Effective Leadership Strategies for Teambuilding

UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY

THE IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP STYLES AND STRATEGIES ON TEAMBUILDING

Paper Proposal

SAB 643

Group Dynamics in Sport

Professor: Dr. Michael Fredrick

by:

Donald F. Clark

Effective Leadership Styles and Strategies for Team Building 2

Daphne, Alabama

June, 2014

Table of Contents

Title Page ………………………………………………………………………………… i

Section I. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3

Purpose ……………………………………………………………………….. 3

Thesis or Question …………………………………………………………… 3

Audience or Significance …………………………………………………… 3

Section II. Review of Literature ……………………………………………….. 5

Leadership…………………………………………………………………… 5

Team Building …………………………………………………………. 6

Providing a vision ……………………………………………………… 8

Stages of team development ……………………………………………. 9

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Define and

Explained ………. 13


Transformational Leadership and Building Effective Teams

………………….. 16

Team Building in Sport ………………………………………………………… 17

A Model for Building Effective Teams ………………………………………… 18

Section III. Conclusions …………………………………………………………….. 20

References ……………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Introduction

The process of team building and the science of leadership

have been to significant fields of study, from religious

organizations to Wall Street and Capitol Hill. James MacGregor

Burns, a historian and political science professor, stated, “One

of the most universal cravings of our time is a hunger for

compelling creative leadership” (Burns, 1978). Team building is

of equal importance to persons in organizational management and

development, consulting, education and religious leaders.

According to Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy, (2012) the focus on

organizational teams and team work are receiving a high degree of


interest in society, “Teams and teamwork have become common

buzzwords” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012).

The purpose of this paper is to examine leadership traits

and characteristics of various leadership styles, primarily the

transformational/transactional leadership model, on the building

of effective teams. Two additional leadership theories are also

examined, in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of leadership

styles and the influence on team building. The two additional

theories which are defined and analyzed are Servant Leadership

and the Leader – Member Exchange Theory (LMX). The role of the

leader in team building is analyzed in relationship to the

defined leadership model, the strength and weaknesses and various

traits associated with each leadership model.

The audience or audiences addressed within this study, have

profound interests in team building as leaders, such as, coaches,

athletic administrators, educators and managers within

organizations. Leadership and team building within sport and

business organizations require a vision. Beach (2006) stated

“Leaders must work with others in the organization to create a


vision, a reasonable story about the organization’s future in

light of the constraints imposed by the environment and the

culture”.

There are various models of team building in which two are

most investigated in this work, Bruce W. Tuckman’s model which

has been revised and revisited to meet the demands of team

building today. The other method examined is the Rocket Model of

team building, defined also is the TORI model and the Beehive

Model of team building.

In examining transformational leadership and transactional

leadership presented by Burns in (1978) and expounded upon by

Bernard Bass in (1985) provides information which leads scholars

to a preference. In building effective teams in sport, Coach John

Wooden and Coach Bill Walsh provided blueprints for building

successful teams. The impact of the leader is critical in

building successful teams in sport and Fortune 500 companies.

Effective, successful teams have certain characteristics which

are examined by (Carron & Eys, 2012) and (Hughes, Ginnett, &

Curphy, 2012).


There are significant amounts of research available on team

building and transformational leadership. It is essential to

examine both transformation and transactional leadership in the

view of sport and effective team building. Equally as pertinent

to the process of studying teams is to define teams the role the

leader is expected to perform in the team building process. Teams

are different from group, only slightly as Hughes et. al. (2012)

referred; however, teams are unique. In the process of discussing

strategies for building successful teams, the in defining team

building and understanding the team building process, an

examination of characteristics of effective teams is defined.

Literature Review

Many scholars agree with Northouse, (2013 p.1) “Leadership

is a highly sought after and highly valued commodity”. The

popularity of leadership extends beyond many boundaries, it is

often read about and studied from politics to business and sport,

still there remains no clear definition (Knese, 2012). The

definitions of leadership have evolved from the early 1900’s


until the 21st Century. In discussing the components of

leadership, Northouse (2013) refers to four components of

leadership, stating that “leadership occurs in groups, leadership

is a process, leadership involves influence and leadership

involves common goals”. Hughes et.al (2012) refers to leadership

as an art and a science. The common thread among the many

definitions of leadership is that leadership involves influence.

Northhouse, (2013) cites Stodgill (1974) as having stated ,

“There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as

there are people who have tried to define it”. Leadership

consultant, author and motivation speaker, John Maxwell in many

of the books published defines leadership as “Leadership in

influence, and the ability to connect with other people is how we

influence others” (Maxwell, 2013). As a reference of leadership

in this study, Northouse (2013) provides the following definition

of leadership, “ Leadership is a process whereby an individual

influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”.

Although leadership traits are examined, in team building the

process of leadership more applicable rather than traits. Traits

as referred to by Northouse (2013) denotes that persons are born


or inherit certain qualities suitable for effective leadership.

Traits and process differ in that the process of leadership

involves the interaction between the leader and the follow,

traits rely often of personal characteristics, height,

personality and intelligence (Northhouse, 2013). Leaders are not

all alike but leaders tend to share similar characteristics

(Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). Researchers often

differentiate between management and leadership (Hughes, Ginnett,

& Curphy, 2012) (Northhouse, 2013).

It is an essential responsibility of the leader in team

building to create and environment of trust, trust in individuals

and teams. Trust is the foundation of leadership (Turaga, 2013).

Lack of trust in organizations create hostile environments which

can ultimately lead to the downfall of an organization. Trust

holds teams together, creates a sense of bonding and provides an

environment of security. It is incumbent upon the leader to

understand Tuckman’s stages of team development and assist the

team to navigate each area with trust. The leader plays a vital

role in assisting the team in each stage proceed with trust,

until performing as a cohesive unit occurs (Turaga, 2013).


Team building

Carron and Eys (2012) alluded to the variety of ways in

which the term team building has been defined. “Team building can

be characterized as team enhancement or team improvement for both

task and social purposes” (Carron & Eys, 2012 p. 368). Hughs

et.al (2012) defined a relavent term as it related to the

leaders’ influence in the team building processs. Team-building

know how can be defined as the degree to which the leaders know

the steps and processes needed to build high performing teams”

(Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). The popularity and study of

team building has begun to increase, Bruner et. al. cites Klein

(2009) “Team building has been regarded as one of the most

prevalent and promising group development interventions”. In a

study on the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Microsoft, Satya

Nadella, Iyengar,(2014) allude to lessons learn by Nadella frorm

playing in the Indian Premier cricket league. Sport team work

together, in harmony to achieve a common goal. The core of the

team is important to team building, in team building in the

Indian cricket league, teams are allowed to retain five players

as members of the core in establishing team. Essential to the


core is competencey and dependability (Iyengar, 2014). Iyengar

(2014) referred to the additional lesssons Nadella learn from

competiting in the cricket league, loyal, understanding strenghts

and weakness, as well as being able to strike the right balance.

In corporate America, education, sports and various organizations

the importance of team building is emphasized. Team building is

essential in small business to assist in developing trust,

communication, increase collaboration and reduce conflicts(Vogt,

2014). Rovio et. al (2011), alluded to team building creating

functionalable teams which are cohesive in nature.

Rovio et. al (2010) stated, “Despite team building methods

having their roots in organizational development, this

theoretical background has been seldom applied in sport.” There

are specific benefits of team building in sport which are

discussed by Carron and Eys (2012). Woodcock and Francis (1994)

are cited by Carron and Eys (2012), presenting six basic

characteristics which are reveal when team building is

successful, the characteristics are also quoted by Pat Riley, the

former New York Knicks and Los Angeles Lakers head coach. The

following are characteristics or benefits which should result as


a result of effective team building: : coherent, leaderships

which is visionary and acceptable, clarity in roles within the

team, members are emotionally involved and are dedicated to the

collective achievements of the team, a positive climate is

present which energizes the team, the team members are conscious

of time and resources, finally the weakness of the team are

reduce or eliminated (Carron & Eys, 2012).

In understanding team building in sport, it is essential to

define team and explain how teams may differ from other groups.

Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy differentiate teams from groups by

making four distinctions, the sense of identity is strong among

teams than groups, teams are usually linked embracing common

goals, there is usually a larger degree of interdependence among

teams than groups, and finally, teams are tend to be more

specialize and differentiate in their tasks. In a training

Powerpoint presentation created for the British Army, Harrison,

et. al. (2011) related signs of good cohesion to the benefits of

team building cited by Carron and Eys, (2012). In examining

Harrison’s (2011) signs of good cohesion, an inference can be

made that team cohesion results from the team building process.


Marcos, et. at (2010) cited Carron and Brawley (2000) as defining

team cohesion as, “A dynamic process that is reflected in part by

the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in

the pursuit of its instrumental objective and/or for the

satisfaction of member’s affective need.” Team building in sport

and team building in other organizations occur through team

building inventions, these interventions focus on goal setting,

interpersonal relationships and role involvement of team members

(Carron & Eys, 2012).

The rise of team building was first studied in

organizational settings by those in organizational development

and organizational leader and not sport (Bruner, et.al., 2013,

Providing a vision

Not everyone in positions of authority are actually leaders,

“the leader brings a vision” (Berry, 2014). According to Beach

(2006 p.49 - 50) vision provides a view of what a team or

organization will look like in the furture, it may or may not

imply that changes be made in the current culture. In embracing

the idea that leaders bring vision, it is incumbent upon coaches


in sport to provide vision. In the process of coaches changing

team culture, the leader begins “cognative restructing by

establishing a vision” Schroeder, (2010), three basic reasons are

given for establishing a vision in the process of changing the

team culture (Schroeder, 2010). Schroeder (2010) in citing

Schein (2004), the vision provided psychological safety for the

members of a team, in referencing Yulk (1998), the vision helps

provide an understanding of the objectives and purpose of the

organization and finally the vision results in increased

motivation and commitment from team members. The visions is not a

mission or a plan, it does not require a dynamic speech nor does

it make threats. The vision provides a mental image of where the

organization is and where the organization is going in the

furture. (Beach, 2006). It is important for the leader, in sport,

the coach to have a vision. Steinbacher and Smith, (2009) in

discussing stategic planning alluded to starting with a vision

first, organizations must have a idea of what the furture plans

will look like. In implementing a vision it is equally import to

start with a mission statement. The essential elements of a


vision as described by Beach (2006) include goals, priorities,

requirements and implications.

Stages of team development

As it relates to team building in sport, two main protocols

are used in sport team building, direct and indirect methods of

building teams (Carron & Eys, 2012). The direct approach to team

building involves the coaches or consultants working directly

with the team as team builders. The indirect method of team

building involves the use of consultants working indirectly with

the team, through the coach which introduces the interventions to

the team. Coaches have taken a more active role in team building

as salaries continue to escalate for coaches and the demand for

winning increases. Many of the actions referred to in the study

by Schroeder (2010) are team building interventions provided by

the leader in the process of direct team builing. Schroeder

(2010) cites Schein (2004), Hatch (2002) and Trice and Beyers

(1993) as referring to the process of changing culture in three

stages, unfreezing, cognitive restructing and refreezing. The

stages are similar to the four stages addressed by Carron and Eys


(2012) in the indirect team building interventions. Carron and

Spink (1993), Carron, Spink and Prapavessis (1997) are cited in

presenting three stages of and introductory stage, conceptual

stage and a practice stage. During the direct intervention there

are three stages, the education phase, the goal-development

stages and the implementation stage. Unlike the unfreezing stage

in Schroeder (2010) there is not an unfreezing stage where

information is presented to create a feeling of guilt or

discomfort. During the cognitive restructuring stage, a vision

is implement, the objectives of the organization is understood.

The embracing of goals occur during the introductory stage of

direct team building intervention approach and are monitored and

assessed during the four stages. In direct team building

interventions, goals and objectives related to vision are

addressed in the conceptual stage, the teams’ environment,

structure and processes are major factors during the conceptual

stage (Carron & Eys, 2012). Several of the actions taken to

change the culture and create a positive environment by the head

coaches involved in the study by Schroder (2010) were strongly

related to team building interventions. The desired result of


many of the many used by the coaches were aim to increase

cohesion, gain the buy-in of players and to establish positive

team norms.

The stages of team building presented by Carron and Eys

(2012) differ from the three stages presented by Schoeder (2010),

unfreezing, cognitive restructing and refreezing, as each

relates to coaches changing the culture of teams. Carron and Eys

(2012) present two models of team building presented by sport

psychologist in team building. The approach of David Yukelson

(1997) which was used in working with Penn State teams focuses of

cohesion of the team, throught processess involving communication

to ultimately yeild teamwork and cohesion in order to produce

highly effective teams. The four stages presented by Yukelson

(1997) and presented by Carron and Eys (2012) are assessment of

the situation, education , brainstorming and establishing team

goals. During the assessment of the situation, team members,

coaches, trainers, managers and others of those involve within

the team structure are given the opportunity to express goals and

views, the consultant is primarily a listener, making

observations. In the educational phase the athletes receive


explainations as to how groups form and develop. It is during

this time that Yukelson laid a foundation (Carron & Eys, 2012).

In the educational phase athletes are presented with a foundation

for team building interventions to take place. It is during this

phase that the athletes must embrace common goals (Bloom &

Loughead, 2011). During the brainstorming phase the team members

create a list of key areas which needs to be addressed, in

efforts to achieve desired results. The brainstorming phase

allows the consultant an opportunity to design a program suitable

for the team. The final stage is the goal setting stage. Carron

and Eys (2012) in citing Yukelson (1997) alluded to the

consultant becoming a part of the coaching staff during the

season, as goals change, the roles and structure of the team can

change as well.

The second consultant approach in the direct team building

approach was presented by Neil Widmeyer and E.J McGuire, the two

sport psychologist were cited by Carron and Eys (2012) in the

performed with a junior hockey team. The four stages presented

were, educational, goal development, implementation and renewal.

It is during the educational phase that Widmeyer and McGuire


(1996) provide information and outlines on goal-setting, the

athletes are encouraged during this phase to understand the

importance of goal setting. In the process of the goal

development stage the goals are set, specific in nature as

Widmeyer and McGuire worked with a hockey team, on establishing

offensive and defensive goals. During the implementation phase

the goals of the team are charted and monitoring occurs. Finally,

during the renewal process the goals are monitored and adjusted.

The indirect method of team building requires that a coach

or team leader work with a consultant which does not directly

work with the team. Carron, Spink and Prapavessis (1997), Carron

and Spink (1993), Prapavessis, Carron and Spink (1997) and Spink

and Carron (1997) were all cited by Carron and Eys (2012) and

Bloom and Loughead (2011) in developing an indirect model

approach to team building. Carron and Spink (1993) present four

stages, an introductory stage, conceptual stage, practical and

intervention stage. It is during the introductory phase that

athletes are provided with the importance of team building and

team cohesion, as well as, pertinent information related to the

team. During the conceptual phase there is a drive to understand


group dynamics, communication is encouraged, interrelationship of

team building protocol are stressed. In the stage of

brainstorming, the coaches devise specific team building

interventions specific to the needs of the team. These strategics

are related to a desired outcome which is to be achieved by the

team. The final stage is the intervention stage in which trained

assistants monitor the sessions to ensure team building

strategies are uses efficiently and effectively (Bloom &

Loughead, 2011) (Carron & Eys, 2012).

Often studied educational psychologist, Bruce Tuckman’s

model of group development has been also applied to teams and

various other groups. In a google search by Bonebright (2010) it

was discovered that Tuckman’s work in 1965 was cited over 1196

articles and the work of Tuckman and Jensen was cited 544 times

(Bonebright, 2010). The model presented by Tuckman became vital

in helping people understand what was happening in various stages

of the process in people working together (Bonebright, 2010).

Results of therapeutic studies by Tuckman reveal four distinct

groups, forming, storming and norming and performing (Hughes,

Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012) (Bonebright, 2010). During the forming


stage the group was characterize by polite conversations, most

actions were superficial in nature and trust was at at minimum

(Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). It is during this stage that

the group become familiar with task, groud rules are created,

there is opportunity to experience familiarity with leaders and

boundaries are tested (Bonebright, 2010). In second stage, which

is referred to as storming , both Bonebright (2010) and Hughes,

Ginnett and Curphy (2012) describe this stage as being a period

of interpersonnal conflict here there is a tendency to polarize

towards opinions and feelings, as well as, the resistence to

alliances. In the norming stage cohesiveness begins to form,

leaders begin to emerge, roles and norms are defined. In the

final stage the group operates within functional interdependent,

flexible roles. Bonebright (2010) states “The group is a problem

solving instrument.” In the final stage the group is focused on

performing group tasks (Bonebright, 2010) (Hughes, Ginnett, &

Curphy, 2012).

Transformational/Transactional Defined and Explained


The transformational and transactional leadership leadership

model has been frequently studied by scholars in various

backgrounds (Northhouse, 2013 p. 185). The forms or methods of

leadership are presented with constrasting view (Northhouse, 2013

p. 186). The transformational/ transactional leadership framework

was expounded up by Bass (1985) and first introduced by Downnton

(1973) and with transformational leadership becoming popular

after Burns (1978) introduced the concept, as cited by

(Northouse, 2013 p. 186). Northouse (2013), Chen (2010), Hughes,

Ginnett and Curphy (2012) all contend that the major difference

between transformation and transactional leadership is

transactional leadership is reward based. Bennett (2009) cited

Burns and Bass (1990) as defining transformational leadership as

“Leadership that motivates and appeals to followers’ ideal and

morals to do more.” Burns (1978) is cited by Bennett (2009) as

defining transactional leadership as “motivating subordinates by

appealing to their personal desires.” Burns (1978) was cited by

Northouse (2013) as referring to the major of leadership styles

as transactional in nature and alluding to politicals lobbying

for votes while claiming not to raise taxes. Bennett cited Burns


(1978) in referring to transactional leadersip as providing one

favor in exchange for another favor, while transformational

leadership focused on “Doing the right thing” (Bass, 1985) cited

by (Bennett, 2009). Northouse (2013 p. 191) cited Kuhnert (1994)

as having stated, “ People who exhibit transformational leadershp

often have a strong set of internal values and ideals, and they

are effective and motivating followers to act in ways that

support the greater good rather than self interest.”

Transactional leaders are not focused on the needs of the

subordinates but rather advancing their personal agendas and the

agendas of subordinates by means of rewarding the subordinate in

exchange for something of value (Northhouse, 2013).

Transformational leadership is based on four basic factors,

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation and individualized consideration. Idealized influence

is the emotional component of transformational leadership, refers

to charisma, being confident and powerful, the focus is on ethics

and identifying the leader is strong (Northouse,2013), (Bennett,

2012) (Antonikas & Day, 2012). Sadeghi & Pihie, (2012) cites

Moss and Ritossa, (2007) is stating that during this period the


leaders perceptions as a role model and inspirational occurs.

Inspirational motivation factors involves the leaders ability to

inspire the followers to embrace the shared vision and focus in

on achieving goals. The leader communicates confidence and

inspires the followers (Northhouse, 2013) (Antonikas & Day,

2012). Factor three, intellectual stimulation, is less appealing

to the emotional side of transformational leadership, it rather

focuses in coaching and encouraging the follower in problem

solving and creativity (Antonikas & Day, 2012) (Northhouse,

2013). Individualized considerations, the fourth factor of

transformation leadership focuses on developing the followers,

coaching and socio-emotional support is visible and the followers

are encouraged to actualization of reaching the fullest

potential (Antonikas & Day, 2012) (Northhouse, 2013).

The focus of transformational leadership is not fon

individual needs or the development of followers personally.

“Transactional leadership involves two primary factors,

contingent reward and management by exception. In reference to

contigent reward, exchange for some thing of value often takes

place to achieve desired results. Management by exception relates


to providing negative feedback, negative reinforcement and

corrective criticism (Northhouse, 2013).

In combining multivarible models, the charismatic leader,

the visionary leader and the transformational leader, Antonikas

and Day (2012) refer to these types of leadership as

intergrative. Northouse (2013), cites Conger (1999) and Hunt and

Conger (1999) as transformational and charismatic leadership

being similar if not synonymous. Bill Hogg (2012) provided 10

characteristics of charismatic leaders; Internal motivation and

self management, ability to make difficult decisions, check their

ego, willing to take risks, Organization consciousness,

adaptability, willing to entertain and listen to new ideas,

inspiration, proactive and visionary.

In examining the strengths and weaknesses of

transformational leadership Northouse, (2013) alludes to

transformational leadership being widely research and applicable

to various bodies of work. Transformational leadership has gained

popularity because it appeals intuitively and it is practical.

Transformational leadership focuses on the needs, values and


moral of the followers and it treats leadership as a process

involving leaders and followers. The large by of research

provides substantiates that transformational leadership is

successful, citing Yukl (1999) by (Northhouse, 2013). The

transformation leadership model is criticized for several reasons

including lacking conceptual clarity, how the model of leadership

is measured and some have created an antidemocrative and elite

structure of transformational leadership. Often transformational

leadership is viewed as a set personality traits and the ability

of transformational leaders to transform people and organizations

has not been validated. Transformational leaders are expected to

perform exceptional feets, leading to a heroic illusion. Finally,

the model of transformational leadership has the potential to be

abuse, critics citing the difficulties in deciding the person who

decide what the correct vision should be (Northhouse, 2013).

Transformational Leadership and Building Effective Teams

In a study conducted by Chen, (2010) a leadership and

teamwork paradigm was examined to determined which of the two

forms of contrasting styles of leadership, transformational or


transactional was most effective and applicable for coaches of a

youth baseball teams. Accordin to Chen (2010), “transformational

leaders work under the assumption that the status quo is no

longer an option and a new vision is need.” Chen (2010) describes

the leadership member exchange theory also vital in this

research. “The leader member exchange theory (LMX) is based on

the assumption that the type of relationship between the leader

and followers can provide results more predictive of how the

organization is doing than can traits or behaviors” (Chen, 2010).

The LMX focuses on relationships and linkage rather than the

leaders or the followers in determining the effectivenesss or

ineffectiveness of the organization. In the work performed by

Chen (2010), it was determined that transformational and

transactional leadership, in conjunction with the LMX leadership

model could be use in examining the leadership styles, teamwork

and team cohesion. It is incumbent upon the leader to ensure that

nondiscriminary actions did not occur, players were treated

consistently and fairly.

A study conducted by Tovell and Gravelle (2009) is was

stated that “Transformation leadership closely relates to the aim


of a varsity sport program, which is to empower members to become

accountable for their decisions and actions.” In citing Rosener

(1990) Tovell and Gravelle (2009) noticed the following about

transformational leadership, the transformational leader is

capable of diverting the self interests from individuals to a

vision embraced by the group. Additionally it is believe that

charisma could be employed to create an interest in the follower

to exemplify self confidence and personal convictions to perform

morally correct actions in the best interests of the team. In a

study conducted by Chou, Lin, Chang, & Chuang, (2013) on the

influence of transformational leadership on collective efficacy,

team performance and cognitive trust, it was found that a strong

relationship existed between the varibles. Chou et.al (2013)

proposed five hypothesis related to the variables of team

performance, cognitive trust, collective efficacy and

transformational leadership. The data collected was by means of

using a Likert scale, surveying 160 teams of which 46 were valid

survey. The data collected and examined from the surveys reveal

positive and significant cofficients on all five hypothesis

tested, relating to collective efficacy and team performance,


cognitive trust and collective efficacy, transformational

leadership and cognitive trust, and the mediation of cognitive

trust, transformational leadership and collective efficacy(Chou

et.al, 2013). The goal of team building in the early stages to

establish a vision, (Carron & Eys, 2012 p. 371 - 373) (Hughes,

Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012 p. 444 - 445) (Schroeder, 2010),

transformational leaders embrace strong visions and encouraging

followers to embrace the vision for the common good of the team

(Northhouse, 2013) (Antonikas & Day, 2012) (Hogg, 2012).

Team Building in Sport

Carron and Eys (2012 p.368) in citing Brawley and Paskevich

(1997), defined team building as “A method of helping the group

to, increase effectiveness, satisfy the needs of its members or

improve work conditions” (p.13). Team building was introduced

into sport in the 1990’s with the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology in

1997 devoting an entire issue to the topic (Rovio et.al, 2010).

Team building in sport has proven to be effective in recent years

focusing primarily on goal setting, problem solving,

interpersonal relationships and role development (Bruner,

Beauchamp, Eys, & Cote, 2013). According to Martin, Carron and


Burke (2009) team building interventions should last at least one

season to be effective. Team building in sport may incorporate a

variety of interventions. These interventions can be related to

goal setting, interpersonal relationships, arriving at a common

vision, problem solving and role development (Carron & Eys, 2012

p. 368) (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012 p. 447) (Bruner,

Beauchamp, Eys, & Cote, 2013). Martin, Carron and Burke (2009)

studied the effects of team building on the following dependent

variables, cohesiveness, performance, enhanced cognition, roles

and anxiety. The finding of the study it was discovered that team

building had no significant influence on task cohesion and

anxiety. A small significance was related to social cohesion and

large significance of performance and enhanced cognition. Further

studies reveal less of a significant influence on social cohesion

and performance. Martin, Carron and Burke (2009) related the

significance of influence on several factors, the practitioners

administering the team building interventions; the ceiling

effect, in which some could already be cohesive, the length and

type of intervention also influence the impact of team building.

A Model for Building Teams


The Rocket Model of Team Building used by Curphy Consulting

Corporation is a common model for building teams. “The Rocket

Model of Team Effectiveness is both a prescriptive and a

diagnostic model of team building” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy,

2012 p. 448). The model is diagnostic in that the model allows

leaders to measure progress of teams and determine areas of

deficiencies. The model is prescriptive in that in provides a

blue print future team building references. “The Rocket Model is

based on extensive research on and experience with teams in

health care, education, retail, manufacturing, service, software,

telecommunications, energy and financial service industries”

(Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012 p. 449). There are six basic

components of The Rocket Model, ultimately yielding results,

mission, talent, norms, buy in, power and morale (Curphy & Hogan,

2011). Although The Rocket Model of Team Building is not directly

related to team building interventions, the primary focus is to

build teams in business; the principles are applicable to sport.

The mission answers the questions related to the purpose, “Why

are we here?” (Curphy & Hogan, 2011) “The mission is the most

important component of the Rocket Model, teams that do not have


clear purpose and goals are destined to fall” (Curphy & Hogan,

2011). The talent component describes the resouces among team

members, Curphy and Hogan (2011) describes it as “Who is on the

bus?” Essential to team success is having the right resources on

the bus to succeed. The norms of a team are unwritten rules, an

acceptable way of conducting selves among team members. Buy in is

related to the commitment level of team members to the mission of

the team. Power is related to the resources a team needs to be

successful, various teams required different needs to generate

power. Morale is important to the team in functioning cohesively.

Morale is related to the interpersonal relationships of the team

and the ability to function as a harmonious unit. The previous

components of effective teams based on The Rocket Model by Curphy

and Hogan (2011) can be adjusted to apply to different teams, the

diagnostic and prescriptive elements of the model is pertinent

building effective teams. Bonebright (2010), Hughes, Curphy and

Ginnett (2012 p. 448 - 445) also present information alluding to

Tuckman’s model of the stages of team development serving as a

diagnostic tool for analyzing teams.

Conclusions


Team building in sport came into prominence in the 1990’s,

after it had been used in other segements of society previously

Rovio et. al. (2010). The focus of team building in sport has

primarily been in the area of team cohesion, goal setting , roles

and probleming solving Bruner et. al. (2013) (Bloom & Loughead,

2011). Team building has proven to provide success in the area of

sport, human resources, business, medical fields and other areas

(Hughes, Curphy and Ginnett 2012 p. 444 - 445). Several finding

have discovered that team building in sport can improve

cohesiveness, teamwork, goal setting, team performance, anxiety

and athletes accepting roles (Bloom & Loughead, 2011) (Bruner,

Beauchamp, Eys, & Cote, 2013)(Harrison et. al (2011) (Martin,

Carron, & Burke, 2009). Sport has often been referred to for

examples of how teams should function, since athlete work in such

close proximatity of one another (Bruner, Beauchamp, Eys, & Cote,

2013) (Iyengar, 2014).

Two primary methods of team building in sport are direct

and indirect team building (Carron & Eys, 2012 p. 371 - 373). In

implementing direct team builing interventions, the coach and

consultant works directly with the team in implementing the team


building interventions. When a consultant is used it is important

that the consultant become a part of the team and is readily

available (Carron & Eys, 2012 p. 371 - 372). The indirect method

of team building interventions occur when a consultant works

directly with a coach or team leader, which implements the

interventions. In using indirect methods it is essential that the

consultant ensures team building interventions are implemented

appropriately (Carron & Eys, 2012 p. 373).

Leadership is equally important in team building as the type

of interventions involved in the process. Leadership involves

influence, of the many definitions of leadership the common

factor is all refer to influence (Northouse 2012 p.5).

Leadership is important to team building in that leadership

applies attention to common goals (Northouse 2012 p. 6). The

goal of leaders is to get followers to work together to achieve a

common goal (Northouse 2012 p. 6). The leader must create and

atmosphere of trust, it is important that the leader understand

Tuckman’s stages of team development and assist the team in

navigating each stage with trust (Turaga, 2013). Equally

important to leadership, is the leadership theory employed in the


process of building effective teams. Northouse (2013) and Hughes,

Curphy, Ginnett (2012) and other have examined many various

leadership styles and theories, all have strengths and

criticisms. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the

transformational/transactional models or theories or leadership

discussed by Downton (1973) and Burns (1978) , however

popularized by Bass (1985) as cited by Northouse (2013 p. 186 -

190) on team building.

Chen (2010) refers to the transformational/transactional

leaderhip model and LMX model being used in a study involving

amature baseball coaches. Chen (2010) stated “The LMX model

included more specific mechanisms for the improvement of teamwork

than the transformationaltransactional model. Several others

provide valid research that the transformational model which is

contingent upon improving and developing followers to their

fullest potential. Transformational leadership is considered

charismatic in nature and is criticized for lack of foundation

research in providing transformation in individual or

organizations (Northouse, 2013 p. 191 and 201 – 203).

Transactional leadership is based upon contingent rewards and


concern for followers feelings or emotions are limited (Northouse

2013 p. 195). Transformational leadership appeals to the emotions

of followers by means of charisma and inspiring followers, in

addition transformational leaders stress visions of teams and

organizations (Antonikas & Day, 2012) (Chou, Lin, Chang, &

Chuang, 2013) (Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012).

There is a lack of emperical studies performed on the

influence of transformational leadership on team building in

sport. Transformational leadership has been embraced to a great

degree. Transactional leadership being reward based has

significant merit, as do other leadership theories. Team building

in sport seeks to achieve desired results that align more closely

with the theory of transformation leadership, for example,

Northouse (2013) list various benefits of team building in

sport, visionary leadership, roles are understood, members

emotionally dedicate themselves to achieving team goals, positive

and energetic environments are created. These benefits align

closely with the characteristics of transformational leadership.


References

Antonikas, J., & Day, D. V. (2012). Transformational and

charismatic leadership. In J. Antonikas, The nature of leadership

(p. 265). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Beach, L. R. (2006). Leadership and the art of change. Thousand Oaks :

Sage Publications.

Bennett, T. M. (2009). A study of management leadership style

preferred by it subordinates. Journal of Organizational Culture,

Communication and Conflict, 13(2), 1 - 25.


Berry, J. N. (2014). Leadership is not a command. Librarcy Journal,

139(6), 10.

Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2011, December 21). Current

developments in North American Sport and Exercise Psychology: Team building

in sport. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from sports psych.mcgill ca:

http://sportpsych.mcgill.ca/pdf/publications/Team_Building_i

n_Sport_Bloom_Loughead_Dec_21_2011.pdf

Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical

review of Tuckman's model of small group development. .

Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111 - 120.

Bruner, M. W., Beauchamp, M. R., Eys, M. A., & Cote, J. (2013).

Examining the origins of team building in sport: A citation

network and genealogical approach. Group Dynamics: Theory

Research and Practice, 17(1), 30 - 42.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Perennial

Political Classics.

Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group Dynamics in Sport.

Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.


Chen, C.-C. (2010). Leadership and teamwork paradigms: Two models

for baseball coaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(10), 1367 -

1376.

Chou, H. -W., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-H., & Chuang, W.-W. (2013).

Transformational leadership and team performance the

mediating roles of cognitive trust and collective efficacy.

Sage Journal, 3(3).

Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, R. (2011). Curphy Consulting A guide to builing

high performing teams. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from

mnodn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/:

http://www.mnodn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Building-

High-Performing-Teams-Article.pdf

Harrision, N. B., Wilks, A., & Lamin, J. (2011, June 17). Team

cohesion in the British Army. Retrieved June 29, 2014, from

http://www.slideshare.net/bambers11/p7m5:

http://www.slideshare.net/bambers11/p7m5

Hogg, B. (2012, March 13). 10 characteristics of transformational leaders.

Retrieved July 2, 2014, from Inspirating leaders to

excelerate excellence, Bill Hogg and Associates:


http://www.billhogg.ca/2012/03/10-characteristics-of-

transformational-leaders/

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Iyengar, R. V. (2014). Team building: Corporate lessons form the

Indian Premier League. IUP Journal of soft skills, 8(1), 7 - 14.

Knese, W. F. (2012, March). Some thoughts on leadership. Strategic

Finance, pp. 62 - 63.

Marcos, F. M., Miguel, P. A., Oliva, D. S., & Calvo, T. G.

(2010). Interactive effects of team cohesion on perceived

efficacy in semi-professional sport. Journal of Sport Science and

Medicine, 9(2), 320 325.

Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., & Burke, S. M. (2009). Team

building interventions in sport: a meta analysis. Sport and

Exercise Psychology Review, 5(2), 3 - 18.

Maxwell, J. C. (2013, June 24). The greatest skill communication.

Retrieved June 28, 2014, from success.com:


http://www.success.com/article/john-c-maxwell-the-greatest-

skill-communication

Northhouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., &

Buckley, R. M. (2003). Emotional Intelligence, Leadership

Effectiveness, and Team Outcomes. International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21 - 40.

Rovio, E., Arvinen-Barrow, M., Weigand, D. E., & Lintunen, T.

(2010). Team building in sport: A narrative review of the

program effectivenes, current emthods, and theoretical

underpinnings. Athletic Insight, 12(2).

Rovio, E., Barrow, M. A., Weigand, A. D., Eskola, J., & Lintunen,

T. (2014). Team building in sport:a narrative review of the

program effectiveness, current methods and theoretical

underpinnings. Athletic Insight, 2(2), 1 - 19.

Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A. (2012). Transformational leadership

and its' perdictive effects on leadership effectiveness.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 186 - 197.


Schroeder, P. J. (2010). Changing team culture: The prospective

of ten successful head coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(1),

63 - 88.

Steinbacher, D., & Smith, A. (2009). SH& E strategic planning.

Professional Safety, 54(10), 30 - 36.

Tovell, A., & Gravelle, F. (2009). The importance of

transformational leadership in the quest for group cohesion:

The case of a university level varsity football program.

International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation and Tourism, 3(9), 18

- 33.

Turaga, R. (2013). Building trust in teams: a leader's role. The

IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(2), 13 - 31.

Vogt, C. (2014). The importance of team building activities. Retrieved June

29, 2014, from Small business chronicle:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-teambuilding-

activities-40587.html

Effective Leadership Strategies for Teambuilding

Documents

Transcript of Effective Leadership Strategies for Teambuilding