LEADERSHIP IN SMALL GROUPS AND TEAMS:

TOWARD A THEORY OF GROUP LEADERSHIP

Randall S. Peterson and Kawon Kim

The topic of team leadership has become increasingly relevant

as groups and teams have becomerder to boost productivity?
What are the most important procedure an increasingly
significant work unit. How should teams be led in os for team
leaders to follow? Need to manage their teams in order for
them to be effective? There is a huge quantity of study on
leadership available.
On closer inspection, however, existing leadership theory for
small group researchers has two major flaws. The first is that
the majority of leadership work is done in the office.
either examines how leaders interact with individual followers
(e.g., LMX) or examines how leaders interact with groups of
followers (e.g., LMX) or at how leaders interact with the
populace (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).(See, for example, Weber's
1947 work on leader charisma, or the great-man hypothesis, as
evaluated by Jennings, 1960). Rather than the way they work
with small groups of people that engage with each other.
Surprisingly, just a small portion of the large literature on
leadership is devoted to group dynamics. A corpus of studies
has only lately emerged. Is emerging that examines a variety of
functions that group leaders play can do to improve the
efficiency of a group. Several review articles and chapters on
group and team leadership have lately been published (e.g.,
Burke et al., 2006; Kogler Hill, 2006, Morgeson, DeRue, &
Karam, 2010). The second issue with most existing leadership
research is that it focuses on the ‘‘what" of individual leaders,
detailing the vast range of activities or behaviours that they
engage in, rather than the functions or roles that they play.
leadership's whys (Bass, 2008).
This is regrettable because useful theory (Sutton & Staw, 1995)
focuses on why rather than what, and it appears that we have
made little progress in the domain of team leadership since
then. 50 years ago, McGrath (1962) recognised that team
leadership is "to accomplish, or get. "Anything that isn't being
handled properly for group needs will be done". To put it
another way, leadership research should focus on achieving
group goals in the lack of leadership, functions are not being
met. Our goal in this chapter is to address this criticism of the
leadership literature by bringing together leadership and team
studies, as well as pointing groups and team scholars. In the
direction of a functional theory of leadership in a group or
team.
This chapter has one overall goal: to assist small group and
team scholars to create a theory (or theories) of leadership.
More specifically, we propose a set of functions or criteria as a
starting point for constructing stronger group-level theories of
leadership. Ideally, any such theory would address. We refer to
group-level leadership as a process by which a person
influences a group as a whole to attain a common goal. Our
definition is based on an earlier definition. Northouse (2006)
provides a definition of leadership, which we use to underline
the group's or collective's distinct characteristics, as opposed to
leadership. Generally, this is thought of as a dyad or a pair (i.e.,
leader vs. individual follower) or as one individual transmitting
to the masses (i.e., in the absence of one-to-one contact).
To put it another way, we believe that in order to be effective
in small groups, a group leader must deal with group level
functions that can occur in group settings and pose a challenge
to group goal achievement. As a result, effective group
leadership is critical. Theories must explain how a leader affects
group-level occurrences.

After attempting to identify some criteria for a successful

theory of group leadership, we analyse the major leadership
theories now in use to evaluate how well they match our
criteria. Finally, we construct a few ideas for current theories
that we believe provide a solid foundation of a group
leadership theory that tackles essential functions and makes
recommendations how each hypothesis is formulated could be
improved as a group-level leadership theory.
FOUR FUNCTIONS OF GROUP LEADERSHIP

Although most definitions of leadership imply that the group is

the goal of leadership — for example, Bass (2008) defined
effective leadership as "the interaction among members of a
group that results in a positive outcome. "Improves
expectations and the competency of the team by initiating and
maintaining improved expectations and competency.
Northouse (2006) defines a working group as “a group of
people who come together to solve problems or achieve goals.
‘‘Leadership as a Procedure" when one person persuades a
group of people to attain a common purpose." Existing
leadership theories, on the other hand, rarely directly address
group-level functions test the efficiency of a group Four group-
level functions are proposed and should be managed by group
leaders - these concerns lay the groundwork for future group
leadership theory development. First, groups have both
individual and group-level functions, that is, groups can be
broken down to the individuals inside them, hence the unit of
analysis for groups is either the group or its members on their
own. Second, we should point out that psychologists often take
into account responses to a phenomenon can be cognitive or
emotive (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954; see
summary in Bass, 1990).
This implies the four general functions of team leaders: (1)
group members , and have an impact on the individual level (ie,
manage interpersonal relationships within the group); (2) group
members’ perceptions (ie, information/resources) Coordination
within the group); (3) Emotional issues at the group level (ie
Emotional management at the group level); (4) Cognitive issues
at the group level (ie, the group boundaries that manage the
information/resources flowing into the group and of the
management team identity). Any successful leadership theory
for groups needs to consider each of these functions.

Working groups are an important link between people and

organizations. The systematic psychology study on the nature
and influence of the working group can be traced back to at
least Hawthorne’s study of in the 1920s and 1930s, but until
the 1950s, there was almost no such work in the Journal of
Applied Psychology. teams conducted research. Mainly as a
comparison to compare individual performance. From in the
1990s to the present, the number of studies handled by the
working group/working group and the nature of the problem
have greatly expanded. The author reviews the development of
team research in the past century, especially focused on the
content of the journal. They described the shift from focusing
on the people on the team or comparing people with the team
to focusing on the team itself and the larger team system. They
describe the main research results in this document and their
relationship with the nature of the team's tasks and structure.
Furthermore, the author considers the characteristics and roles
of the team members, as well as the team dynamics in terms
process and emergency. Your ends your call for future research
because they will model dynamic team relationships in the
environment and when run on complex systems. Psychology
originated in Wundt's laboratory at Leipzig University (Boring,
1929) around 1879. He and his colleagues studied the general
law of behavior, namely structuralism. The three Americans
studying at Wundt – Hugo Musterberg, James McKeen Cattell,
and Walter Dill Scott – broke the tradition of , emphasizing the
importance of individual differences and what will become the
psychology of difference and functionalism (Landy, 1997). In
the United States, the development of industrial/organizational
psychology and other forms is based on the notion that
individual differences are important, and relevance to the
workplace is also important (Katzell & Austin, 1992). From the
very beginning, "Journal of Applied Psychology" (JAP) contains
an understanding of personal work behavior and results. Hall,
Baird and Geissler (1917) pointed out before the publication of
the first issue of " JAP": "Perhaps the most amazing original
attempt to use the methods and results of psychological
research has entered the commercial field." And he suggested
that [this psychology] "should appeal to all who are interested
in improving human efficiency and human happiness. But
individuals work in groups, and our focus is on the team
research that appeared in JAP over the past century.
   
Organizations of all types must manage a rapidly changing
operating environment. In response to these requirements,
organizations increasingly rely on teamwork agreements. To
effectively manage this type of performance, requires a
systematic and extensive method to measure the effectiveness
of the team. This method is comprehensive and robust, but not
convincing. One aspect of teamwork is that success in these
types of settings is critical. The computer must be able to react
quickly and accurately to the changing environment. In order to
effectively manage the team’s adaptability in this situation, it is
necessary to better understand the team’s adaptability and
generate a better system to measure the team’s performance.
To this end, the review and synthesis of the team’s adaptation,
performance, and measurement ’s experience, theory and
methodology literature were conducted to develop theoretical
principles and guide the development of an effective
measurement system for the adaptive team. For example, and
can be Provide information for future research. We have put
forward six guiding principles, which should capture the core
characteristics of team adaptability and assist in the
development of a team performance evaluation system. These
principles of are rooted in the latest theoretical work on the
adaptability of the team, and are introduced at the abstract
level of , suitable for generalization in the context of
performance measurement and purpose. The behavior markers
describing the process related to each principle and
"measurement strategy example " are given to illustrate the
development of specific measurement tools and metrics based
on this principle. The principles and behavior markers put
forward by can guide the development of measurement
systems to evaluate, train and improve the adaptability of the
team, which is the basic ability of effective organizations.
Future research needs to extend the principle proposed here to
provide with strict theoretical and methodological tools to help
performance management professionals develop adaptive
team capabilities.

The later period of 20 - and the beginning of the 21 - century

witnessed a significant transformation of the global
organizational structure. The continuing economic, strategic,
and technological urgency of is driving this shift, and one of its
most attractive aspects is the shift from organized work around
individual work to a teamwork structure (Lawler, Mohrman &
Ledford, 1995). Intensified competition, mergers and global
innovation have created pressure, affecting the emergence of
the team as an integral part of the organization. These
pressures make people need diverse skills, knowledge and
experience. They need faster, more flexible and more
adaptable answers. Created means for creativity, invention and
innovation. The team can achieve these characteristics. In
addition, among the 4,444 organizations, the organizations
have achieved global operations through expansion, mergers
and acquisitions and joint ventures, thus placing more
emphasis on cross-cultural and mixed teams. Advanced
computer and communication technology provide new tools
that can better connect people to their teams and enable
teams to be virtualized (spread across time and space) on a
global scale.

Reference

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/75230/
Bell97_Work_groups_and_teams.pdf?sequence=1

https://kilthub.cmu.edu/ndownloader/files/12236114

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036531

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1534-
0856(2012)0000015005/full/html