Subject Code: MGMT20001

Subject Name: Organisational Behaviour

Assignment Name or Number: Assignment 2 Assignment Group Name: T.ABASCO (25-02) Student ID Number 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Tutorial Day: Monday Tutorial Time: 2:15 3.15pm Tutors Name: Valerie 611627 617011 617679 617010 Student Name Alicia Lee Asher Parkes Chin Siew May Claudia Loh Hak Bunthaneth Oren Smith

DAVID MYER MELBOURNE: The Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales Team Analysis and Recommendations

Table of Contents
Abstract ..............................................................................3 1.0 Introduction................................................................................4 2.0 ........................................................................ 2.1 ................................................. 3.0 ..........................................................................9 3.1 ..................................................................................9 3.2 .....................................................................................10 3.2.1.............................................11 3.2.2..........................................................12 3.4.................................................................................13 4.0 ...................................................................................15 4.1 ....................................................15 4.2 ..................................... .................15 4.3 ......................................................16 4.4 ...........................................................17 4.5 ..............................................................18 5.0 Recommendations......................................................................20 5.1 ...................20 5.1.1.................................................................21 5.1.2..............................................................22 5.1.3.................................................................22 5.1.4......................................23 5.1.5 ..............................25 5.2 ....................................25 5.3 Conclusion...................................................................................30 5.4 Reference List..............................................................................31 5.5 Appendices..................................................................................36

Abstract This reports examines the underlying issues and problems faced by the David Myer Melbourne Furniture and Bedding retail sales team and how to resolve them. We have divided this report into two sections. In the first section, a thorough analysis of the specific problems in the teams design, development and leadership are evaluated by drawing from a wide range of research.

In the second section, we provide recommendations to

1. Introduction Blah 2. Analysis This section will report on the sources of these two key problems by applying relevant team theory such as team design, team development and team leadership to evaluate the ineffectiveness and issues within the Retail Sales teams design.

2.1 Problems in Team Design Even among highly qualified individuals, building a coordinated and cross-functional team is relatively difficult (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999). In the case of the Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales team, the team lacks mutual understanding and a sense of common purpose that may be due to two possible key factors destructive diversity and the absence of autonomy.

2.1.1 Destructive Diversity

A

major problem faced by the team is destructive diversity, that is, irreconcilable

differences in work motivations, visions of success, expertise or sentiments. This also includes demographic factors such as age of culture. While team diversity is usually lauded as being able to enhance organization effectiveness (Czerny, 2011), it could also potentially cause less cohesiveness and effective communication, resulting in increased anxiety and greater discomfort for the majority of members (Fine & Handelsman, 2010). In regards to the Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales team, all members of the team have wildly different motivations. For example, Sheila is unconcerned about overall team performance; she is going to retire soon, and the only thing that concerns her is her pension. In a similar vein, Chris chooses to act in his own best interests instead of the teams - he views them as a stepping stone to greater things for him. In direct contrast to Sheila and Chris, Mahmoud and Carmen are team players - they are highly concerned about their job security and would be unwilling to do anything drastic that might affect it. Here it is clear where the teams failure stems from; their contrasting work motivations (that is, the choice to act in the teams best interests or to concentrate on personal gains) would cons equently lead to variations in visions of success, thereby causing a gradual decline in team performance (Clark, 2003). In terms of the Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales team, this irreconcilable variation in motivations led to the team being unable to achieve sustainable long-term goals during the twelfth month. According to Hackmans theory (1987) of team design, it is said that excessively diverse groups will encounter problems when utilizing their variety of skills and talents. This is due to the fact that the differences in values and opinions are too extreme to a point where they effectively cancel each other out, or come into direct contrast with each other. This is definitely the case in Steves team in which all members have different talents, but yet, are paradoxically made to work towards a

common goal (essentially operating as a cross- functional team). For example, Sheila is a good organizer, Chris is good at developing contacts, Mahmoud is good at coming up with new ideas and Carmen is a good communicator. These are all good skills in their own right, but will face conflicts when working together to achieve the same goal (Northcraft et. al, 1995). Hackmans theory also says that teams which comprise of members with demographic differences will encounter problems when working together. An interesting point to consider is the largest difference in age between Steves team members is 37 years. Age differences will undoubtedly lead to differing opinions, demeanors and workplace behaviour. For example, Sheila is significantly older than the rest of her colleagues, leading to a sense of detachment from her team, which is clearly evident from her belief that her pension is all that matters. In direct contract to this, Chris is markedly younger than all of his colleagues, causing him to view them as hindrances rather than allies. Lastly, differences in values or sentiments team members may hold must be considered as well. This is because overly negative sentiments such as racism and sexism, for example, will lead to disgust and disillusionment and prevent group members from doing what they need to do (Hackman, 1987, pp. 9). This is reflected in Steves team, where Chris belief that women and people of different cultures make less capable workers caused him to be unable to properly assimilate with the rest of his team. Thus, Hackmans theory on team design shows us that Steves teams failure is inevitably linked to an overall poor team design, in which their differing skill sets, demographic backgrounds and sentiments led to an inability to work together

effectively.

2.1.2 Absence of Autonomy One of the most prevailing characteristics of Steves team design is the lack of autonomy. Based on Hackmans job characteristics model, autonomy is one of the most important job characteristics as it leads to increased motivation and work effectiveness (Hackman, cited in Langfred and Moye, 2004). Steves failure to create autonomous work teams clearly observed when his team leadership style pushed the boundaries of acceptability/tolerance among his team members. In addition, as a result of the bonus scheme set in place, Steve is more inclined to work towards his own goal for his financial benefit instead of working in the best interests of the team and taking their opinions into account. It can thus be surmised that Steves failure to delegate responsibilities of decision-making, decreased the depth of the job and did not allow people to have control over their work. Hence, due to inadequate freedom allocated to Steves team members, depletion of leadership and management skills may occur and members are also likely to feel less contented with their work. Hackmans theory (1987) explains that members of a well-designed team possess a considerable autonomy in undertaking a taxing task at work; the absence of autonomy in Steves team thus makes for a poorly designed team which has difficulty sustaining long-term sales targets.

Barrys distributed leadership theory (1991) also states that in an optimally designed team, four types of leadership must be present, one of which is social leadership. Social leadership comprises of the power to negotiate internally, resolve conflicts and confront anti-social behaviour. The very essence of this leadership theory is also that

this aforementioned power is not held by a single member (e.g. Steve) but rather, delegated equally to all team members. Thus, it is exceedingly clear where Steves team failed here. His team members are not given the autonomy to carry out internal negotiation as evidenced by Steves refusal to allow them to justify their failures in the twelfth month. Instead of letting them explain and negotiate where exactly they went wrong, Steve hit the roof and degraded them with personal insults. The capacity to resolve conflicts effectively was also not given to any of Steves team members. When a conflict arose between them and Steve in the twelfth month, they clearly did not have the capacity to deal with it the conflict was only talked about, and not dealt with. Lastly, Steves team also displayed an inability to confront antisocial behaviour. For instance, not a single team member opposed Steves habit of singling them out individually to berate them in a degrading manner. Not a single complaint was uttered, and the matter was simply kept to themselves. In conclusion, Barrys theory of distributed leadership clearly shows where Steves team failed each of his members was simply not given the autonomy to carry out social leadership adequately.

2.2 Problems in Team Development A group whose aim is to facilitate the achievement of organizational goals, (Department of Management and Marketing University of Melbourne, 2010, p. 72), requires each member to consider their role individually, as well as collectively within the firm. Tuckman (1965) writes extensively about his theory of the five stages of team development. According to him, the first four stages are vital for progressive

development within the team representing the transition from members independence to interdependence, while the fifth stage, represents a turning point back to independence.

In the case of Furniture and Bedding, issues seem to be a result of the lack of both communication and cohesiveness between the group and the newly appointed manager, Steve. The teams eventual breakdown can be attributed to failings in this developed mental process of creating a group, as outlined by Tuckman (1965). The long standing team at Furniture and Bedding had already formally experienced the Forming, Storming, and Norming stages with their previous leader Tom, and were currently at the Performing stage in terms of their cohesiveness and strong sense of common purpose. With Steves sudden entry, each of the stages seemingly has been skipped over. On a general level, because Steve had not experienced the basic development stages with the rest of the group, his inner motivations and ability to communicate were that of an outsider in relation to an already formed team.

2.2.1 Forming Stage Failures The Forming stage, as explained by Tuckman (1965), is the early stage of meet and greet, where members try to ascertain how they each fit in the structural hierarchy of the team as well the groups overall purpose within the organization. While it is clear that the Furniture and Bedding team had a good understanding of each of the members contrasting personalities under Toms management, it is clear that once Steve ascended as leader even the individual members began to have conflicts with one another due a failure to adequately carry out re-formation of the new group. Carmen and Mahmoud clearly disagree on their motivation for being part of this new

group. One emphasizes the financial aspect of the business, while the other focuses on the positive work/life balance. That they disagree on this core issue (which rightfully should have been acknowledged in the Forming Stage) ultimately results in a difference of opinion in the corrective action to be taken.

2.2.2 Storming Stage Difficulties Bonebright (2010) argues that the stage leading from Forming to Storming should be conflicts within the group are exposed and addressed. The failure of the Storming stage within Steves new team, which usually involves a focused consideration of each individuals specific role and relies on open communication between each of the team members to address potential conflicts could possibly explain the breakdown in group cohesion upon the twelfth month. After the regular Monday meeting when Steve lost it, it was clear that the members did not have procedure for dealing with it - because it was not properly acknowledged during the Storming stage. They also had an inability to approach Steve as a team following the breakdown, thereby illustrating a lack of cohesiveness and communication, which, in Bions point of view (1961), is essential in creating an effective group.

2.2.3 Negative Consequences Due to a clear lack of proper execution of Forming and Storming, the Norming stage (in which group cohesiveness becomes apparent) is clearly missing. Usually in the previous two stages, the effective tools for dealing with conflict and problem solving as well as the ability their share their emotions freely (Lubin & Zuckerman, 1967) allow for the Norming stage to proceed with compromise, conflict resolution, and group interdependence. This clearly was not the case, as the employees were not able

to discuss with Steve about the way he abused them, rather they felt they had to speak to management, external from the group.

Under Toms leadership, the group had a coherent idea of what proper performance entailed, and what goals were to be achieved. With Steves sudden entry and the bypass of the earlier developmental stages, the performance targets that Steve had in mind far exceeded what the group had previously been used to with Tom as they had a reputation for underperforming. For the team to be on the same page as Steve in terms of goals, it would have required a paradigm shift of proper performance on the teams party. This difference in work culture which Steve did not make clear in the early stages, led to the overall breakdown in the team performance.

2.3 Problems in Team Leadership A vital problem faced by the Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales team is the poor interpersonal skills demonstrated by Steve as a team leader. This could perhaps be attributed to an absence of empathy in his character, and thus, Steve lacks the necessary skills to foster positive work relationships with his team. It is Steves fundamental inability to empathise with his team and following that, his inability to form mutually beneficial relationships with his team, which ultimately leads to its destruction. Research has consistently shown that empathy is imperative in maintaining a healthy, productive team (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2006). Hence, the root of Steves teams unrest is clearly identified here. Although Steve strives hard to push his team beyond what they thought they were previously capable of, he lacks the ability to lead effectively, communicate well and sustain performance.

In this case, Steves shortcomings raise a question of whether the wrong leadership style was adopted to lead the team.

2.3.1 Ineffective leadership Steves leadership is marred by what can be called a conflict of interest, i.e.: his personal gains of receiving a substantial bonus outweigh all other variables including the wellbeing of his team. Through this, it can be seen that Steve is an autocratic leader who practises the authority compliance management style whereby he has a low concern for his employees but a high concern for production (Warrick 1981; Nauman & Khan, 2010). This aforementioned emphasis on high production caused Steve to verbally abuse his team members when they fail to meet his exacting standards. Warrick (1981) found that leadership styles similar to this lead to antagonism and hostile attitudes among employees. This is further supported in the team design theory (refer to section 2.1.1 which states that the structure of the Retail Sales team is cross-functional in nature). Generally, cross-functional teams do not work well under rigid organizational hierarchies and instead use each individuals expertise to achieve a common goal (Institute of Management Accountants, 1994). These teams also do not operate efficiently under a formal leadership, but instead thrive under a self-managed distributed leadership (McIntyre & Foti, 2013). Thus, it can be concluded that Steves decision to implement an autocratic leadership instead of a distributed leadership led to a gradual collapse of his team in other words, his team members are not given enough power and authority.

2.3.2 Ineffective Communication

Perhaps the most significant weakness of Steves team leadership is his failure to communicate effectively and succinctly to his team. Effective communication must not be overlooked because it is through communication that workers can receive information and pool critical resources (Barnlund, 1959; Marquart, 1955). Steves failure to communicate is clearly illustrated in this example: When his team failed to reach their sales target during the eleventh hour he hit the roof and reprim anded his team members in a completely inappropriate way. Steve also has the habit of singling out team members separately to berate them in private, threatening them with racial slurs and holding personal grudges. Despite Steves team having a common goal (monthly sales target), Barry leadership theory (1991) states that an absence of social leadership may cause a great deal of unprocessed animosity among team members. Due to Steves social inability and general lack of social leadership, comprehensive communicate to his team members exactly where they went wrong and what areas needed improvement did not occur. For example, he resorted to unorthodox and ineffective ways to push his team such as singling them out and insulting them. Thus, it is exceedingly clear why Steves teams job performance plateaued at the twelfth month - proper guidance was simply not effectively communicated to them by their leader.

2.3.3 Lack of Long-term Team Vision Indeed, a more important leadership role is to provide a clear vision to sustain team performance in the long run. A vision requires specificity and visuality, as well as negotiation to provide a clear path for the team (Michelman, 2004), an aspect that Steve has failed to address. According to Barrys distributed leadership theory (1991), an envisioner works together with the group and fosters their ownership of primary

ideas. They also make the effort to create new and compelling visions to contribute to team success. For instance, Steves culture of work hard, but work hard for each other! has clearly failed in sustaining long-term goals; the Furniture and Bedding Retails Sales team that Steve and the team began to fall short of its sales target by the twelfth month which further supports that his vision was unable to maintain long-term team performance. This is due to the fact that Steve was an inexperienced envisioner as he did most of the envisioning by himself (Barry, 1991). More importantly, it is important that any one of the four types of leadership (this includes envisioning leadership) is not held by a single member. This was not the case in Steves team, as it was solely him who set the teams goals for every month without any external input. From here it can thus be surmised that Steves failure to distribute envisioning power to his team members led to an ineffective team vision. As a consequence, Hackman (1998) noted that the absence of an effective vision would have difficulty generating the motivation of the team members to perform their tasks well. This is clearly proven by the fact that Steves team works simply for the sake of working instead of for the sake of the team, as highlighted by several members: Sheila is working only for her pension, and Chris is working only for his promotion. To conclude in succinct terms, Steves failure to distribute envisioning power led to an ineffective team vision, and subsequently, inadequate team motivation culminating in a lackluster team performance.

3. Recommendations Intro

3.1 Recommendations #1: Improved Communication Styles and Interpersonal Relationships What became clear through analysis of the teams issues is that the early period of their formation and development with the new team leader, Steve, lacked any formative activity through which members would be able to recognize their own, as well as, each others place within the overall structure. This recommendation consists of four elements formal team building sessions, external coaching, formal communication and informal communication.

3.1.1 Formal Team Building Sessions The purpose of these Team Buildings sessions, which would have occurred during the formative stages of Steves takeover, is to transition Steve smoothly into the structure of the team, and allow the members to see him as an informal leader. Ideally, representing some sort of balance between Toms laissez fair approach, and Steves strict leadership methodology. The HR manager of David Myer, who has expertise in team training and building, and knowledge of the organization, would conduct these sessions. However according to Barry (2010), before such informal leaders are to be acknowledged, each member must have a clear understanding of each of the other members roles and skills. Therefore, these sessions would aim to increase clarity of each members specialization within the overall project (Sine, Mitsuhashi & Kirsch, 2006). The session would also aid Steve in having a more accurate view of each members function, expertise and capabilities, preventing another situation in which

he would verbally abuse them about their performance, which may be attributed to a simple misunderstanding of roles.

3.1.2 Team Coaching One of main concerns with the cohesion of this group is their lack of motivation in the team, the task, and the organization as a whole. We saw that Carmen was seriously considering quitting and finding another job and the team came to an executive decision that if management did nothing about Steve, they would all leave the company. Therefore, we see fit for an external source of coaching intervention, according to Hackman (2005), if done at the correct launch time, can significantly enhance members commitment to the team and the task, as well as boost their motivation to be part of the team. Since the team is not brand new, this period is aimed at being a re-formation rather than a re-invention of the team; the external coaching will be vital in refreshing team members commitment and motivation.

3.1.3 Formal Communication The breakdown of group cohesion could be attributed partly to a lack of free-flowing communication among members. This is a crucial observation, because successful communication is necessary to achieve success (Radhaswamy and Zia, 2011). Therefore if better communication platforms were developed, this would effectively complement the internal team building sessions and external coaching sessions; team members with dispositions similar to that of Mahmouds would feel more motivated and encouraged to share their ideas with the rest.

Communication consists of two distinct types formal and informal. Formal communication refers to the exchange of messages regarding the official work of the organization (Lunenberg, 2010) and thus includes official meetings. Steve would therefore be able to improve formal communication within his team by dividing meetings into two distinguishable sessions a briefing session and a collaborating session. During the briefing session, team members would be given an outline of that days goals and objectives. This information will then become the crux of the collaborating session in which Steve steps back and lets his members do the talking instead. During this session, members are allowed to speak their minds freely, be it to share ideas, worries, and complaints or to opine on their colleagues proposals. This will undoubtedly provide members with a sense of greater significance their ideas will no longer fall on deaf ears and instead, become a crucial aspect of the entire organizations governance.

3.1.4 Informal Communication Informal communication i.e., the exchange of unofficial messages that are unrelated to the organizations formal activities (Lunenberg, 2010) within Steves team can be improved via the implementation of social activities such as after-work dinners and drinks, weekend trips and lunches. Activities such as these will help to foster positive interpersonal relationships between each team member and, consequently, help to improve teamwork in the office.

3.1.5 Limitations to Collaborative Meetings However, it must be recognized that the success of these meetings relies solely on the members willingness to share. Members such as Mahmoud and Carmen, for

example, might be hesitant to speak up during the collaborating sessions. This limitation could potentially be overcome by creating a new culture in the workplace a culture in which all members contributions are equally important and there is no such thing as a bad idea. Creating a new work culture is a gradual process, which is usually fuelled by informal communication and includes everything from conversations over the coffee machine to gossiping in the hallway. It is arguably as influential as its formal counterpart informal communication helps to build relationships among employees and is the basis for how formal communication will be carried out (Narni, et. al, 2000).

3.1.6 Limitations to Social Activity Implementation A limitation to activities such as the once mentioned above is that they rely solely on each members propensity to participate. Hence, Steve should make clear to his members that their involvement in these activities are imperative to the teams overall success, thus, providing an incentive of sorts for them to partake in these gatherings. After a certain amount of time, continued participation in these events will undoubtedly help to foster a more welcoming and encouraging workplace atmosphere this will, in turn, have positive run-off effects on the teams formal communication during meetings and briefings.

3.2 Recommendations #2: Redefining Goals and Visions As mentioned in the analysis above, one of the major problems faced by the Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales team is the lack of a long-term team vision. Thus, better goals and visions must be well defined by the leader so as to sustain long term progress of the team. Alter (2000) points out that a clear goal and vision will paint a

picture of the companys direction and future that energises stakeholders to embrace challenges in order to successfully accomplish its goals. Steve should introduce new group norms and values to re-direct the team to a common goal and vision. After which, he should specify both the short term and long term goals, which should be explicit and pragmatic. For example, Steve should change the teams vision of their sales. Specifically, he needs to clearly state and reinforce to his members during every weekly meeting that, the teams short-term goal is to meet the monthly target and have higher targets during festive seasons such as Christmas or the New Year. In addition, it is essential to establish a long-term vision to facilitate the teams growth. For instance, sustaining the teams performance should be enforced instead of merely focusing on improved sales after each month. Steve should clarify and differentiate the teams short-term and long-term objectives in allowing each of his individual team members to meet their own expectations and goals within the required timeframe. Hence, by combining each individuals performance, a solid vision in the team can improve sales and long-run sustainability.

3.3 Recommendations #3: Implementation of Distributed Leadership As mentioned above, the Furniture and Bedding Retail Sales team possesses an inappropriate style of leadership, thus the first vital recommendation is to adopt Barrys distributed leadership style. Katzenbach and Smith (as cited in Solansky, 2008) states that teams which practice distributed leadership have been proven to be more efficacious and have better coordination and cooperation (Yeatts & Hyten, as cited in Solansky, 2008, p. 334). Members of a team that better coordinates and cooperates with one another would largely benefit team processes in such difficult situations.

Distributed leadership will allow members to emerge from the team when their relevant abilities are required to take control of any given situation, addressing problems concerned with members unwillingness to take ownership of the task at hand due to a lack of authority. For instance, Mahmoud is reluctant to share his ideas or speak out against Steve, as he believed that speaking out against authority figures would result in negative consequences. However, when there is shared leadership among members where each individual is responsible for his/her own role, neglectful behaviours and reluctance to step up to take charge could prove to be costly. In order for individuals with different expertise to be able to work together efficiently, the organization needs to have a high involvement and an adaptable work structure (Barry, 1991). Therefore, distributed leadership can be expected to address this issue by introducing a greater team flexibility and the eradication of a solo leadership. By allowing team members to combine their skills and expertise, the team is likely to perform optimally to ensure the completion of complex tasks (McComb, Green, & Compton, 1999). Highlighted part For example, a distributed leadership would be more appropriate in utilizing each members expertise as well as equipping them with the influence necessary to achieve their common goal rather than placing all power on the people at the top (Bennett, Nigel, Wise, & Woods, 2003; Leithwood, Macsall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, & Yaskina, 2006). Looking at it from a wider stance, distributed leadership can also be advantageous for an organization such as David Myer Melbourne as such organizations require constant innovation in their products and services to make certain that their customers are fully

satisfied (Pearce & Manz, 2005). Thus, the problems in leadership could be inherent in the leadership design, rather than individual inadequacies on Steves part.

4. Conclusion

5. Reference List Atler, S. K. (2000). The Vision, Mission, Objectives and Business Description. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.virtueventures.com/sites/virtueventures.com/files/mdbl-chapter2.pdf Barnlund, D. C. (1959). A comparative study of individual, majority, and team judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 5560. Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31-47. Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003). Distributed Leadership. Retrieved September 11, 2013, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/8534/1/

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups, and other papers. New York, Basic Books. Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of Storming: A historical review of Tuckmans model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120. Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance Improvement, 42(3), 21-29. Czerny, E. J. (2011). Team Diversity as Competitive Advantage (1). Retrieved September 12, from http:// www.res.co.at/downloads/ABSRC2011_Team_Diversity.pdf Department of Management and Marketing University of Melbourne. (2010). MGMT20001 Organisational Behaviour (5th ed.). Australia: Pearson Australia. Fine, E., & Handelsman, J. (2010). Benefits and Challenges of Diversity. Benefits and Challenges of Diversity in Academic Settings, 1(2), 2. Hackman, J. R. (1998). Why Teams Dont Work. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://blogs.ext.vt.edu/impact-communication/files/2012/07/Why-Teams-Dont-Workby-J.-Richard-Hackman.pdf Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from http://groupbrain.wjh.harvard.edu/jrh/pub/JRH1987_1.pdf Hackman, J. R, Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of management review, 30(2), 269-287. Institute of Management Accountants. (1994). Managing Cross-Functional Teams. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.imanet.org/PDFs/Public/Research/SMA/Managing%20Cross%20Functio nal%20Teams.pdf Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1999). Building collaborative cross-functional new product teams. Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 50-63. Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of Task Autonomy on Performance: An Extended Model Considering Motivational, Informational, and Structural Mechanisms, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934-945. Leithwood, K., Macsall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yaskina, G. (2006). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter. Ontario: Social sciences and humanities research council of Canada.

Lubin, B. and Zuckerman, M. (1967). Affective and perceptual cognitive patterns in sensitivity training groups. Psychological Reports, 21(2), 365-376. Lunenberg, F. (2010). Formal Communication Channels: Upward, Downward Horizontal, and External. Focus On Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 4(1), 17. Marquart, D. I. (1955). Group problem solving. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 103113. McComb, S. A., Green, S. G., & Compton, W. D. (1999). Project goals, team performance, and shared understanding. Engineering Management Journal, 11(3), 712. Michelman, P. (2004). How Will You Make Your Team a Team?. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.beingabetterleader.com/docs/managing%20teams%20for%20high%20per formance-%20hbr.pdf?LanguageID=EN-US Nardi. B., Whittaker, S. & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action: An Ethnographic Study of Instant Messaging in the Workplace. In Proceedings Conference of Computer-supported Cooperative Work, 79-88. Nauman, S., & Khan, A. M. (2010). Patterns of Leadership for Effective Project Management. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 1-14. Northcraft, G. B., Polzer, J. T., Neal, M. A. & Kramer, R. M. (1995). Diversity in Work teams. In Jackson, S. E. & Ruderman, M. N. (Eds.), Diversity, social identity, and performance: emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams (pp. 17-46). Washington, D.C., America: American Psychological Association. Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130-140.

Radhaswamy, P., & Zia, A. (2011). The importance of communication. IUP Journal of soft skills, 5(4), 52-56. Shu,. S., & Gneezy, A. (2010). Procrastination of enjoyable experiences. Journal of marketing research (JMR), 47(5), 933-934. Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting burns and stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of management journal, 49(1), 121-132.

Solansky, S. T. (2008). Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 332-341.

The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2006). Critical Leadership Skills: Key Traits That Can Make or Break Todays Leaders. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from http://www.kenblanchard.com/img/pub/pdf_critical_leadership_skills.pdf Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 65(6), 384-99. Warrick, D. D. (1981). Leadership Styles and Their Consequences. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, 155-172.