Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leadership, behavioral context, and the performance of work groups in a knowledge-intensive setting

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The behavioral work context in which members of groups interact with each other is crucial for facilitating knowledge exchange and combination (Nonaka in Great minds in management: the process of theory development, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005; Nonaka et al. in Long Range Plan 33:5–34, 2000). Yet little is known about the ways leaders, by signaling expectations and exhibiting supportive behaviors, facilitate such a behavioral context, which may then enhance performance. This study aims to contribute to the literature by examining how leader expectations and supportive behaviors facilitate behavioral integration and enhance the performance of work groups engaging in the development of advanced technological products. Data collected from management teams of 102 work groups indicate significant and positive relationships between: (1) leader expectations and leader supportive behaviors, (2) leader supportive behaviors and group behavioral integration, and (3) behavioral integration and group performance. In addition, the results indicate that leader supportive behaviors partially mediate the relationship between leader expectations and group behavioral integration, and the latter partially mediates the link between leader supportive behaviors and group performance. No significant link was found between leader expectations and group performance. In so doing, this study contributes to research on the way leaders, by shaping a behavioral context, facilitate knowledge exchange and combination, thereby enhancing group performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, Z. H., Reillya, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(3), 221–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. A. (2008). Leadership, feedback and the open communication gap. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1981). Corporate-level strategy, business-level strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 663–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Israel, I. (2001). Security, technology and the future battlefield. In H. Golan (Ed.), Israel’s security web. Tel Aviv: Ma’arachot. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blech, A., & Davidson, A. (2002). Defense expenditure in Israel 1950–2001. Working paper 23/2002. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics, (Hebrew).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (1997). Using single respondents in strategy research. British Journal of Management, 8, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Azerual, B. (2009). How relational capital and knowledge combination capability enhance the performance of knowledge work units in a high-technology industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004). Resources, capabilities, and the performance of industrial firms: A multivariate analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1989). Lead time in automobile product development: Explaining the Japanese advantage. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6, 25–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 544–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to build and sustain high quality connections at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self fulfilling prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management’s social dimension: lessons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42, 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the ‘team’ label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171–214). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hougui, S. Z., Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., & Tishler, A. (2002). Defense conversion in small companies: Risk, activities, and success Assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group inter-rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific International Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, K., Setter, O., & Tishler, A. (2009). Defense structure, procurement and industry: The case of Israel. In S. Markowski, P. Hall, & R. Wylie (Eds.) Defence procurement and industry policy: A small country perspective. New York: Routledge.

  • Kagan, K., Tishler, A., & Weiss, A. (2005). On the use of terror weapons versus modern weapon systems in an arms race between developed and less developed countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 16, 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combination capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 987–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F., Caza, A., Edmondson, A., & Thomke, S. (2003). New knowledge creation in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 194–206). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. A. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. T., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lifshitz, Y. (2003). The economics of producing defense: Illustrated by the Israeli case. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (2005). Managing organizational knowledge: Theoretical and methodological foundations. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 373–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peled, D. (2001). Defense R&D and economic growth in Israel: A research agenda. Working Papers, No. 4, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology: Science, Technology and the Economy (STE) Program at the Samuel Neaman Institute for Advanced Research in Science and Technology.

  • Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Miles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding organization-customer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1017–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military groups: Subordinates’ attitudes, group characteristics and superiors’ appraisal of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shefi, Y., & Tishler, A. (2005). The effects of the world defense industry and US military aid to Israel on the Israeli defense industry: A differentiated products model. Defence and Peace Economics, 16, 427–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability and the rate of new product introduction in high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Michael Lubtakin, the Associate Editor and anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. We also thank Esther Singer for her editorial comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Business Administration, Bar-Ilan University, 52900, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    Abraham Carmeli

  2. W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ, 85069-7100, USA

    David A. Waldman

Authors
  1. Abraham Carmeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Waldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abraham Carmeli.

Appendix: Measurement items

Appendix: Measurement items

Leader expectations

I expect members of this group to:

    Exchange ideas with each other

    Conduct a constructive dialogue with each other

    Help each other

    Share resources and responsibility

    Work together to meet complex work tasks

Leader supportive behaviors

The group manager makes sure that all necessary resources are present to enable fertile collaboration among group members

The group manager makes a concerted effort to enable joint decision making processes

The group manager encourages idea exchange among group members

Behavioral context

The ideas that our group members exchange are of high quality

The solutions that our group members exchange are of high quality

The dialogue among the group members produces a high level of creativity and innovativeness

When a group member is busy, other group members often volunteer to help her/him out to manage her/his workload

The fact that the group members are flexible about switching responsibilities makes things easier for each them

The group members are willing to help each other with complex jobs and meeting deadlines

The group members usually let each other know when their actions affect another group member’s work

The group members have a clear understanding of the job problems and needs of other members on the team

The group members usually discuss their expectations of each other

Group performance

This group performs its work tasks well

This group completes its work tasks on time

There is a high level of satisfaction with the way the group functions

This group contributes significantly to the whole organization

This group produces a high quality of products/services

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carmeli, A., Waldman, D.A. Leadership, behavioral context, and the performance of work groups in a knowledge-intensive setting. J Technol Transf 35, 384–400 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9125-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9125-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation