Skip to main content

Charismatic Leadership and Work Team Innovative Behavior: the Role of Team Task Interdependence and Team Potency

A Correction to this article was published on 07 January 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Although the importance of leadership for innovation processes has been acknowledged, the understanding of the relationships between leadership styles and levels of innovation in work teams is still limited. This study among team managers and team members of 133 Spanish bank branches (i.e., work teams) investigated whether the influence of charismatic leadership on work team innovative behavior comes about via team potency, and whether the relationship between charismatic leadership and team potency is moderated by the level of task interdependence within the team. Data were collected at three different time points. Results of structural equation modeling showed that only at high levels of task interdependence, team managers’ charismatic leadership at time 1 was significantly positively related to an increase in team potency at time 2, which in turn was positively related to manager ratings of their work teams’ innovative behavior at time 3. This means that only at high levels of task interdependence, charismatic leadership had a significant indirect effect on team innovative behavior via team potency. Thus, our study sheds light on the boundary conditions of this effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Change history

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, N. R., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Axtell, C., Holman, D., & Wall, T. (2006). Promoting innovation: A change study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X68240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bashshur, M. R., Hernandez, A., & Gonzalez-Roma, V. (2011). When managers and their teams disagree: A longitudinal look at the consequences of differences in perceptions of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 558–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto CA: Mind Garden.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caldwell, D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2003). The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations: The role of social influence. Small Group Research, 34, 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403254395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004). A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies, 25, 331–361. 10.1177/0170840604040039.

  17. 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, 823–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ceri-Booms, M., Curseu, P. L., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2017). Task- and person-focused leadership behaviors and team performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen, A., Doveh, E., & Nahum-Shani, I. (2009). Testing agreement for multi-item scales with the indices rWG(J) and ADM(J). Organizational Research Methods, 12, 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Collins, C. G., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Team capability beliefs over time: Distinguishing between team potency, team outcome efficacy, and team process efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 1003–1023. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X484271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/258069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 324–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810144002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J., & West, M. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J.E. & Kukenberger, M.R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership—team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42, 1964–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205.

  26. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590 https://www.jstor.org/stable/256406.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Devloo, T., Salanova, M., Rodriguez Sanchez, A. & Anseel, F. (2013). What makes creative teams tick? Resources, engagement, and performance across creativity tasks. Paper presented at the EAWOP Small Group Meeting on Innovation, initiative and creativity: A dialectic perspective. Valencia, Spain, September 19–21.

  28. Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does self esteem make a difference? Academy of Management Journal, 43, 772–782. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field study. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study on team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X72128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484–503. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. González-Romá, V. (2008). Innovation in work teams. Papeles del Psicólogo, 29, 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  36. González-Romá, V., Fortes-Ferreira, L., & Peiró, J. M. (2009). Team climate, climate strength, and team performance: a longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X370025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. González-Romá, V., & Hernandez, A. (2014). Climate uniformity: Its influence on team communication quality, task conflict, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1042–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hambrick, D. C., & Fukutomi, G. D. (1991). The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16, 719–742. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Horowitz, S. K., & Horowitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. House & Shamir. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–108). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in charismatic leadership: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Howell, J. M., & Shea, C. M. (2006). Effects of champion behavior, tem potency, and external communication activities on predicting team performance. Group and Organization Management, 31, 180–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing, M. U. (2012). Recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher order multidimensional constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim, S. S., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). The moderating roles of perceived task interdependence and team size in transformational leadership’s relation to team identification: A dimensional analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects tf conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H., & Bobko, P. (2006). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1628–1652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02766.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work-groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352–368. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Li, M. & Karam, E.P. (2017). Empirical study of charismatic leadership and financial performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1.

  57. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828–847. https://doi.org/10.5465/256317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mhathre, K.H. & Riggio, R.E (2014). Charismatic and transformational leadership: Past, present, and future. In D. Day (Ed), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 221–240).

  59. Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: the role of charismatic leadership and employees’trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010903360608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Morales, J. F., & Molero, F. (1995). El liderazgo en los equipos de atencion primaria [Leadership in primary health care teams]. Cuadernos de Gestión, 1, 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nemeth, C., & Owens, P. (1996). Making groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 125–141). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 923–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Parker, S. K., & Wu, C. (2014). Leading for proactivity: How leaders cultivate staff who make things happen. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 380–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Paulsen, N., Maldonado, D., Callan, V. J., & Ayoko, O. (2009). Charismatic leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22, 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810910983479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ployhart & Vandenberg. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Yes I can, I feel good, and I just do it! On gain cycles, spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect and engagement. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 60, 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020–1030. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00014-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1999). Effects of interdependencies in project teams. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00085.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00033-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P. (2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 51, 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  85. Widmann, A., & Mulder, R. H. (2018). Team learning behaviors and innovative work behavior in work teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21, 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2017-0194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhang, Z. X., Hempel, P. S., Han, Y.-L., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722–1730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Haijiang Wang’s contribution was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 71832004-71701074).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascale M. Le Blanc.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The captions of Figures 1 and 2 were exchanged.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Data transparency table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le Blanc, P.M., González-Romá, V. & Wang, H. Charismatic Leadership and Work Team Innovative Behavior: the Role of Team Task Interdependence and Team Potency. J Bus Psychol 36, 333–346 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09663-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Charismatic leadership
  • Team potency
  • Team innovation
  • Task interdependence
  • Work teams