본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

프로젝트 팀 내 공유리더십(Shared Leadership)이 팀 효능감과 팀 몰입에 미치는 영향 -과업조정 및 업무분담의 매개효과 검증 -

The Effects of Shared Leadership on Team Efficacy and Team Commitment: Mediating Effects of Task Coordinations and Workload Sharing

양동민|심덕섭|노현재
한국기업경영학회 (Korean Corporation Management Association)|2012.04|기업경영연구 (Korean Corporation Management Review)|제19권 제2호|pp. 127-147|DOI http://dx.doi.org/

0

조회

0

다운로드

38

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

공유리더십Team Commitment팀 효능감팀 몰입Shared LeadershipTeam Efficacy과업조정업무분담Task CoordinationWorkload Sharing
주제분류경영학

초록

지금까지의 팀 리더십에 대한 연구는 한 개인의 리더십에 초점을 맞춰 개인의 특성 및 행동을 강조해 왔다(Bass, 1990). 리더 중심적인 관점은 리더십과 팀 성과 사이의 관계에 있어 많은 시사점을 제공하였지만(Guzzo and Dickson, 1996), 팀 환경에서 한 사람의 리더가 존재하는 것과 둘 이상의 리더가 공존하는 것 중에서 더 바람직한 것이 무엇인가에 대한 답을 얻기 위해 최근 연구자들은 공유리더십(shared leadership) 연구에 노력을 기울여 왔다(O’Toole et al., 2002). 본 연구는 지금까지 연구가 미흡했던 공유리더십이 팀 유효성에 미치는 영향과 함께 이들 사이의 관계에 있어 과업조정 및 업무분담 팀 프로세스의 매개효과에 대한 검증을 시도하였다. 본 연구는 선행 연구를 토대로 공유 리더십과 팀 유효성과의 관계를 77개 프로젝트 팀에 참여하고 있는 339명의 대학생을 대상으로한 설문조사를 통해 실증적으로 검증하고자 하였다. 가설 검증 결과 얻어진 몇 가지 사실에 대해 논의하면,첫째, 공유리더십은 팀 효능감 및 팀 몰입에 유의한 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 직무와 관련된 팀 프로세스, 즉 업무분담 및 과업조정은 공유리더십과 팀 효능감, 팀 몰입 간의 관계를 부분매개하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 팀 내 공유리더십이 팀 효능감과 팀 몰입에 직접적인 영향을 주는 한편, 업무분담 및 과업조정이라는 팀 프로세스를 통해 팀 성과변수에 간접적으로 영향을 주고 있음을 시사해주고 있다. 연구결과를 토대로 연구의 시사점과 향후 연구방향을 제시하였다

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of shared leadership on team efficacy and team commitment. In addition, we attempt to verify the mediating effects of task coordinations and workload sharing on the relationships between shared leadership and team efficacy and team commitment. To test the proposed hypotheses in our study, we collected data via a survey with a sample of 77 university student teams, comprising 339 respondents (on average 4.4 per team). Shared leadership was measured on the team member survey with 3 items used by Kent and Moss (1990). Response were provided on a 7-point Likert scale. Team efficacy was measured by scale from Riggs and Knight (1994) on a 7-point 3-item Likert scale. Team commitment were measured by scale from Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van De Viliert (2000) on a 7-point 4-item Likert scale. The level of analysis in this study is the team. To justify the aggregation of the responses of multiple respondents for obtaining measures at the team level, we used inter-rater agreement indices, rwg (James, Demaree, and Wolfe, 1984). In all cases, the rwg score provided support for combining team members’ perceptions to produce aggregated scores for the measures. The major findings are as follows: First, shared leadership were positively associated with team efficacy and team commitment. The findings suggest that organizations should help develop strong shared leadership patterns within their teams to bolster effectiveness. Organizations can promote shared leadership by setting expectations and encouraging members when teams initially form to view themselves and their fellow team members as leaders and to engage in shred, mutual leadership. Second, task coordinations and workload sharing have turned out to have a partial mediation effect on the relationship between shared leadership and team efficacy. as well as the relationship between shared leadership and team commitment. That is, this result indicated that shared leadership indirectly effects on team efficacy and team commitment through task coordinations and workload sharing. Mangers should therefore ensure that each team has a clear and shared sense of direction, prepares working plans, prioritize and allocate team tasks and promote and establish norms of participations and workload sharing. Our study makes key contribution to the literature on shared leadership. The findings extend previous research suggesting positive effects of shared leadership on team efficacy and team commitment using a network-based measure of shared leadership that better captures the patterns of mutual influence inherent in the construct. The findings of the mediation analyses are the primary contribution of this study since little research examined a mediation model. Specifically, the mediation analyses showed that even though the mediating effect of task coordinations and workload sharing on the relationship between shared leadership and team efficacy and team commitment. shared leadership still had some direct effects on outcome variables, suggesting the influence process of shared leadership on team outcomes could be more complicated than we originally proposed. This issue needs to be further clarified or even reconsidered. Given the small number of samples from the student teams, this study constitutes an exploratory attempt in nature. Caution must be exercised in attempting to interpret findings and to generalize the recommendations. The results proposed in this study must be validated by further research in diverse research settings. Causality could not be claimed due to the cross-sectional nature of the data. Longitudinal and experimental designs are needed to settle the dynamic relationships between shared leadership and team efficacy and team commitment. Several studies have called for more research on potential conditions such as task type that influenced link between shared leadership and team efficacy and team commitment. Such contextual variables are not fully measured in this study but could be included in future research.

참고문헌 (76)

  1. 김진희, "조직지원인식, 팀웍, 조직몰입의 관계와 조직 냉소주의에 대한 효과", 기업경영연구, 18(3), pp.1~16 (2011), 한국기업경영학회
  2. 박동수, "팀 과정특성과 구성원 태도의 관련성에 관한 실증적 연구", 경영연구, 13(4), pp.1~30 (1998), 한국산업경영학회
  3. 방호진, "공유리더십의 효과에 대한 연구: 과업상호의존성과 리더십의존성의 조절효과를 중심으로", 한국인사관리학회 추계학술대회 발표집, pp.195~212 (2008)
  4. 임서영, "팀장의 리더십이 구성원의 경력몰입과 이직의도에 미치는 영향 -감성지능의 조절효과-", 기업경영연구, 17(3), pp.1~22 (2010), 한국기업경영학회
  5. Alfred, A. R, "Members’ perceptions of co-leaders influence and effectiveness in group psychotherapy", Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 17, pp.42~53 (1992)
  6. Allison, P. D., "Measures of inequality", American Sociological Review, 43, pp.865~880 (1978)
  7. Ancona, D. G., "Outward bound : Strategies for team survival in an organization", Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp.334~365 (1990)
  8. Ancona, D. G., "Demography and design : predictors of new product team performance", Organization Science, 3, pp.321~341 (1992)
  9. Avolio, B. J, "Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance, In Advances in Interdisciplinary Study of Work Teams: Team Leadership", pp.173~209 (1996), Free Press
  10. Bandura, A. A, "Self efficacy: The exercise of control" (1997), Freeman
  11. Bantel, K. A, "Top management and innovations in banking : Does the composition of the top team make a difference?", Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp.107~125 (1989)
  12. Baron, R. M, "The moderator-mediator variable distinctionin social psychological research : Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, pp.1173~1182 (1986)
  13. Barsness, Z. I, "Motivation and opportunity: The role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management", Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp.401~419 (2005)
  14. Bass, B. M, "Bass and Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications(3rd ed.)" (1990), Free Press
  15. Bedian, A. G, "Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers", Leadership Quarterly, 17, pp.190~205 (2006)
  16. Bettenhausen, K. L., "Five years of groups research : What we have learned and what needs to be addressed", Journal of Management, 17, pp.345~381 (1991)
  17. Blau, P. M., "Inequality and heterogeneity" (1977), Free Press
  18. Brass, D. J, "A social network perspective on human resources management", Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, pp.39~79 (1995)
  19. Brass, D., "Centrality and power in organization, In Networks in organizations: Structure, Form, and Action", pp.191~215 (1992), Harvard Business School Press
  20. Buller, P. T, "Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity : a field experiment", Academic Management Journal, 29, pp.305~328 (1986)
  21. Campion, M. A, "Relationships between work group characteristics and effectiveness : implications for designing effective work groups", Personnel Psychology, 46, pp.823~850 (1993)
  22. Carson, J. B, "Shared leadership in teams : Aninvestigation of antecedent conditions andperformance", Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, pp.1217~1234 (2007)
  23. Cohen, S. G, "What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite", Journal of Management, 23, pp.239~290 (1997)
  24. Day, D. V, "Leadership capacity in teams", Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp.857~880 (2004)
  25. Ensley, M. D, "The importance of verticaland shared leadership within new venturetop management teams : Implicationsfor the performance of startups", LeadershipQuarterly, 17, pp.217~231 (2006)
  26. Ensley, M. E, "Top management team process, shared leadership, an new venture performance : A theoretical model and researchagenda", Human Resource ManagementReview, 13, pp.329~346 (2003)
  27. Freeman, K. A, "Attitudes toward work in project groups as predictors of academic performance", Small Group Research, 27(2), pp.265~282 (1996)
  28. Gallucci, S. L., "Increasing profits through teamwork", Training and Development Journal, 39, pp.56~67 (1985)
  29. Gibb, C. A, "Leadership, In Handbook of social psychology", pp.877~917 (1954), Addison-Wesley
  30. Gibson, C. B., "Do they do what they believe they can? Group-efficacy and group performance across tasks and cultures", Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp.138~152 (1999)
  31. Goodman, P. S, "Understanding groups in organizations, In Research in Organizational Behavior" (1987), JAI Press
  32. Gronn, P., "Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis", Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp.423~451 (2002)
  33. Guinan, P. J, "Enabling software developmentteam performance during requirementsdefinition : a behavioral versus technicalapproach", Information Systems Research, 9(2), pp.101~125 (1998)
  34. Guzzo, R. A., "Teams in organizations : recent research on performance and effectiveness", Annual Review of Psychology, 47, pp.307~338 (1996)
  35. Hackman, J. R., "The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp.350~365 (1976)
  36. Hackman, J. R, "Leading groups in organization, In Designing effective work groups", pp.72~119 (1986), Jossey- Bass
  37. Heller, M. F, "Who’s in charge here? : sources of leadership for change in eight schools", Elementary School Journal, 96, pp.65~86 (1995)
  38. Henderson, J. C, "Managing I", S design teams : a control theories perspective, 1992, pp.38, 757~777
  39. Hirokawa, R, "Perceived facilitators and inhibitors of effectiveness in organizational work teams", Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), pp.424~446 (1995)
  40. Hoegl, M, "Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects : a theoretical concept and empirical evidence", Organization Science, 12, pp.435~449 (2001)
  41. James, L. R, "Estimating within-group interraterreliability with and without responsebias", Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp.85~98 (1984)
  42. Katz, D, "The social psychology of Organizations(2nd ed.)" (1978), Willey
  43. Kelly, J. R, "Entrainment in individual and group performance, In The social psychology of time: New perspectives" (1988), Sage
  44. Kent, R. L, "Self-monitoring as a predictor of leader emergence", Psychological Reports, 66, pp.875~881 (1990)
  45. Kolb, J. A., "Let’s bring structure back : A commentary", Management Communication Quarterly, 9(4), pp.452~465 (1996)
  46. Kozlowski, S. W. J., "Work groups and teams in organizations, In Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology", pp.333~375 (2003), Wiley
  47. Kozlowski, S. W. J, "Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams, In Advances in Interdisciplinary Study of Work Teams: Team Leadership", pp.253~292 (1996), JAI Press
  48. Larson, C. E, "Teamwork: what must go right, what can go wrong" (1989), Sage Publications
  49. Locke, E. A, "Participation in decision-making: One more look, In Research in organizational behavior", pp.265~339 (1979), JAI Press
  50. Manz, C. C., "Business without bosses: How Self-managing teams are building high-performance companies" (1993), Wiley
  51. Marks, M. A, "A temporally based frameworkand taxonomy of team processes", Academyof Management Review, 26, pp.356~376 (2001)
  52. Marsden, P. V, "Network data and measurement, In Annual review of sociology", Annual Reviews, 16, pp.435~463 (1990)
  53. Mayo, M, "Shared leadership in work teams: A socialnetwork approach, In Shared leadership:Reframing the hows and whys of leadership", pp.193~214 (2003), Sage
  54. Mehra, A, "Distributed leadership in teams : The network of leadership perceptionsand team performance", LeadershipQuarterly, 17, pp.232~245 (2006)
  55. Mowday, R., "Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment", Human Resource Management Review, 8, pp.387~401 (1999)
  56. Nahapiet, J, "Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage", Academy of Management Review, 23, pp.242~266 (1998)
  57. Oetzel, J. G, "Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in homogeneous and hetrogeneous groups", Small Group Research, 32, pp.19~54 (2001)
  58. O’Toole, J, "When two(or more)heads are betterthan one : The promise and pitfalls ofshared leadership", California ManagementReview, 44(4), pp.65~83 (2002)
  59. Otte, E., "Social network analysis : a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences", Journal of Information Science, 6, pp.441~453 (2002)
  60. Pearce, C. L, "The future of leadership : Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work", Academy of Management Executive, 18, pp.47~57 (2004)
  61. Pearce, C. L, "The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership on the longitudinal effectiveness of change management teams", Group Dynamics : Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, pp.172~197 (2002)
  62. Pearce, C. L, "The importance of self-and shared leadership in knowledge work", Organizational Dynamics, 34, pp.130~140 (2005)
  63. Pearce, C. L., "Leadership, social work and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector, In Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations", pp.180~203 (2004), Jossey-Bass
  64. Perry, M. L, "Empowered selling teams : Howshared leadership can contribute to sellingteam outcomes", The Journal of PersonalSellian and Sales Management, 19, pp.35~51 (1999)
  65. Riggs, M, "The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes : A causal model", Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, pp.755~766 (1994)
  66. Scheinheider, B, "When twelve heads are betterthan one: Implementing a shared eadershipconcept in a police agency", AcademyManagement Best Conference Paper (2006)
  67. Sivasubraminiam, N, "A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance", Group and Organization Management, 27, pp.66~96 (2002)
  68. Sparrowe, R. T., "Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups", Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp.316~325 (2001)
  69. Stewart, G. L, "Leadership for self-managing work teams : A typology and integrative model", Human Relations, 48, pp.747~770 (1995)
  70. Stewart, R, "Role sharing at the top: a neglected aspect of studies of managerial behavior, In Executive behavior", pp.120~136 (1991), Studia Oeconomiae Negotiorum
  71. Van de Ven, A. H., "Measuring and Assessing Organizations" (1980), John Wiley and Sons, Inc
  72. Van der Vegt, G. S, "Affective responses to intragroup interdependence and job complexity", Journal of Management, 26, pp.633~655 (2000)
  73. Vroom, V. H., "Leadership and decision making" (1973), University of Pittsburgh Press
  74. Wasserman, S, "Social network analysis: Methods and applications" (1994), Cambridge University Press
  75. Yeatts, D. E, "High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory" (1998), Sage
  76. Yukl, C. A, "Leadership in Organizations,(4nd)" (1998), Prentice Hall

관련 논문AI추천

공유 리더십의 선행요인과 그 효과성에 관한 연구김문주, 정예지한국기업경영학회 · 기업경영연구2016 · 제23권 제6호팀 기반 공유 리더십 척도의 타당화 연구김명소, 주영경한국산업및조직심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직2023 · 제36권 제4호리더-구성원 간 공유 리더십이 팀 몰입 및 팀 만족에 미치는 영향: 행위자-상대자 상호의존 모형(APIM)의 적용이윤수, 정희원, 조대연한국기업교육학회 · 기업교육과인재연구2016 · 제18권 제2호공유리더십과 갈등이 팀효과성에 미치는 영향: 관계갈등과 과업갈등을 중심으로김은자, 우형록한국창업학회 · 한국창업학회지2024 · 제19권 제6호공유리더십과 조직시민행동이 팀 효과성에 미치는 영향김진혁, 정기수, 허윤정한국평생교육ㆍHRD연구소 · 평생교육 · HRD연구2019 · 제15권 제2호팀 다양성과 팀 효과성과의 관계에서 공유리더십과 팀 동적역량의 매개효과김용주, 나명익, 홍아정, Marie Volpe영재교육연구소 · 교육과 학습: Global Creative Leader2019 · 제9권 제6호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)

A Study of Brand Image for Starbucks: A Qualitative Approach among Taiwanese and Korean ConsumersLin, Shuying, 이혜린, 백소연, Jou, Wei-Tingpp. 1-19기업 혁신이 수출에 미치는 영향 -국내 중소기업을 중심으로-강석민pp. 21-33경영자특성과 인적자원관리가 성과에 미치는 효과전순영pp. 35-56전문대학 재학생의 직업기초능력 증진을 위한 운영 방안 연구권영심, 김선희, 신지숙pp. 57-77기업의 지속가능경영 활동 측정을 위한 척도개발 연구박종철, 김경숙, 이한준pp. 79-98
원문 보기