Leadership
Copyright (c), Micro-Touch & Consult (TM), 2015
Harvard Leadership - Stanford Leadership
Keywords
Management vs Leadership - Leadership models - Situational - Transactional - Transformational - Servant - Universality - Motivation - Groups - Teams - Group thinking - Learning from failure
Produced by: Micro-Touch & Consult, 2013
Introduction
The success of an organization is often related to effective leadership. Therefore huge investments are done in leadership development to create a competitive advantage. Several researchers show an increase attention and resources given to this leadership development. Especially this can be seen among the bigger organizations. Also different leadership development techniques have been used to make this leadership development more productive, such as leadership training, mentoring, SWOT analysis, coaching, action learning, 360-degree feedback and job assignments for example. It is save to conclude that leadership is a hot issue and therefore that having a good understanding of the essence of leadership is something worth the time and effort (Yukl, 1989;Daily et al, 2002;PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008;Day, 2000;Bilhuber et al, 2012).
It is said that there are as many definitions of leadership as the amount of people who studied it. Leadership is about the process of influencing and guiding others in different ways to let them do what needs to be done. It is also about creating change and working through the relationship with people to establish a direction (Stogdill & Bass, 1990;Yukl, 2010;Kotter, 1990;Bass, 1985).
Often leadership is placed alongside management while both have very different characteristics. It is said that leadership and management are qualitatively different and cannot be combined. Someone can be a leader without being a manager or a manager without being a leader. Some definitions of leaders and managers assume they have different personalities and values. They also are seen as different processes or roles. How these processes, types of roles are defined vary somewhat depending on the writer, but some global differences seem to be obvious (Yukl, 2010; Zaleznik, 1977;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Stogdill & Bass, 1990;Bass, 1985;Kotter, 1988;Hackman, 1980;Mintzberg, 1980;Rost, 1991).
Management vs Leadership
Management is about setting objectives and organizing the work that has to be done. Managers must motivate subordinates and communicate the tasks. The measurements of performance must be set and the people aligned to the tasks. Meanwhile it is important that there is a workable balance between the tasks, the group and the individual to create an optimal working environment. Management is focused on efficiency and is very much rational in nature. It is about planning and budgeting, concerned with organizing and resources. Management is more transactional and task oriented (Drucker, 2007 & 2008;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005;Adair, 2007;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Kotter, 1990)
Leadership is done on a higher level than management. It is more about the relationship with people. Leadership is focused on motivating and inspiring people. Many people studied the essence of leadership and most of them concluded that leadership is about guiding people in a direction, being an inspiration and having a shared vision. If management is reactive, then leadership is active and pro-active. It is very much about achieving change through the way people think by inspiration and being an example. Leadership is more transformational and people oriented (Zaleznik, 1977;Burns, 1978;Bennis &
Nanus, 1997).
Leadership Models
History
In the first part of the twentieth century the traits and skills theories of leadership were most popular. It was assumed that personality and personal qualities made the leader. Specifically the factors intelligence, dominance, self-confidence an achievement focus and interpersonal skills were seen as important traits (Barnard, 1948;Higgs, 2003;Metcalfe, 2006).
More research was done on leadership styles in the 1950s and 1960s because the traits and skills alone did not answer many questions about leadership in new kinds of organizations. People tried to identify the most effective way for leaders to behave towards their followers. Two key dimensions about task oriented and people oriented styles were defined. Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), Blake & Mouton (1964) and Likert (1967) produced models which can be placed under these dimensions. (Barnard, 1948;Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009;Pardey, 2007 ;Mullins, 2005;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004).
The fact that these leadership style theories all tended to imply that there is one best style of leadership was a problem. This led in the 1980s and onwards to the development of contingency theories which stated that the effective style of leadership depends on the situation. Therefore current ideas are more focused on situational leadership, particularly Blanchard & Hershey and John Adair’s models. Related to this is the Continuum model of Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), which shows different styles of leadership and the relationship between the level of freedom that a manager can give to a team and the level of authority that comes with that freedom. (Yukl, 2010; Bertocci, 2009;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Hunt, 1991;Wadell, 1994).
Models
This Continuum model can also roughly be linked to the group development elements of Tuckman (1965) because the four different styles of his model relate quite well to the different stages in a team’s development. The Tannenbaum en Schmidt (1958) continuum can also be related to McGregor’s (1960) supposition of Theory X and Theory Y. Boss-centered leadership is on the side of Theory X and subordinate focused leadership is on the side of Theory Y (Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005).
The Management Grid of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton was developed in the US after researching management and leadership styles in the oil industry during the 1950s. They compared the distinguished characteristics of high-performing and low performing management groups. The conclusion was that there were two key factors. The first was the concern for tasks and results and the second was the concern for people (Pardey, 2007).
It is important to create a climate and system of management that creates an effective organization. Likert (1967) identified four systems of management to describe the relationship, involvement and roles of managers and subordinates in industrial settings. While the models of Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), Blake & Mouton (1964) and Likert (1967) were focused on the personal style of leaders, they are less focused on the situation that the leader is operating in (Yukl, 2010; Mullins, 2005;Bertocci, 2009).
Situational, transactional and transformational
Situational leadership is about having no single leadership style that fits all situations. Successful leaders can adapt their behavior to the specific needs of the situation. Leadership style can be seen as a combination of directive (task oriented and transactional) and supportive (relationship oriented and transformational) behavior (Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009).
Transformational and transactional leadership is situational and cultural dependent. How these styles are used depends on the situation and the people. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors that influence the leadership process. These contextual factors will also influence the way in which the transactional or transformational leadership styles will be used and to what extent. Leadership effectiveness depends on personality, the tasks to be accomplished, power, perceptions and culture. (Yukl, 2010;Pardey, 2007;Conger,2007;Mullins, 2005;Bertocci, 2009;Kouze, 2007;House, 1995).
Servant Leadership
There is a special accent of transformational leadership called servant leadership, which is more focused on serving the people. Transformational and servant leadership are both oriented on having a good relationship with subordinates. Transformational leadership places this relationship with followers in the context of the organization where servant leadership places this relationship in the context of serving these followers wherein the organization is second. Servant leadership is even more about individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation and the satisfaction lies in the service itself
(Stone et al, 2004;Gill, 2011;Bass, 2006;Yukl, 2010)
Transformational leadership is mainly focused on the western organizational models and is invented in the US. It therefore is not always suitable for other cultures and countries. Many important leadership theories and empirical evidence is very much North American and Western Europe in character. Transactional and transformational leadership theories are some of the most studied leadership approaches in western countries. Some scholars have tried to present evidence about the near universality of the transactional and transformational leadership paradigm (House, 1995;Bass, 1995;Lowe & Gardner, 2000;Palrecha et al, 2012).
Universality
Against this near universality we find that cross-cultural, psychological, sociological and anthropological research shows that not all cultures share the same approach and assumptions about leadership behavior and style. It is needed that a better understanding is formed of the way in which leadership is approached in different cultures. A more empirically grounded theory must be formulated to explain the different leadership behaviors and effectiveness across cultures besides western Europe and North America (Dorfman, 1996;House, 1995;Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Palrecha et al, 2012).
Besides culture, the leadership style being used will also depend on the people being led. Blanchard and Hersey (1972) extended their model with the development level of the follower. The leader’s style should be driven by the competence and commitment of the follower. Development levels are also situational because when highly trained and focused people are placed in a situation in which they do not have the skills to perform, they probably will drop to a level of low commitment and competence. The leadership style of the leader should correspond to the development level of the followers to create a highly effective situation. (Mullins, 2005;Hunt, 1999;Pardey, 2007;Bertocci, 2009;Yukl, 2010;Wadell, 1994).
Motivation
Introduction
How to motivate individuals and teams was an important element of the management theories during much of the 20 th century. A theory which could fit all situations was not found. The search for it did lead to many different views on how people become motivated. Roughly speaking there are three levels of motivation; -the individual level, which is often about the biological level and therefore related to the lower levels of Maslow, - the group and community level, which is about loyalty and commitment and related to the upper levels of Maslow and the organizational or workplace level, also related to the higher levels of Maslow’s motivational model (Bass & Riggio, 2006;Arnoff & Litwin, 1971;Miron & McClelland, 1979;Maslow, 1954;McGregor, 1960;Herzberg, 1966;Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Motivation theories
Leadership vs Management
Leadership is about the process of influencing and guiding others in different ways to let them do what needs to be done. Individuals will put more effort into their work when there is a clear relationship between performance, effort and reward. The expectancy theory of motivation is about what motivates people to desire a certain outcome of an action or a task (Vroom, 1995;Buchanan, 2007).
Management is about task fragmentation, finding the best way to perform work, training of subordinates for optimal performance and rewarding people for meeting and exceeding performance targets. When properly applied it will meet the expectations of the employees and it can predict the outcomes of certain tasks (Vroom, 1995;Winslow Taylor, 1911;McGregor, 2006;Buchanan, 2007).
Motivational levels and needs
Through the observations of workgroups when doing their tasks under different circumstance a hypothesis was formulated that motivation to work, productivity and quality of work are all related to the nature of the social relations among the workers and between the workers and their boss. These observations are related to Group Think because the focus was on how the group thoughts influenced the group members. It is also about the Human Relations movement which studied the behavior of people in groups (Mayo, 1975;Mullins, 2005;Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009;Janis, 1982).
People have different needs. The Hierarchy of needs was formulated by Maslow (1954). The need hierarchy theory was based on the belief that there are five groups of basic needs which develop in a hierarchy. All the levels need to be satisfied to reach the upper level. They are done sequential. Critiques wrote that these motivations can be done without sequence in workplace circumstances within organizations (Clayton, 1972).
People have intrinsic motivations related to the higher levels of the needs of Maslow and people have extrinsic motivations which are related to the lower levels of the hierarchy of Maslow. Intrinsic motivators are about achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement and the extrinsic motivators are about supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, company policy and working conditions. (Herzberg, 1966;Bass & Riggio, 2006;Buchanan, 2007;Hackman & Oldham, 1980;Maslow, 1954) .
Another important motivational theory is about Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X and Y are totally different and opposite assumptions about people at work and what motivate them. Theory X demands an autocratic and transactional leader and Theory Y match with a participative and transformational leader. X people are transactional candidates and Y people are transformational candidates (Buchanan, 1997;Mullins, 2005;McGregor, 2006).
Safe environment and motivation
People tend to be more motivated when working in a safe environment. It is likely that the behavior of leaders play an important role in creating a psychological safe environment. Several scholars have discovered that supportive management and leadership style is an important building block of a psychological safe working environment. When a leader is available, and accessible, inviting input and supports openness and fallibility, then the perception of safety among followers seems to grow exponentially, which also strengthened motivation. Servant leadership, about pattern of behavior through which leaders are open and supportive to their followers, promote their wellbeing and motivation in the higher regions of Maslows (1954) hierarchy of needs (Carmeli & Zisu, 2009;Edmondson, 1996;Nembhard & Edmondson, 1996;Greenleaf, 1977;Maslow, 1954;Hirak et al, 2012).
Teams and Groups
Successful vs unsuccessful teams
The difference between successful teams and unsuccessful teams can be found in a combination of the internal team climate and atmosphere and the effectiveness of the team leader. Another important factor is how the organization approaches the team and how well it supports the needs of the team. It is also said that the most consistently successful teams had a right mix of balanced team-roles (Mullins, 2005; Belbin, 2012;Kouze & Posner, 2007).
There are some conditions for effective teamwork. A real team is stable over time, the direction is clear, meaningful and challenging. The team’s structure is balanced between task composition and norms. It supports good processes. The tasks fit together and the norms are clear and aligned. The organizational context provides the support the team needs (Hackman, 2002).
Team development and team energy
If we assume that there is fixed total team energy in a team, then this energy can be used in two different ways. When the energy is positive, the team can work on the higher levels of Maslow. If the energy is negative, the team will not get past the lower levels of Maslow and team development is disturbed. Successful teams tend to have that positive team energy where unsuccessful teams seem to fill themselves with negative team energy. The team roles are not filled in properly and this produces unbalanced teams (Mullins, 2005;Sherwin, 2012;Belbin, 2012).
Teams seem to develop themselves on a clearly defined growth cycle. Teams develop and mature as does its members. They go through four stages of development; Form, Storm, Norm and Perform. First the goals and definitions of the group are important (Form), then the expectations are challenged (Storm) after which assumptions are settled in (Norm) so that the group can produce (Perform) -(Tuckman, 1965;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Pedler et al, 2010) .
Individual contribution and group thinking
Different people make different contributions to a team. People tend to have one or two preferred roles in a team. The main role and the ‘backup’ role which is the alternative role. They are the roles in which people feel most comfortable and are most effective. People have preferred team roles and the key to success lies in getting the right mix of team roles to form a balanced team. It is important that your role and competencies needed for that role are used on the proper moments and within the proper context. When a certain role is not needed for the job or it is a bad fit within the organizational context, then a different approach must be searched for (Boyatzis, 1982;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Belbin, 2012).
Group thinking can have a profound influence on the way team members think. When Group thinking is the main force then loyalty to the group’s previous policies, or the group consensus, overrides the conscience of the individual members of the group. Members can get into a void of thinking, sucked into a blind spot of group-thought. Not looking for alternatives or avoid to rethink a strategy that is failing are often characteristics of Group thinking (Janis, 1982;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005).
Learning from failure
Group thinking can also be guided to a more positive direction. To be better equipped to cope with uncertain environmental conditions, many organizations reorganized their processes around work groups. Several studies mentioned the possibility that group learning can enhance work group performance. When related to high reliability organizations then it seems that learning from past failures ensure more reliable and effective systems. Learning from failures is essential and feedback from failure can improve change toward more adaptive practices and improvement of strategic decisions. When Group thinking is focused on learning from failure, then the individual team members are more open to learn from mistakes than they probably would on their own (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003,Ilgen, 1999;Edmondson, 1999;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001;Carmeli & Sheaffer, 2008;Hirak et al, 2012).
The success of an organization is often related to effective leadership. Therefore huge investments are done in leadership development to create a competitive advantage. Several researchers show an increase attention and resources given to this leadership development. Especially this can be seen among the bigger organizations. Also different leadership development techniques have been used to make this leadership development more productive, such as leadership training, mentoring, SWOT analysis, coaching, action learning, 360-degree feedback and job assignments for example. It is save to conclude that leadership is a hot issue and therefore that having a good understanding of the essence of leadership is something worth the time and effort (Yukl, 1989;Daily et al, 2002;PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008;Day, 2000;Bilhuber et al, 2012).
It is said that there are as many definitions of leadership as the amount of people who studied it. Leadership is about the process of influencing and guiding others in different ways to let them do what needs to be done. It is also about creating change and working through the relationship with people to establish a direction (Stogdill & Bass, 1990;Yukl, 2010;Kotter, 1990;Bass, 1985).
Often leadership is placed alongside management while both have very different characteristics. It is said that leadership and management are qualitatively different and cannot be combined. Someone can be a leader without being a manager or a manager without being a leader. Some definitions of leaders and managers assume they have different personalities and values. They also are seen as different processes or roles. How these processes, types of roles are defined vary somewhat depending on the writer, but some global differences seem to be obvious (Yukl, 2010; Zaleznik, 1977;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Stogdill & Bass, 1990;Bass, 1985;Kotter, 1988;Hackman, 1980;Mintzberg, 1980;Rost, 1991).
Management vs Leadership
Management is about setting objectives and organizing the work that has to be done. Managers must motivate subordinates and communicate the tasks. The measurements of performance must be set and the people aligned to the tasks. Meanwhile it is important that there is a workable balance between the tasks, the group and the individual to create an optimal working environment. Management is focused on efficiency and is very much rational in nature. It is about planning and budgeting, concerned with organizing and resources. Management is more transactional and task oriented (Drucker, 2007 & 2008;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005;Adair, 2007;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Kotter, 1990)
Leadership is done on a higher level than management. It is more about the relationship with people. Leadership is focused on motivating and inspiring people. Many people studied the essence of leadership and most of them concluded that leadership is about guiding people in a direction, being an inspiration and having a shared vision. If management is reactive, then leadership is active and pro-active. It is very much about achieving change through the way people think by inspiration and being an example. Leadership is more transformational and people oriented (Zaleznik, 1977;Burns, 1978;Bennis &
Nanus, 1997).
Leadership Models
History
In the first part of the twentieth century the traits and skills theories of leadership were most popular. It was assumed that personality and personal qualities made the leader. Specifically the factors intelligence, dominance, self-confidence an achievement focus and interpersonal skills were seen as important traits (Barnard, 1948;Higgs, 2003;Metcalfe, 2006).
More research was done on leadership styles in the 1950s and 1960s because the traits and skills alone did not answer many questions about leadership in new kinds of organizations. People tried to identify the most effective way for leaders to behave towards their followers. Two key dimensions about task oriented and people oriented styles were defined. Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), Blake & Mouton (1964) and Likert (1967) produced models which can be placed under these dimensions. (Barnard, 1948;Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009;Pardey, 2007 ;Mullins, 2005;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004).
The fact that these leadership style theories all tended to imply that there is one best style of leadership was a problem. This led in the 1980s and onwards to the development of contingency theories which stated that the effective style of leadership depends on the situation. Therefore current ideas are more focused on situational leadership, particularly Blanchard & Hershey and John Adair’s models. Related to this is the Continuum model of Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), which shows different styles of leadership and the relationship between the level of freedom that a manager can give to a team and the level of authority that comes with that freedom. (Yukl, 2010; Bertocci, 2009;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Hunt, 1991;Wadell, 1994).
Models
This Continuum model can also roughly be linked to the group development elements of Tuckman (1965) because the four different styles of his model relate quite well to the different stages in a team’s development. The Tannenbaum en Schmidt (1958) continuum can also be related to McGregor’s (1960) supposition of Theory X and Theory Y. Boss-centered leadership is on the side of Theory X and subordinate focused leadership is on the side of Theory Y (Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005).
The Management Grid of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton was developed in the US after researching management and leadership styles in the oil industry during the 1950s. They compared the distinguished characteristics of high-performing and low performing management groups. The conclusion was that there were two key factors. The first was the concern for tasks and results and the second was the concern for people (Pardey, 2007).
It is important to create a climate and system of management that creates an effective organization. Likert (1967) identified four systems of management to describe the relationship, involvement and roles of managers and subordinates in industrial settings. While the models of Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), Blake & Mouton (1964) and Likert (1967) were focused on the personal style of leaders, they are less focused on the situation that the leader is operating in (Yukl, 2010; Mullins, 2005;Bertocci, 2009).
Situational, transactional and transformational
Situational leadership is about having no single leadership style that fits all situations. Successful leaders can adapt their behavior to the specific needs of the situation. Leadership style can be seen as a combination of directive (task oriented and transactional) and supportive (relationship oriented and transformational) behavior (Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009).
Transformational and transactional leadership is situational and cultural dependent. How these styles are used depends on the situation and the people. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors that influence the leadership process. These contextual factors will also influence the way in which the transactional or transformational leadership styles will be used and to what extent. Leadership effectiveness depends on personality, the tasks to be accomplished, power, perceptions and culture. (Yukl, 2010;Pardey, 2007;Conger,2007;Mullins, 2005;Bertocci, 2009;Kouze, 2007;House, 1995).
Servant Leadership
There is a special accent of transformational leadership called servant leadership, which is more focused on serving the people. Transformational and servant leadership are both oriented on having a good relationship with subordinates. Transformational leadership places this relationship with followers in the context of the organization where servant leadership places this relationship in the context of serving these followers wherein the organization is second. Servant leadership is even more about individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation and the satisfaction lies in the service itself
(Stone et al, 2004;Gill, 2011;Bass, 2006;Yukl, 2010)
Transformational leadership is mainly focused on the western organizational models and is invented in the US. It therefore is not always suitable for other cultures and countries. Many important leadership theories and empirical evidence is very much North American and Western Europe in character. Transactional and transformational leadership theories are some of the most studied leadership approaches in western countries. Some scholars have tried to present evidence about the near universality of the transactional and transformational leadership paradigm (House, 1995;Bass, 1995;Lowe & Gardner, 2000;Palrecha et al, 2012).
Universality
Against this near universality we find that cross-cultural, psychological, sociological and anthropological research shows that not all cultures share the same approach and assumptions about leadership behavior and style. It is needed that a better understanding is formed of the way in which leadership is approached in different cultures. A more empirically grounded theory must be formulated to explain the different leadership behaviors and effectiveness across cultures besides western Europe and North America (Dorfman, 1996;House, 1995;Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Palrecha et al, 2012).
Besides culture, the leadership style being used will also depend on the people being led. Blanchard and Hersey (1972) extended their model with the development level of the follower. The leader’s style should be driven by the competence and commitment of the follower. Development levels are also situational because when highly trained and focused people are placed in a situation in which they do not have the skills to perform, they probably will drop to a level of low commitment and competence. The leadership style of the leader should correspond to the development level of the followers to create a highly effective situation. (Mullins, 2005;Hunt, 1999;Pardey, 2007;Bertocci, 2009;Yukl, 2010;Wadell, 1994).
Motivation
Introduction
How to motivate individuals and teams was an important element of the management theories during much of the 20 th century. A theory which could fit all situations was not found. The search for it did lead to many different views on how people become motivated. Roughly speaking there are three levels of motivation; -the individual level, which is often about the biological level and therefore related to the lower levels of Maslow, - the group and community level, which is about loyalty and commitment and related to the upper levels of Maslow and the organizational or workplace level, also related to the higher levels of Maslow’s motivational model (Bass & Riggio, 2006;Arnoff & Litwin, 1971;Miron & McClelland, 1979;Maslow, 1954;McGregor, 1960;Herzberg, 1966;Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Motivation theories
Leadership vs Management
Leadership is about the process of influencing and guiding others in different ways to let them do what needs to be done. Individuals will put more effort into their work when there is a clear relationship between performance, effort and reward. The expectancy theory of motivation is about what motivates people to desire a certain outcome of an action or a task (Vroom, 1995;Buchanan, 2007).
Management is about task fragmentation, finding the best way to perform work, training of subordinates for optimal performance and rewarding people for meeting and exceeding performance targets. When properly applied it will meet the expectations of the employees and it can predict the outcomes of certain tasks (Vroom, 1995;Winslow Taylor, 1911;McGregor, 2006;Buchanan, 2007).
Motivational levels and needs
Through the observations of workgroups when doing their tasks under different circumstance a hypothesis was formulated that motivation to work, productivity and quality of work are all related to the nature of the social relations among the workers and between the workers and their boss. These observations are related to Group Think because the focus was on how the group thoughts influenced the group members. It is also about the Human Relations movement which studied the behavior of people in groups (Mayo, 1975;Mullins, 2005;Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009;Janis, 1982).
People have different needs. The Hierarchy of needs was formulated by Maslow (1954). The need hierarchy theory was based on the belief that there are five groups of basic needs which develop in a hierarchy. All the levels need to be satisfied to reach the upper level. They are done sequential. Critiques wrote that these motivations can be done without sequence in workplace circumstances within organizations (Clayton, 1972).
People have intrinsic motivations related to the higher levels of the needs of Maslow and people have extrinsic motivations which are related to the lower levels of the hierarchy of Maslow. Intrinsic motivators are about achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement and the extrinsic motivators are about supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, company policy and working conditions. (Herzberg, 1966;Bass & Riggio, 2006;Buchanan, 2007;Hackman & Oldham, 1980;Maslow, 1954) .
Another important motivational theory is about Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X and Y are totally different and opposite assumptions about people at work and what motivate them. Theory X demands an autocratic and transactional leader and Theory Y match with a participative and transformational leader. X people are transactional candidates and Y people are transformational candidates (Buchanan, 1997;Mullins, 2005;McGregor, 2006).
Safe environment and motivation
People tend to be more motivated when working in a safe environment. It is likely that the behavior of leaders play an important role in creating a psychological safe environment. Several scholars have discovered that supportive management and leadership style is an important building block of a psychological safe working environment. When a leader is available, and accessible, inviting input and supports openness and fallibility, then the perception of safety among followers seems to grow exponentially, which also strengthened motivation. Servant leadership, about pattern of behavior through which leaders are open and supportive to their followers, promote their wellbeing and motivation in the higher regions of Maslows (1954) hierarchy of needs (Carmeli & Zisu, 2009;Edmondson, 1996;Nembhard & Edmondson, 1996;Greenleaf, 1977;Maslow, 1954;Hirak et al, 2012).
Teams and Groups
Successful vs unsuccessful teams
The difference between successful teams and unsuccessful teams can be found in a combination of the internal team climate and atmosphere and the effectiveness of the team leader. Another important factor is how the organization approaches the team and how well it supports the needs of the team. It is also said that the most consistently successful teams had a right mix of balanced team-roles (Mullins, 2005; Belbin, 2012;Kouze & Posner, 2007).
There are some conditions for effective teamwork. A real team is stable over time, the direction is clear, meaningful and challenging. The team’s structure is balanced between task composition and norms. It supports good processes. The tasks fit together and the norms are clear and aligned. The organizational context provides the support the team needs (Hackman, 2002).
Team development and team energy
If we assume that there is fixed total team energy in a team, then this energy can be used in two different ways. When the energy is positive, the team can work on the higher levels of Maslow. If the energy is negative, the team will not get past the lower levels of Maslow and team development is disturbed. Successful teams tend to have that positive team energy where unsuccessful teams seem to fill themselves with negative team energy. The team roles are not filled in properly and this produces unbalanced teams (Mullins, 2005;Sherwin, 2012;Belbin, 2012).
Teams seem to develop themselves on a clearly defined growth cycle. Teams develop and mature as does its members. They go through four stages of development; Form, Storm, Norm and Perform. First the goals and definitions of the group are important (Form), then the expectations are challenged (Storm) after which assumptions are settled in (Norm) so that the group can produce (Perform) -(Tuckman, 1965;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Pedler et al, 2010) .
Individual contribution and group thinking
Different people make different contributions to a team. People tend to have one or two preferred roles in a team. The main role and the ‘backup’ role which is the alternative role. They are the roles in which people feel most comfortable and are most effective. People have preferred team roles and the key to success lies in getting the right mix of team roles to form a balanced team. It is important that your role and competencies needed for that role are used on the proper moments and within the proper context. When a certain role is not needed for the job or it is a bad fit within the organizational context, then a different approach must be searched for (Boyatzis, 1982;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Belbin, 2012).
Group thinking can have a profound influence on the way team members think. When Group thinking is the main force then loyalty to the group’s previous policies, or the group consensus, overrides the conscience of the individual members of the group. Members can get into a void of thinking, sucked into a blind spot of group-thought. Not looking for alternatives or avoid to rethink a strategy that is failing are often characteristics of Group thinking (Janis, 1982;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005).
Learning from failure
Group thinking can also be guided to a more positive direction. To be better equipped to cope with uncertain environmental conditions, many organizations reorganized their processes around work groups. Several studies mentioned the possibility that group learning can enhance work group performance. When related to high reliability organizations then it seems that learning from past failures ensure more reliable and effective systems. Learning from failures is essential and feedback from failure can improve change toward more adaptive practices and improvement of strategic decisions. When Group thinking is focused on learning from failure, then the individual team members are more open to learn from mistakes than they probably would on their own (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003,Ilgen, 1999;Edmondson, 1999;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001;Carmeli & Sheaffer, 2008;Hirak et al, 2012).
