator of a team’s capability for task-related interaction and social networking (Hoegl et al., 2004). Because the experience of cooperation within team processes tends to carry over into the collaborative tasks or interactive processes between teams (Keenan & Carnevale, 1989), teams characterized by high TWQ also should be more likely to coordinate with other interdependent teams to enhance both their own team’s and broader organizational performance outcomes. Consistent with this expectation, Ancona (1990) reported that high-quality intra-team relationships are positively related to productive interactions with outside groups.

Thus, we re-examine the carryover hypothesis originally framed in the context of cross-functional teams by Hoegl et al. (2004). We extend this frame to “teams” in general by controlling other types of within-team diversity, in addition to functional diversity: functional area, education, gender, and tenure diversity. Because TWQ captures a within-team capacity to work collaboratively, this ability should reveal itself in contexts where team members need to work with others regardless of within-team demographic differences. Thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: TWQ is positively associated with inter-team collaboration, controlling within-team demographic diversity.

Mediating Role of TWQ

In conjunction with the conceptual architecture undergirding the predictions made in Hypotheses 2 and 3, a coherent conceptual extension is the expectation that the effect of transformational leadership on inter-team collaboration is mediated by TWQ. When team leaders display transformational leadership behaviors, it is more likely that followers will improve the quality of their intra-team communication and coordination, have fewer emotional conflicts, and focus on common goals (Dionne et al., 2004). The enhanced TWQ that emerges as a function of fewer emotional conflicts and greater focus on effort toward collective goals should help teams create a shared response in dealing with other teams. Because of carryover effects of learning and practice of successful intra-team interactions, teams will interact with other teams as good representatives for, and responsible agents of their own team. At the other end of the spectrum, teams with low TWQ—including poor intra-team coordination and experienced failures in the management of individual conflicts—will likely be less effective in dealing with other teams.

Within the context of team-based organization, transformational leaders are likely not only to increase their own team effectiveness by enhancing TWQ but also to strengthen overall organizational effectiveness. When teams are interdependent with other teams, team leaders have to provide a collective goal aligned with the organization’s overall performance objectives (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2010). Thus, TWQ driven by transformational leadership is likely to lead to inter-team collaboration, benefitting broader organizational effectiveness goals.

Hypothesis 4: TWQ mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration.

Moderating Role of Team Size

Finally, these relationships are likely to depend significantly on the context within which teams operate. As a component of team composition, team size can be viewed not only as a catalyst of team dynamics but also as a context that moderates behavioral or social phenomena (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Although large teams often operate in functionally dissimilar ways compared with small teams (Hoegl, 2005), the role of team size as a contextual moderator has received only limited attention in the literature. Below, we theorize that team size affects relationships between TWQ, transformational leadership, and inter-team collaboration.

Research suggests that team size may be a liability from the perspective of building TWQ (Wheelan, 2009). For example, Hoegl (2005) reported that larger teams frequently suffer from poor TWQ, whereas Gratton and Erickson (2007) reported that when team size expands beyond 20 members, inter-member cooperation tends to decline. As team size increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to coordinate interactions among members because of inherent complexities in large-number interactions (Bradner, Mark, & Hertel, 2005).

Although it is harder to catalyze TWQ in large teams, we argue that the effect of transformational leadership on TWQ should be stronger as team size increases. As team size increases, the amount of communication initiated by individual team members decreases (Wheelan, 2009). The strength of the impact of transformational leadership on TWQ is more pronounced in larger teams because larger teams require greater coordination than smaller teams. Consistent with this expectation, Gratton and Erickson (2007) also reported that the impact of leader modeling of collaborative behavior is stronger in larger teams. Thus, transformational leadership is likely to have a stronger effect on TWQ as team size increases, leading to the following prediction:

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between transformational leadership and TWQ is moderated by team size such that the relationship is stronger in larger teams.

Team size should also influence the carryover effect of TWQ to inter-team collaboration. The influence of team size on the direction of moderation, however, will be reversed from what we predict in Hypothesis 5. Specifically, in large teams, because of complexities inherent to large numbers of people, the coordination hurdle is higher than in smaller teams. Even if TWQ is high in larger teams, because of coordination requirements (e.g., confirmation of information among additional team members, additional time needed to process information, more roles to be finalized in deploying members to help other teams; Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West, 2001), there will be less opportunity for TWQ to spill over to inter-team collaboration than in smaller teams. Because of their relatively higher levels of agility, TWQ will be more efficiently converted to inter-team collaboration in smaller teams. Thus we predict,

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between TWQ and inter-team collaboration is moderated by team size such that the relationship is weaker in larger teams.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Data used in this study were collected from a division of a South Korean global electronics company that has pioneered the development of innovations in electronic components, modules, devices, and systems for mobile communications, computers, and digital media. Each division is composed of several strategic business units (SBUs) organized around a team-based structure. Each SBU has a maximum of three layers of formal hierarchy depending on team size and task characteristics. The first layer is defined by function, such as production and marketing group, with a few special task forces. The second layer is defined by sub-groups, such as different production line sub-groups and regional marketing sub-groups. In some cases, the second layer is divided by sections, when sub-groups get too large or complex to be managed by a single unit.

Teams in the organization are formally grouped in consideration of task interdependence, goal orientation, team size, and functional linkage to other teams. The majority of teams in this company (a) exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, (b) exhibit task interdependence with other teams, (c) maintain and manage boundaries, and (d) are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the organization (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).

Although team size tends to depend on hierarchical level, each team is recognized as a terminal organizational unit. Each team has its own goals that are aligned with company direction, and is also assigned joint goals with other teams to satisfy customer needs and increase market share. Therefore, as a formal stipulation of their employment, team members interact with internal team members and also collaborate with various external team members within the company. Consistent with the company’s innovation-focused posture, it has implemented numerous change management, teamwork, and leadership training programs to enhance a collaborative philosophy.

The questionnaire used in this study was first prepared in English, and following world-class translation–back translation procedures (Brislin, 1986) translated into Korean by the authors and the company’s human resource (HR) team (Brislin, 1986). The Korean version was reviewed by a panel of bilingual translators to assess its clarity and iteratively revised based on the panel’s suggestions.

Study data were gathered via an intranet-based email survey delivered only to employees who worked for the company in South Korea for at least 1 year. When they responded to the surveys, the names of all formal organizational teams were listed to identify the team they interacted with most frequently, and the team they belonged to also was specified to evaluate TWQ and the transformational leadership of their team leader (by specifying the team they belong to, the team leader also can be automatically identified).

From the initial pool of potential respondents, 18,350 questionnaires were returned (64.3% response rate). The sample in this study was comprised of 388 teams. The average team size in the sample was 46.75, confirming a notable aspect of management in Korea of larger team size compared with the West. Lee and Kim (2001) reported that 72.3% of Korean firms used “large” teams. On average, participants were 29.6 years of age (SD = 6.4) with 7.3 years of job tenure (SD = 5.5). The sample was 38.8% female. In terms of education, just more than half (51.1%) of the participants were high school graduates, 10.1% had a degree from a 2-year college, 27.6% held degrees from a 4-year college, 8.4% held master’s degrees, and 2.7% held doctoral degrees. Respondents belonged to six different functional areas; 35.0% came from R&D, 34.2% came from production, 21.5% came from operations, 6.9% came from general affairs, 2.1% came from marketing, and 0.2% came from other areas.

Team members provided ratings of transformational leadership of their leader and TWQ of their teams. To avoid common-source variance between TWQ and leadership ratings, we incorporated a “criss-cross” design (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). We randomly divided teams in half, into Groups A and B. Leadership was measured using responses from Group A, TWQ was measured using responses from Group B. Inter-team collaboration of a focal team came from multiple individuals’ ratings from other teams.

Measures

Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership was measured using the 23-item scale from the transformational leadership inventory (TLI) developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). Group A participants responded to the items in the TLI using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This scale captures six dimensions of transformational leadership: identifying and articulating a vision (five items; for example, “inspires others with his/her plans for the future”), providing an appropriate model (three items; for example, “provides a good model for me to follow”), fostering the acceptance of group goals (four items; for example, “gets the group to work together for the same goal”), high performance expectations (three items; for example, “shows us that he/she expects a lot from us”), providing individualized support (four items; for example, “shows respect for my personal feelings”), and intellectual stimulation (four items; for example, “challenges me to think about old problems in new ways”).

We calculated statistics to ensure that aggregation was appropriate: inter-team member agreement or Rwg (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), which indicates the extent to which team members agree on the level of leadership within their team. Team members showed high inter-rater agreement for transformational leadership (M Rwg = .88). We also calculated two additional measures: intra-class correlations coefficients ICC(1) and ICC(2). ICC(1) and ICC(2) of the transformational leadership were .11 and .71, respectively. Not only are these ICC values acceptable for aggregation (Bliese, 2000; McGraw & Wong, 1996), but the ICC(2) values (which indicate the reliability of the aggregated means) are significantly larger than ICC(1) values. This finding suggests that using more than one rating improves measurement reliability (James et al., 1984).

TWQ

TWQ was measured using 20 items from Hoegl and Gemuenden’s (2001) TWQ scale. This scale captures six dimensions of TWQ. Items used to measure balance of member contribution (3 items) included, “All team members were equally engaged to achieve the common goals.” Mutual support (4 items) was measured with items including, “Suggestions and contributions of team members were respected.” Coordination (3 items) was measured with items including, “The work done on subtasks within the project was closely harmonized.” Cohesion (2 items) was measured with items including, “There was personal attraction between the members of our team.” Effort (3 items) was measured with items including, “Every team member fully pushed the project.” Communication (5 items) was measured with items including, “There was frequent communication within our team.”

Previous research has conceptualized these dimensions as related but conceptually distinct (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Hoegl et al., 2004). Because theory indicates that TWQ operates at the team level, it was also necessary to aggregate TWQ. To justify aggregation, we calculated Rwg and inter-member reliability, ICC(1) and ICC(2). Results support the decision to aggregate. Overall TWQ showed high inter-rater agreement (M Rwg = .83). The ICC(1) and ICC(2) for overall TWQ were .12 and .74.

Inter-team collaboration

Inter-team collaboration was evaluated using a single-item scale developed with reference to Kahn’s (1996) collaboration measure (the reliability of the scale: α = .92). Based on this definition, using a 5-point scale from 1 = never collaborate to 5 = collaborate a great deal, respondents rated the chosen/focal team’s level of collaboration. All the participants in the study were asked to (a) choose a team in their company with the highest level of interaction with their own team and (b) evaluate the degree that the chosen team is collaborative with their own team.

To measure a focal team’s inter-team collaboration, we averaged all the ratings provided by individuals who believe that their team had the most frequent interaction with the focal team. Thus, ratings of inter-team collaboration came from multiple individuals from multiple and different teams. The average and standard deviation of the number of individuals providing ratings of inter-team collaboration were 40.33 and 49.57, respectively.

Because multiple raters provided collaboration ratings, we calculated Rwg. The average Rwg was .80, suggesting reliable agreement for inter-team collaboration. ICC values showed a similar pattern. ICC(1) was .04 and ICC(2) was .61. Unlike Rwg, ICC(1) is reflective of the amount of variance attributable to group membership, and ICC(2) reflects the reliability of the group-level means (Bartko, 1976; James, 1982; McGraw & Wong, 1996). If the individuals rating a team’s level of collaboration came from the same team, because of their common team membership (i.e., by being in the same team), the value of ICC(1) should be high. However, raters in our research were drawn from multiple teams, with no common team membership. Therefore, we expected low ICC(1) values, which are a logical consequence of the absence of having a common team. Likewise, ICC(2) is a function of ICC(1) and group size (Bliese, 2000). Because individual raters do not come from the same team for the inter-team collaboration measure, inter-rater agreement (Rwg) is a more meaningful statistic than the reliability of the single rating due to common membership, that is, ICC(1), or the reliability of group-level average, that is, ICC(2).

Although the use of single-item measures can be problematic for a number of reasons (Schriesheim, Hinkin, & Podsakoff, 1991), considerable research indicates that single-item measures are strongly correlated with multiple-item measures of the same concept (Cunny & Perri, 1991; Loo, 2002; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Wanous et al. (1997) noted that “If the construct being measured is sufficiently narrow or is unambiguous to the respondent, a single item may suffice” (p. 247). Because the inter-team collaboration construct we use is a relatively unambiguous construct, such as inter-functional and inter-departmental collaboration where single-item measures are also used (Chen & Tjosvold, 2008; Ellinger, Keller, & Hansen, 2006), we assume here that a single-item measure adequately captures inter-team collaboration. The high reliability we observe from multiple raters on this item (Rwg = .80) is not likely to be achieved through ambiguous understanding of the construct by respondents.

Team size was operationalized as the number of members on a team.

Control variables

We controlled average team tenure and education because, as indicators of human capital, experience and education can affect the way teams interact with other teams, potentially serving as an alternative explanation of inter-team collaboration. We also controlled demographic diversity, including functional diversity, tenure diversity, education diversity, and gender diversity. All the diversity variables except for tenure diversity were calculated using the Herfindal–Hirschman index ( $H = 1 - \sum_{i = 1}^{n} P i^{2}$ , where H is the heterogeneity measure and P the percentage of team members in each of n categories), as described in Hambrick, Cho, and Chen (1996). Tenure diversity was measured as standard deviation of tenure because it does not involve any categories.

Analysis

To test our study hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation. We followed the two-step procedures described by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) using AMOS 18.0. Because we test team-level hypotheses, we first conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all team-level variables. We then tested the hypotheses using the structural relationships among the conceptually independent and dependent variables.

Results

Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study constructs. As expected, transformational leadership was positively correlated with TWQ and inter-team collaboration. Furthermore, TWQ was also positively related to inter-team collaboration.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Constructs Used in the Study (N = 388).

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Inter-team collaboration	4.00	0.35
2. Teamwork quality	4.02	0.31	.29***
3. Transformational leadership	3.92	0.30	.13*	.46***
4. Functional diversity	0.16	0.22	−.08	.07	.04
5. Gender diversity	0.24	0.15	.04	.01	.00	.20***
6. Tenure diversity	5.41	1.26	−.02	−.04	.14**	.01	.17**
7. Education diversity	0.76	0.27	−.12*	−.11*	.01	.42***	.30***	.34***
8. Team size	46.75	52.04	−.05	.05	−.02	.15**	−.16**	−.33***	−.10*
9. Team tenure M	8.13	2.71	.06	−.03	.18***	.04	.08	.52***	.24***	−.30***
10. Team education M	2.34	0.84	−.05	−.23***	−.18***	−.31***	.11*	.14**	.13**	−.36***	−.01

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

Measurement Model Testing

Before testing the study hypotheses, we conducted CFA. According to the two-step procedure reported by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), there should be consistency between the level where constructs are validated (using CFAs) and the level where the relationships among validated constructs are tested. In addition to consistency of level, construct validation should precede hypotheses testing. Because all of the study variables operate at the team level and we test our hypotheses at the team level, construct validation using CFA was conducted at the team level. Therefore, it was necessary to aggregate individual responses to the team level (e.g., transformational leadership, TWQ, and inter-team collaboration).

Transformational leadership and TWQ each have six sub-constructs each with multiple-item scales. This was too many indicators (i.e., 24 items for transformational leadership and 20 items for TWQ) relative to the sample size (i.e., N = 388 for the entire sample, n = 147 for small teams, and n = 241 for large teams), which can lead to unreliable parameter estimation in SEM (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Marsch & Hocevar, 1988). Thus, we treated transformational leadership and TWQ as first-order factors by averaging multiple items within the sub-scales of transformational leadership and TWQ and used the average to represent their values at the sub-scale level (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005). After including these two constructs with all other study variables, we tested whether the 10 variables in our model were unidimensional. The results from CFA indicated that these 10 variables are distinct from one other (χ² = 686.32, df = 133, p < .001; comparative fit index [CFI] = .95, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .04).

Hypotheses Testing

To test our hypotheses, we first tested a structural model that included all the hypothesized paths, in addition to any direct paths needed to test mediation (i.e., partial vs. full mediation). The structural model had a strong fit (χ² = 686.32, df = 133, p < .001; CFI = .95, SRMR = .04). Transformational leadership, with all other control variables explained about 28% of the total variance in TWQ. The model also explained about 11% of the variance in inter-team collaboration. All the path coefficients estimated in the model are summarized in Table 2. The coefficients we used to test the study hypotheses are also depicted in Figure 2.

Table 2.

Estimation of Standardized Structural Paths Based on Structural Equation Modeling.

		All teams (N = 388)		Small teams (n = 147)		Large teams (n = 241)
From	To	Standardized Estimate.	SE	Standardized Estimate.	SE	Standardizd Estimate.	SE
Transformational leadership	Teamwork quality	.48***	(0.05)	.38***	(0.08)	.68***	(0.06)
Team size	Teamwork quality	−.04	(0.00)
Team education average	Teamwork quality	−.13*	(0.02)	−.18	(0.05)	−.12	(0.02)
Team tenure average	Teamwork quality	−.10	(0.01)	−.15	(0.01)	−.05	(0.01)
Gender diversity	Teamwork quality	.05	(0.09)	.05	(0.19)	−.01	(0.09)
Education diversity	Teamwork quality	−.11	(0.06)	−.16	(0.10)	−.02	(0.07)
Tenure diversity	Teamwork quality	−.01	(0.01)	−.06	(0.02)	−.02	(0.02)
Functional diversity	Teamwork quality	.05	(0.07)	.03	(0.16)	.00	(0.07)
Teamwork Quality	Inter-team collaboration	.30***	(0.07)	.32***	(0.11)	.26**	(0.10)
Transformational leadership	Inter-team collaboration	−.02	(0.07)	.02	(0.11)	−.06	(0.10)
Team size	Teamwork quality	−.05	(0.00)
Functional diversity	Inter-team collaboration	−.08	(0.09)	.09	(0.21)	−.22*	(0.10)
Tenure diversity	Inter-team collaboration	−.06	(0.02)	−.12	(0.03)	.19*	(0.02)
Education diversity	Inter-team collaboration	−.09	(0.08)	.00	(0.13)	−.08	(0.10)
Gender diversity	Inter-team collaboration	.08	(0.12)	.04	(0.24)	.10	(0.12)
Team tenure average	Inter-team collaboration	.10	(0.01)	.11	(0.01)	−.06	(0.01)
Team education average	Inter-team collaboration	−.01	(0.02)	.10	(0.07)	−.17*	(0.03)

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

Figure 2.

Standardized path estimates from SEM analysis.

In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that transformational leadership is positively associated with TWQ. The standardized path coefficient from transformational leadership to TWQ was significant and positive (γ = .48, p < .001), offering support for this prediction. In Hypothesis 3, we predicted that TWQ is positively associated with inter-team collaboration. In support of this expectation, TWQ was positively associated with inter-team collaboration, and in the expected direction (γ = .30, p < .001). Finally, we predicted that transformational leadership is positively related to inter-team collaboration (Hypothesis 1), and that TWQ mediates this relationship (Hypothesis 4). We test these hypotheses using the bootstrapping procedure in AMOS 18.0

Bootstrapping approaches have been used as a way to avoid power problems caused by asymmetries and other nonnormality issues associated with direct estimation of indirect effects (Bollen & Stine, 1990; Lockwood & MacKinnon, 1998; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The test yields more accurate estimation of the mediating effects than Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure or the Sobel (1982) test and can be applied to small samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Table 3 provides results from an AMOS analysis that yielded a bootstrap estimate of the indirect effect ab, an estimated standard error, and 95% confidence intervals for population value ab. The point estimate of ab was .14 (p < .01), which is the mean ab computed for more than 5,000 samples, and 95% of the time, it was within a range between .07 and .23. These results offer support for Hypothesis 4. In addition, we directly compared the fully mediated model versus a partially mediated model using a chi-square difference test. The results from this test indicate full mediation, as the fit statistics associated with partial mediation were not significantly stronger than those associated with full mediation model (Δχ² = 0.11, Δdf = 1, ns). The bootstrapping analysis also suggests that the total effect of leadership on inter-team collaboration is positive and significant (τ = .12, p < .05), providing support for Hypothesis 1.

Table 3.

Bootstrapping Test of Mediating Effects of TWQ on the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Inter-Team Collaboration.

Paths and effects associated with mediating effects	Coefficient	SE
a path
Transformational leadership to teamwork quality	.48***	0.05
b path
Teamwork quality to inter-team collaboration	.30***	0.07
c path
Total effect of leadership on inter-team collaboration	.12*	0.06
c’ path
Direct effect of leadership on inter-team collaboration	−.02	0.10
ab path based on bootstrapping (5,000 resamples)
Mediating effect (indirect effect) of teamwork quality	.14**	0.04
Bias corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval
Lower	.07
Upper	.23

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

Using the multi-group SEM, we tested whether the proposed relationships were moderated by team size. In evaluating “moderated mediation,” bootstrapping offers an efficient test of indirect effects (see Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) as well as a direct test between two discrete values of a moderator. In addition to overcoming typical limitations of regression (e.g., no control over measurement error), multi-group SEM with bootstrapping provides fit statistics for a structural model encompassing moderated mediation. The test of moderated mediation is presented in Table 4. With multi-group analysis, chi-square comparisons facilitate evaluation of differences between the paths associated with the three focal constructs between teams of different size. From the literature (Gratton & Erickson, 2007), if teams had 20 or fewer team members, these were categorized as small teams; whereas teams of 20 or more members were categorized as large teams.

Table 4.

Test of Mediated Moderation and Probing the Effects With Bootstrapping Procedure.

Test of moderated mediation using chi-square difference test	χ²	df	p
Model 1
When both a and b paths are constrained to be equal between two groups (no moderation)	933.04***	248	.00
Model 2
When a and b are freely estimated between two groups (mediated moderation)	922.87***	246	.00
	Δχ²	df	p
Comparison: Model 2 compared with Model 1	10.17**	2	.006
Probing moderated mediation effects using bootstrapping procedure	Small teams (n = 147)		Large teams (n = 241)
	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE
Bootstrapping (5,000 resamples)
Mediating effect (indirect effect) of TWQ	.12**	0.05	.17**	0.07
Bias corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval
Lower	.05		.04
Upper	.25		.31

Note. TWQ = teamwork quality.

p < .05. **p < . 01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

In Model 1 in Table 4, both the path between transformational leadership and TWQ (path a) and the path between TWQ and inter-team collaboration (path b) were constrained to be equal. In model 2, these paths were freely estimated. If allowing free estimation significantly improves fit over Model 1, this serves as evidence that the paths associated mediation (i.e., leadership → TWQ, and TWQ → inter-team collaboration) are moderated by team size. The chi-square difference suggests that fit statistics improved significantly (Δχ² = 10.17, df = 2, p < .01) supporting the overall moderation of the mediation of TWQ on the relationship between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration. Using the bootstrapping procedure, we also tested whether the mediating effect is indeed different between small teams and large teams. Using the same criteria as above, our analysis revealed that the point estimates of the mediating effect of TWQ on the relationship between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration are not substantially different between small teams (ab = .12, p < .01) and large teams (ab = .17, p < .01).

To test Hypotheses 5 and 6, using Model 2 of Table 4, we directly compared the path estimates between small teams and large teams. AMOS provides a statistical test of pairwise comparisons of paths between the two sub-groups and produces a critical ratio associated with the path comparison. The results from this analysis are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.

Detecting the Source of Moderated Mediation Using Pairwise Comparison of the Three Paths.

	Small teams (n = 147)		Large teams (n = 241)		Test of pairwise com-parison
Paths	Coefficient	SE	Coeffi-cient	SE	Test of pairwise com-parison
a path
Transformational Leadership to teamwork quality	.38***	0.08	.68***	0.06	.20*
b path
Teamwork quality to inter-team collaboration	.32***	0.11	.26	0.10	−.06
c’ path
Direct effect of transformational leadership on inter-team collaboration	.02	0.11	−.06	0.10	−.08

p < .05. **p < . 01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

Hypothesis 5 predicts that the association between transformational leadership and TWQ is stronger in larger versus smaller teams. Consistent with this prediction, the path estimate (a = .68, p < .001) was significantly larger for large teams than small teams (a = .38, p < .001). By contrast, although the path estimate from TWQ to inter-team collaboration is stronger in small (b = .32) versus large teams (b = .26) as predicted in Hypothesis 6, the difference was not statistically significant.

Additional Analyses

Team size in our sample ranges between 2 and 409 members. The mean and median values of the team size are 46.75 and 30, respectively. In all, 147 teams had fewer than 20 members, 119 teams had between 21 and 50 members, 81 teams had between 51 and 100 members, 36 teams had between 101 and 250 members, and 5 teams had between 251 and 409 members. Given potential concerns that the results of our analyses could have been driven by extremely large teams, we tested our hypotheses using only teams with 50 or fewer members. In total, 266 teams fit this selection criterion. The results from all of our hypothesis tests were invariant with this reduced sample, with the exception of Hypothesis 1. The results from our secondary analysis indicate that although there was a significant total effect of transformational leadership on inter-team collaboration with the sample of 388 teams, this prediction was not supported in a sub-sample of teams with fewer than 50 members (n = 266). It is somewhat unclear whether the difference in path significance emerged as a consequence of diminished statistical power or more as a consequence of the fact that the role of transformational leadership in creating inter-team collaboration is more powerful in larger teams.

We also tested the possibility that particular leadership dimensions relate to particular TWQ dimensions. All six of the sub-dimensions of transformational leadership were highly correlated with all six dimensions of TWQ (r = .16 ~ .48, p < .01), and no particular pattern stood out to warrant further theorizing the relationship between sub-constructs of transformational leadership and sub-constructs of TWQ. Among the six sub-dimensions of transformational leadership, the relationship between “high performance expectations” and all sub-constructs of TWQ were lower than those with other sub-constructs of leadership and sub-constructs of TWQ. Perhaps this is because when transformational leaders emphasize “high performance,” this may affect TWQ less potently than when emphasizing other dimensions.

Discussion

The current findings suggest that transformational leadership is positively associated with inter-team collaboration because of enhanced TWQ. The pattern of results we uncover contributes in several ways to the literature in the areas of transformational leadership and TWQ.

First, the current results support an overall positive association (i.e., total effect) of transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration. A great deal of research suggests that inter-team collaboration may be a mechanism that can be used to enhance organizational effectiveness and innovation. In response to calls for research exploring the role of leadership in promoting inter-team collaboration, the current study provides strong support for the argument that transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration share a significant association through TWQ. This suggests that transformational leadership can affect inter-team collaboration by improving internal TWQ. This represents a substantive departure from previous research assuming a conceptual distinction between inter- and intra-team collaboration.

Second, our results suggest that transformational leadership is associated with enhanced TWQ, supporting conceptual ties between transformational leadership and internal team processes such as communication, coordination, mutual trust, and cohesion. This finding also contributes to the growing TWQ literature. Although previous research indicates that external influence, geographic proximity, and collective decision making affect TWQ (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006; Hoegl & Proserpio, 2004), research has not attended to the potential role played by transformational leadership. Thus, the significant associations we identify represent an important point of departure for future research exploring the development of this process and contexts wherein these relations are likely to be most pronounced.

Third, our results also coincide with Hoegl et al.’s (2004) carryover framework, but also extend it by showing that relations between TWQ and inter-team collaboration may not be limited to cross-functional teams but also can be generalized to teams operating regardless of varying degrees of diversity in education, functional areas, gender proportions, and organizational experience (i.e., tenure). As noted above, the carryover effect reflects a transfer of learning as to how to coordinate efforts with others inside a team to different contexts such as working with others from outside a team. This finding also coincides conceptually with evidence from the negotiations literature that within-team conflicts often have harmful consequences for inter-team negotiation (Halevy, 2008).

Finally, the current results suggest that team size may contribute to variations in the dynamics underlying the relationships we propose between transformational leadership, TWQ, and inter-team collaboration. Given limited research in large team management, the moderating role of team size on the association between transformational leadership and TWQ is substantive, and suggests that the ultimate performance benefits of transformational leadership may be stronger for larger teams. For organizations that strive for high TWQ, the selection and training of transformational leaders are critical. Despite our heterogeneity arguments, we did not find significant difference between large teams and small teams with regard to the association between TWQ and inter-team collaboration.

Practical Implications

The results from this study have several practical implications for developing team managers’ leadership and increasing capabilities in inter-team collaboration.

First, inter-team collaboration is central to the achievement of organizational performance goals. Because both team leaders and middle managers can play a critical role in enhancing organizations’ capabilities in cooperation, it is essential that they attend to the types of leadership that are beneficial to inter-team collaboration. Here, we demonstrate that transformational leadership can affect inter-team collaboration. However, we also find that this relationship depends on an indirect effect of TWQ, not on direct effects of transformational leadership. Consistent with the cross-over arguments we develop, this pattern of results implies that team leaders can contribute the external team processes by enhancing internal team process. It will be important for team leaders to emphasize internal team processes such as TWQ to achieve external team outcomes such as inter-team collaboration, effective development of linkages with external constituents, and customer satisfaction.

Second, to facilitate TWQ and inter-team collaboration, it is critical that transformational leadership behaviors be assessed periodically and developed through training. This evaluation should emphasize all six facets of transformational leadership and all six facets of TWQ during the leadership training or team-building interventions. Trainers can use these results as a guide and a vehicle to provide useful suggestions and feedback to cultivate transformational leadership (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).

Third, the current results suggest that the transformational leadership may be particularly potent in larger teams. Despite inherent difficulties in coordinating large numbers of team members, large teams have diverse skills, expertise, and resources, implying fewer teams, fewer leaders, and fewer hierarchies within a firm (Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991). Few studies have attempted to identify effective ways to manage larger teams (Gratton & Erickson, 2007; Hoegl, 2005). The current results suggest that transformational leadership should be emphasized as a lever to enhance TWQ.

Limitation and Future Directions

Our study is not without limitations. First, although our analyses are based on data collected from a substantial number of teams, the generalizability of our findings to contexts outside Korea is limited by the nature of the sample from which our data are drawn. Generalizing these results to different national contexts should be done with caution. It will be important for future research to replicate these analyses in different cultural contexts to alleviate concerns over cross-cultural generalizability. Second, given the cross-sectional nature of the design we used, it is impossible to draw definitive causal inferences regarding the relationships we report. For example, it is possible—albeit unlikely—that inter-team collaboration has effects on transformational leadership and internal TWQ. It will be important for future research, using longitudinal or lagged designs, to explore these issues more fully. Third, the dependent variable in this study is inter-team collaboration. We did not measure whether inter-team collaboration is related to higher levels of either team or organizational effectiveness. Thus, it will be important for future research to include broader measures of organizational effectiveness to more fully flesh out the implications of the pattern of results we identify. Fourth, it is possible that the measurement of inter-team collaboration is influenced by inter-team task or goal interdependence. However, most teams in this study operated under conditions of high inter-team task and goal interdependence because these teams share task interdependence or functional linkages with other teams; and each team has goals that are aligned with the company’s direction and its collaborative culture. The context within which these teams are embedded provides that the potential effects of task or goal interdependence on the measurement of inter-team collaboration are insufficiently present to invalidate our findings. However, it will be important for future research investigating relationships in our model to measure inter-team task and goal interdependence. Finally, although the measurement of inter-team collaboration is reliable in this study, it has the limitation of using a single item. In future research, it will be important to assess inter-team collaboration using multiple scales including the various aspects of collaboration activities.

In conclusion, as inter-team collaboration has long been recognized as an important capability within the context of highly interdependent relations with other teams (or other collectives), here, we sought to advance this research by exploring relations between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration. We find that transformational leadership is positively related to TWQ, which is also positively related to inter-team collaboration. In addition, TWQ fully mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration. These results demonstrate that transformational leadership plays an important role in building inter-team collaboration as well as within-team TWQ in large teams in team-based organization. This study offers insights into how team-level transformational leadership can contribute to higher levels of inter-team collaboration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially financially supported by Hansung University.

Associate Editor: William Gardner

Author Biographies

Jongseok Cha (PhD, KAIST 1999) is a Professor in the Department of Business Administration at Hansung University in Korea. His current research interests include career success, person-environment fit, leadership and strategic human resource management. He has published in various journals including Journal of Business Ethics, Human Relations, and R&D management.

Youngbae Kim (PhD) is a Professor of Organization Management at KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) Graduate School of Management. His research interest focuses on organization design, leadership, and innovation management. He has published in various journals including Management Science, Research Policy, and Human Relations. He is currently an Associate Editor for Asian Journal of Technology Innovation.

Jeong-Yeon Lee (PhD, Indiana University 2005) is an associate professor of management at the School of Business, Seoul National University. His current research focuses on the effects of employees’ intellectual capital (human and social capital) and their discretionary efforts on individual, team, and organization-level outcomes.

Daniel G. Bachrach (PhD, Indiana University 2002) is a Morrow Faculty Excellence Fellow. He is lead author of 10 Don’ts on Your Digital Devices (Apress, 2014), co-author of Management 13e (Wiley, 2015), Transformative Selling (Axcess Capon, 2014), and co-editor of the Handbook of Behavioral and Operations Management (Oxford University Press, 2015). Dr. Bachrach also is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

References

Ancona

D. G.

(1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-364.

Ancona

D. G.

Caldwell

D. F.

(1992). Bridging the boundary—External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.

Ancona

D. G.

Caldwell

D. F.

(1998). Rethinking coalition composition from the outside. In Gruenfeld

D. H.

(Ed.), Research on managing groups and coalitions composition (pp. 21-37). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Edwards

J. R.

(1998). A general approach to representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Heatherton

T. F.

(1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35-67.

Barling

Weber

Kelloway

E. K.

(1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bartko

J. J.

(1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762-765.

10.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

11.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implication for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Bollen

K. A.

Stine

(1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115-140.

13.

Bradner

Mark

Hertel

T. D.

(2005). Team size and technology fit: Participation, awareness, and rapport in distributed teams. IEEE Transaction on Professional Communication, 48, 68-77.

14.

Brislin

R. W.

(1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner

W. J.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Field-methods in cross-cultural research (Vol. 8, pp. 137-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Campion

M. A.

Papper

E. M.

Medsker

G. J.

(1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.

16.

Chen

Tjosvold

(2008). Organizational values and procedures as antecedents for goal interdependence and collaborative effectiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 93-112.

17.

Coffman

D. L.

MacCallum

R. C.

(2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235-259.

18.

Cunny

K. A.

Perri

(1991). Single-item versus multiple-item measures of health-related quality of life. Psychological Reports, 69, 127-130.

19.

Curral

L. A.

Forrester

R. H.

Dawson

J. F.

West

M. A.

(2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187-204.

20.

DeChurch

L. A.

Marks

M. A.

(2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 311-329.

21.

DeGroot

Eden

Cross

(2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related with charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356-671.

22.

Dionne

S. D.

Yammarino

F. J.

Atwater

L. E.

Spanger

W. D.

(2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 177-193.

23.

Drach-Zahavy

Somech

(2010). From an intrateam to an interteam perspective of effectiveness: The role of interdependence and boundary activities. Small Group Research, 41, 143-174.

24.

Eisenbeiss

S. A.

van Knippenberg

Boerner

(2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438-1446.

25.

Ellinger

Keller

S. B.

Hansen

J. D.

(2006). Bridging the divide between logistics and marketing: Facilitating collaborative behavior. Journal of Business Logistics, 27(2), 1-27.

26.

Gratton

Erickson

T. J.

(2007). Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 101-109.

27.

Griffin

Hauser

(1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191-215.

28.

Gupta

Raj

S. P.

Wilemon

(1986). A model for studying the R&D—Marketing interface in the product innovation process. Journal of Marketing, 50, 7-17.

29.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

J. W.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

30.

Halevy

(2008). Team negotiation: Social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1687-1702.

31.

Hambrick

D. C.

Cho

T. S.

Chen

M. J.

(1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firm’s competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659-684.

32.

Hoegl

M. H.

(2005). Smaller teams better teamwork: How to keep project teams small. Business Horizons, 48, 209-214.

33.

Hoegl

M. H.

Gemuenden

H. G.

(2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435-449.

34.

Hoegl

M. H.

Parboteeah

K. R.

(2006). Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects. Human Resource Management, 45, 67-79.

35.

Hoegl

M. H.

Proserpio

(2004). Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy, 33, 1153-1165.

36.

Hoegl

M. H.

Weinkauf

Gemuenden

H. G.

(2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15, 38-55.

37.

Howell

J. M.

Higgins

C. A.

(1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.

38.

Howell

J. M.

Shea

C. M.

(2006). Effects of champion behavior, team potency, and external communication activities on predicting team performance. Group & Organization Management, 31, 180-211.

39.

James

L. R.

(1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.

40.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

41.

Jassawalla

A. R.

Sashittal

H. C.

(1998). An examination of collaboration in high-technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 237-254.

42.

Kahai

S. S.

Sosik

J. J.

Avolio

B. J.

(2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 499-524.

43.

Kahn

K. B.

(1996). Interdepartmental integration: A definition with implications for product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 137-151.

44.

Keenan

P. A.

Carnevale

P. J.

(1989). Positive effects of within-group cooperation on between-group negotiation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 977-992.

45.

Keller

R. T.

(2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202-210.

46.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Bell

B. S.

(2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman

W. C.

Ilgen

D. R.

Klimoski

R. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

47.

Labianca

Brass

D. J.

Gray

(1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55-67.

48.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

J. W.

(1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.

49.

Lee

G. Y.

Kim

D. O.

(2001). Research on the rationality and legitimacy of adopting team system. Korean Management Research (“Kyungyonghak Yeongoo”), 30, 1009-1035.

50.

Lockwood

C. M.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(1998, March). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of SAS Users Group International, Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

51.

Loo

(2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 68-75.

52.

Magjuka

R. J.

Baldwin

T. T.

(1991). Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects of design and administration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 793-812.

53.

Marks

M. A.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Panzer

F. J.

Alonso

(2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 964-971.

54.

Marsch

H. W.

Hocevar

(1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait–multimethod analyses: Application of second-order factor confirmatory analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 107-117.

55.

McGraw

K. O.

Wong

S. P.

(1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.

56.

Pillai

Williams

E. A.

(2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 144-159.

57.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Bommer

W. H.

(1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

58.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

59.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 13, 419-441.

60.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

61.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

62.

Purvanova

R. K.

Bono

J. E.

(2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.

63.

Schaubroech

Lam

S. S. K.

Cha

S. E.

(2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.

64.

Schriesheim

C. A.

Hinkin

T. R.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(1991). Can ipsative and single-item measures produce erroneous results in field studies of the five French and Raven’s (1959) five bases of power? An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 106-114.

65.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.

66.

Sobel

(1982). Asymptotic confidence interval for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhardt

(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

67.

Somech

Khalaili

(2014). Team boundary activity: Its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39, 274-299.

68.

Souder

W. E.

(1981). Disharmony between R&D and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 10, 67-73.

69.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in workplace: Dimensions, measurements, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

70.

Stashevsky

Koslowsky

(2006). Leadership team cohesiveness and team performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 63-74.

71.

Wang

X. H.

Howell

J. M.

(2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134-1144.

72.

Wanous

J. P.

Reichers

A. E.

Hudy

M. J.

(1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.

73.

Wheelan

S. A.

(2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40, 247-262.

74.

Williams

H. M.

Parker

S. K.

Turner

(2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 301-324.

75.

Yan

Louis

M. R.

(1999). The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 52, 25-47.

76.

Yang

Huang

(2011). The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork, and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 258-267.