Discussion board | Applied Sciences homework help

1. Identify and apply guidelines for effective communication in teams with regard to roles, goals, norms, cohesion, conformity, and creativity.

olitical economist Robert Reich describes the importance of teamwork in an increasingly technological age: Rarely do even Big Ideas emerge any longer from the solitary labors of genius. Modern science and technology is too complicated for one brain. It requires groups of astronomers, physicists, and computer programmers to discover new dimensions of the universe, teams of microbiologists, oncologists, and chemists to unravel the mysteries of cancer. With ever more frequency, Nobel prizes are awarded to collections of people. Scientific papers are authored by small platoons of researchers.1 408 Working with others is a vital part of almost every job.2 In a national survey of architects and landscape architects, more than 75 percent of the respondents reported that they “always” or “often” worked in teams.3 Indeed, the amount of research done by teams has increased in virtually every scientific field.4 Even the historically “cowboy” profession of surgery is increasingly becoming a team effort.5 In the burgeoning field of multimedia, the ability to work as a team member has been identified as the top nontechnical job skill.6 A wide varity of firms, such as Motorola, Ford, USAA Insurance, and 3M, have used teams to become leaders in their fields. Given the prevalence of teams, no matter how talented you are, being a solo player is not an option in the modern business world. Gary Kaplan, owner of a Pasadena, California, executive recruiting firm, offers one explanation of why team players are more highly valued today than rugged individualists: “The single-combat warrior, that bright, purposeful worker, tends to suck up a lot of oxygen in an organization. And now they’re often seen as too innovative and too difficult.”7 As legendary baseball manager Casey Stengel once put it, “Gettin’ good players is easy. Getting ’em to play together is the hard part.” Teams have several notable advantages over individuals working alone.8 One of these advantages is greater productivity. Research shows that the old saying, “Two heads are better than one,” can be true: Well- conceived and efficiently operating teams produce more solutions than individuals working alone, and those solutions are likely to be better than one developed by a solo practitioner. In addition to the greater productivity, the accuracy of an effective team’s work is higher than the accuracy of isolated individuals’ work. Consider the task of creating a new product. A team of people from sales, marketing, design, engineering, and manufacturing is likely to consider all the 199 important angles, whereas one or two people without this breadth of perspective would probably miss some important ideas. Teams not only produce better products, but also generate more commitment and enthusiasm from the members who created them. People are usually more committed to a decision if they have had a part in making 409 it. Recognizing this principle, many companies create participatory management programs and quality circles that involve employees in important decisions. For example, William Deardon, chief executive officer of Hershey Foods Corporation, established a corporate planning committee to make the major plans and decisions for the company. “I figured that if we worked it out together,” he explained, “the members of the group would feel that it was their plan and our plan—not my plan— and they’d work harder to implement it.”9 ©Ira Block/Contributor/National Geographic/Getty Images

• The Nature of Teams As Table 7-1 shows, teams play an important role in the world of business and the professions. Unfortunately, you or one of your classmates may have had a negative experience while working with others in the past. It is important that you do not let such an experience affect your perception of teamwork in general. As you will read in this chapter, there are some key differences between working in groups and working as a team. In the workplace, teamwork is often crucial for the success of an organization.

Table 7-1 Team versus Individual Performance Team Superior to Individuals Individuals Superior to Team Task requires broad range of talents and knowledge Task requires limited knowledge and information (which individuals possess) Complicated task (requires division or coordination of labor) Simple task (can be done by one person or individuals working separately) 410 Time available for deliberation Little time available Members are motivated to succeed Members don’t care about the job High standards of performance “Social loafing” is the norm Sources: Adapted from Rothwell, J. D., In Mixed Company (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage, 2013; Hare, A. P., “Roles, Relationships, and Groups in Organizations: Some Conclusions and Recommendations,” Small Group Research 34, 2003, 123–154. Characteristics of Workgroups The word group is often used to refer to any assembly of people—the commuters on the morning train, the sightseers gathering for a walking tour of the downtown area, the rock band at a local nightspot. When we talk about people interacting at work, however, we 200 use this term differently. Nevertheless, not all collections of people—even people who come together in working settings—are groups. For our purposes, a workgroup is a small, interdependent collection of people with a common identity who interact with one another, usually face-to-face and over time, to reach a goal. Based on this definition, we can single out several significant characteristics of workgroups that can help you develop ways to work more effectively with others on the job. Size Most experts would say that a twosome is not a group because the partners do not interact in the same way three or more people do. For instance, two people working together can resolve disputes only by persuading each other, giving in, or compromising. By comparison, in groups, members can form alliances and outvote or pressure the minority. Although less agreement exists about when a collection of people becomes too large to be considered a group, almost every small-group expert argues that a collection much larger than 20 people loses many of the properties that define groups—at least, effective ones.10 Research on a number of companies has shown that 10-person groups and teams often produce better results more quickly and with higher profits than do groups consisting of several hundred people.11 Most communication experts suggest the optimal size for groups focused on decision making is either 5 or 7 members.12 The odd number of participants eliminates the risk of tie 411 votes. Decision-making groups with fewer than 5 members lack the resources to come up with good ideas and to carry them out, while larger groups suffer from the problems of anonymity, domination, and lack of commitment. Recent research suggests that groups composed of 5 to 12 members can succeed, provided the type of task and the group composition are given primary consideration.13 Shared Purpose Guests at a reception or attendees at a convention might talk with one another, but unless they share a mutual goal, they will not collectively accomplish anything. One challenge facing anyone leading a newly created group is to give its members a clear sense of shared purpose. Interaction over Time A collection of people studying in a library or working out at the gym are merely co-acting. Likewise, a roomful of trainees at a seminar are not considered a group unless and until the individuals start interacting. A group that interacts over a period of time develops particular characteristics. For example, it will tend to develop shared standards of appropriate behavior that its members are expected to meet. Typical expectations involve how promptly meetings begin, what contribution each member is expected to make to certain routine tasks, what kind of humor is appropriate, and so on. Interdependence Group members do not just interact—they depend on one another. Consider the workers in a restaurant: If the kitchen crew fails to prepare orders promptly or correctly, the servers’ tips will decline. If the employees who clear tables do not perform their jobs quickly and thoroughly, the servers will hear complaints from their customers. If the waiters fail to take orders accurately, the cooks will have to prepare some meals twice. Identity Both members of a group and outsiders view groups as distinct entities. Some groups have a formal title, such as “benefits committee” or “accounting department.” Others have an informal identity, such as “lunchtime power walkers” or “those guys who carpool together.” In either case, the fact that the group is seen as distinct has important consequences. To a greater or lesser extent, members feel their own image is tied to the way the group is regarded. In addition, the group’s identity means the 412 addition or loss of a member feels significant to the people involved, whether the change in membership is cause for celebration or disappointment. 201 case STUDY Learning Teamwork from Firefighters, Comedians, and Musicians For one action-packed afternoon, a group of corporate workers traded in their office garb for gas masks, heavy boots, and turnout gear. Coached by New York City firefighters, they assembled in four-person teams to learn about teamwork from first responders. Dousing fires and staging subway rescues might seem far removed from routine office life. Even so, the intense demands of performing in an emergency taught the participants a great deal about what it takes for a team to perform successfully. “Firefighting is very complex and interdependent, and that has obvious applications to the business world,” said one program planner. “Since our training puts people into crisis situations, hopefully they will be better prepared to handle any crisis that arises in the workplace.” Firefighting isn’t the only nontraditional venue for developing teamwork. Chicago’s Second City Communications offers comedy workshops for almost 400 corporate clients, who learn that the flexibility and creativity required in an improvisational comedy troupe can transfer to organizations facing business challenges. Music offers another setting in which to teach collaboration. The Minneapolis firm Jazz Impact has trained workers from Fortune 500 companies to interact more effectively. Through improvisational jazz, the employees learn from unscripted performing how to integrate solo performances and accompanying players into a successful piece of work. 413 Whether the setting is a burning building, a nightclub, or an office, the same principles of teamwork apply: Assemble a group of talented and trained members. Be flexible. Forget about personal glory and do whatever it takes to get the job done. Source: Kranz, G., “Corporate Leaders Train in Fire Drills and Funny Skills,” Workforce Management, May 2011, 28–30, 32. What Makes a Group a Team? The term team appears everywhere in the business world. The positive connotations of a team—spirit, cooperation, and hard work—lead some managers to label every collection of workers as a team. You do not have to be an athlete to appreciate the value of teams, and you do not need to be a cynic to know calling a group of people a team does not make them one.14 True teams have all the attributes of a group, but they have other distinct qualities that make them more satisfying to work in and more productive.15 Groups Teams Members are primarily concerned with their own challenges and goals Members focus primarily on team challenges and goals Members produce individual products Members produce collective products Work is shaped by the manager Work is shaped collectively by the team leader and members Several types of teams exist in business. Project teams work on a specific task, usually for a finite period of time. For example, a team of marketing experts might design a publicity program to accompany the rollout of a new software product. Service teams support customers or employees. For example, public utilities have service agents available around the clock to help customers. Management teams work collaboratively on a daily basis within organizations to help them perform their missions. At a university, for example, top officials meet regularly to coordinate their divisions: academic, student 414 202 support, financial, physical facilities, and so on. Action teams offer immediate responses and are activated in (typically) emergency situations. For example, community health workers form teams to deal with public health threats.16 Although teams are more productive and successful than groups, not all teams are equally effective. Researchers Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto spent nearly three years interviewing the members of more than 75 teams that were clearly winners. The teams came from a wide range of enterprises, including a Mount Everest expedition, a cardiac surgery team, the presidential commission that studied the space shuttle Challenger accident, the team that developed the IBM personal computer, and two championship football teams. Although the teams pursued widely different goals, they all shared eight important characteristics that distinguished them from regular workgroups:17 Clear and inspiring shared goals. Members of a winning team know why their team exists, and they believe that purpose is important and worthwhile. A results-driven structure. Members of winning teams focus on getting the job done in the most effective manner. They are organized and efficiently structured. Competent team members. Members of winning teams have the skills necessary to accomplish their goals. Unified commitment. People in successful teams put the group’s goals above their personal interests. While this commitment might seem like a sacrifice to others, the personal rewards for members of winning teams are worth the effort. Collaborative climate. Another word for collaboration is teamwork. People in successful teams trust and support one another. Standards of excellence. In winning teams, doing outstanding work is an important norm. Each member is expected to do his or her personal best. 415 External support and recognition. Successful teams need an appreciative audience that recognizes their effort and provides the resources necessary to get the job done. The audience may be a boss, or it may be the public whom the team is created to serve. Principled leadership. Winning teams usually have leaders who can create a vision of the team’s purpose and challenge members to get the job done. Those leaders also have the ability to unleash the members’ talent. You may not be able to single-handedly transform your entire organization into a team-friendly environment, but it is still possible to influence the group of people with whom you work. Examine the eight characteristics of teams listed here and ask yourself whether you are communicating in a manner that makes that small, but important, leap possible. Virtual Teams Virtual teams interact and function without being in the same place at the same time.18 As one observer put it, virtual team members are “working together apart.”19 Technology permits virtual teams to transcend boundaries of location and time. Barry Caldwell, supervisor of computer- aided industrial design technologies at Ford Motor Company’s Corporate Design division, concurs, explaining how Ford’s virtual teams span the globe: “We can’t change the fact that Europe is five or six hours ahead [of Michigan],” he says. “But virtual teams can be extremely effective if you can have people working in Italy or Germany—five hours ahead of you— and they can hand work off to Dearborn at the end of their day, and you can carry it further and then pass it back. Instead of an eight-hour day, you can get 14 hours.”20 203 TECHNOLOGY tip 416 Apps for Teamwork A simple search for “to do” apps in your smartphone’s or tablet’s app store is likely to turn up thousands of results. Although it may seem daunting to scroll through the results, task management apps can be especially useful when you are working in a team. To choose the best app for the job, consider the needs and preferences of the team. Will team members be working on interdependent tasks? Will a visual element (such as a checklist) help the team track its progress? Would an integrated chat or comment feature be helpful? Would it be useful if the app could sync to external calendars? Once you have determined which features are most important, your options will narrow. For example, if team members answered “Yes” to all of the questions in the preceding paragraph, you would likely choose an app like Trello, which allows users to create a board (for example, Fundraising Event) and organize lists of tasks (Pre-event, Event, Post- event) that contain a set of to-do actions (Post-event: Send thank-you cards to donors; Publish final amount of money raised; Write a news release). This particular app would also give team members the option to assign individuals to tasks, color-code items, comment and receive notifications, and add labels, descriptions, photos, attachments, and subtasks. Virtual teams are not always—or even usually—on separate continents. Nevertheless, technology can keep members connected while they are telecommuting or on the road. Even when people work under the same roof, keeping in e-touch can make work more efficient. Some human resources experts claim that when people work more than 50 feet apart, their likelihood of collaborating more than once a week is less than 10 percent.21 Given this fact, virtual meetings can boost the efficiency of people who work under the same roof. Another advantage of virtual teams is the leveling of status differences. On networked teams, rank is a much less prominent characteristic than it is in face-to-face groups.22 When sent by e-mail, the ideas of a new or mid- 417 level worker look identical to those of a senior manager. Back-and-forth dialogue is much less intimidating in a mediated format than it might be when you have to face the boss in person. Despite the advantages of virtual teamwork, computer networking cannot replace all aspects of personal contacts. Furthermore, it is an oversimplification to suggest that teams are always either virtual or face- to-face. In truth, many teams are hybrid; that is, members meet from time to time and keep in touch electronically between sessions.

• Leadership and Influence in Teams In group endeavors, successes or failures often are attributed to leadership. Coaches of losing sports teams risk being fired, while winning coaches are celebrated. CEOs of bankrupt companies are ousted by their boards of directors, while CEOs of profitable companies earn sizeable bonuses. When ethical lapses occur in an organization, a “lack of leadership” is often cited as the culprit. In this section, we look at the role of communication in effective—and ineffective—leadership.

Perspectives on Leadership Throughout much of the history of organizations, leadership was considered to be a role held by an individual. More recently, researchers have come to recognize leadership is a process and different team members can take part in providing leadership to the 204 team—with or without an official leadership role. This section summarizes several of the key approaches to understanding leadership. Trait Approach The trait approach is based on the belief that all leaders possess common traits that lead to their effectiveness. The earliest research sought to identify these traits, and by the mid-1930s scores of studies pursued this goal. The conclusions reached by the various researchers were contradictory, however, casting doubt on the validity of the trait approach. Certain traits did seem common in most leaders, including physical attractiveness, sociability, desire for leadership, originality, and 418 intelligence.23 Despite these similarities, the research also showed these traits were not predictive of leadership. In other words, a person possessing these characteristics would not necessarily become a leader. Another research approach, it became clear, was necessary. Style Approach Beginning in the 1940s, researchers began to consider the style approach. They asked whether the designated leader could choose a way of communicating that would increase effectiveness. This research identified three managerial styles. Some leaders are authoritarian, using the power at their disposal to control members. Others are more democratic, inviting members to help make decisions. A third leadership style is described as laissez-faire: The designated leader gives up the power of that position and transforms the group into a leaderless collection of equals. Early research seemed to suggest that the democratic style produced the best results,24 and contemporary studies suggest members of groups with democratic leadership are slightly more satisfied than those run by autocratic leaders.25 Even so, it is an oversimplification to say that a democratic approach always works best. For instance, groups with autocratic leaders are more productive in stressful situations, while democratically led groups do better when the conditions are nonstressful.26 One of the best-known stylistic approaches is the Leadership Grid developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (Figure 7.1),27 which shows that good leadership depends on skillful management of the task and the relationships among group members. The horizontal axis of the grid measures a manager’s concern for task or production—getting the job done. The vertical axis measures the leader’s concern for people and relationships. Blake and Mouton’s grid counteracts the tendency in some naive managers to assume that if they focus solely on the task, good results will follow. These theorists argue the most effective leader is one who adopts a 9,9 style, showing high concern for both product and people. FIGURE 7.1 The Leadership Grid 419 Source: From Leadership Dilemmas-Grid Solutions by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (formerly the Managerial Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1991, 29. Contingency Approaches Unlike the style approach, contingency approaches are based on the idea that the “best” leadership style is flexible—it changes from one situation to the next. For instance, a manager who successfully guides a project team to develop an advertising campaign might flop as a trainer or personnel officer. Psychologist Fred Fiedler conducted extensive research in an attempt to discover when a task-oriented approach works best versus when a relationship-oriented style is most effective.28 He found that the decision whether to emphasize task or relationship issues in a situation depends on three factors: (1) leader–member relations, including the manager’s attractiveness and the followers’ loyalty; (2) task structure, involving the degree of simplicity or complexity of the job; and (3) the leader’s power, including job title and the ability to coerce and reward the followers. Generally, Fiedler’s research suggests a task-oriented approach works best when circumstances are extremely favorable (good leader–member relations, highly structured tasks) or extremely unfavorable (poor leader– member relations, unstructured task, weak leader power). In moderately 420 favorable or unfavorable circumstances, a relationship-oriented approach works best. While these findings are useful, it is important not to overstate their implications. In 205 most cases, good leadership requires a mixture of relationship and task concerns. The question is not which dimension to choose, but rather which one to emphasize. Another contingency approach to leadership is the situational leadership model, developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard.29 Originally termed life-cycle theory, the situational leadership model suggests that successful leaders adapt their leadership style to the ability of the individual or group they are attempting to lead. A worker with a low level of readiness to work independently needs a highly directive and task- related style of leadership. As the subordinate becomes able to perform the task without guidance, the manager gradually withdraws the task-related supervision. Finally, when the worker’s ability to handle a task is superior, the boss can cut back the amount of socioemotional support, knowing the worker is functioning at the highest level and any reinforcements are now primarily internal. Transformational Leadership Approach Leadership expert, historian, and presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns introduced the concept of transformational leadership in his 1978 book Leadership.30 In this approach, leaders’ personality traits and ability to define a clear vision for the organization enable them to inspire subordinates to work toward common goals and empower those subordinates to exceed their normal levels of performance. Bernard M. Bass expanded upon this idea to suggest 206 that transformational leadership is measured in terms of the leader’s influence on his or her subordinates. Transformational leaders: Model integrity and fairness Set clear goals Have high expectations 421 Encourage others Provide support and recognition Stir the emotions of people Get people to look beyond their self-interest Inspire people to reach for the improbable31 One approach to transformational leadership is known as servant leadership. If we visualize traditional leadership as a pyramid, where the leader sits at the top and makes requests of subordinates, then servant leadership would flip the pyramid upside down. The servant leader serves his or her subordinates by putting their needs first, based on the belief that empowered employees are able to do their jobs more effectively when the leader supports them. The servant leader approaches his or her job by asking a simple question: What can I do for you? Research has shown that servant leadership improves the well-being of followers32 and affects employees’ performance through the development of an ethical work climate. Servant leaders are ethical role models and, as such, contribute to the creation of an organizational culture where doing the right thing is expected and encouraged.33 As such, servant leadership creates a higher level of ethics that results in higher performance34 and creativity, and less turnover.35 Leader–Member Exchange So far we have been assuming leaders treat all group members equally. But your own experience probably shows that leaders have different relationships with each person on their team. Some of these relationships are characterized by positive communication and mutual satisfaction. Others can be more distant or even fraught with dissatisfaction on both sides. Recognizing this fact, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory views leadership as a collection of multiple relationships with organizational members, with each of those relationships being unique. The basic premise of LMX is that leaders—no matter how good they are—have a limited amount of time and energy. As a result, they cannot give every member an equal amount of resources. Inevitably, some people get more, and some get less.36 This “differential distribution” of resources 422 is both the cause and the effect of some leader–member relationships being “high quality” (i.e., richer and more satisfying) and others being lower quality. Communication in high-quality LMX relationships is typically positive and reinforcing, characterized by support statements, coaching, and joint decision making. When disagreements arise, they are handled respectfully and constructively. This treatment marks certain members as “insiders.” Communication in low-quality LMX relationships, by comparison, is dramatically different. There is often less interaction, and what does occur can include more face-threatening acts, competitive conflict, power games, and defensiveness.37 Such patterns mark these group members as outsiders. Not surprisingly, there is a strong connection between the quality of a member’s relationship with his or her leader and the member’s overall satisfaction with that boss, coworkers, and the organization as a whole.38 207 case STUDY Servant Leadership in Action In her book, Dare to Serve: How to Drive Superior Results While Serving Others, Cheryl Bachelder discusses how servant leadership has helped her revive the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen brand. When Bachelder became CEO of Popeyes in November 2007, she faced the challenge of solving several problems that had plagued the company for years, including a decline in guest visits, negative restaurant sales and profit trends, and a steep drop in the company’s stock price. Bachelder found that the relationship between the company and its franchise owners was strained. As a result, she and her team focused on serving the franchise owners well. They created a workplace where people were treated with respect and encouraged to collaborate as a team and perform at the highest level. The new leadership standard led to improved guest ratings, an increase in restaurant sales and profit, and a 423 growth in market capitalization from less than $300 million to more than $1.4 billion. The franchisees began reinvesting in the brand by remodeling restaurants in record time and opening new locations around the world. In an interview with Business Insider in 2015, Bachelder summarized her efforts: “This company hadn’t been performing well in years. We asked ourselves who we would serve, and we decided on the franchise owners. We put every decision we made through the filter of how well it served the franchise owner. Then, over the course of the next several years we checked performance against the measures of what makes franchise owners successful. Together, we’ve created this high- performing company.” Sources: Bachelder, C., Dare to Serve: How to Drive Superior Results by Serving Others. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2015; Goudreau, J., “The CEO of Popeyes Says Becoming a ‘Servant Leader’ Helped Her Turn Around the Struggling Restaurant Chain,” Business Insider, March 24, 2015; Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (2017). Cheryl A. Bachelder. Retrieved from https://company.popeyes.com/company/leadership/cheryl- bachelder/ As a member, you can communicate in ways that lead to a high-quality “insider” relationship with your leader.39 Research suggests that leaders are most impressed by “work-related currencies,” such as taking the initiative, exercising responsibility, and going beyond the official job description.40 Basic as it may sound, doing a good job and exceeding the leader’s expectations can be the best route to forging a high-quality relationship. Becoming a Leader Sometimes leaders are appointed by an individual with higher authority or by the team itself. For example, a football team may select a captain, or a board of directors may appoint a director as chair of a committee. In other cases, leaders emerge organically from a group. Emergent leaders evolve into this role over time as a result of the group’s interaction. Emergent leaders do not always have official titles. For example, a group of disgruntled employees might urge one person to approach the boss and ask for a change. A team of students assigned to develop a class 424 project might agree that one person is best suited to take the lead in organizing and presenting their work. Sometimes emergent leaders are officially recognized, but at other times their role is never acknowledged overtly. In fact, the designated leader may be the titular head of a group, while an emergent leader really runs the show. Fans of late-night movies will recall how the young, inexperienced lieutenant learns to defer to the grizzled, wise sergeant. This pattern often repeats itself in everyday working situations when new managers or supervisors recognize the greater knowledge of old-timers who are their subordinates on the organizational chart. In such cases, the new manager is smart to defer to the unofficial, emergent leader—at least until he or she gains more experience and wisdom. 208 Communication researcher Ernest Bormann studied how emergent leaders gain influence, especially in newly formed groups.41 According to Bormann, a group selects a leader by the method of residues—a process of elimination in which potential candidates are gradually rejected for one reason or another until only one remains. This process of elimination occurs in two phases. In the first round, members who are clearly unsuitable are rejected. The surest path to rejection is being quiet; less talkative members were never chosen as leaders in the groups Bormann studied. Failing to participate verbally in a group’s work leaves the impression of indifference and lack of commitment. Another ticket to early rejection is dogmatism: Members who express their opinions in strong, unqualified terms are usually perceived as being too extreme and inflexible to take a leading role. A third cause of elimination as a potential leader is a lack of skill or intelligence: Competence is obviously a necessary condition for successful leadership, and members who lack this quality are rejected early. In the method of residues, quietness, dogmatism, and incompetence are almost always grounds for disqualification. Beyond these factors, a communication style that members find irritating or disturbing is likely to knock a member out of consideration as a leader. A variety of behaviors may fall into this category, depending on the composition of the group. In one case, being too serious might be grounds for rejection, but in a 425 different situation, a joker might earn disapproval. Using inappropriate language could also be a disqualifier. In a group with biased members, gender or ethnicity might be grounds for rejection. After clearly unsuitable members have been eliminated, roughly half of the group’s members may still be candidates for leadership. This second phase can be a tense time for the group, as the jockeying for a role of influence may pit the remaining candidates against one another. In some groups, the contenders for leader acquire what Bormann calls “lieutenants,” who support the contenders’ advancement. If only one candidate has a lieutenant, his or her chances of becoming leader are strong. If two or more contenders have supporters, the process of leader emergence can drag out or even reach a stalemate. The Career Tip box offers advice for the times when you want to take on leadership of a group. In their book Getting It Done: How to Lead When You’re Not in Charge, Roger Fisher and Alan Sharp describe “lateral leadership” as a way to avoid the extremes of doing nothing or taking charge and bossing others. They suggest a team member can lead others by doing three things: (1) asking thoughtful, sincere questions to get others to think creatively and contribute their ideas; (2) offering ideas to help the team while inviting others to challenge your thoughts; and (3) doing something constructive needed by the team and modeling the behavior needed.42 Power and Influence of Members Many teams have a designated leader—the supervisor, chairperson, coach, or manager who has formal authority and responsibility to supervise the task at hand. Other groups, called self-directed work teams, are responsible for managing their own behavior to get a task done.43 For example, in 2015, lokai launched a limited-edition blue bracelet in partnership with charity: water. The company donated $3 for every blue lokai sold between March 1 and March 22 to charity: water in commemoration of World Water Day. When the partnership was launched, however, lokai’s e-commerce site could not keep up with the customer demand and crashed. lokai CEO and founder Steven Izen told Entrepreneur that he allowed his employees to take over; within an hour, 426 the site was back and running. According to Izen, “I need to be able to rely on my team and the people around me…. If I really put my trust in them, they will be able to execute.”44 Whether or not a team has a designated leader, every member has the power to shape events. More than a half-century ago, John French and Bertram Raven identified seven 209 forms of power that are usually possessed by one or more members of a group—not necessarily just the designated leader.45 Depending on how they are used, these forms of power can make or break a team’s success. CAREER tip Sleep Deprivation and Leadership It is no secret that leaders have demanding schedules and often find themselves burning the midnight oil to complete tasks and meet deadlines. This practice can be detrimental to their ability to be successful leaders, however. Recent research shows that sleep deprivation can undermine leaders’ influence on their followers. Sleep-deprived leaders tend to be perceived as less charismatic than those who have had a normal night’s sleep and, therefore, have a more difficult time inspiring their subordinates. Interestingly, researchers have also found that sleep-deprived subordinates attribute less charisma to their leaders, meaning that they are more difficult to inspire. When possible, leaders should eliminate practices that may cause sleep deprivation for themselves and their employees, such as responding to text messages or e-mail after hours. Source: Barnes, C. M., Guarana, C. L., Nauman, S., & Kong, D. J., “Too Tired to Inspire or Be Inspired: Sleep Deprivation and Charismatic Leadership,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 2016, 1191–1199. 427 Position Power Position power is the ability to influence that comes from the position one holds. We often do things for the boss precisely because he or she holds that title. While position power usually belongs to designated leaders, people in lesser positions sometimes have jobs that involve telling higher-ups what to do. For example, a media expert might have the position power to tell the CEO or board chairman what will and will not work in a presentation to stockholders. Coercive Power The power to punish is known as coercive power because we often follow another’s bidding when failure to do so would lead to unpleasant consequences. Designated leaders have coercive power: They can assign unpleasant tasks, deny pay raises, and even fire people. Other members have coercive power, too, though it is usually subtle. Committee members or officemates who act as a blocker when things do not go their way are coercing others to take their views into account, implying, “If you don’t follow at least some of my suggestions, I’ll punish the team by continuing to object to your ideas and refusing to cooperate with you.” Reward Power The flip side of coercive power is reward power—the ability to reward. Designated leaders control the most obvious rewards, such as pay raises, improved working conditions, and the ability to promote. Even so, other members can give their own rewards. These may take the form of social payoffs, such as increased goodwill, and task- related benefits, such as voluntary assistance on a job. Expert Power Expert power comes from the group’s recognition of a member’s expertise in a certain area. Sometimes one expert is better suited to make a decision than an entire team. Designated leaders, however, are not always the experts in a group. In a manufacturing firm, for example, a relatively low-ranking engineer could influence management to alter a project by using her knowledge to declare a new product will not work. Problems can arise either when management does not recognize a knowledgeable member as an expert or when unqualified people are granted expert status. 428 Referent Power The term referent power alludes to the influence members possess due to the way ot

[TRUNCATED]