Search

Some leaders tend to use their intuition to think and make decisions more than others do. This individual difference (i.e., an intuitive cognitive style) may have important implications for the collectives of people they lead. Unfortunately, scholars lack a clear understanding of the conditions under which intuition is effective, especially in the context of large and complex organizational structures such as multiteam systems (MTSs). We argue that the effects of leaders' intuitive cognitive style on MTS performance depends on the amount of information load they face in their roles, as well as their level of introversion: a personality characteristic that is associated with an inward and reflective focus. Using a sample of 222 MTSs comprised of Captains in the United States Air Force, our study demonstrated that the intuitive cognitive style of leaders in high information load roles positively affected MTS performance, especially if they were high in introversion. In low information load roles, however, an intuitive cognitive style had a negative effect on MTS performance, especially for leaders low in introversion. We also argued and found that MTS coordination effectiveness played a key mediating role. Our study advances research in multiple areas of work, including intuition, MTSs, and leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Top management teams (TMTs) and boards of directors (boards) face increasingly turbulent environments as they strategically lead firms toward superior firm performance. The dominant theoretical lens about these two groups is agency theory, which focuses on the need for independence. We suggest that the environment in which the TMT and board govern is broader than conceptualized by agency theory, and thus theories regarding strategic leadership also require expansion. Drawing from the multiteam systems literature and broader systems theory, we offer a new consideration of the TMT and board as part of a strategic-oriented multiteam system, which we refer to as a strategic leadership system. The core premise of our theorizing is that TMTs and boards that strongly emphasize attention to both working independently and interdependently enhance their group and shared task performance, and in turn, firm performance. We further nuance this theorizing by describing how external environmental characteristics (i.e., munificence, complexity, dynamism) strengthen or weaken the influence of attention to working independently or interdependently, thereby shifting the zones of system effectiveness. Based on this theorizing, we offer a 2 × 2 framework combined with practical recommendations for strategic leaders. Additional implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiteam systems are large structures of interdependent teams that coordinate via planning before embarking on important projects. Although rarely studied, theory suggests that expression of convergent versus divergent goals and preferences during planning by leadership and component teams matters for multiteam system performance. Addressing this important issue, in a sample of multiteam systems consisting of Air Force officers, we examine how convergent versus divergent preferences for risk expressed during planning by the leadership and component teams impact multiteam system behavior and performance during the performance episode. Drawing from literatures on multiteam systems, diversity, and risk we posit and show that divergent (vs. convergent) preferences for risk have positive implications for multiteam system behavior and performance. Specifically, when the leadership and component teams hold divergent risk preferences, multiteam systems engage in more aspirational behavior and perform better. Alternatively, when the leadership and component teams hold convergent risk preferences, multiteam systems perform worse, partially because they display lower aspirational behavior. Consistent with a learning perspective, the beneficial effects of divergent preferences for risk increase over time. We discuss the implications of our findings for research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the organisation of health and social care in England moves rapidly towards greater integration, the resulting systems and teams will require distinctive leadership. However, little is known about how the effective leadership of these teams and systems can be supported and improved. In particular, there is relatively little understanding of how effective leadership across integrated care teams and systems may be enacted, the contexts in which this might take place and the subsequent implications this has on integrated care. Objective: This realist review developed and refined programme theories of leadership of integrated health and social care teams and systems, exploring what works, for whom and in what circumstances. Design: The review utilised a realist synthesis approach, informed by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards, to explore existing literature on the leadership of integrated care teams and systems, complemented by ongoing stakeholder consultation. Empirical evidence specifically addressing leadership of integrated teams or services was limited, with only 36 papers included in the review. The evidence collected from these 36 papers was synthesised to identify and build a comprehensive description of the mechanisms of leadership of integrated teams and systems and their associated contexts and outcomes. Consultation with key stakeholders with a range of expertise throughout the process ensured that the review remained grounded in the reality of health and social care delivery and addressed practice and policy challenges. Results: Evidence was identified for seven potentially important components of leadership in integrated care teams and systems. These were ‘inspiring intent to work together’, ‘creating the conditions to work together’, ‘balancing multiple perspectives’, ‘working with power’, ‘taking a wider view’, ‘a commitment to learning and development’ and ‘clarifying complexity’. No empirical evidence was found for an eighth mechanism, ‘fostering resilience’, although stakeholders felt that this was potentially an important, long-term component of leadership. A key message of the review was that empirical research often focused on the importance of who the leader of an integrated team or service was (i.e. their personality traits and characteristics) rather than what they did (i.e. the specific role that they played in integrated working), although stakeholders considered that a focus on leader personality was not sufficient. Other key messages highlighted the way in which power and influence are used by integrated service leaders and identified the hierarchies between health and social care which complicate the leading of integrated teams and systems. Limitations: Evidence specifically addressing leadership of integrated care teams and systems was limited and lacking in detail, which restricted the degree to which definitive conclusions could be drawn around what works, for whom and in what circumstances. Conclusions: Research into the leadership of integrated care teams and systems is limited and underdeveloped, with ideas often reverting to existing framings of leadership in which teams and organisations are less complex. In making explicit some of the assumptions about how leaders lead integrated care teams and systems this review has contributed significant new perspectives, offering fresh theoretical grounding that can be built on, developed and tested further. Future work: By making explicit some of the assumptions underlying the leadership of integrated care teams and systems, this review has generated new perspectives that can be built on, developed and tested further. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018119291. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The use of multiteam systems is increasing rapidly, as the diversity in skills and knowledge they supply assists organizations in responding more effectively to volatile environments. Multiteam systems consist of teams that depend on each other to achieve a common overarching goal, while simultaneously pursuing different proximal goals. However, multiteam systems often struggle to achieve the expected level of synergy. Multiteam system scholars have speculated that this may be owing to the presence of multiple teams within multiteam systems. Negative effects of salient group identities are well-documented, and yet there is no published empirical evidence of these same effects in multiteam systems yet. In this article, we examine the extent to which salient component team identities lead to multiteam system intergroup behavior. Given the nascent state of multiteam system research, we used Eisenhardt's method to generate theory from case studies. Three military multiteam systems were studied, with data collected before and during a deployment to Afghanistan. The study's findings contribute to our understanding of multiteam systems in several ways. First, the study provides empirical evidence that multiteam systems are vulnerable to intergroup behavior. Second, it shows how boundary spoilers, a well-designed team-building period and effective multiteam system leadership influence if and how multiteam system intergroup behavior develops. Finally, the results underscore the importance of existing knowledge of teams and groups in furthering our understanding of multiteam system processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many important contexts requiring teamwork, including health care, space exploration, national defense, and scientific discovery, present important challenges that cannot be addressed by a single team working independently. Instead, the complex goals these contexts present often require effectively coordinated efforts of multiple specialized teams working together as a multiteam system (MTS). For almost 2 decades, researchers have endeavored to understand the novelties and nuances for teamwork and collaboration that ensue when teams operate together as "component teams" in these interdependent systems. In this special issue on the settings of teamwork, we aim to synthesize what is known thus far regarding teamwork situated in MTS contexts and offer new directions and considerations for developing, maintaining, and sustaining effective collaboration in MTSs. Our review of extant research on MTSs reveals 7 key lessons learned regarding teamwork situated in MTSs, but also reveals that much is left to learn about the science and practice of ensuring effective multiteam functioning. We elaborate these lessons and delineate 4 major opportunities for advancing the science of MTSs as a critical embedding context for collaboration and teamwork, now and in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Speaking up in high-risk organizations plays a pivotal role in the mitigation of errors and can make the difference between life and death. To date, speaking up has been studied mostly within teams. However, many high-risk organizations rely on the effective collaborationacrossteams in ad hoc multiteam systems (MTS). This study widens the scope of research from teams to MTS and empirically compares the mechanisms involved in speaking up within versus across teams in ad hoc MTS-aircrews. In a sample of 1490 aircrew members of a European airline, we found that crewmembers’ individual level perceptions of psychological safety mediated both the relationship between status and speaking up and between perceived leader inclusiveness and speaking upwithinteams.Acrossteams, however, psychological safety and leader inclusiveness—as perceived by pursers in their role as boundary spanners—showed no effect. Instead, it was pursers’within-teamperceptions of psychological safety that mediated between status and speaking up across teams. Teams in ad hoc MTS may thus serve as safe harbours supporting their members also in interactions across team boundaries. Implications of findings for research on MTS and practical recommendations to improve speaking up within and across teams in ad hoc MTS are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that examines the impact of shared leadership among cockpit and cabin crews of aircraft. Observations were made of 84 crews performing under simulated in-flight emergencies. Among cabin crews, top-performing teams were seen to display a higher degree of shared leadership than lesser-performing ones. Among cockpit crews, team performance was predicted by the captains' vertical leadership.