Advertisement

Investigating Team Performance in Generation Y in Delhi (India)

  • Shalini Sahni
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Leadership and Followership book series (PASTLEFO)

Abstract

The current study is built upon the work of Pearce et al. (Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In: Riggio RE, Smith-Orr S (eds.) Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 180–199, 2004) and extends this theoretical work on shared leadership at the organizational level of analysis by providing a rationale for what makes Generation Y perform. This study attempts to determine dimensions of shared leadership among Generation Y cohort as a means to enhance team performance and effectiveness in the “modern” organization. The data sample is collected from individuals born between 1980 and 1994 working in different organizations in Delhi (India); situational variables are controlled by age and city. Findings reveal team cooperation, climate for self-initiative, and empowerment as extrapolative predictors of shared leadership and that Generation Y in India does not prefer a“traditional” leadership model. The results have wide-reaching implications for followers and managers in leading roles, as they suggest that these aspects need to be considered when including the Generation Y cohort group in their followership.

Keywords

Followership Generation Y Leaders Performance Shared leadership 

References

  1. Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcorn, D. S. (1992). Dynamic followership: Empowerment at work. Management Quarterly, 33, 9–13.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armour, S., & Gen, Y. (2005, November 6). They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude. USA Today.Google Scholar
  5. Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and leadership issue. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In D. A. J. D. A. Beyerlein & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 173–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bales, R., & Slater, P. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In T. Parsons & R. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  11. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. BCG Group Analysis Report. Retrieved from https://www.peoplematters.in/article/strategic-hr/whats-different-about-the-indian-millennial-13231, accessed on 26 June, 2016.
  14. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136–136.Google Scholar
  15. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 48–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2003). Toward a broader agenda for leadership development: Extending the traditional transactional–transformational duality by developing directive, empowering and shared leadership skills. In R. E. Riggio & S. Murphy (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 161–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisner, S. E. (2005). Managing Generation Y. Society for the Advancement of Management, 70(4), 4–15.Google Scholar
  24. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46, 1554–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. London: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
  27. Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 877–920). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  28. Gibb, C. A., Gilbert, D., & Lindzey, G. (1954). Leadership (Vol. 2).Google Scholar
  29. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gronn, P. (2005). Politics, power and the management of schools. In E. Hoyle (Ed.), The world yearbook of education 1986: The management of schools (pp. 45–54). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  32. Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R., & Tathum, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Hooker, C., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Flow, creativity, and shared leadership: Rethinking the motivation and structuring of knowledge work. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 217–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horsfall, C. (2001). Team leaders make a difference in raising achievement! Leadership Issues, 926(03/01), 33.Google Scholar
  35. Islam, A., Cheong, T. W., Yusuf, D. H. M., & Desa, H. (2011). A study on “Generation Y” behaviours at workplace in Penang. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 7(11), 1802–1812.Google Scholar
  36. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  39. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10(1), 131–167.Google Scholar
  40. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of methodological innovation in social research methods (pp. 562–589). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Kyles, D. (2005). Managing your multigenerational workforce. Strategic Finance, 87(6), 52.Google Scholar
  44. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1984). Searching for the “unleader”: Organizational member views on leading self-managed groups. Human Relations, 37, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCrindle, M. (2006). New generations at work attracting, recruiting, retraining and training Generation Y. Baulkham Hills, NSW: McCrindle Research.Google Scholar
  46. McEwan, A. M. (2009). Generation Y: Coming to a workplace near you. London: The Smart Work Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Neubert, M. J. (1999). Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Research, 30, 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Toole, J. (1999). Leadership A to Z: A guide for the appropriately ambitious. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2003). When two or more heads are better than one: The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 250–267). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (vol. 7, pp. 115–139). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  54. Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. E. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 180–199). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  56. Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr., H. P. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35–51.Google Scholar
  57. Quinn, L., & Norton, J. (2004). Beyond the bottom line: Practicing leadership for sustainability. Leadership in Action, 24(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1.Google Scholar
  59. Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sujansky, J. (2004, April). Leading a multi-generational workforce. Occupational Health and Safety, 73(4), 16–18.Google Scholar
  61. United Nations Population Division. (2010). World population ageing 2009. New York: United Nations Population Division.Google Scholar
  62. Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1999). Effects of interdependencies in project teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making (vol. 110). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559–577.Google Scholar
  65. Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  66. Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–111). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  67. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2002). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Does more than one cook spoil the broth? An examination of shared team leadership (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalini Sahni
    • 1
  1. 1.Banarsidas Chandiwala Institute of Professional StudiesDwarkaIndia

Personalised recommendations